
For Immediate Release                                January 31, 1994

    PRESS BRIEFING
   BY DEE DEE MYERS
  The Briefing Room

1:16 P.M. EST

     MS. MYERS:  Quick announcement.  President Clinton spoke
with Prime Minister Hosokawa last evening and offered him his
congratulations on achieving political reform in Japan.  The
President also urged progress in the United States-Japan economic
framework talks.
     The President is sending United States Trade Rep Mickey
Kantor, and Bo Cutter, Deputy Assistant to the President for Economic
Policy, to Tokyo for consultations to seek mutually-agreeable
resolutions to the issues being discussed under the framework.  The
President and Prime Minister Hosokawa are scheduled to meet in
Washington on February 11.
     Q    When is Kantor going?
     MS. MYERS:  They left -- Kantor and Bo Cutter left this morning.
     Q    The Secretary of State made some comments today
about possible U.S. or United Nations intervention in Bosnia based on
a report that Boutros Boutros-Ghali received.  Can you clarify that
at all for us?
     MS. MYERS:  I'm not sure which report you're speaking about.
     Q    He said over the weekend there was a new report
that the Secretary General received about -- which seemed to indicate
and the Secretary seemed to say in the meeting that reporters
observed that the U.S. was a little bit closer to supporting air
strikes and for rotating Canadian troops.
     MS. MYERS:  I think what you may be referring to -- I'm
not aware of any particular report -- the Secretary General received
a report from his person in Yugoslavia with a plan for both opening
the airstrip in Tuzla to humanitarian air deliveries and to rotating
the troops in Srebrenica.  That included a number of options
including the use of force, close cover air strikes.  I think what
Boutros-Ghali then said was that he had basically approved the plan,
including the possible use of force, but he was hopeful that that
could be achieved -- the opening of the airstrip and the rotating of
the troops -- without the use of force.
     Q    The U.S. position right now is we're just going to
leave it up to him to tell us what --
     MS. MYERS:  Our position has been that we would use
force in those circumstances if it was required.
     Q    Does the President intend to use this luncheon with
Helmut Kohl to put more pressure on the other NATO allies such as
Germany to agree to the use of force?

     MS. MYERS:  I think that there's been no change in
NATO's position or in the U.S. position regarding the use of force in
Bosnia.  I think certainly the President and Chancellor Kohl will
discuss it this afternoon, but I don't think that the President is
looking for a specific timetable on this.
     Q    Will the President and Chancellor Kohl try to work
to advance the withdrawal of the Canadian troops and renew the threat
of use of force if necessary?  Are they going to try to push this
forward at all?
     MS. MYERS:  Well, I think that the result of the
weekend's events is that we expect those two things to go forward --
to go forward with the rotation of troops, to go forward with the
opening of the airstrip.  And based on what Boutros-Ghali said over
the weekend, he has basically --
     Q    On what do you base your optimism?
     Q    How do you expect it to go forward?  I don't understand.
     Q    I don't understand what you're basing that on.
     Q    Based on what?
     MS. MYERS:  Based on the plan that was put forward by
Boutros-Ghali's representative in Bosnia last week.  Basically, it
outlined a plan for doing those two things.  I haven't seen the plan;
I'm not sure what's in it.  I'm not sure what the question is.
     Q    They haven't been able to go forward because they
haven't been allowed to leave the area.  So do you suddenly have some
indication that they're going to say, okay, you guys, you can leave?
     Q    Peacefully?
     Q    Peacefully?  And the Canadians --
     MS. MYERS:  I think they're going to continue to press
to try to rotate the troops and to try to open the airstrip.  I don't
think that there's anything dramatically changed in --
     Q    I asked are the President and the Chancellor going
to try and do anything to drive this forward?
     MS. MYERS:  No, I think they're going to discuss Bosnia,
generally.  They don't have a specific timetable in mind.  And
they're going to, hopefully, have a nice meal.
     Q    Warren Christopher sounded today, at least from our
reporter's information, that he at least seemed to think that air
strikes would be necessary, not the reverse.  I'm a little confused.
Maybe he didn't understand it, but that was the report that we got
out of him this morning.
     MS. MYERS:  I think that, based on what happened at the
NATO Conference and subsequent events, that air strikes have always
been a possibility -- one in a number of options of now to achieve
those results.  I think Secretary General Boutros-Ghali said he was
hopeful that those results could be achieved without the use of air
cover, but that NATO stands ready to use air cover if it becomes
necessary.  And that's not a new policy.
     Q    Has there been any contact with Boutros-Ghali since
he approved the plan?

     MS. MYERS:  I would imagine at the U.N. level, but I
don't know of any -- certainly not between the President and the
Secretary General.
     Q    How is the President going to work to narrow the
three strikes and you're out provision so that it's acceptable, so
that it's not so scattershot?
     MS. MYERS:  What the President did in the State of the
Union was essentially endorse the concept that -- of life
imprisonment for a third violent felony.  Certainly, the federal
legislation can only address federal crimes if the third crime was a
federal offense, a federal felony, it would apply based on federal
law.  He's also asked the governors, as you saw this morning, to pass
similar initiatives that would make life imprisonment mandatory for a
third violent offense.  Now, it's up to the states to pass specific
legislation, but I think there are ways to focus it and limit it to
certain violent crimes.
     Q    The governors were concerned that a lot of things
in the crime bill, at least the Senate version, would place mandates
on them and would not be helpful.  They want more on restrictive use
of money.  What was the President's response to them?
     MS. MYERS:  The President's response was that he asked
Governor Campbell and Governor Dean to appoint a couple of
representatives from the NGA to work with him and work with the White
House to pass the crime legislation as quickly as possible, and to
make sure that the governors' concerns are addressed to the process.
I think he's certainly sensitive to that as a governor.
     Q    Is that only regarding crime?  I mean, the one
theme of this whole governors conference has been unfunded mandates,
not just in crime.
     MS. MYERS:  The President signed an executive order to
that end, I would remind you, that basically said the government
wouldn't impose unfunded mandates on the states.
     Q    Is that a blanket guarantee that none of this will
come up in terms of welfare reform, health care, or any of the
President's proposals?
     MS. MYERS:  Yes, both health care reform has a financing
mechanism, welfare reform will be revenue-neutral -- that's the
objective.
     Q    Executive or is a flat promise that it will not --
     MS. MYERS:  It's required.  I mean, the President signed
an executive order which basically said we will not impose unfunded
mandates on the states.  That is a commitment that he takes very
seriously.
     Q    He has suggested that welfare reform as a program
is revenue neutral because they've been talking about $10 billion.
     MS. MYERS:  No, but what we said is it will be funded
from other cuts and other programs.  I'm not saying it won't cost
anything, but it will not add to the budget deficit.
     Q    On welfare reform, the governors are concerned that
the public service jobs part of that, that they will be required to
come up with some certain large percentage of and pay for those
public service jobs, that is 70 clerks in every municipal office or
something.  You are saying, in effect, that that won't happen under
welfare reform?  Because that's an unfunded federal mandate.

     MS. MYERS:  Right.  What I'm saying is that the details
of the welfare reform plan have not been entirely worked out.  It's
something that we'll work with the states on, but that the President
signed an executive order which said that the federal government will
not impose unfunded mandates on the states.  And I think that is
across the board.  Now, how exactly we'll go about working out the
details of how these jobs will be created and applied I think remains
to be seen, along with a number of those jobs.
     Q    Didn't the President -- and I may be -- haven't
there been -- they have been complaining the last five days of at
least four or five mandates that have occurred since Clinton's been
in office.
     MS. MYERS:  I am not sure -- I think some of them
are -- there are additional costs to states in some instances, and
I'm not sure exactly what four or five you're talking about.  But
there have not been any unfunded mandates forced on the states since
Clinton's been President.
     Q    Dee Dee, back to the crime bill for a second.  One
of the provisions the Republicans in the Senate put in was for
regional prisons funded by -- construction thereof to be funded by
the federal government.  In order for states to put their prisoners
into those states, they would have to comply with certain federal
sentencing guidelines that the bill would specify.  Several of the
governors said those kinds of mandates, forcing states to redo their
whole sentencing requirements, were especially onerous.  Does the
President support or oppose that provision of the bill?
     MS. MYERS:  Well, I don't think he's taken a position on
the regional prison portion of the bill.  There is money in the bill,
I believe $6 billion, for the construction of additional prisons and
I believe about half of that is for state prisons as opposed to
federal prisons, which I think the President looks favorably on.  But
in terms of regional federal prisons, I don't think he's taken a
position on it.
     Q    But this is the requirement that they serve, for
instance, 85 percent of their time.  Some of the governors said that
would totally screw up their prison systems.
     MS. MYERS:  Right.  The federal system already achieves
that and so, in terms of the specific federal legislation, it's not a
part of the federal part of the crime bill.  And I don't know that
the President -- I can take this -- I don't think he's taken a
position on federal regional prisons or specific requirements for
prisoners in order to get that funding.
     Q    How does a short-term rise in the interest rates
effect your budget deficit projections and the spending that you --
     MS. MYERS:  Well, we're hopeful that there won't be a
rise in interest rates.  We think that there is no inflationary
pressure within the economy now.  I think the President pointed that
out.  We don't see any need for rising interest rates.  What the
President did say a little while ago, was that he hoped if there was
an increase in short-term interest rates that it wouldn't affect
long-term interest rates, but he didn't think that increased interest
rates were necessary.
     Q    So he disagrees with Chairman Greenspan's
assessment?
     MS. MYERS:  Well, what the Chairman said, if I read his
comments properly, was that it was something that may happen
eventually.  I don't know if he was specifically calling for it in
the near-term.  But just to go back to what the President's view is,
is that -- and Dr. Tyson and others in the administration -- that
there is no inflationary pressure within the economy at this point,
that we don't see a need for an increase in interest rates and we're
hopeful that interest rates and inflation will remain low and growth
high -- higher.
     Q    Has the President decided to deploy the Patriot
battery to South Korea?
     MS. MYERS:  There's been no change in that.  We're
looking favorably at it, but --
     Q    How about the redeployment of the Patriot battery
from Germany to South Korea?
     MS. MYERS:  The deployment decisions still haven't been
made.  Specifically, where, how, those details have yet to be
decided.
     Q    Is this one of the agenda of today's meeting with
Chancellor Kohl?
     MS. MYERS:  I think they're there to discuss a number of
things.  I don't think that Korea was specifically on the agenda, but
it may come up.
     Q    Civil rights tomorrow?
     MS. MYERS:  Possible.
     Q    Likely?
     MS. MYERS:  Possible.
     Q    Working toward it, trying to make it happen?
     MS. MYERS:  Yes.  Soon as possible.
     Q    Nanny problems?
     MS. MYERS:  No, not that I know of.
     Q    What was the question?
     MS. MYERS:  The question was Assistant Attorney General
for Civil Rights tomorrow, and the answer was, possible.
     Q    How about a Deputy Attorney General?
     MS. MYERS:  I know that the Attorney General is working
on that.  I don't have a time line for you.
     Q    About Kantor going to Japan, do you have any idea
how long he's going to be there and who he's going to meet with?  Is
he going to meet with Hosokawa?
     MS. MYERS:  I don't know.  I think this was something
that was decided yesterday and they left this morning.  Probably the
details of their itineraries are still being worked out.  But,
obviously, they're there to press forward with some agreements under
the framework before the February 11th meeting between the Prime
Minister and the President.
     Q    How does the President view the success of the
reform package, its impact on the negotiations, and some of the
economic measures that the U.S. administration has been encouraging
Japan to take?
     MS. MYERS:  Well, I think the President thinks it's a
good step that the government was able to resolve this and move
forward now to focusing on economic issues.  We' re hopeful that
progress can be made on the framework between now and February 11th.
It's important to work with Japan to open the markets and to get
progress on those agreements before Prime Minister Hosokawa comes
here.
     Q    On Whitewater, what about McDougall's latest
charges that the President didn't tell the truth about how much he
lost?
     MS. MYERS:  It's being investigated, looked into by the
special counsel and I have no comment on that.
     Q    Has the President been talking at all to Arafat or
to Peres, or do you have any comments on the Middle East talks at
this stage?
     MS. MYERS:  No, the President hasn't spoken directly to
anyone.  The talks are continuing here.  Obviously, we're encouraged
by the progress.  We'll continue to monitor it and to do what we can
to encourage them to move forward.
     Prime Minister Peres -- Foreign Minister Peres will be
here this week in the United States.
     Q    He's coming to Washington?
     MS. MYERS:  Yes.
     Q    Will he meet with the President?
     MS. MYERS:  He will not meet with the President, he'll
meet with the Secretary of State and with Tony Lake.
     Q    Did he already come?
     MS. MYERS:  I think tomorrow and Wednesday.
     Q    When is he coming over here?
     MS. MYERS:  I believe that's Wednesday.
     Q    On health care, when is the White House putting out
this 11-point rebuttal that was written about this weekend -- an 11-
point rebuttal to the New Republic's charges about the health plan?
     MS. MYERS:  I will have to take that.  I'm not sure what
the timing is or where that is exactly.  I believe it's work in
progress.  We'll see.
     Q    A while ago, last year it was widely reported that
Charles Ruff was ruled out for deputy attorney general because of
nannygate problems.  In view of the issue that arose over Admiral
Inman, do you now believe that that would not be a disqualifying
issue for somebody in the Justice Department?
     MS. MYERS:  Well, first of all, I'm not sure I accept
your premise that that's why Charles Ruff wasn't offered the job
earlier.  But we've always said that we would look at -- we don't
think that necessarily having not paid Social Security taxes on
domestic help was disqualifying, depending on the circumstances.  And
I think we look at each case individually as it comes up.

     Q    But in the past, the position has been that because
the Justice Department is in charge of enforcing the law, that it is
in a special circumstance, and that the standards would be higher for
someone at the Justice Department.  Would that also follow --
     MS. MYERS:  No, I think every case is -- we look at each
case individually depending on circumstances.  I think, depending on
the role and circumstances of the individuals -- certainly, with the
Attorney General it was a particularly thorny issue for a number of
reasons.  But I think since then our position has been that it's not
necessarily disqualifying in any department.  It would depend on the
responsibilities and circumstances of any particular nominee.
     Q    Is the President going to describe the details of
the reemployment program on Wednesday at Reich's conference?  And if
not then, when would he unveil it?
     MS. MYERS:  No, I think that he'll talk generally about
it.  I think the details will come later.
     Q    But it's supposed to be appropriated into the
budget in some detail -- is that --
     MS. MYERS:  Correct.  We're working with Secretary Reich
and others at Labor to determine exactly when the details of the plan
will be outlined.
     Q       shortly after the budget is out?
     MS. MYERS:  I'm just not sure when that is.  I think
it's a little bit later.  My last discussion with them, I think it
was a couple weeks down the line for the actual unveiling of all the
details.  But I can certainly take that and see where it is.
     Q    To follow on that, the budget is sent out next
Monday?
     MS. MYERS:  Correct.
     Q    What kind of briefings are we going to have for
that since the weekend --
     MS. MYERS:  On Monday, Budget Director --
     Q    Will they brief in Houston for the rest of us?
     Q    No, don't do that.
     MS. MYERS:  We have -- probably not.  The way it's
worked out at this point is that -- (laughter.)
     Q    Excuse me.  (Laughter.)
     MS. MYERS:  I think I'll let your colleagues take care
of you on that question.  Leon Panetta will brief here on Monday,
February 7th --
     Q    Here?
     MS. MYERS:  Here in this briefing -- from this podium,
right here, sometime --
     Q    So the only way to cover the story is to be here,
right?  (Laughter.)
     MS. MYERS:  I know it's a heartbreaker.

     Q    You're going to have to order a bigger plane.
     MS. MYERS:  It's tough to choose between the budget and
Houston.
     Q    I know, but the budget from Houston is the worst of
all nightmares --
     MS. MYERS:  Right, we're not going to do that.  So we
have Director Panetta here.  You guys aren't paying attention here.
You're going to need this information.  You'll have Panetta here on
Monday; also from here, from the White House, Dr. Tyson and maybe
Secretary Bentsen.  And then each of the other departments will brief
later in the day from their individual departments.
     The President will -- we're still working out the
details.  The President will probably speak about the budget in broad
terms in a speech to some kind of business group or some other
appropriate organization in Houston on Monday morning.
     Q    So that is not health care now, that is budget?
     MS. MYERS:  It is probably going to be budget.
     Q    What time will he --
     MS. MYERS:  A budget story from Houston to reinforce the
fabulous briefings that will be going on here.
     Q    The only way to cover the budget will be to be in
Houston -- (laughter.)
     MS. MYERS:  The only way to cover the President's
comments on the budget will be from Houston.
     Q    And where does he end the day?
     Q    Will that be piped in here?
     MS. MYERS:  Always.
     Q    So here you can hear the President and the
briefing, but if you're there you can only hear the President?
     MS. MYERS:  That's right.
     Q    Well, that settles it.
     Q    Dee Dee, do you have a time?
     MS. MYERS:  We're still working that out.  I think we're
looking at sometime mid-morning for Leon's briefing here.  As soon as
they have a specific time, they'll tell you when the budget document
will be available at the GPO, sometime Monday morning.
     Q    If tradition follows, the budget document will be
printed in some newspaper on Friday or Saturday.  (Laughter.)
     MS. MYERS:  You're asking that it be The Washington
Post?  (Laughter.)
     Q    Hell, no.  I'm just saying that -- then at which
point do you then advance all the briefings?  Are there going to be
people around here on Friday?  Because it's happened about 20 times.

     MS. MYERS:  Is that right?  Everyone will be here on
Friday.  I don't have --
     Q    Maybe we could just get this all over with on
Friday.
     Q    I'm taking the --
     MS. MYERS:  Yes, taking the initiative.  I can't speak
to that.  I mean, our hope is that it will not be released until
Monday.  I don't know what's happened in previous years.
     Q    Give it to the Houston papers.
     Q    Are you still trying to plan a health care event?
     MS. MYERS:  Just to go to Andrea's question about the
schedule.  Monday is unclear.  It is possible that we will go
someplace else in the country, possibly the Southeast, on Monday
afternoon.
     Q    It's a domestic trip, right?
     MS. MYERS:  We might decide to go to Mexico or the
Caribbean.  No, somewhere else, probably in the Southeast.  It's
possible that we'll go there Monday afternoon and possibly spend
Monday night someplace outside of Washington.  That is still under
discussion.
     Q    And would that be a health care event?
     MS. MYERS:  Then we would probably do a health care
event.
     Q    And you'd do a Tuesday morning event?
     MS. MYERS:  Tuesday morning.
     Q    Can you walk us through the weekend and what you
know --
     Saturday, you have the radio address live, and it is
possible that he will then -- now, this is for planning purposes only
-- it's possible that he will then go to Arkansas to visit family and
friends, spend Saturday night in Arkansas, and then leave from
Arkansas on Sunday.
     Q    Will the press plane, for planning purposes, go to
Arkansas?
     MS. MYERS:  No.  We would take only the -- probably the
family pool or the travel pool to Arkansas.  He won't have any public
events in Arkansas.  It will be strictly personal time.  And then we
would probably take the press plane directly from Washington to
Houston Sunday afternoon.
     Q    The Houston event is a fundraiser Sunday, right?
     MS. MYERS:  DNC fundraiser.
     Q    Is that open?
     Q    What's the first event on Monday?
     MS. MYERS:  I don't know.  The event on Monday will be a
budget speech to an appropriate group.  We haven't --

     Q    In the morning, afternoon?
     MS. MYERS:  The morning.
     Q    Does he have any open --
     Q    Is the DNC speech open, or not?
     MS. MYERS:  I don't know, I haven't checked.  I'll have
to check.  I would imagine that the remarks portion of it, at a
minimum, would be open.
     Q    Is there any other event on Sunday, or is it just a
fundraiser?
     MS. MYERS:  There might be some meeting with supporters
or something, but no other news -- possibly another photo op, but no
other major news event.
     Q    On Greenspan and interest rates -- Greenspan said
this morning that later this week the open market committee of the
Fed would consider this issue.  A lot of the impetus behind the talk
for higher short-term rates came last week with the fourth quarter
GDP figures of 5.9 percent, and there are a lot of economists outside
the administration as well as inside the administration who consider
that figure an aberration an think it will go back to about three
percent in the first few quarters.  My question is, does the White
House feel that the Fed ought to hold off at least until the end of
the first quarter this year before making any moves on interest rates
and not base the decision on this fourth quarter figure?
     MS. MYERS:  I'll take your question in a couple of
parts.  First of all, Dr. Tyson was in here on Friday afternoon, and
she basically, I think, talked about what the administration's
expectations were for growth in the coming year, which I think both
economists inside and outside the administration agree that it will
be much lower than the 5.9 fourth quarter figure.  At the same time,
she said she saw no inflationary pressure in the economy, didn't
think there was any need to raise interest rates.
     Now, obviously the Fed is independent, and they will
make their own determination.  But it is the view of the President
and the administration's economists that there is no inflationary
pressure in the economy, and we'd like to see interest rates stay
where they are.  Stay low, I should say.
     Q    Is it the view of the President and the White House
that if you wait for the first quarter figures that that would be
even more corroborated that we're not in an economy that's heating
up?
     MS. MYERS:  Well, when the first quarter figures come
in, we'll see what they are.  But certainly the Fed will determine
how and when it's going to take action.
     Q    Would it be -- my question basically is one on
timing.  Would it be a mistake for the Fed to act in the first
quarter --
     MS. MYERS:  All I can tell you is that we see no
inflationary pressure in the economy, and we'd like to see interest
rates stay low, inflation stay low in order to keep --
     Q    Short and long?
     MS. MYERS:  Well, I think the President said that --
long-term interest rates.  I think we prefer to see all interest
rates stay as low as possible, but that he -- the President I think
spoke to that a little while ago.
     Q    Well, is it clear now that you all have taken an
real inventory on his appearances outside the White House without the
pool --
     MS. MYERS:  Correct.
     Q       and they come to one?
     MS. MYERS:  No, I think what the President was -- when
looking back -- I mean, the President's view generally is that he has
accepted without embracing the notion that he doesn't leave the White
House without taking the pool, there have been a number of instances
where, for one reason or another, that he's left without the pool.
For example --
     Q    A number?  What number?
     Q    How many?
     MS. MYERS:  Well, he's gone jogging a couple of times or
he's left and the pool has then caught up with him -- like once he
went bike riding.  But we could think of no instance collectively
where the President left the White House and the pool either didn't
catch up with him or was not notified.
     Q    What about the night that Vince Foster died?
     MS. MYERS:  We then -- we told you that he had gone.
And I think some people staked him out unilaterally.  But I just say
there isn't any -- we could not collectively think of a single
instance where the President had left that you either weren't with
him or weren't notified.
     Q    But he never ditched the pool completely.
     MS. MYERS:  No.
     Q    Dee Dee, would you know about it?
     MS. MYERS:  The President would know about it, and I
think -- I talked at length with him about that --
     Q    When you say collectively, you mean you discussed
this with him?
     MS. MYERS:  But we all thought through, because
sometimes the President is less aware of whether the pool's -- if he
ditches the pool on a jog or something.  I mean, he doesn't
intentionally set out to do that, but sometimes he gets impatient and
he'll leave and the pool's not rounded up.
     Q    Well, the implication of the piece was that he
simply goes out when he wants to.
     MS. MYERS:  It's just wrong.  It's simply wrong.  There
just isn't any instance that we could think of where the President
had left --
     Q    Well, how about the First Lady dressing in
disguise?  (Laughter.)
     MS. MYERS:  Again, I think --
     Q    Yes, what color is the wig?

     Q    Wait a minute, is this true?
     MS. MYERS:  No, no.
     Q    This is part of the same piece, Brit.
     Q    I know that.
     MS. MYERS:  As far as I -- first of all, the First Lady
has a completely different set of circumstances.  I don't think the
pool expects to accompany her or know every time she leaves the White
House.
     Q    This wasn't a pool question, this was is she
wandering around wearing disguises.
     MS. MYERS:  No, I -- not that I know of.  I think
occasionally she wears sunglasses, which you've all seen, but beyond
that I think it's been fairly straightforward -- and a hat.
     Q    The President said this morning that as far as he
knows, no other President -- maybe President Bush had the same sort
of understanding when the press went everywhere.  I stand to be
corrected, if wrong, however, it is my understanding that this has
applied to every recent president, certainly back through Gerald
Ford, and probably through Kennedy.  Just for the record.
     MS. MYERS:  Nonetheless, regardless --
     Q    I don't wish to debate, only to offer.
     MS. MYERS:  -- of the historic precedent, I think his
view is that he has accepted the deal that he doesn't leave here
without at least taking a travel pool.  And I think we've been as
faithful to that as we can with a few slip-ups that we've then told
you about.  Very few.
     Q    For the record, should the President be advised
that that has been an historic -- this is not some --
     MS. MYERS:  I would be certainly happy to convey that to
him that this was not foisted on him.
     Q    They all do it.
     MS. MYERS:  And they all love it with equal fervor, I'm
sure, thinking that it's a wonderful way to live.
     Thanks.
     Q    The bottom line is you're saying The Times story is
wrong?
     MS. MYERS:  I'm saying The Times story is wrong,
correct.
     THE PRESS:  Thank you.
 END                    1:42 P.M. EST
For Immediate Release                                February 2, 1994

    PRESS BRIEFING
   BY DEE DEE MYERS

  The Briefing Room


 12:34 P.M. EST

     MS. MYERS:  I thought I would just start with a readout.
I know you had a chance to talk with some of the members of Congress
who were at the meeting, but I'll give you a little more detail if
you'd like.
     The President began with a discussion of some budget
issues, specifically he talked about the supplemental for earthquake
assistance in California which he asked Director Panetta to talk
about a little bit.  Panetta emphasized that the supplemental had
passed out of House committees.  He expects it to be on the floor, I
believe, tomorrow -- urged that the aid pass the House this week and
pass the Senate next week so that it can be signed before the recess
at the end of next week.
     They also talked briefly about the buyout options.  The
President asked that Congress move forward and give the
administration, give the departments authority for buyouts which is a
better way to go about reaching the goal of 252,000 fewer federal
employees by the end of the year.
     Q    Did they give them any indication of --
     MS. MYERS:  There was general support for it.
Obviously, they have to work with their members on it, but there was
general support for the concept.  A number of members said they
thought that had been effective at DOD, CIA, NASA, places where it
has been tried and found to be effective.
     They talked about Russia briefly.  The President said
that he'd like the members to come back -- the leadership to come
back sometime probably next week to discuss in more detail his trip
to Europe, and Russia specifically.
     The President then outlined, talked a bit about what he
thinks are the three major domestic initiatives facing Congress this
year -- education and the Goals 2000 legislation which has passed out
of the House committees and is beginning discussion in the Senate
committees today or the Senate Education Committee today.  He talked
about the crime bill and said he'd like to see a bipartisan bill
passed as soon as possible.  He reiterated his support for some of
the provisions that are currently in the Senate version of the bill,
specifically:  three strikes, 100,000 new police officers, the ban on
assault weapons, expanded drug treatment facilities in prisons, and
some additional funding for states to build more prisons.
     He talked about welfare reform and reiterated his
commitment to have a comprehensive welfare reform bill
in prisons and some additional funding for states to build more
prisons.  He talked about welfare reform and reiterated his
commitment to have a comprehensive welfare reform bill by sometime
this spring.  He also urged bipartisan action on welfare reform and,
I think, reiterated that in 1988 when they passed the family support
act, that bipartisan support was crucial to getting that done.  And,
finally, they talked about health care.
     Q    That's four issues.
     Q    That's four.
     MS. MYERS:  Yeah, he didn't include health care in the
three that he talked about.  It was just --
     Q    Does that mean he's downplaying health care --
     Q    Health care is off the front burner.  Filing break.
     MS. MYERS:  It's no longer a priority.  No.  But he did
talk specifically about those three pieces and building a bipartisan
consensus on them.  Finally, they did talk a bit about health care.
I think the President -- he had some kind words for Senator Dole's
comments yesterday, which expressed a willingness to find --
     Q    Which comments?
     MS. MYERS:  -- the comments which expressed a
willingness to find a bipartisan solution to the health care problems
the country faces.
     Q    Oh, that comment.
     MS. MYERS:  That comment.  And I think generally the
President urged everyone to tone down the rhetoric and just focus
more on the facts, which is something that he said he's going to try
to do over the course of the coming weeks as this debate proceeds.
There was general agreement that that was a good idea.  It was a
positive, productive, frank, open discussion.
     Q    Was the U.S. Ambassador, in fact, called in to the
foreign ministry in London and read the riot act about our admission
of their friend from the IRA?
     MS. MYERS:  Was -- was -- I'm sorry, could you repeat
that?
     Q    In London, the capital of England, British U.S.
ambassador, called in, by the Brits, angry about the admission of
their friend from the IRA.
     MS. MYERS:  Oh, Gerry Adams?  I don't know, I'll have to
take that.
     Q    Are you aware of any British objections to this?
     MS. MYERS:  The decision was made in consultation with
the British and Irish governments.
     Q    That doesn't mean they agree.
     Q    That doesn't mean they agree.
     Q    Did the President overrule his own foreign policy
advisors?

     MS. MYERS:  No, the decision was made in consultation
with his foreign policy advisors, including Secretary Christopher,
certainly Tony Lake and others.  There was, I think, a fair amount of
discussion about it.  The President made the decision based on what
he thought would help forward the peace process.
     Q    That doesn't answer any of the question.
     Q    Did he overrule his own advisors?
     MS. MYERS:  The answer to the question is that the
decision was made in consultation with his advisors.  I'm not going
to say that who was in what position, but he certainly made the
decision in concert with his advisors.
     Q    Did the British object to the admission?
     MS. MYERS:  I would leave that to them to answer that
question.  We made this -- there was a number of conversations with
both the British and Irish governments on this.
     Q    You don't dispute that they objected to this?
     MS. MYERS:  I will leave that to them to discuss what
their view is of this.  It's not for me to --
     Q?     Did any of his advisors recommend against it?
     MS. MYERS:  There was discussion about it, and I'm not
going to get into who was for what position.
     Q    No, I'm not -- did any of his advisors recommend
against it?
     Q    Would it be fair to say there were views expressed
on both sides?
     MS. MYERS:  I would say that there were a number of
different views on this, and I'm not going to say exactly what those
views were or who held them, other than to say there were a number of
different views on this, the President made the decision in
consultation with his advisors.  There was, I think, quite a bit of
consensus on it and the President moved forward.
     Q    The Vietnam families are very concerned about the
imminent decision which has been signaled in various places that the
President will make on Vietnam, that they have not gotten the proper
accounting yet.  What is the President's view on that?
     MS. MYERS:  The President believes at this point that
some progress have been made.  This has been a productive year.
There have been a number of trips.
     Q    The Vietnam families who are concerned that they do
not have a full accounting, that this will take the pressure off of
Vietnam.
     MS. MYERS:  Right.  The President's view is that there's
been some progress made this year.  There have been a number of
missions to Vietnam by Winston Lord from the State Department,
Admiral Charles Larsen and others.  The President has stated from the
beginning that progress on MIA and POW issues will determine whether
or not there's a change in our trade relationship with Vietnam.  That
is still under review.

     Q    What about his taking the pressure off them?  Once
the decision is made, how will there be any more pressure for them to
be responsible?
     MS. MYERS:  Well, I think there are a number of views
about that.  There are a number of people outside -- both inside and
outside the administration who have expressed publicly that they
think by expanding our relationship with them, we'll be able to make
more progress.  I'm not suggesting that that's the President's view
at this point, but it's something that's under review, something that
he cares deeply about and something that he's committed to making
progress on.  So we're finding out as much as we can and working with
the Vietnamese government to find out the fate of the MIAs and POWs.
Certainly, the President's decision will be made with an eye toward
continuing to make progress.
     Q    The lawyer who helps the President on Whitewater
was here.
     Q    The League of Families was in to see Tony Lake just
recently.  Does the President have any plans to meet with the
Griffiths or any other people from that group or other groups before
he announces his decision?
     MS. MYERS:  Administration officials have met regularly
with the families.  There's no meeting with the families in the
President's schedule, but I wouldn't rule it out.
     Q    Why was the lawyer who helped the President on
Whitewater here?  Who was he meeting with and could you give us a
sense?
     Q    And what advice did he give?
     Q    Good idea.  Could you give us a sense of what --
     Q    Can we have any memos he may have communicated?
     MS. MYERS:  I don't know, but I'm happy to take the
question.
     Q    Would you take the question for us?  Thank you.
     Q    Dee Dee, was the President surprised to get a fax
today from the Vietnam Veterans of America saying they wish he would
normalize relations with Vietnam, it would be better?  That's quite
different from what the other veterans have done.
     MS. MYERS:  I haven't seen that, but I think there's
certainly support among a number of veterans, I don't know about
veteran's organizations specifically, but a number of veterans,
including members of Congress who believe that that's the right thing
do.
     Q    This was a Mr. Terzano.
     MS. MYERS:  Terzano?  Any relation to Ginny?  I'll take
the question and see if this fax has in fact been received.
     Q    Dee Dee, would it be fair to say that lifting the
trade embargo would be a step toward normalization of relations, and
will that be accompanied if it happens with the opening of some sort
of diplomatic office in Hanoi?
     MS. MYERS:  What's under discussion now is lifting the
trade embargo.  That is not the same as normalizing relations.

     Q    Why not normalize relations if all of this progress
has been made?
     MS. MYERS:  Well, I think there are two separate --
lifting the trade embargo is contingent on MIA - POW progress,
specifically.  Normalizing the relationship has a broader set of
criteria and I just don't think we're -- that's not under discussion
at this point.
     Q    So would you anticipate some sort of interest
section office or some sort of low-level diplomatic presence for the
United States in Vietnam as a result of this decision?
     MS. MYERS:  I don't know what the practical implications
will be.  But it is clear that these are not the same thing.  The
trade decision is being made separate from a full normalization of
relations.
     Q    Nonetheless, it would be the normal thing to do.
     Q    What are the criteria for normalizing relations?
     MS. MYERS:  Let me take that, too.  I want to make sure
that we get that specifically.
     Q    That would be the normal course of events?
     MS. MYERS:  Not necessarily.  The two -- don't assume
the two are going to happen together.
     Q    I know, but there would be an interest section if
we drop the embargo and 37-some-odd American businesses are poised to
begin operating if that embargo is dropped.  It would be normal for
there to be some sort of interest section at somebody else's embassy
under the circumstances.  There'd be some kind of diplomatic
representation.
     MS. MYERS:  Practically, there will obviously be some
steps, and I'm happy to find out what those might be.
     Q    Are we expecting a decision this week on the
lifting of the embargo?
     MS. MYERS:  The President said earlier today he expected
to make a decision soon within the next few days, but I don't have a
hard time line on it.
     Q    Dee Dee, correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought one
of the criteria for lifting the embargo was fullest-possible
accounting.  That's the phrase that keeps going back and forth.
     MS. MYERS:  Correct.
     Q    Today you are merely saying that progress needs to
be made.
     MS. MYERS:  No, I'm saying that progress has been made,
that our criteria has always been that the Vietnamese are doing
everything that they can to help us to resolve outstanding MIA and
POW cases, and there's a number of specifics that we continually cite
-- remains, documents, cooperation with Laos, a few other things.
     Q    How far back do you go to determine whether you're
getting that kind of cooperation?  Is it just a mater of a few years?
Because in the past the Vietnamese have said historically that they
had no more remains and then they'd come up with more remains.  My
question is, how far back are you going?

     MS. MYERS:  Well, I think that the Bush administration
established a process which we've built on.  And I think we're
looking at their behavior now -- how they've been in the last --
certainly, their current attitude, their current level of
cooperation.
     Q    Dee Dee, what is the administration's position on
the economic stimulus package announced in Tokyo just a couple of
hours ago in -- that is one of the key elements of the framework --
     MS. MYERS:  This has just been announced.  We're
reviewing it and at this point, we don't have any comment.
     Q    Dee Dee, there are apparently no swimming pools in
it, and I' can't imagine why the White House would react favorably to
it.  (Laughter.)
     Q    Is there a crime meeting here today?
     Q    Wait, she's got to read the note.
     MS. MYERS:  Is this true?  Breaking news.  John Terzano
-- this is signed by Ginny Terzano -- "John Terzano is my brother.
He's President of the Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation."  But
it doesn't speak to the issue of the facts.  (Laughter.)
     Q    Is there a meeting here on crime today, on the
crime bill?
     MS. MYERS:  Yes.  The President has a meeting with
Chairman Brooks, Chairman Biden, I believe --
     Q    Bonior?
     MS. MYERS:  -- no, I don't think so.  I think it's then,
Mitchell, Foley and maybe Gephardt -- 4:30 p.m.
     Q    Photo op?
     MS. MYERS:  An hour.  It's scheduled for an hour.
     Q    Again?
     Q    With Biden?  An hour?  Are you kidding?
(Laughter.)
     MS. MYERS:  Is the correspondent from ABC expressing an
opinion down here?
     Q    At this point, does the White House feel confident
--
     The plan at this point is a White House photo release as
opposed to a photo op.
     Q    How about a photo op?
     MS. MYERS:  I understand.  We'll take the --
     Q    Isn't crime an important issue?  (Laughter.)
     Q    What can you tell us about the Kramer speech he's
going to give tomorrow?
     MS. MYERS:  At this point, it's going to focus, I think,
a lot on crime.  It was originally an opportunity to build on the
State of the Union.  I think the content will be largely the same,
although I think the context is a little bit less directly connected.
But I think he'll talk about crime and about values and about how
these -- how these children should view their future in light of a
lot of the problems that they face.
     Q    Dee Dee, what is the White House sense at this
point about what's going to happen in the Business Roundtable?  Do
you think that you're going to be able to turn the tide and talk them
out of voting support for Cooper-Breaux?
     MS. MYERS:  I don't think we know what they're going to
do.  I believe they're meeting at 4:00 pm. today.  I think what the
President said was that many of them support guaranteed private
insurance, and that regardless of what they vote today, what we would
like to see is that the business community, including members of the
Business Roundtable, work with us toward that goal.
     Q    The Senate voted overwhelmingly in a nonbinding
resolution to get tough with North Korea.  What is the administration
doing at this point?  What is the next step?  What are you waiting
for, or who are you talking to?
     MS. MYERS:  Well, as you know, we had a series of
meetings with the North Koreans last month.  They agreed to full IAEA
inspections which needed to be worked out with the IAEA.  Those
discussions have been ongoing in Vienna, and at this point the IAEA
has not reached a resolution with them.
     Q    They backed down, though.  Dee Dee, they informed
the IAEA that they would not go along and that, in fact, we had been
misled by the briefers who have briefed us.
     MS. MYERS:  Our view is that they agreed to full
inspection, nonetheless regardless of what they're saying, that they
have to agree to full inspection.  That's our bottom line.  We want
them to agree to full inspection.  The discussions in Vienna are
ongoing, although not much progress has been made.
     Q    According to officials in Vienna, they have been
badly used by the North Koreans --
     Q    Stiffed.
     Q    Stiffed is the right word.
     MS. MYERS:  Clearly, they have not achieved their
objective there, and until the IAEA is satisfied, we won't be
satisfied that enough has been done and that they've opened
themselves to inspections.
     Q    What's the view of the U.S. government on the South
Korean Foreign Minister's taking today that -- tone down the
rhetoric.  He spoke to the diplomatic community in Seoul, I believe,
and said not to blow this out of proportion.  In other words --
     MS. MYERS:  I am not familiar with those comments.  I
think our comments on this have been consistent throughout.  We've
continued to maintain that they have to open their facilities to
inspection, and that if not, we'll go back to the U.N. Security
Council for further action.
     Q    Delay works in their favor.  So how long do you let
them go?
     MS. MYERS:  We don't have a time line on it.

     Q    Is there a deadline --
     Q    I thought there was a deadline of February 26th.
     MS. MYERS:  No.  We haven't established a hard deadline,
although there is an IAEA Board of Governors meeting on February
22nd.
     Q    Is that what you're looking towards?
     MS. MYERS:  We're not establishing any hard deadlines in
this process, but we'd like to see some movement.
     Q    Whatever happened, then, to the statement from that
podium by you and other people that we had only a matter of weeks?
     MS. MYERS:  It's up to the IAEA to determine when the
continuity of safeguards has been broken.  That continues to be our
position.  And we're not going to let them go on forever.  We haven't
established a hard deadline, but we maintain that if we don't get the
kind of progress we need, that we'll go back to the U.N. Security
Council for further action.
     Q    Where do we stand on the Patriots?
     MS. MYERS:  No change.
     Q    Did the North Korean response on the Patriot -- is
having influence on the decision --
     MS. MYERS:  No.  The decision is being made on the basis
of the recommendation of General Luck, and the view that it would
enhance the security of South Korea and the Korean Peninsula
generally.  It is a defensive weapon, and it is meant simply for
those defensive purposes.
     Q    Did the President address the -- the President this
morning, did he take a position on that truth in sentencing provision
on the regional?
     MS. MYERS:  No.
     Q    What does he think about that?  It's gotten rather
controversial.  They say they're dictating to him and we heard Romer
talk about that the other day.
     MS. MYERS:  Right.  I was going to take that question
and I guess, and I haven't.  I don't have an answer, so let me get
back to you.
     Q    Could you do it again, Dee Dee.
     MS. MYERS:  Yes.
     Q    Mickey met with the Japanese Prime Minister in
Tokyo, and they were still in a stalemate and no progress.  I think
they'll meet again tomorrow.  Do you have any assessment at this
moment on the Japanese attitude?
     MS. MYERS:  No.  Ambassador Kantor is there.  He has met
with a number of people including the Prime Minister.  Obviously we
are looking to make progress on the framework before the February
meeting.  We'll see what the results of those talks are over the next
few days.
     Q    Deputy Treasury Secretary Altman was sent over
there last night real fast.  Was there something new that developed?

     MS. MYERS:  He was?  I was unaware of that, obviously.
I don't know if there's any specific developments that required him
to go over there.  He's been intimately involved in this throughout
the process.
     Q    He was with Rosti on the Hill last night.
     MS. MYERS:  Are you sure?
     Q    He was scheduled to give a speech this morning --
and sent word he had to rush over to --
     Q    The Roundtable --
     Q    How about that?
     Q    Is Peres due in here to talk to Lake at some point
today?
     MS. MYERS:  This afternoon, both Gore, and I believe
there's a photo op with the Gore meeting and then with Tony.
     Q    Do you know what time it is?
     MS. MYERS:  I don't.  Do you know, Dave?  Two o'clock.
     Q    Is the February 11th meeting between the President
and Prime Minister Hosokawa still taking place?
     MS. MYERS:  Yes.  Still on schedule.
     Q    What about this weekend?
     MS. MYERS:  There is no -- he's going to do the radio
address on Saturday morning.  He'll be in Washington until he leaves
for Houston Sunday, mid-afternoon, I think 3:00 p.m.-ish is the
scheduled departure time.  He'll attend a DNC fundraiser in Houston,
do an event in Houston on Monday morning.  At some point --
     Q    Budget?
     MS. MYERS:  Yes.
     Q    You're sure now?  It's not going to be budget mixed
with a whole bunch of other stuff?
     MS. MYERS:  I can't guarantee that.
     Q    Not merely some watered-down, convoluted budget
speech?
     MS. MYERS:   I can't guarantee that.  Not that I know
of, but I think they probably --
     Q    There will be an event.
     MS. MYERS:  Oh yeah, oh yeah.  You should plan to go to
Houston, it's going to be a lot of fun.
     Q    And then what?
     Q    How do you figure?
     Q    Where do we overnight?

     MS. MYERS:  Greg McDonald and Cragg Hines are taking us
on a tour.
     Q    Where do we RON?
     MS. MYERS:  We RON on Monday.
     Q    In --
     MS. MYERS:  Very likely in Shreveport.
     Q    Do you have any restaurant recommendations?
     Q    They found the only place in Louisiana without good
food.  Congratulations.
     MS. MYERS:  I will not say that from this podium.
     Q       cuisine?
     MS. MYERS:  Yeah .
     Q    Health care in Louisiana?
     Q    Is that event set yet?
     MS. MYERS:  No, it's in process.
     Q    Why does the White House have such difficulty
finding places where they want him to speak?
     MS. MYERS:  We don't.  There is such a dearth of
invitations.  So there are so many invitations, I mean, that -- there
are -- a deluge of invitations.
     Q    That's better -- abundance.
     Thank you.
     Altman is here.  Altman did not go to Tokyo.
     Q    Bring him out then.
     Q    Yeah, where is he?
     MS. MYERS:  Prove it.  (Laughter.)
For Immediate Release                           February 2, 1994

    PRESS BRIEFING
  BY
   SECRETARY OF LABOR ROBERT REICH

  The Briefing Room

12:10 P.M. EST

     Let me end on that note and answer any questions any of
you have.
     Q    You mentioned that the TJTC is a program that
doesn't work and the administration's not going to recommend
extending that.  What are some other existing federal programs that
the administration would like to phase out or eliminate and pour that
money into something else?
     SECRETARY REICH:  Well, as I said, all of the evidence
shows that short-term job training for disadvantaged teenagers
doesn't work.  And our plan is to shift those dollars -- we are --
I'm not at liberty to give you the budget numbers at this time, but I
can assure you that the President will be recommending an increase in
funding for the disadvantaged, job training and so forth.  But we're
going to move those dollars to where they do seem to work -- longer-
term training, for example, training that combines work-based
learning with classroom learning, and also training that has specific
jobs attached to it where the private sector has been involved in
shaping the curriculum and provided some assurance that there are
jobs at the end.
     In fact, this morning, some people who were discussing
various programs in terms of what works -- one program that was
highlighted was the CET program, originating out of San Jose,
California, focusing on disadvantaged workers, many of them welfare
recipients -- a very encouraging track record in getting people
employed because they are working with employers and asking employers
what they need and employers are having a major role to play in
creating those training programs.
     I've mentioned the unemployment to reemployment; that's
another goal.  I think -- I doubt very much -- I'm not at liberty to
say at this particular point, but I doubt very much whether the
federal government is going to be spending what it spent last year on
extended unemployment insurance.  As many of you know, that bill
totaled almost $14 billion, on top of the normal federal-state
employment insurance system which is about $22 billion.
     Now, that system did not help people get new jobs.  It
simply provided them income support while they were on long-term
unemployment.  We have record numbers -- record percentage of
unemployed workers who are long-term unemployed.  But the federal
government cannot continue that sort of expenditure.
     Q    Can you talk a little bit about what would happen
to people after they've run out of welfare benefits after two years?
Are you thinking about some kind of community work like a WPA-type
system?
     SECRETARY REICH:  There are many, many ideas being
considered, and we're costing all of those ideas out.  The goal is to
get people into work as fast as possible and keep them into work.  A
job is better than a welfare check.  A job is better than an
unemployment check.

     There is job growth in the United States.  There has
been some discussion about public service employment, but it has not
gotten beyond the discussion stage and there are very many options
being considered.  But that is a last resort.  Obviously, the hope is
private sector employment.
     Q    Sir, when you assessed that program that you all
had, the job training where you pay $10,000, I believe, to employers
to train veterans --
     SECRETARY REICH:  The veterans training -- let me
introduce to you, by the way, our Assistant Secretary for Employment
and Training Doug Ross.  Doug has much of the responsibility and all
of the burden -- not all the burden.    We have a great team.  But
Doug specifically with regard to Ms. McClendon's question on the
training of veterans and -- do you want to respond to that?
     ASSISTANT SECRETARY ROSS:   Much of the training of
veterans that goes on still goes on through separate programs that
have been earmarked for veterans.  And with a variety of --
     Q    I want you to assess this program that has been in
effect for some time that doesn't seem to be worth a damn.  A job-
training program whereby you pay $10,000 to an employer to put
veterans to work.
     ASSISTANT SECRETARY ROSS:  Is it worth a damn?  I don't
know if that one's worth a damn.  It's not done through the
Department of Labor, which was one of our difficulties -- at least
it's not my understanding that it's done through us.
     SECRETARY REICH:  Let me just say -- we'll check on that
and get back to you.  Let me just say, we are going carefully through
all of our programs assessing what works and what doesn't because in
this time of budget stringency, especially -- I mean at all times,
but particularly in times of budget stringency, it's absolutely
essential that we make every dollar work for Americans who need jobs.
     Q    The White House says that you're going to be having
a series of announcements maybe within a couple of weeks on your
whole program.  Can you give us an idea of where you're going and
what the parameters are of what you're looking at?
     SECRETARY REICH:  Yes.  Just to set this in context
again, there are three programs which all relate to one another.  One
is school to work.  Right now it's gone through the House, it's
waiting Senate time on the floor -- a lot of bipartisan support.  The
issue here is that it is very, very difficult for many young people
to move from school to work if they're not going on to college.
     We in this country have the best system of university
education in the world.  I speak as somebody who has a little bit of
interest in that, but I think objectively we do.  But we have one of
the worst systems in the industrialized world for getting young
people from school to work if they are not going on to college.  This
program is not a large program in terms of money, but it's a terribly
important piece of the puzzle for providing incentives to states to
set up school-to-work transition programs, give young people skills
after high school.
     The second leg of the stool is welfare to work, and
you'll be hearing more about that.  The third leg of the stool is
going from an unemployment insurance system, premised on the notion
that you'll get your old job back again, to a reemployment system,
providing at one stop a collection of services as soon as possible to
people after they lose their job.  This would be job search
assistance, job counseling, also long-term training for those who
could use it and extended benefits -- unemployment benefits -- for
people in long-term training.  To do so, we have to consolidate a lot
of what's out there, prune back what doesn't work, but also we're
going to need some additional funding.  And you'll find out more
about that on Monday.
     Q    Monday is when it's going to be announced.
     SECRETARY REICH:  Well, because that's when the budget
is going to be announced.
     Q    On measuring the jobs that we do have, what's the
potential for confusion?  On Friday your BLS had -- Katherine Abraham
said she wouldn't be surprised if the unemployment rate for January
shoots up to 8 percent under this new system.  What's --
     SECRETARY REICH:  I'm making no predictions at all about
the unemployment rate on Friday.  (Laughter.)  But I do want to say
that we are using a new survey instrument.  That survey began -- work
on that survey began in 1988, actually, after many, many years of
criticism by specialists in the field who saw biases in the current
unemployment survey.  One major bias against women, because when the
survey -- people who did the survey used to go to the houses and
knock on the door, and somebody came to the door; the normal question
was, "What did you do last week?  Did you work?" -- in order to find
out whether there was employment or unemployment.  But if an adult
woman came to the door, the questioner was instructed in the manual
to ask, "Last week were you a housewife or were you looking for
work?"  You get the "or were you looking for work."  And so that
systematically understated the number, particularly of women, who
were counted as looking for work.
     And that systematic bias has been there for decades, but
particularly in the '70s   as women moved into the work force and
wanted careers, that bias became more and more important.
     There's also improvements in the computerization of, in
fact, hand-held calculators, so it's not by pencil.  The net effect
of that, there have been runs by the Bureau of Labor Statistics --
you're going to have to get briefed by them -- but they will continue
with an estimate of what the unemployment rate probably would have
been under the old system, and you'll get that estimate on Friday.
In addition, you will get the new figure.
     Q    Should we trust the new figure?
     SECRETARY REICH:  Trust?  Well, for a few months there's
going to be some -- quote, unquote -- noise in the system.  That is,
every new survey instrument needs a couple months to settle down.
But certainly, in terms of trust, I would say that the new survey
instrument is a more accurate gauge of the nation's employment
picture, as it has been for decades.  And I want to stress that.
     Q    A number of governors from big states who have
legal immigration costs were here the other day, and they said
there's a task force being formed.  What's your department's role
going to be in that and what can the Labor Department do to help
those states with those costs?
     SECRETARY REICH:  We are part of the task force with
regard to immigration.  The Labor Department does have some
enforcement roles with regard to immigration.  Never lose sight of
the fact that one of the reasons that employers hire illegals is
because they feel that they can provide substandard working
conditions and subminimum wages.  One means, therefore, of reducing
the incentives for employers to hire illegals is to crack down on
illegalities with regard to subminimum wages and substandard working
conditions.  And I am very committed, as Labor Secretary, to reviving
labor law enforcement.
     As some of you know, yesterday we cited the first major
citation under the lead standard -- and the lead standard was years
in coming.  We're going to enforce the laws diligently.
     Q    To go back to the welfare reform question that was
posed earlier, there have been some published reports to the effect
that if the President's proposal or concepts on welfare were to be
implemented, several hundred thousand jobs would have to be created.
Are those estimates reasonable?  And, if so, is the economy going to
be able to create that level of jobs at a time two or three years
down the road when the administration's own economic forecasts
suggest that the unemployment rate is going to be down at levels that
are normally associated with or have been associated with full
employment?
     SECRETARY REICH:  Well, let me say a couple of things.
First of all, the welfare reform initiative is still on the drawing
boards.  We are still debating options and have not yet presented to
the President final options.
     With regard to employment, the figures that were being
bandied about last week were very, very, very high.  They were far
higher than any figures that we have been using.  I'm speaking
specifically to the figures on community service employment.
     We are aware of all of the down sides and costs of a
public service employment program.  As I said before, the first and
best option is to get people into private employment and keep them in
private employment.  Are there going to be enough jobs?  Well, let me
just say this -- and it pertains to today's program, as well -- the
American job machine is back running.  Last year's figures are
encouraging.  I anticipate 1994 will also be very encouraging.
     Does that mean everybody is getting a job who wants a
job or needs a job?  No.  There are mismatches with regard to jobs
and skills.  But, undoubtedly, our key prerequisite is economic
growth.  And although corporations are downsizing, small- and medium-
sized companies are upsizing.  Many individuals are going into
business for themselves.  In fact, a new provision under the
unemployment insurance laws permits individuals to start their own
businesses and collect unemployment insurance for a limited amount of
time while they start their own business.  That has been shown to be
enormously successful in certain states.  We're going to propose
several other changes in the unemployment insurance system, which
will also enable individuals to move off of unemployment faster and
into jobs.
     I'm sorry, we have to go.  We'll talk again, I'm sure.
Thank you.
For Immediate Release                          February 11, 1994

     Q    Do you think that you were misled last July by the
Japanese in terms of their intent to really reach an agreement?
     Mr. Prime Minister, do you agree with the President's
allegation that you are the most closed of the G-7 nations?  And if
that's true, why is it so?
     THE PRESIDENT:  First of all, the G-7 agreement, the
agreement we concluded with Japan last summer was, I think, a good
framework.  We all recognized that it had to be implemented.  I can't
say that the people who concluded the agreement last summer, who are
not here to defend themselves, did not do it in good faith.  I would
not say that.  I cannot say.  All I can tell you is we haven't
reached an agreement.
     Q    Can you say why?
     THE PRESIDENT:  Because we couldn't agree on what
constituted evidence of market opening.  And there are other reasons,
as well, but at least that is one.
     PRIME MINISTER HOSOKAWA:  In the way we look at it, in
the areas of government procurement, insurance business and so on, in
these areas we believe that to a large measure we've been able to
boil down the issues.  However, unfortunately, at the very end we
were not able to clear the hurdle of numerical targets, and we regret
that very much.  As the President mentioned earlier, in the days
ahead we, on each side, will try and sort out some problems that
remain and do our best efforts in order to resolve the remaining
problems and arrive at a good agreement.
     Q    With regard to how you address the remaining
issues, what is the time schedule for reaching an agreement?
     PRIME MINISTER HOSOKAWA:  I don't know.  We'd like to
reach an agreement as early as possible.  But I think there is a need
for a little bit of cooling off.
     Q    Mr. President, on Bosnia -- how do you avoid a
major breach with President Yeltsin?  He's quoted today as saying
that NATO lacks the authority to approve air strikes.  You've taken
the position that NATO has that authority.  Is there any way to
reconcile these differences?
     THE PRESIDENT:  I think so.  We talked about it a little
on the phone today, and I reminded President Yeltsin it was the
Secretary General of the United Nations acting under the authority of
last summer's U.N. Security resolution that had asked NATO to develop
a plan to stop the shelling of Sarajevo and the innocent killing of
civilians, and that there would be no possession taken of weapons
left within the 20-kilometer safe zone by NATO, but by the U.N.
troops.  So I don't think, therefore, we have to go back to the
Security Council.
     They're discussing this in greater detail today in New
York.  But I think that the most encouraging thing to me was that he
agreed we had the same long-term objective, which was a peace
agreement, and the same short-term objective, which was to stop the
shelling and killing of innocent civilians.
     Q    But isn't there a difference on this other issue?
     THE PRESIDENT:  I don't think so.
     Q    Mr. President, now that the trade agreement has
failed, how optimistic are you and the members of your administration
for the future agreement?

     THE PRESIDENT:  I just don't know.    You know, the
problem may be -- it may be one of words; it may be one of the
feelings behind the words.  Japan has taken the position with which
we, on the surface, do not disagree, that Japan does not wish to
commit numerical targets that amount to managed trade.  We understand
that.
     We have taken the position that there have to be some
objective standards by which to judge whether we are making progress
or not, because if we just talk about improving processes that is
what we have done in the past without much progress.  That is why,
last summer, we used the words "objective criteria" to include
quantitative measures or qualitative measures, or both, as
appropriate.
     For example, I agree that it's not fair to disregard --
let me give you some examples -- to disregard -- let's suppose
there's an area in which our trade is in great imbalance.  You have
to take into account, in addition to whether there has been progress
from, let's say, 1992 to 1995, also what happened to the exchange
rate, what happened to domestic demand and the economy in Japan,
whether the American business in question produced a product
competitive in price and quality and did the things necessary to
pierce the Japanese market.
     So it's not for us -- we don't think we're asking for
numerical targets, we think we're asking for a set of objective
criteria by which we can judge whether we're making progress in
opening the market.  That, I think, is a fair statement of the nub of
our argument.  And I have no idea what will happen from here on in.
We just didn't make it.
     Q    Mr. President, on Bosnia, there were reports that
the United States, on the diplomatic front, is considering a
piecemeal lifting of the sanctions if the Serbians will he
cooperative at the peace talks, and that you have reconsidered your
commitment to have 50 percent of the troops in any potential
peacekeeping force be American; that, in fact, it would only be a
third of the ground forces be American if there were a peace
agreement in place.  Can you comment on that and on these -- also the
latest reports that more F-15Es are now en route to Bosnia?
     THE PRESIDENT:  Let me just say -- I can only comment on
two things.  First of all, in terms of the troops, all we ever said
about that was that we would expect to have less than half.  We never
specified a specific amount.  Secondly, I have never even discussed
any partial lifting of the Serbian embargo.  No one has brought it to
me; it has never been discussed in my presence.  If it is an option
being considered, it's been considered by somebody other than me.
It's just not been a part of our discussions.
     Q       violated the cease-fire yesterday?
     THE PRESIDENT:  No.
     Q    With regard to objective criteria, you had an
agreement with the previous administration.  Would you say that was a
-- the adjustment was wrong, or does this mean that the Hosokawa
administration is going to make a judgment on a new basis?
     PRIME MINISTER HOSOKAWA:  With regard to the things that
have been subject to negotiations to date, I believe that we have
seen some progress.  So this does not mean that we're going to start
something anew, but we'll pursue these matters further to build on
the results that have been achieved so far.
     Is that the point you were asking?

     Q    Well, the previous administration -- the outside
cabinet agreed on the framework talks and on objective criteria.  So
would you say that the previous administration erred in their
judgment?
     PRIME MINISTER HOSOKAWA:  No, that's not the case.
     THE PRESIDENT:  I get that kind of question all the
time.  Don't let it bother you.  (Laughter.)
     PRIME MINISTER HOSOKAWA:  With regard to the
interpretation of numerical targets, I think there is a difference
between the two sides and we have not been able to clear that
difference easily.
     Q    What are the kinds of things that the United States
can do to compel Japan to change its ways?  And have you given any
thought to making it just as hard for Japanese companies to do
business over here as it is, as you say, for American companies to do
business over there?
     THE PRESIDENT:  Well, until 4:00 a.m. this morning we
were working as hard as we could to reach an agreement, so I'm not
prepared to say yet.  We're going to have to think about that.  As I
tried to characterize this as a period of reflection now; we just
have to assess where we are.
     Q    Mr. President, as you know, the Japanese public
very strongly supports the Hosokawa government's policy calling for
deregulation and less government intervention into the economic
system.  Against that background, how would you address the Japanese
public's concern that accepting an American request for Japan to
agree to predetermine the levels and the quantities of the American
imports into the Japanese market would inevitably entail more
government intervention into the whole economic system?
     THE PRESIDENT:  We do not want that.  I mean, I think
this is the nub of the disagreement and I -- I think I understand the
Japanese position as well as -- in addition to the American position.
We do not want Japan to commit to a specific volume of imports by a
specific time.  We do want to assess whether we are making progress
toward opening markets with the use of objective criteria rather than
just change processes.
     One of those criteria would be, what is the difference
in the level of imports.  Another might be, as I said earlier, the
exchange rate changes.  Another might be the state of domestic demand
in Japan.  Another might be the quality and price of the American
product as evidenced by how well it's doing in our market or in
Europe or somewhere else; another might be whether the American
company or the American companies had made the necessary effort to do
business in Japan.
     In other words, we understand why Japan does not wish to
put itself in the position of having to manage its trade in that way.
And I think probably what the Japanese negotiators fear is if there
is a number in there, even along with a lot of other criteria, that
either under my administration or at sometime in the future, it will
be used as the only basis for evaluating whether America should
impose some sort of trade sanctions.  That is not our intent.  But I
think it's fair to say that that is the core of our disagreement.
That is, when you put the question the way you did, I agree with your
position.  But that is not what we are asking to do.
     Q    Mr. President, you mentioned that you also
discussed the situation on the Korean Peninsula.  As you know, later
this month, the International Atomic Energy Agency has to certify
that North Korea is or is not engaged in a nuclear weapons program --
has developed a nuclear weapons program.  How serious is the
situation right now?  And what do you and Prime Minister Hosokawa,
what do you plan on doing if the IAEA certifies it can no longer say
that North Korea is not complying with the Nuclear Nonproliferation
Treaty?
     THE PRESIDENT:  Well, we discussed that today and,
obviously, we discussed what our options were, including sanctions.
We discussed also the fact that in this particular policy, Japan,
China, South Korea  and the United States all want a nonnuclear
Korean Peninsula.  All very much want North Korea to comply with our
IAEA standards and, therefore, permitting it to resume some contact
with the South.  That has been the position of all four of our
countries, and what we're doing now is consulting all of us among one
another to try to see what our options are.  But, obviously, the
sanctions option is one option.
     Do you have anything to add?
     PRIME MINISTER HOSOKAWA:  We also have a very strong and
deep concern of the issue.  Within the coming 10 days or so, very
soon, I would say, this issue is going to face a climax.  And we very
much hope that North Korea will move in the right direction.  As
President Clinton said, we shall, together with the United States,
China and South Korean, would like to step up our approach vis-a-vis
North Korea.
     At the U.N. Security Council, if sanction is proposed,
then Japan, to the extent Japanese laws allow, will put in place all
possible measures.
     Q    I have a question for both   leaders.  Looking at
the past six months of negotiations, we could detect so much new
mutual distrust from each side.  From American side, a distrust of
having been cheated; and from Japanese side, a distrust of this
objective criteria could be -- sanction.  So do you have any idea of
removing this distrust and changing the mood and course of coming
discussions?
     PRIME MINISTER HOSOKAWA:  Well, we'll just cool our head
for a while.
     THE PRESIDENT:  Let me say, in the last six months my
personal trust and admiration for Prime Minister Hosokawa has only
increased -- and for the government -- because of political reform,
because Japan exercised leadership in the Uruguay Round, because of
the initiatives on construction and rice, because of the fight for
tax reform and the stimulus, because of the deregulation effort.  I
think that Japan is moving in the right direction.
     Both of us came to this office carrying, if you will,
the accumulated either fears or experiences of years and years of
trade negotiations and frustrations.  So I would say that this trust
issue, I would hope, can be worked out.  But I don't want to minimize
it.  I think it's a very serious problem because the other approaches
have still left us with such a huge trade deficit which causes
consumer prices to be very high in Japan and which puts our people
here and our economy in a very difficult situation.
     So I would say that the rest of our relationship is in
good shape -- the security relationship, the political relationship.
I would say that my level of personal trust in the Prime Minister and
his government is very strong.  But I would say this is a serious
problem.
     Q    I'd like to ask the Prime Minister if, after being
here these days and having this longer-than-expected consultation
today with President Clinton, that you are more prepared than you may
have been to believe that when the United States side says, yes, we
may want numerical progress indicators, but we don't want managed
trade, that that is true?
     PRIME MINISTER HOSOKAWA:  Well, as you've just said,
rightly, we do not want managed trade and I think I speak on behalf
of everyone when I say that.  Unfortunately, as President mentioned
in passing earlier, too, we don't want numerical targets to gain a
life of its own and turn into another semiconducter case, because at
the end of the day, we believe that will lead to managed trade.
     My administration is promoting deregulation and so it
runs right in the face of our basic tenant.  This is what I've been
telling the President during our meeting today.
     THE PRESIDENT:  That if we were asking for the
semiconducter agreement, it would be right.  But that's not what
we're asking for.  What we're asking for is what we agreed to last
summer, which was a way of measuring by objective standards whether
progress is being made in opening markets.
     And I want to say, we've not sought anything for the
United States we've not sought for other countries as well.  We've
sought no special access or special treatment.  And we just seek a
list, if you will, of those things by which you could determine
whether progress is being made, or if progress is not being made,
that there are reasons other than close market policies for the lack
of progress.  There could be reasons other than that:  no domestic
demand, changes in the exchange rates, inadequate effort by
Americans, not competitive products or services.
     Q  I think that the opening of Japanese market is very
important and I think Japanese consumers and Japanese people believe
in that.  But I think the reason why you couldn't come up with an
agreement today for the framework talks is that because Japanese
people -- or the numerical target approach is not really popular
among the Japanese people or Japanese industry, including Japanese
bureaucrats.  So I wonder whether you think, Mr. President, whether
you think that you would come up with any agreement or any result or
outcome in the near future with this numerical target approach?
     Also, I wonder whether you think that is supported by
the Japanese ordinary audience?  And also, I heard that Mr. Gore
raised the question of Japanese bureaucrats in his talks with Mr.
Hata.  I wonder whether, Mr. President, if you think that the
Japanese bureaucrat is a kind of burden or a barrier in opening up
Japanese market?  (Laughter.)
     THE PRESIDENT:  I thought you'd never ask.  No.
     First of all, I understand that the numerical target is
not popular, as you said, among the Japanese people or the Japanese
government.  America's trade deficit with Japan is not very popular
among the American people or the American government.  That's it.  So
it's hard to explain it, year in and year out always getting bigger.
     I think in every society, the permanent government is
more change averse than the changing government.  I think that is
true in every society.  In some societies it's more true than others.
And the stronger the permanent civil service is, if you will, and the
making of policy, the more likely they are to be change averse.  If
you look at the history of Japan from where you started after the
second world war through the next 45-plus years, having a system in
which you produce for your own market and the world, had high savings
rates, low consumption rates, relatively closed markets and
relatively high value products, worked dramatically to improve the
standard of living of your people.

     But at some point as your growth rates become more
normal, as they have in the last 10 years, and as the capacity of
your people alters and the aspirations of your people alter, you have
to develop a more open economy and society.
     I couldn't say it anymore eloquently than the Prime
Minister did in the book that he wrote that he gave me to read.  So I
don't want to pick a fight with any particular sector of Japanese
society.  I would just say that we know we're in a process of change.
We both committed to it.  That's the good news.  I also think it's
good news that we didn't come up with an agreement today that didn't
mean anything.  And we're just going to have to keep dealing with
this and try to find some way out of it, because we have to come to
trust each other across systems that are still very different.
     Thank you very much.

For Immediate Release                                     March 18, 1994



 BACKGROUND BRIEFING
  BY
    SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL

  The Briefing Room

10:55 A.M. EST

     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Good morning, and it is
a good morning thus far.  Let me say -- (laughter.)  Always very
cautious on the national security side of the house.  (Laughter.)
Always looking behind us and up to see what's coming.
     Is the water coming?
     Q    Whitewater?  (Laughter.)
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  See I told you.
(Laughter.)  Actually, I do have something to say about that, but I
won't.
     Let me begin before turning it over to my colleague on
the various contributing that were made to making this a good
morning.  And, first of all, I think that the progress that was
represented in the signing ceremony this morning flowed first from
changes on the ground that we all have been talking about for recent
weeks and is a reflection of the relationship began between power and
diplomacy.
     I also should mention the role that has been played in
all of this by the European Union  and by the United Nations and by
the Russians over the past weeks.  And that is why all of them were
represented this morning at the signing ceremony.  And let me
especially call to your attention the extraordinary persistence and
skill that Ambassador Charles "Chuck" Redman has brought to this in
bringing all this about.
     I also should note that in the meetings that were just
completed between the President and President Izetbegovic and
President Tudjman that both of them thanked the President for his
personal role in all of this.  President Izetbegovic and I quote,
"Your role in this was a decisive one."  Also, I would note that they
both publicly and privately restated the importance to them of our
reiteration of our position on helping to implement a viable
settlement in Bosnia.
     As on so many foreign policy issues, let me again quote
Yogi Berra who said, "It ain't over 'til it's over."  And this is
not.  This is a step.  It is a very, very important step, we believe,
but it is a step in a process that will now continue.  The President
made clear in both his meetings this morning, the situation in Bosnia
is one that is always moving.  Right now, it is moving in positive
directions.  If it does not continue to move in that direction, then
it could well begin to roll back.  And that is why we will be
continuing to work on this very hard and I'll ask my colleague to
describe to you both and to talk with you both about the agreements
that were signed this morning and also run through with you the next
steps that are now before us.
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  This morning -- a very
brief bit of history so that those of you who haven't followed this
for the last three weeks understand why we got to this particular
step today and why it represents a building block, an important one,
but a building block in the context of trying to reach an overall
settlement in Bosnia and stability in the region.  [....]

     Q    Could you explain -- I'm just a little hazy, on
ratification again.  Do you give the Bosnian Serbs a certain time in
which they must respond or, fish or cut bait, how does this all work?
And in the interim, what happens with the constitution?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  The parties will try to
go ahead and implement what could be implemented without a formal
ratification.  There are a lot of the kinds of cooperation that they
are talking about that might well get underway even before they were
a constitution.  It would be, obviously, a less formal arrangement
than in the constitution.
     That's the kind of thing they are doing, for example,
with their military forces.  They may find some other ways to do
that.  They'll be actively looking at that as things settle down and
they can see more clearly what they might do on the ground.  But they
can't really take it to a constituent assembly until they know the
Serb reaction and they know the territorial parameters in which they
are operating.
     That doesn't mean there's a Serb veto on the
constitution.  It only means there needs to be a Serb decision as to
whether or not they might in fact to enter this kind of federation or
whether Bosnia will be something on the model of what has been talked
about in Geneva which would be essentially two entities under a union
arrangement -- this entity being one of them , the Muslim entity, and
a Serb entity being the other.
     In that case, the federation could probably go ahead and
establish then its constitution as the mechanism for governing itself
within its territory while recognizing that the union, which is still
Bosnia, would have some of the powers of the presidency, for example,
in terms of international affairs.  I know that's a little
complicated; but it is complicated.
     Q    What incentives are there for the Serbs?  So far,
it seems like the only things that have really gotten their attention
have been the threat of NATO air strikes.  What carrots are there for
the Serbs to join in this thing?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I think you make a
valid point.  First of all, that we need to keep up the kind of
pressures that have brought us to where we are and there are many of
those programs that are still in force and continue to be active and
we'll continue to enforce them when and where necessary.
     But at the same time, to my mind, the biggest incentive
to the Bosnian Serbs ought to be peace because they are just as hung
up in this war as anyone else.  They are not able to get on with
whatever it is they want to do economically, politically or otherwise
unless they can come to a negotiated solution.  There's obviously the
question of sanctions which is a very important issue, certainly for
Serbia, but also for the Bosnia Serbs.
     So our hope is in this particular time period that
people do indeed see that really nothing more is to be gained on the
battlefield and that this is the time now to finish this negotiation.
     Q    The details of this have not exactly been secret,
so what has been the reaction from the Serbs so far?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I have to characterize
it as preliminary because until one gets to a formal negotiation we
won't really know.  But the reaction is generally as I described it
earlier.  There would not seem to be interest in joining the
federation, per se, because it does represent a strong central
government.  At the same time, a general inclination to look at the
future Bosnia in the context of a union as have been talked about in
Geneva, only without three parts, now, rather, there only being two
parts.
     Q    What are the prospects --
     Q    But we shouldn't be ruling out -- I mean, that is
open --
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  That's right.  These
are all open to the Serbs.
     Q    But is there any hope or any thought that the Serbs
would want to federate with the other two sides?  It seems that all
the talk up to this point has been if and when they would align
themselves with Serbia.
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Again, it's hard to
speak for the Serbs at this stage.  They are going to have to look at
these arrangements -- I hope they're doing that -- and make their
decision.  Under either of the scenarios I've described, Bosnia
remains Bosnia.  It's just a question of how the various parties are
interrelated within that context.
     Q    President Izetbegovic did not sound like he was
ready to give up on the idea of significant territorial concessions
from the Serbs today.  How much -- President Clinton in the past has
talked about a couple of percentage points of land, a very minor
amount of land that is in these qualitative choices.  How much would
the Serbs have to give up to be able to get Izetbegovic into a deal?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  That's  part of the
dynamic of the negotiation.  We do have quantitative parameters that
have been on the table that the parties have indicated agreement with
since November-December as part of the EU effort at that time.  And
that does provide at this stage the best we can see that the parties
have generally agreed to.  But I, having been associated with this
now, for eight or nine months, I'd be the last to say that these
people are predictable and that as we work through these issues,
we're simply going to have to do what we can to keep people within
the bounds of what can be negotiable, but at the same time, what can
be acceptable.  And what is acceptable then gets to the points that
you were referring.
     Q    How much more difficult do you think it will be to
get from this point now to an overall settlement than it was to get
to this agreement between the Muslims and the Croats?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  When we started this
process with the Muslims and Croats, almost everyone told us we were
wasting our time, that it was impossible.  So we did get that in any
case.  Now, unfortunately, I'm not prepared to say that that means
that the next phase will follow that same kind of track.
     I tried to indicate a bit the complexity of that because
of the number of parties involved now, the issues which are not just
Bosnian but also having to do with Croatia and sanctions.  And that
becomes a very tricky mix.  So we're going to have to be patient,
take advantage of the momentum, but it's going to have to be done
right and there are interests on all sides that are going to have to
be taken into account.
     So all I can say is that we're going to work this as
fast as we can within those confines.
     Q    Two questions.  The first involves the timing for
the Serbs to give you an indication of which way they're going to go
on this.  Are we talking a matter of weeks, months?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Again, I didn't put any
deadlines, but we are certainly thinking in terms of weeks in order
to get to this next phase, not months.
     Q    My next question involves the embassy in Sarajevo.
What will be the protection there?  What's the deal?  I understand
that there's some questions about the normal 100-plus Marine
contingent and the President's assertion that no U.S. troops will go
into Bosnia until there's a comprehensive settlement.
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I don't have a precise
answer in terms of what it will take to provide security.  That
obviously is a key question because we don't want to open an embassy
and expose our people to unnecessary risk.  We have been going in and
out of Bosnia quite frequently throughout the war, but also, in the
last week since things have settled down, so that the teams that have
gone out have looked at it in that context.
     Exactly what they will come up with in terms of
recommendation I haven't seen yet.  I don't think anyone has seen it
yet.  But I know in my own case, traveling in and out of there,
existing there -- in the case of Ambassador Jacovich, who comes and
goes -- I don't know how to characterize this, but nonetheless, the
amount of security it takes now to be safe there is already
considerably less than what it was a month and a half ago in terms of
just a small group of people moving around.  Now, that's different,
of course, from having an embassy.  But a lot of that would depend on
where that embassy was located, what part of town, structure.  I
mean, there are a lot of technical people who are examining that.
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  That is an issue we'll
be examining.  Let me note that there are already American soldiers
who have been in Bosnia assigned to the U.N. Headquarters in
Kiseljak.  So we have never said no American soldier may ever set
foot in Bosnia.  What we have said is we will not send troops or
forces in.  I'm not trying to open up an opening here.  This is an
issue we will be looking at.  I'm just trying to clarify that one
technical point.
     Q    But do I understand that no thought is being given
to opening an embassy without security?  There will be some soldiers
there --
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  This is an issue we
will be looking at.
     Q    So some thought is being given then to opening an
embassy minus the normal -- not the number of --
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  No, I didn't say that.
I said that we are looking at all of the practical details involved
in opening an embassy.
     Q    Should the Serbs refuse to part of any union with
this new federation, is it an option which would be acceptable to
you?  I mean, do they have this option of going it alone, or refusing
to be part of any arrangement?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I'm really not in a
position to speculate on those kinds of questions at this stage.  All
I can do is tell you what the track record of the negotiations has
shown to date, and from what we continue to hear from the parties,
which is that they all at this stage seem to indicate that they are
negotiating on the basis of the union type arrangement.
     Q    What role do you think the Russians need to play in
this?  Are they critical to bringing the Serbs in?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  It's going to be a very
important role.  I think, first of all, we should recognize we all
have roles to play with all these parties.  It's not that the
Russians deal only with the Serbs, nor that I deal only with the
Bosnians or the Croats.  We all stay in touch with all of the
parties, and I think the parties appreciate that and like it that
way.
     What we are trying to do, what we will try to do is to
construct an effort which can draw the support essentially of the
U.S., Russia and the EU.  And if we can keep that sort of core group
on board in terms of what we think could be a reasonable, acceptable
negotiated solution, then I think that will give us a much greater
chance of doing that.  That's not necessarily going to be easy
because people do have somewhat different interests, but thus far, I
think our efforts to work with the Russians and the EU have been
pretty successful.  It does become more difficult now, and so it's
going to take even more intensive consultations.
     But you may have noticed that Deputy Minister Churkin
was here for this event today.  I met with him last night.  We will
continue these kinds of very close contacts to see if we can't make
this a coordinated effort.
     Someone who hasn't asked one, in the back.
     Q       you said a very major reconstruction effort is
going to be needed in Bosnia.  Do you have any idea how much money is
involved here?  And do you envision any U.S. military personnel being
to help in the reconstruction?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I don't have any
answers to those questions right now.  Those are the kinds of things
that will have to be studied.
     Q    Whether or not it's a federation or a union, do the
Serbs have to make territorial concessions, and have they indicated
in Geneva a willingness to do that?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  All we can say at this
stage is, number one, we know something about the quantitative
parameter that have been talked about in Geneva to which the Serbs as
well as others have indicated general agreement.  I say general
agreement because until you have people's signature on a bottom line,
you never know.  And secondly, they know as well as anyone else that
these negotiations have faltered thus far on these questions of
quality which means that the kind of territory that eventually has to
appear on that map on the side of the Bosnian-Croat entity is
different than what they had been prepared to offer heretofore.  And
so that's the framework in which we are operating and to which we
have to find some new solutions, we hope.
     Q    And if I could follow up -- the Croat Muslim
federation has said that they need at least 50 percent of the land in
Bosnia?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Well, if you take the
parameters that have been on the table in Geneva, and you add up the
Muslim plus the Croat entities, you get just about 51 percent.
     Thank you.

For Immediate Release                                  March 23, 1994

    PRESS BRIEFING
   BY DEE DEE MYERS

  The Briefing Room

1:46 P.M. EST

     Q    Could we have your name for the record, please?
(Laughter.)
     Q    Spell it, please.
     MS. MYERS:  You might remember me.  My name is Dee Dee
-- two words -- Myers.  I've missed you all desperately.
     Q    Wait a minute, hold on.  Don't start off on that
note, we can't believe anything you say.
     MS. MYERS:  In keeping with everything else I'm about to
say.  Okay, one quick announcement.  Tomorrow evening at 7:30 p.m.,
President Clinton will hold a news conference in the East Room.  It's
an opportunity for him, I think, to talk about some significant
developments in Washington and around the world, and to answer a few
questions that you all might have before Congress goes out and the
President takes a few days off.
     He will be leaving for Texas on Friday afternoon at
about 4:00 p.m.  And the rest of the vacation plans -- or next week's
plans are still being formalized.
     Q    Come on.
     MS. MYERS:  So as soon as we have details, we'll forward
them to you.
     Q    How long is he expected to talk tomorrow night?
     MS. MYERS:  I think he'll make an opening statement,
somewhere between five minutes, maybe a little bit longer, and then
take questions.
     Q    For how long?  I mean, is this going to be a longer
than usual --
     MS. MYERS:  Oh, I think a normal press conference.
     Q    On Whitewater?
     MS. MYERS:  I would expect there will be questions on
Whitewater as well as other topics.  I think he'll open with a formal
statement, as he often does, and talk about a number of things, and
then open the floor to questions.  It will go 30-ish minutes.
     Q    Are White House officials checking to see whether
the problem -- the hang-up on background checks and passes had to do
with Mr. Kennedy's office and whether he was slow in turning papers
over and processing some of those --
     MS. MYERS:  No, I think we're familiar with the process.
Essentially what happens is, all employees here, the White House
staff, are expected to submit detailed forms, questionnaires, if you
will.  Those forms then go to the FBI.  The FBI does a background
investigation which then comes back to the Counsel's Office, where
it's adjudicated.  The FBI doesn't make a judgment about the
information, they simply pass it on to the Counsel's Office.
     Q      Can it stall in the Counsel's Office, as was
reported by The Washington Times today?
     MS. MYERS:  I think that there have -- initially, the
process was somewhat slow on a number of levels.  I think it takes a
while to get the paperwork done.  It then takes at a minimum -- I
think the FBI says about 45 days.  It often takes 45 to 60 to 90 days
to complete the background investigation; and it comes back to the
Counsel's Office where it's adjudicated.
     At that point, there are still -- then it goes to the
Secret Service.  They're given a chance to review it and decide
whether they want to recommend a person not be given a security
clearance or a permanent pass.  It then goes back to the Counsel's
Office and then employees are expected to take a few other
administrative steps.  For example, they're expected to either attend
a briefing or see a video on how to handle classified documents.
     Q    At what stage, if at all, did it get slowed down --
the issue raised in this report today.
     MS. MYERS:  Well, I think that initially it was slowed
at a number of points -- people getting their paperwork in, the FBI,
as you know, had a huge backlog of cases.  And then I think it did
take a while not just in the Counsel's Office, but it's also in the
White House Security Office here.
     Q    Are there any changes in Mr. Kennedy's duties?
     MS. MYERS:  I think Mack McLarty, the Chief of Staff, is
reviewing the situation based on recent news accounts.  There's been
nothing to report yet.
     Q    Did you talk to Mr. Kennedy this morning?  He said
he had not talked to you.
     MS. MYERS:  I did have a chance to speak with him, yes.
     Q    And did he tell you whether or not he deliberately
concealed his failure to pay back taxes and revealed it only because
he was afraid that it was going to come out in the divorce --
     MS. MYERS:  He didn't deliberately conceal it.  In fact,
I think there was a difference in The Washington Post early version
and then the final addition actually had that accurate.  I'm sure the
reporter had it precisely right from the beginning, but it was an
editing error.
     Q    Not guilty --
     MS. MYERS:  Yes.  But anyway, he did not do it to
deliberately mislead anybody.  He actually paid the taxes before he
was even -- for 1992, before he was even solicited or asked to come
work at the White House.  In the wake of the, I think, revelations in
the Zoe Beard and other cases, that this was something that everybody
should do.
     Q    What about the 1991 taxes?
     MS. MYERS:  He didn't have records then and should have
gone back and estimated based on his 1992 payment.  But he didn't do
it and it was a mistake.
     Q    Why did he not?
     MS. MYERS:  It was a mistake; he should have.
     Q    When he paid the 1992 payment he expected to come
to work in the White House.
     MS. MYERS:  No, I think he paid them before he came to
work in the White House.
     Q    No -- well, yes, but not before he expected to
come.
     Q    Mr. Kennedy, yesterday, said that he had had a
conversation with Vince Foster about the possibility of working at
the White House; at that point he mentioned he had a tax problem;
then he took care of it -- is the scenario that he outlined.  Do you
think that's -- I misunderstood that?
     MS. MYERS:  Well, my understanding is -- and I will be
happy to double-check this -- is that he -- in January of last year,
as you know, this became an issue.  People became aware that they
should be paying taxes on any payments over $50 a quarter.  He paid
it and he let Vince Foster know that he had been out of compliance,
but that he had discovered it and then gotten in compliance.  So he
had been out of compliance, as had other people, previous to January
of 1993.
     Q    If he could have estimated three weeks ago how much
to pay --
     MS. MYERS:  He should have.
     Q       why didn't he estimate it --
     MS. MYERS:  It was a mistake.  He didn't have records.
     Q    Well, then why do you say he was ever in
compliance?
     MS. MYERS:  He was in compliance -- I'm only saying that
with reference to 1992.  In January of 1993, he paid back taxes for
1992.  He did not pay back taxes for 1991.  He believes that he
should have done that.  He didn't do it at the time because he didn't
have records.  He says that that's no excuse -- he should have paid
the taxes.  He has since gone back and --
     Q    Well, why the belated change of heart?  Why the
belated change of heart that he should do it now?
     MS. MYERS:  It was a mistake.
     Q    Was it the fear of this coming out in the divorce
proceeding?
     Q    What kind of mistake?
     MS. MYERS:  An honest mistake.
     Q    I know, but was it an error in judgment, an error
of what?  His pen broke, or what?
     MS. MYERS:  Yes, I think that he -- he had records for
1992.  He did not have records for 1991.  He should have estimated or
done what others did in order to come in compliance with previous
years.  He didn't do that.  He should have.
     Q    Does the Chief of Staff have confidence that
Kennedy after these "mistakes" is the right person to be doing
background checks and to be handling such a sensitive job in the
White House?
     MS. MYERS:  I think Mr. Kennedy has done a good job with
a number of responsibilities during his tenure here.  Mack McLarty is
reviewing the situation in light of this new information.  And I have
nothing else for you on that.
     Q    I'm a little confused because I've sort of been
following this -- is there some of sort of objective standard that
you guys have applying to men and women when it comes to the nanny --
     MS. MYERS:  Only to say that -- two things.  One is that
is it not disqualifying.  If people have situations where they have
not paid all the taxes on household help or had not -- certainly as
of early last year had not paid taxes on household help and were out
of compliance for some period of time, that's not disqualifying.  It
depends on the circumstances.
     However, before people come to work here, we do expect
that they get in compliance.  And that's been the standard for both
men and women.  There's no difference.
     Q    It sounds to me -- I may not understand this --that
Kennedy clearly did not meet that standard.
     MS. MYERS:  He had not -- this is correct -- he had not
paid his 1991 taxes, which he has since done.  It's around $800.
     Q       under the name of his ex-wife, right?
     MS. MYERS:  His wife paid it under her previously
married name, which is a name that she occasionally uses.  She had a
business before she married Mr. Kennedy.
     Q    But is this -- is this the kind of behavior that
you guys think is appropriate for someone who's in the Counsel's
Office?
     MS. MYERS:  Again, I think Mr. Kennedy has admitted that
he made a mistake, that he should have paid the taxes.  He has served
the President ably and well in a number of capacities.  Mack McLarty,
the Chief of Staff, is reviewing it.  And I just don't have anything
else for you on that.
     Q    Is there any timetable on his review of the matter?
     MS. MYERS:  No.
     Q    One other thing about Mr. Kennedy.  There were
sources quoted in The Washington Times to the effect that hundreds of
White House aides or White House applicants for passes had been held
up by the FBI because of what might be disqualifying information
about them turned up by the FBI.  What's the truth of that?
     MS. MYERS:  That's not true.  It's absolutely not true.
Occasionally --
     Q    Were there a number?
     MS. MYERS:  I don't think anybody -- I'll double-check
this -- I don't think anybody has been disqualified based on
information turned up by the FBI.
     Q    Well, has anybody's application for a permanent
pass been held up and a temporary pass used instead because of that?
     MS. MYERS:  What happens a lot of times, in many cases,
that the FBI comes back and they want additional information.  For
example, somebody didn't put -- three residences back, didn't list an
address properly.  They come back -- many of the applications come
back -- and I don't have a specific number -- but come back with some
kind of request for additional information.  It is usually fairly
straight forward kind of request.  But I do not believe there are any
cases, and again, I will double-check this and post it, of people who
have been disqualified.
     Q    Or about whom disqualifying information has been
turned up, and they've been kept on temporary passes instead -- has
that happened?
     MS. MYERS:  Not that -- I don't think so.  So let me
double-check.
     Q    That same article specifically mentioned possible
drug use and tax problems for those people.  It didn't talk about
just not giving addresses filled in.
     MS. MYERS:  Right.  I'm not suggesting that -- what I'm
saying is that there are definitely not -- there are a large number
-- not a large number, but there are a significant number that come
back with a request for additional information.  And I think there
may be some confusion based on that.  Just because the FBI comes back
and says, this is incomplete and that we need additional information,
has nothing to do with whether they eventually complete the process.
     Now, on the question of whether there are people that
are specifically on permanent passes -- I mean, on temporary passes,
because the FBI turned up something, I will -- actually, I will take
that question.  I do not know of anybody.
     Q    Who on the senior staff still does not have a
permanent White House pass, other than you?
     MS. MYERS:  There are about 10 percent of people who do
not have permanent passes, which is different than having a security
clearance.  Everyone understand that?
     Q    But you don't have a permanent White House pass?
     MS. MYERS:  No, I don't, because I have not completed my
background investigation, although I have completed my paperwork, as
was widely reported.
     So what happens is, you submit your background
information.  The FBI returns the report; it is adjudicated by the
Counsel's Office and then you have a security clearance.  Then you
have a few other administrative steps before you actually get your
permanent pass.  About 10 percent of the 1,044 -- we're slightly
under that level now -- but about 10 percent of the over 1,000 White
House employees do not have security clearances, and slightly --
actually more than that do not have permanent passes.
     Q    Dee Dee, how does that translate if you're in the
midst of a sensitive conversation?  Do you have to leave the room if
it's national security?
     MS. MYERS:  Generally, that would be the idea.
     Q    Have there been cases, have there been instances of
that happening?
     MS. MYERS:  I don't know.
     Q    Dee Dee, can I ask a question on this?  Why did the
wife of Mr. Kennedy pay the back taxes with a check in her former
name if she was going by his name at that point?  What's the
reasoning for that?
     MS. MYERS:  She handled household help for the couple.
They actually paid it through their accounting firm who handles all
their taxes -- and she has -- Mr. Kennedy said that she's made a
couple of other transactions in her previously married name, although
he couldn't specifically remember any.  But she went by that name
professionally.  She had a business under her previously married
name, and so has used that name from time to time.  I think it was
before he -- again, I'm going to double-check this, too, but he paid
those before he came here and before he even had talked to Vince
about coming here.
     Q    Dee Dee, the lead of The Washington Times story --I
still am confused.  I don't think we have an answer yet --
     MS. MYERS:  Why don't you read it to me?
     Q       which is that "White House Associate Counsel
William H. Kennedy III's decision to hold back hundreds of completed
FBI background reports was the chief reason many White House
employees did not have permanent access passes before assuming their
jobs."
     MS. MYERS:  It just doesn't work that way.
     Q    So you're saying that that's not the procedure.
     MS. MYERS:  Right.  Background investigations come back
from the FBI and they come to the Counsel's Office.  And there has
been, in the past, a backlog of background investigations that are
waiting to be adjudicated.  Because the FBI doesn't make a judgment
about whether or not people should get background checks, it comes to
the Counsel's Office and the Counsel's Office then -- it's actually a
process under the auspices of the Counsel's Office -- then reviews
the investigations.  I think that there have been periods where there
have been a lot of BIs -- background investigations -- waiting to be
adjudicated to give people security clearances and to finish that
process.  He did not deliberately hold them back, and he certainly
did not deliberately hold them back because there was information in
there that was damaging to people.
     Q    And just to clarify what you had just said -- you
said about 10 percent of the senior staff don't have security
clearances?
     MS. MYERS:  Correct.
     Q    And slightly more than that don't have permanent --
     MS. MYERS:  Actually, I think it's about -- I need to
double-check -- I think it's about a third don't have permanent
passes.  A third of the White House staff.  And I don't have how that
--
     Q    A third of 1,004 or a third of --
     MS. MYERS:   Correct.  A third of the White House staff,
which we've defined as 1,044.
     Q    Don't have what?
     MS. MYERS:  Do not have permanent passes.
     Q    And 10 percent don't have security clearance?
     MS. MYERS:  Correct, 10 percent don't have security
clearances, have not had --
     Q    Could you please explain how these numbers keep
changing?
     MS. MYERS:  These are the ones I gave --
     Q    No, no, no --
     MS. MYERS:  Yes.
     Q    No, we were at -- we started at 15 people, to be
precise.  And then we went up to 10 percent --
     MS. MYERS:  Right.
     Q    Of senior staff, not the whole --
     Q    No, of the 1,044.  Now we're up to 33 percent?
     MS. MYERS:  Ten percent don't have security clearances,
okay?
     Q    Oh, okay.
     MS. MYERS:  Ten percent of 1,044.  Let me just go
through this just so that everybody is clear.
     Q    We're mixing apples and oranges.
     MS. MYERS:  Yes, we're mixing apples and oranges.  Let
me go through -- I'll just walk through it one more time.
     Everybody who works here fills out paperwork which is
then forwarded to the FBI for a background investigation.  The FBI
then resubmits that to the Counsel's Office.  The Counsel's Office
then reviews it.  They adjudicate it.  It goes to the Secret Service.
The Secret Service reviews it.  If they have a problem with it they
could veto somebody getting a pass.  It then comes back to the
Counsel's Office.  Once it's adjudicated, people are eligible for a
security clearance up to top secret.  Not everybody who is eligible
for a security clearance necessarily has one, but they're eligible
based on their -- they cleared their background check.
     Q    Is everyone eligible for it?
     MS. MYERS:  Everybody who's cleared the process, but
that doesn't mean that they have one.  Security clearances are
actually issued on a need to know basis.  So if your an assistant on
the Domestic Policy Council, maybe you don't ever see sensitive
documents.
     Q    But to compare apples to apples, how many of those
1,044 are on a need to know basis?  I mean, to make that 10 percent
relevant, how many should have them that don't?
     MS. MYERS:  I don't have a specific number on that.  Of
all the White House staff, of the 1,044, about 10 percent are still
waiting to get their adjudicated background checks which means that
they're eligible then for security clearance.  I think there are very
few on the senior staff and I think I have the number somewhere; I'll
have to get them and I can post those, too.  As of the senior staff
being defined as, say, assistants, special assistants and deputy
assistants, which is around 125 people, I think there's maybe a
handful.
     Q    Would you post names, Dee Dee?
     MS. MYERS:  No, I will not post names, but I will post
numbers.
     Q    Why not names?
     Q    Aren't you mistaken about this -- you have to have
a security clearance to be around the President, right?  Everybody
has to have it, right?
     MS. MYERS:  No, but you have to -- you do go through
another --
     Q    You're confusing security clearance with classified
documents.  That's something totally different.  But it's my
understanding that everybody has to have security clearance --
     MS. MYERS:  Yes.  (Laughter.)  Okay, so then what
happens is you have an adjudicated background check.  You're eligible
for a security clearance.  Then there's a few other administrative
steps that we are expected to take in order to get our permanent
pass.  They say you can't get your permanent -- it's a way -- it's a
leverage point.  You have to have done a number of other things on
ethics and how to handle classified documents.  Then your permanent
pass is issued.
     We -- about two-thirds of the 1,044 have permanent
passes.  The other third are in process.  So that's where the numbers
stand.
     Q    Is it not against the law for them to be working
here without having had security clearance?
     MS. MYERS:  Everybody gets cleared through the national
--
     Q    Is it not against the law for them to work here --
     MS. MYERS:  Everybody gets cleared in through the NCIC
computer system who comes on to this compound.  So people who are
around the President have been cleared in through the Secret Service.
So in terms of his physical security, that's something that's very
carefully dealt with.
     Q    Cardinal Hickey sent the President a letter which
is very critical of Joycelyn Elders' remarks on homosexuality.  I
wonder if there's any response to his criticism and whether the
President associates himself with Ms. Elders' remarks?
     MS. MYERS:  I believe the letter arrived here last
night, and the President has not had a chance to review it.
     Q    What about the second part of that question?  This
issue has arisen before and she's apologized in the past.  Has the
President reviewed what --
     MS. MYERS:  He just hasn't had a chance to review it yet
and has nothing on it.
     Q    You said this morning that Kennedy was not going to
be leaving.  And then you said something about it being reviewed.  Is
Kennedy's status being reviewed?
     MS. MYERS:  He is not -- you asked if he was intending
to resign, and he is not.
     Q    Where does Patsy Thomasson --
     Q    No, wait, wait a minute.
     Q    Is he intending to be fired?  (Laughter.)
     MS. MYERS:  No, no.  I don't want to lead it --
     Q    What's being reviewed?
     MS. MYERS:  Just the whole -- the circumstances, the
situation.  But Mr. Kennedy is not intending to resign.
     Q    The tax situation?
     MS. MYERS:  The tax situation and the implications.
     Q    Dee Dee, can I go back to -- early in the
administration, we'd gone the Kimba Wood and all of that sort of
stuff.  You said from this podium, or at least you're quoted in a
wire story as saying that everyone in the administration has been
told to be in compliance.  It's not disqualifying, everybody --
     MS. MYERS:  Right.
     Q    So that's one case where he didn't follow that
situation.  He says that Vince Foster told him to pay up -- that is,
both years pay up.  That's another situation.  He said that Bernie
told him to pay up.  That's a third situation.  Do you know of any
other situation -- I mean, that amounts to three sort of direct
orders by somebody that you should get in compliance.  Now, is there
any rule in this administration about how many times?  Is this a
three strikes and you're out?  (Laughter).  Why should anyone think
that you have to comply with somebody's orders if you can continue
for 14 months and not.
     MS. MYERS:  I think we ought to put this in perspective
a bit here.  First of all, there is no hard and fast rule; and I
think most people here have complied -- everybody else that, to my
knowledge, has complied with --
     Q    There is no rule that you have to pay Social
Security taxes?
     MS. MYERS:  No, there's no rule about what to do if --
this is a --
     Q    You didn't.
     MS. MYERS:  Yes, if you didn't.  But I think --
     Q       exchange of letters with Joe Biden in April.
Isn't that --
     MS. MYERS:  Yes, that everybody -- no, the issue is what
-- there's no specific set of rules to do -- what happens if you find
out somebody's not in compliance.  There is no specific rule on that.
He owed about $800 in back taxes.  He should have paid them.  He has
now paid them.  It is being reviewed.  I just can't say anything more
than that.  But it is an $800 mistake, and something that he wishes,
I think, that he had dealt with but didn't.
     Q    Has anybody asked the White House as a whole
whether there's anybody else now who hasn't complied with this?
     MS. MYERS:  Not to my knowledge.  I don't think there's
been any general request.
     Q    Dee Dee, where does Patsy Thomasson fit into all
this?  I'm a little confused what her job is on the whole passes and
clearances.  How does she fit into that format?
     MS. MYERS:  She -- boy, I'm not sure exactly how she
fits in it, although she obviously is one of the people in the Office
of Administration, has some responsibilities with regard to this.
I'll have to take that to find out exactly what her responsibilities
are with respect to passes.
     Q    Can you tell us the President's view on this
Kennedy matter?  Has he talked to McLarty about it today?
     MS. MYERS:  He's not talked to Mr. Kennedy.  I do not
know if he's talked to Mr. McLarty about this specifically.  I think
he's seen news accounts of it.  And I have not talked specifically
with him about it.
     Q    Will those four political consultants who have
passes or come here on a regular basis now be required to have FBI
background checks as regular White House employees?
     MS. MYERS:  Yes.
     Q    When was that decision made?
     MS. MYERS:  Last week, I believe.
     Q    They're due tomorrow, right, or Friday?
     MS. MYERS:  The background -- yes, I'm not sure.  I'll
have to take that because I missed that episode.
     Q    And as far as you know, have all four agreed to
that?
     MS. MYERS:  Yes, I don't think there's any problems.
Let me take it.  I don't know of anybody that's disagreed.  My
assumption is that they're all proceeding.
     Q    Does Mr. Cutler have the authority to get rid of
Mr. Kennedy if he thinks this is not in line with the kind of ethical
standards he's talked about keeping upheld here?
     MS. MYERS:  I think that all of the department heads
have some latitude in terms of who their staff are.
     Q    So has he reviewed this situation, or is he
reviewing the situation?
     MS. MYERS:  He has discussed it with Mr. Kennedy.
     Q    What is his conclusion?
     MS. MYERS:  I have not talked to him about it.  And I
think under any circumstances, the substance of that conversation
would be kept confidential.
     Q    When you say that Mack is reviewing it, though, is
it something that he and Cutler will be reviewing together?
     MS. MYERS:  I think that Mack will talk to Mr. Cutler as
well as with anybody else he feels is appropriate.
     Q    I mean, clearly, the impression is that he's not
going to be around long.
     MS. MYERS:  Well, I wouldn't -- don't jump to
conclusions.  I mean --
     Q    Is he reviewing it with an eye for taking action,
or is he just reviewing it just to file a report that says --
     MS. MYERS:  He's reviewing it, and I think that based on
that review, he'll make a decision about how to handle it.  But don't
assume that it means that Bill will be leaving.
     Q    We're not assuming; we're just trying to figure out
exactly what a review means.
     MS. MYERS:  I can't give you an answer to what the
action will be because there hasn't been a decision.  But it is being
reviewed.  And I think if you use your imagination, you'll probably
come up with a couple other options besides him leaving.
     Q    But you told us there's no hard and fast rule about
what to do in a case like this.
     MS. MYERS:  Correct.
     Q    What are we to believe will happen --
     MS. MYERS:  That it's under review and that as soon as
we have more to say about it, we will.
     Q    Can you say anything about the fact that the first
vote has been taken on the Clinton health care plan and not a single
Democrat on Ways and Means was willing to vote for it?
     MS. MYERS:  Well, I think, clearly, that was a
politically motivated vote.
     Q    Oh, I'm shocked.
     Q    On both sides, or -- politically motivated
Democrats have now voted against the President -- is that what you're
saying?
     MS. MYERS:  I think the Democrats, I believe -- didn't
they all abstain?
     Q    Yes.
     Q    They did, yes.
     Q    My question was why --
     Q    Well, that's a resounding vote of approval, isn't
it?
     Q       a single Democrat was -- to vote for it.
     MS. MYERS:  I think that the health care plan is working
its way through Congress.  I think the Democrats and many of the
Republicans are making a very hard and fast effort to come up with a
compromise that will both meet the President's objectives, which is
guaranteed private insurance for every American --
     Q    Spare us.
     MS. MYERS:  Okay, I'll spare you the litany.  But I
think they're working very hard on it and it's working its way
through the process, and I think that an up or down vote on the
President's plan doesn't have any meaning in this process.
     Q    Well, some of the committee Democrats claim that
the reason they didn't vote for it, that they voted present, was
because they have improved on the plan and couldn't present their
version.  They think the President's plan needs to be improved upon,
tweaked, modified, helped out here and there.
     MS. MYERS:  We're open to that.  That's what we said
throughout this process -- that if members of Congress have a better
idea about how to reach the President's bottom line, great, let's see
them.  And I think many of the members of Congress are making a very
good faith attempt to find a better way, to find a way that meets the
President's objectives and can get through Congress.  So we'll see
how it goes.
     Q    Can you give us an update on Pollard?
     MS. MYERS:  The White House received the recommendation
last night or yesterday afternoon.  It has been forwarded to the
President.  I don't believe the President has had a chance to -- he
hasn't had a chance to see it yet, and we'll have a decision, I
think, soon, but I don't have a specific timetable.
     Q    But walk us through the process that  was used in
getting the recommendation to the President.
     MS. MYERS:  The Justice Department gathers opinions from
the other departments -- the State Department and others -- and puts
them together, and then forwards them to the President.
     Q    With its own --
     MS. MYERS:  The Attorney General has the option of
actually commenting on it, which, in this case, Attorney General
Janet Reno did.
     Q    Did you get two separate recommendations from
Justice, one from Heymann's office -- or Heymann's former office as
well as from Reno?
     MS. MYERS:  I think it's the one recommendation with
comments from the Attorney General -- is how the process works.
     Q    Was there indication that the Deputy Attorney
General disagreed with the Attorney General's position?
     MS. MYERS:  I'm not going to comment on the substance of
whose position is what.
     Q    Phil Heymann says that he talked to Nussbaum on
three or four occasions prior to submitting his recommendation in
January before he left Justice.  Can you comment on the propriety of
the Justice Department consulting with the White House on preparing
the recommendation whether to pardon or grant clemency?
     MS. MYERS:  I don't have any --
     Q    Why wouldn't he?
     Q    Why can't they?
     Q    What was the issue?
     MS. MYERS:  The question was, is it proper for the White
House and the Justice Department to consult.
     Q    Over a policy matter?
     MS. MYERS:  Yes, over a policy matter.
     Q    Oh, it sets a dangerous precedent.  (Laughter.)
     Q    Can't have that.
     MS. MYERS:  It does get a little confusing about who can
talk to who around here, however.
     Q    That's a good question.  Would you care to address
whether -- Altman is reporting that he's notifying if he's recusing
himself.
     MS. MYERS:  Well, I can't comment on that, as you know,
because --
     Q    They're reporting that the Justice Department is
reviewing the recommendations and modifying them -- Hearst reported
that the Justice Department modified its recommendations after
Nussbaum suggested --
     MS. MYERS:  I think there's a big difference between an
independent regulatory agency and a Cabinet level department.  And I
think we talk regularly to people in Cabinet level departments.  Now,
I think it's fair to say that -- and we have a policy regarding how
we should deal with regulatory agencies.  But I see nothing improper
about the White House talking to the Justice Department on a number
of issues.
     Q    Heymann says he submitted his draft recommendation
to Nussbaum before Christmas.  I've talked to other former attorneys
general, and they say that's extremely unusual.  They've never seen a
case where a draft recommendation on a pardon or clemency was ever
cleared through the White House in advance of formally presenting it
to the President.  Can you comment on that?
     MS. MYERS:  I don't know enough about it.  I don't know
what previous administrations have done specifically in regard to
clemency.  I can certainly take it and find out from Counsel if
there's any reason why we should be uncomfortable with this.  I know
of no reason at this point.
     Q    On that point, could I follow that question,
please?  Because this story is one that Hearst supplied to us as
well, and we're concerned about it.  They reported that Nussbaum
recommended modifications in the way the recommendation was presented
prior to the time that Janet Reno ever saw it.  So that, in effect,
Heymann was negotiating with Nussbaum on what would be recommended
before the Cabinet member that you say should consult with the White
House --
     MS. MYERS:  No, I didn't say the Cabinet member, I said
Cabinet-level agencies.  But the way  the process normally works is
that the Deputy Attorney General is responsible for collecting the
information.  The Attorney General has the option of commenting on
it, which, in this case, Janet Reno exercised.
     Q    After the White House modifies it to their liking,
though.
     MS. MYERS:  Those are internal discussions, and I'm not
going to get into the substance of them.   But I don't see -- I'm
happy to take this and find out if there's anything that legally I'm
missing here.  But I think it's normal procedure.
     Q    Can you answer or characterize the letter that
Clinton sent to Prime Minister Chretien on the Canada trade disputes?
And do you know if the White House is ready to sign off on use of
Article 28 of GATT?
     MS. MYERS:  I don't have anything on that -- on the
letter.
     Q    Can you verify whether Rubin and others have come
out in opposition in use of Article 28?
     MS. MYERS:  I don't.  I have to take that.  I don't have
anything for you on it.
     Q    Do you know if there's any timetable on David
Kendall's review of the Clinton's back taxes?  Have you heard when
that might be?
     MS. MYERS:  It's ongoing.
     Q    Do you know any more than that?
     MS. MYERS:  We don't have any more specific timetable on
that at this point.
     Q    It's not likely to be released before the press
conference?
     MS. MYERS:  No, I wouldn't make that -- jump to that
conclusion.
     Q    Whoa, that it won't be or that it will be?
     MS. MYERS:  Don't jump to the conclusion that it will
be.
     Q    That it will be.
     Q    But is it possible?
     MS. MYERS:  I don't think they've made a decision on it
yet.  I don't want to rule anything --
     Q    Is it near enough to being done to where they could
be considering it?
     MS. MYERS:  I think that they're looking at their -- at
the entire situation.  But I don't want to lead you one direction or
another on this.  They just simply haven't made a decision about
whether or not they would make those public.
     Q    Do they have them -- the last some of us checked
was yesterday and they said they were still being worked on.
     MS. MYERS:  I think they're still being reviewed.
     Q    What about the '78-'79 returns?
     MS. MYERS:  That's what we're talking about here, right?
     Q    I thought the whole tax review -- we were talking
about the consequences of the whole tax review.
     MS. MYERS:  I'm sorry.  I thought the question was --
when you said releasing returns, I assumed that it was the late '70s
tax returns.  I'm sorry, maybe I misunderstood your question.  Let's
start over.
     Q    Okay, let's start over.  Kendall, according to the
White House, has been preparing an examination of the whole
Whitewater situation and possibly its effect on their returns.  Are
you -- when The New York Times reported that all kinds of new, redone
returns are being done, the White House over the weekend said that
was not the case.
     MS. MYERS:  Right.
     Q    What exactly is it that you are -- maybe might
release?
     MS. MYERS:  Well, I mean --
     Q    Or might not.
     MS. MYERS:  Might not.  I don't want to get too specific
about what might or might not be released.  I think I misunderstood
the question.  What was said over the weekend was that the Clintons
tax returns were prepared by certified public accountants and that
they didn't think there was anything wrong with them.  And I think
David Kendall's looking --
     Q    Other than they may have been incorrect.
(Laughter.)
     MS. MYERS:  We're running out of time here.
     Q    Although what could be wrong with them besides
that?  Would they be done on the wrong paper or would they be --
     MS. MYERS:  No, I think -- we made a statement on the
status of that review.  They were prepared by certified public
accountants, and we have no reason to believe that there's anything
wrong with them.  Kendall's looking at a whole variety of things.
There has been an ongoing question about whether the Clintons would
release tax returns prior to 1980.  That was for some reason what I
heard the question to be.
     Q    Oh, that's what they might release.
     MS. MYERS:  No, I didn't -- I said that's under review
and I'm not going to say, I'm not going to give it any kind of a time
line or any kind of -- I don't want to lead you one or another on it,
other than to say that's a question that has been raised and
something that, I think, has been discussed.
     Q    Is Mrs. Clinton taking part in this press
conference tomorrow?
     MS. MYERS:  No.
     Q    I saw Warren Christopher outside.  Did he meet with
the President and do you have anything on these allegations of toxic
weapons in North Korea or Russia?
     MS. MYERS:  I don't.  If the Secretary -- I don't
believe the Secretary of State met with the President this morning.
     Q    Can you answer the question about whether the
Clintons are still standing behind the Lyons report?
     MS. MYERS:  I think that that's one of the things that
is being looked at in the context of the counsel's -- I mean, the
special counsel's procedure.  And I don't think I have anything --
     Q    Is that saying that Kendall is reviewing it as
well?
     MS. MYERS:  I don't know if Kendall's reviewing it.
I'll have to check.  It's being looked at by the special counsel.
And I don't know whether Kendall is specifically looking at that or
not.
     Q    Well, I know, but the question still arises -- I
mean, this is something that Mr. Clinton put out as a result of an
inquiry that he basically commissioned --
     MS. MYERS:  But I think the answer is that --
     Q       and that either he still believes that it is
correct or he may have misgivings about it.
     MS. MYERS:  The special counsel is looking at it and
we'll make an independent judgment on it.  Until then --
     Q    I know that.  What about Mr. Clinton?  I'm
interested in Mr. Clinton's judgment.
     MS. MYERS:  Well, he's -- we've turned it over to the
counsel and will let him look at the facts, look at the documents and
make a judgment about that.
     Q    I thought Kendall was --
     MS. MYERS:  I'm going to take that question, because I'm
just not sure what the status of that is, in terms of Kendall.
     Q    Dee Dee, is the President fasting today?
     MS. MYERS:  He is.
     Q    Except for Diet Coke.
     MS. MYERS:  He was drinking -- he and the Vice President
-- today was their regularly scheduled weekly lunch.  They were in
the Oval Office drinking water.  The President met today with
Congressman Hall.
     Q    Why is he fasting?
     Q    At the California -- what did he have in his hand
then?  Coke?
     MS. MYERS:  He met with Congressman Tony Hall today,
who, as you know, has begun another fast.  And I think the President
said to him sort of in deference to the fact that there are many
hungry people, he would join him for this day in the fast.
     Q    What kind of fast does the President do, a juice
fast, a water fast -- 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.?  All day?
     Q    Ramadan?  (Laughter.)
     MS. MYERS:  He said he would not eat any meals today.  I
think that's --
     Q    Is that until sunset?
     Q    Is that a 24-hour fast?
     MS. MYERS:  I don't think that he has a fast policy.
(Laughter.)  I think what he told Congressman Hall is that he
wouldn't eat today.  And I think you'd just point out that
Congressman Hall is the one who mentioned this.  It was not something
that the President intended to make public.  It's something that he's
--
     Q    Does that include tonight?
     MS. MYERS:  Yes, it does.
     Q    Can we get an early lid then if he's not eating?
(Laughter.)
     MS. MYERS:  You guys, is there one quiet gesture that
this man can make?
     Q    No.
     MS. MYERS:  I didn't think so.
     Q    Did he not eat at the breakfast meeting at Old
Ebbitt Grill?
     MS. MYERS:  He did not.  He's not going to eat today.
     Q    Better stay out of the finger foods, hey?
     Q    He's drinking, though.  He's drinking fluids.
     MS. MYERS:  He was drinking water when I saw him.  The
rest of you saw him drinking a Diet Coke.
     Q    Is this being monitored by his physician?
     MS. MYERS:  No, this was not something that was signed
off on by his physician?
     Q    I mean, is this healthy?
     Q    Aren't you glad you came back?
     MS. MYERS:  Oh, man.  I've missed you all.
     Q    Did the President get a basically negative read-out
from the Cabinet on the welfare reform?
     MS. MYERS:  No, it was basically a positive meeting.  As
you know, the financing options have not been   decided yet.  There
was a discussion about that, but I think a lot of the other options
were -- a plan was laid out and there was a good discussion on it.
They had a good discussion --
     Q    What's the view of it again --
     MS. MYERS:  They haven't had one yet, it's under review.
     Q    On Sunday, The New York Times -- they quoted
Chancellor Kohl as saying that he would like to participate in the D-
Day ceremonies, but hasn't been invited and was going to talk to the
White House.  Do you know if the President and the Chancellor have
talked about it or do you know if the President would like him to be
a part of it?
     MS. MYERS:  I don't think they've had a chance to talk
about it yet.
     Q    Can he bring troops?  (Laughter.)
     MS. MYERS:  I don't think they've had a chance to talk
about it yet, and we're still planning for D-Day.
     Q    Do you know if there's any objection by the White
House to have him there?
     MS. MYERS:  I think we're open to discussions on this.
Again, we haven't finalized details.  We're quite a ways from that.
     Q    There's a report that he's going to take a vote --
     MS. MYERS:  It's too soon to get into the details of
that trip.  We're several months away.  We're still working on this
weekend.
     THE PRESS:  Thank you.
For Immediate Release                             March 24, 1994

  PRESS CONFERENCE OF THE PRESIDENT

    The East Room

7:30 P.M. EST

     THE PRESIDENT:  Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. [...]
     Q    Mr. President, you just said that you would release
your taxes -- tax returns back to 1977.  Questions also have been
raised about whether you made money or lost money in your Whitewater
investment.  Do you still believe that you lost about $70,000?  And
do you have any reason to believe that you owe any back taxes?
     THE PRESIDENT:  I am certain that we lost money.  I do
not believe we owe any back taxes.  If it is determined that we do,
of course, we will pay.  I am now sure that we lost something less
than $70,000, based on an interview I heard on television -- or I
heard about on television -- with Jim McDougal with one of the
networks, where he said that he felt that one of the loans I had
taken from a bank where we also borrowed money for the Land
Development Corporation, he said he thought one of those was a
personal loan.
     And so I started racking my brain to try to remember
what that might have been, and by coincidence, I was also rereading
the galleys of my mother's autobiography, just fact checking it, and
I noticed that she mentioned there something that I had genuinely
forgotten, which is that I helped her to purchase the property and
what was then a cabin on the place that she and her husband, Dick
Kelley, lived back in 1981, and that I was a coowner of that property
with her for just a few months.  After they married, he bought my
interest out.
     So that's where that -- I borrowed the money to go into
that investment.  I paid the money back with interest.  That was
unrelated to Whitewater.  All the other losses that we have
documented to date we believe clearly are tied to the investment
Hillary and I made in Whitewater.  So we, in fact, lost some-$20,700
less than the Lyon's report indicated because that loan came from a
different place.
     And then -- or came for different purposes.  And there
was another $1,500 payment I made on it.  So whatever the total in
the Lyon's report was, you should subtract from that $20,700 and
another $1,500.  And we believe we can document that clearly.
       Tomorrow, my counsel, David Kendall, will brief the
press on the evidence that we have, what's in the tax returns.  You
will see when you see the tax returns that those losses were clearly
there.  And he will be glad to support it with other information as
well.
     Q    Mr. President, do you know of any funds, any money
-- Whitewater seems to be about money -- having gone into any of your
gubernatorial campaigns or into Whitewater, particularly federally-
insured money?  Do you know of any money that could have gone in?
     THE PRESIDENT:  No.  I have no knowledge of that.  I
have absolutely no knowledge of that.
     Q    President Clinton, you just mentioned James
McDougal, your former business partner.  A lot of questions have been
raised about his business practices.  Can you tell us what drew you
to him to begin with, and whether or not you still have faith now
that he was -- that he is an honest businessman?
     THE PRESIDENT:  Well, I can tell you that when I entered
my relationship with him -- let's go back to then and not now -- I
knew Mr. McDougal and had known him for many years.  I met him in the
late '60s when he was running Senator Fulbright's office in Arkansas.
I knew that sometime around that time, perhaps later, he got into the
real estate business.  When I entered into this investment, it was
with a person I had known many years who was in the real estate
business who had never been in the S&L business or the banking
business.  That all happened at a later time.  He had done quite
well.
     The reason we lost money on Whitewater is not surprising
-- a lot of people did at that time.  Interest rates, as you'll
remember, went through the roof in the early '80s; people stopped
immigrating to my state to retire at least in the numbers they had
all during the '70s; and the market simply changed, so we didn't sell
as many lots, and the venture was not successful.  So we lost the
money.  Principally, the money I lost was on the interest payments I
had to make on the loans, which were never reimbursed because of the
venture never turned a profit.
     Q    Do you still believe in his honesty now and do you
think that he --
     THE PRESIDENT:  All I can tell you, to the best of my
knowledge, he was honest in his dealings with me.  And that's all I
can comment on.  As I said, when I heard about his comments on
television, since he had -- he's always told you that I had nothing
to do with the management of Whitewater, that Hillary had nothing to
do with it; we didn't keep the books or the records; that this
investment was made, as you know, back in 1978; and that we were
essentially passive investors; that none of our money was borrowed
from savings and loans and we had nothing to do with a savings and
loan.  So that's what he has always said.  So when he said he didn't
think this note that I -- where I borrow money from a bank, not an
S&L, in 1981 had anything to do with Whitewater, I started thinking
about it.  We talked about it.  We couldn't remember what else it
could have been until I literally just happened to cross that in
reading my mother's autobiography.
     Q    Mr. President, Congressman Leach made some very
dramatic charges today.  He said that Whitewater is really about the
arrogance of power and he didn't just mean back in Arkansas.  He said
that federal regulators tried to stop investigators for the
Resolution Trust Corporation in Kansas City from putting Whitewater
into their criminal referrals.  That would amount to a coverup and
possibly obstruction of justice.  Do you have any knowledge of that?
     THE PRESIDENT:  Absolutely not.  And it is my
understanding -- let me just say this:  It's my understanding that
Mr. Leach was rather careful in the words that he used and apparently
he didn't even charge that any political appointee of our
administration had any knowledge of this.  So he may be talking about
an internal dispute within the RTC from career Republican appointees
for all I know.
     Keep in mind, until I came here, all the appointees of
the RTC were hired under previous Republican administrations.  There
has never been a Democratic President since there's been an RTC.  And
I can tell you categorically I had no knowledge of this and was not
involved in it in any way, shape or form.
     Q    Well, in light of all that's happened so far, Mr.
President, do you think you made any mistakes in the initial
investment and in the way the White House has handled this?
     THE PRESIDENT:  I certainly don't think I made a mistake
in the initial investment.  It was a perfectly honorable thing to do,
and it was a perfectly legal thing to do.  And I didn't make any
money, I lost money.  I paid my debts.  And then later on, as you
know, Hillary and I tried to make sure that the corporation was
closed down in an appropriate way and paid any obligations that it
owed after we were asked to get involved at a very late stage, and
after Mr. McDougal had left the S&L.  So I don't think that we did
anything wrong in that at all.  And I think we handled it in an
appropriate way.  We were like a lot of people -- we invested money
and we lost.
     I'd be the last person in the world to be able to defend
everything we've done here in the sense that whatever we did or
didn't do has sparked an inordinate amount of interest in a 16-year-
old business venture that lost money.  But to suggest -- let me just
say again, I have had absolutely nothing to do, and would have
nothing to do, with any attempt to influence an RTC regulatory
matter.  And I think if you look at the actions of the RTC just since
I've been President and you examine the facts that everybody that
works there was appointed by a previous Republican administration,
the evidence is clear that I have not done that.
     Q    Mr. President, you've been kind of tough at times
on people you felt made out during the '80s and didn't pay their fair
share.  Can you tell us, sir, tonight that you have abided by the
very high ethical standards --
     THE PRESIDENT:  Absolutely.
     Q       to which you've sought to hold others?  And
also, sir, if it turns out that you do owe something in back taxes,
will you be prepared perhaps to revise some of those judgments you've
made about others?
     THE PRESIDENT:  No, not at all.  I ask you to tell the
American people what percentage of my income I paid in taxes in every
year where I reported my tax returns.  And let me tell you what my
wife and I spent the '80s doing -- I was the lowest-paid governor of
any state in the country.  I don't complain about it; I was proud of
that.  I didn't do it for the money.  I worked on creating jobs and
improving education for the children of my state.  Every year I was
governor, my wife worked in a law firm that had always done business
with the state.  She never took any money for any work she did for
the state.  And, indeed, she gave up her portion of partnership
income that otherwise came to the firm; and instead every year gave
an enormous percentage of her time to public service work -- helping
children and helping education, and doing a lot of other things --
giving up a lot of income.
     Now, we did that because we wanted to.  The fact that we
made investments, some of which we lost money on, some of which we
made money on, has nothing to do whatever with the indictment that I
made about the excesses of the '80s.  And we always made every effort
to pay our taxes.  I would remind you that we, like most middle class
folks, we turned our records over to an accountant.  We did every --I
always told the accountant to resolve all doubts in favor of the
government.  I never wanted any question raised about our taxes.
     When it turned out in our own investigation of this
Whitewater business that one year we had inadvertently taken a tax
deduction for interest payments when, in fact, it was principal
payment, even though the statute of limitations had run, we went back
and voluntarily paid what we owed to the federal government.  And if
it turns out we've made some mistake inadvertently, we will do that
again.  But I have always tried to pay my taxes.  And you will see
when you look at all the returns that we've always paid quite a
considerable percentage of our income in taxes.
     Q    Mr. President, during the campaign you said your
administration would set a higher standard.  Yet, in the travel
office case last year, your own Chief of Staff found some of your
aides used their official position to advance their personal
interests; while recently we've seen a senior White House official
delinquent in Social Security taxes that disqualified others from
serving in your administration, and others in the White House
neglecting until recently to undergo a security clearance required of
other government officials handling classified information.  Why,
sir, do you think it's so difficult for members of your staff to live
up to your campaign promise?
     THE PRESIDENT:  First of all, let's deal with those
things, each in turn.  Now, the finding was not that anybody who
worked for me sought to advance themselves personally, financially in
the travel office issue.  That was not the finding.  We found that
the issue had not been well handled.  And I might say, unlike other
White Houses that stonewalled, denied or delayed, we did our own
internal investigation and admitted what mistakes we made and took
some changes -- made some changes there.  I'm proud of that.
     Secondly, no one was barred from serving in our
administration because they hadn't paid Social Security taxes, but
people were barred from serving in presidential-appointed positions
that required Senate confirmation unless they complied with
administration policy.  Mr. Kennedy did not do that entirely, and he
has been reassigned.  He has been under -- he has had a difficult
time, and I am convinced that he has done a lot of work that's been
very valuable for us.  But I think that he should not have done what
he did, and I think he should fully pay.  He has done that.  I think
that's what he should have done.
     Now, on the White House passes thing, let's just talk
about what the facts are.  About 90 percent of the people who work
here have been through all the clearances.  The others are going
through the clearances.  I learned when I read about this that
apparently previous administrations had had some of the same
problems.  That is, they'd been lax because of the cumbersome nature
of the process.  So we've now basically put in rules that say that
anybody who comes to work here now has to get all this done in 30
days or is immediately on leave without pay.  They can't get paid
unless they do it.  I asked Mr. McLarty and Mr. Cutler to fix this
and make sure it never happens again.  So I feel confident that we
have.
     But since you raised the issue, let me also ask you to
report to the American people that we have and we have enforced
higher standards against ethical conflicts than any previous
administration.  When people leave the White House, they can't lobby
the White House.  If they're in certain positions, they can't lobby
the White House for a long time.  If they're in certain positions
now, they can never lobby on behalf of a foreign government.
     I have supported a campaign finance reform bill that I
am hoping the Congress will pass, and I believe they will, which will
change the nature of financing political campaigns.  I have supported
a very tough lobby reform bill which will require more disclosure and
more restraint on the part of lobbyists and public officials than
ever before.  And we will comply with those laws.
     So I think our record on balance is quite good here.
And when we make mistakes, we try to admit them -- something that has
not been the order of the day in the past.
     Q    Thank you, Mr. President.  So many things have
happened since this Whitewater story broke or resurfaced, depending
on your point of view, your counsel has resigned, a number of your
top aides have been subpoenaed because of their contacts with
Treasury officials in on the investigation.  I'm curious -- who do
you blame more than anything else for the Whitewater mess that the
administration in is now?
     THE PRESIDENT:  Well, I don't think it's useful to get
into blame.  I think what's important is that I answer the questions
that you have that are legitimate questions; that I fully cooperate
with the special counsel, which was requested widely by the press and
by the members of the Republican Party, and who is himself a
Republican -- that we fully cooperate.  And we've done that.
     Senator Inouye from Hawaii pointed out today, he said,
I've been experienced in these investigations.  He said, you folks
have claimed no executive privilege.  You've fully cooperated.  No
one can quarrel with that.
     And then I get back to the work of getting unemployment
down, jobs up, passing a health care bill, passing the crime bill,
moving this country forward.  I think the worst thing that can happen
is for me to sort of labor over who should blame -- who should be
blamed for this.  There will probably be enough blame to go around.
I'm just not concerned about it.
     Q    To follow up, sir, do you feel ill served in any
way by your staff?
     THE PRESIDENT:  I think on the -- I've told you what I
think about these meetings.  Now, let's go back to the facts of the
meetings.  We now know that Mr. Altman's counsel checked with the
ethics officer in Treasury before he came over and gave the briefings
to the White House.  But I have said -- so it appears at least that
the counsel thought that Mr. Altman had an ethical clearance to come
and do this briefing.  We certainly know that no one in the White
House, at least to the best of my knowledge, has tried to use any
information to in any way improperly influence the RTC or any federal
agency.
     Would it have been better if those had not occurred?
Yes, I think it would have been.  Do we have people here who wouldn't
do anything wrong, but perhaps weren't sensitive enough to have
something -- could look in retrospect by people who are used to
having problems in a presidency, or used to having people not telling
the truth?  I think that we weren't sensitive as we should have been.
And I've said before, it would have been better if that hadn't
occurred.
     But I think the one thing you have to say is you learn
things as you go along in this business.  None of this, in the light
of history, will be as remotely as important as the fact that by
common consensus we had the most productive first year of a
presidency last year of anyone in a generation.  That's what matters;
that we're changing people's lives.  That's what counts.  And I'm
just going to keep working on it.
     Q    Mr. President, you and your wife have both used the
phrase, bewildered, confused about why all the interest in
Whitewater.  Yet, in the Arkansas savings and loan business, your
wife represented Madison Savings and Loan before the Arkansas Savings
and Loan Board, whose head was a former lawyer who had done work for
Madison Savings and Loan.  Do you not see any conflicts of interest
in your action, or your wife's actions -- which would appear to
contradict what you just said about her not doing any work before the
state, that would cause people to question your actions?
     THE PRESIDENT:  No, that's not what I said.  I did not
say -- I said that when my wife did business, when her law firm
represented some state agency itself -- state agencies all over
America use private lawyers -- if she did any work for the state, she
never took any pay for it.  And when the firm got income from state
work, she didn't take her partnership share of that income.  She gave
that up because she wanted to bend over backwards to avoid the
appearance of conflict.
     Was there anything wrong with her representing a client
for a state agency -- and if you go back and look at the facts,
basically the firm wrote the securities commissioner a letter saying,
is it permissible under Arkansas law to raise money for this S&L in
this way?  And it showed that she was one of the contacts on it, and
the securities commissioner wrote her back and said it's not against
the law.  That was basically the extent of her representation.
     Now, all I can do is tell you that she believed there
was nothing unethical about it.  And today, in an interview,
Professor Steven Geller, of New York University, who is a widely
respected national expert on legal ethics, once again said there was
nothing at all unethical in doing this.  These kinds of things happen
when you have married couples who have professions.  And the most
important thing there is disclosure.  There was no sneaking around
about this.  This was full disclosure.
     Professor Geller -- I brought the quote here -- said, "I
think this is a bum rap on Mrs. Clinton, and I'm amazed that it keeps
getting recirculated."  Now, there's a person who doesn't work for us
whose job it is to know what the code of professional responsibility
requires.
     Q    Mr. President, one thing that puzzled a lot of
people is why, if you did nothing wrong, did you act for so long as
if you had something to hide.  And now that you're about to release
these documents to the public, your tax records and other things, do
you think it would have helped if you had released these documents to
the public earlier?  Would it have stopped this issue from reaching
the proportions that it has?
     THE PRESIDENT:  I don't have any idea.  But I don't
think I acted as if I had anything to hide.   After all, I did
volunteer -- I had already given out my tax returns going back to
1980.  And then when -- keep in mind, when the furor arose at the
request for the special counsel -- even though everybody at the time
said, well, we don't think he's done anything wrong; there's no
evidence that either he or the First Lady have done anything wrong;
we still think there ought to be a special counsel -- I said we would
give all this over to the special counsel.  It was only after the
special counsel had all the information that the people who first
wanted the special counsel then decided they wanted the documents as
well.  So we're making them available.
     Perhaps I should have done it earlier, but you will see
essentially what I've told you -- and things that you basically
already know.
     Q    Mr. President, you said a few minutes ago that the
people in the RTC who are involved in Congressman Leach's allegations
are all career Republican officials.  But aren't they members of your
administration?  And do you plan to take any action in speaking to
either Mr. Bentsen or Mr. Altman about taking action and
investigation Mr. Leach's charges?
     THE PRESIDENT:  I think the last thing in the world I
should do is talk to the Treasury Department about the RTC  .
(Laughter.)  You all have told me that that creates the appearance of
impropriety.  I don't think we can have a -- it's not just a one-way
street, it's a two-way street.  Mr. Leach will see that whatever
should be done is done.  But I can tell you, I have had no contact
with the RTC; I've made no attempt to influence them.  And you can
see by some of the decisions that they have made that that is the
furthest thing, it seems to me, that ought to be on your mind.
     Q    Do you abandon all responsibility for a department,
a Cabinet department in your government?
     THE PRESIDENT:  I haven't abandoned all responsibility.
You can't have it both ways; either we can talk to them or we can't.
I just think this is a matter of public record now.  And Mr. Leach
will certainly see to it that it's looked into.  He's already said
that that's his job, and I'm sure he will see that it is.
     Q    With so many questions swirling around Whitewater
and the Rose law firm, there's some concern that the moral authority
of the First Lady is eroding as well.  Are you reconsidering her role
as the point person for health care reform?
     THE PRESIDENT:  Absolutely not.  Absolutely not.  People
should not be able to raise questions and erode people's moral
authority in this country.  There ought to have to be evidence and
proof.  We live in a time when there is a great deal of question-
raising.  It seems to be the order of the day.  But I know what the
facts are, and I'm giving you the facts on this.
     Here we just had -- all these questions were raised
about whether she was properly or improperly representing a client
before a state agency -- to do something, I might add, that the
federal government had asked savings and loans to do -- that is, go
out and raise more capital to become more solvent.  So that's what
she was doing in the full light of day in full disclosure.
     Now we have, even in retrospect, an imminent national
expert saying that she is getting a bum rap.  When people ask
questions that don't have any basis -- I think you should ask
whatever questions you want to ask, and I think that we should do our
best to answer them.  But I think that the 20-year record she made as
a lawyer, never before having her ethics questioned, never before
having her ability questioned, when everybody who knew her knew that
every year she was giving up a whole lot of income to do public
business -- to advance the cause of children and the to advance the
cause of our state.  No, I don't think so.  I think in the end when
all these questions get asked and answered, her moral authority will
be stronger than it has ever been, because we will have gone through
this process and been very forthcoming, as we are, to the special
counsel.  And then in the end, people will compare how we did this
with how previous administrations under fire handle their business.
And I think it will come out quite well.
     Q    Mr. President, the assassination of Mr. Colosio
today has shaken the financial markets in this country, created doubt
about the stability of Mexico.  Mexico opens its stock market and
banks tomorrow.  You said you would help Mexico in this.  What can
the United States do to help Mexico in these trying times?
     THE PRESIDENT:  Well, first of all, let me say, Mexico
is a very great country that has made enormous progress economically
and politically.  There is a lot of ferment and change going on there
that is inevitable and that can be very positive.  What I think the
Untied States can do, first of all, is to tell the rest of the world
that we know this about Mexico.  They're our neighbors and we think
they have a great future.  And we don't expect any long-term damage
to come from this terrible personal tragedy and political setback.
     Secondly, the only business I did last night on this --
and I called President Salinas as a friend, as well as the President
of the United States, to express my sorrow -- the only business I did
was to talk to the Secretary of the Treasury about what we might be
able to do in the event there was some sort of unusual trading
against the Mexican currency.  And there may be something we can do
to step in and stabilize that.  As you know, there have been times in
the past when our friends have had to come to our aid -- the Germans,
the Japanese and others have come to our aid when there was unusual
trading against the dollar.  And we are prepared to try to help the
Mexicans if that is necessary.  But we hope it won't be.
     Today, we did just a little bit on Mexican securities
when we suspended trading here in the United States for a very short
time so that the American who would be interested in this would at
least be able to verify what the facts were an what they were not
about the terrible incident last night.  And I think that helped a
bit.  I certainly hope that it did.
     Q    Increasingly polls are showing that more and more
Americans are unsure whether you acted properly in Whitewater, that
maybe you did something wrong.  Does that concern you?  And when do
you think it would be proper for the First Lady to answer questions
about Whitewater?
     THE PRESIDENT:  Well, first of all, let's -- does it
concern me?  Only a little bit.  The truth is I am amazed when I read
in The New York Times or someplace that there have been three times
as much coverage of Whitewater as there had been of health care.  I'm
amazed that there hasn't been more change in the polls.  I think what
the American people are really upset about is the thought that this
investment that we made 16 years ago that lost money, that did not
involve savings and loans, might somehow divert any of us from doing
the work of the country -- getting the economy going and dealing with
health care and crime and the other issues.
     So, in that sense, I think people are right to be
concerned.  And they want to know that I'm going to answer the
questions.  A lot of people don't even know, I don't think, that
there is a special counsel; that we have fully cooperated; that he
has said we have; that the Watergate prosecutor, Sam Dash, contrasted
our conduct with previous Presidents and said we'd been highly
ethical.  And we're moving forward.
     Now, the First Lady has done several interviews.  She
was out in three different places last week answering questions
exhaustively from the press.  I think she will continue to do that.
And if you have questions you want to ask her about this, I think you
ought to ask the questions.
     Q    Mr. President, you and the First Lady have several
times said that you've been amazed and dismayed by the intensity of
both the opposition and the scrutiny surrounding Whitewater in
particular.  Has any of this been instructive for you?  Have you
taken any lessons from this ordeal, whether it's about the
presidency, about the process, about the city or anything?
     THE PRESIDENT:  Oh, I think I've learned a lot about it.
I think one of the things I've learned about it is that it's very
important to try to decide what the legitimate responsibility of the
President is, to be as forthcoming as possible, and to do it.
     It's important for me to understand that there is a
level here -- and this is not a blame, this is just an observation --
because of the experiences of the last several decades, of which I
was not a part in this city, I think there is a level of suspicion
here than is greater than that which I have been used to in the past
-- and I don't complain about it, but I've learned a lot about it --
and that my job is to try to answer whatever questions are out there
so I can get on with the business of the country.
     And I think I've learned a lot about how to handle that.
I've also learned here that there may or may not be a different
standard than I had seen in the past -- not of right and wrong, that
doesn't change -- but of what may appear to be right or wrong.  And I
think that you'll see that, like everything else, this administration
learns and goes on.  We always learn from our mistakes, and we have
proven that.
     Q    I wonder if you realize the situation that is
developing in Korea, what is expected?  What will be the situation in
South Africa next month?  And do you believe that the former Soviet
Union, Russia, has -- that will contribute to peace in the world?
How do you respond?
     THE PRESIDENT:  That's the quickest anybody ever asked
me three questions at once.  (Laughter.)  First of all, the situation
in Korea is serious, and we have responded in a serious way.  The
North Koreans themselves have said they are committed to a nonnuclear
Korean peninsula.  We want that.  We want a good, normal relationship
with them.  They have terminated the IAEA inspections. We are
examining what we can do.  We are talking to our South Korean
partners as well as to the Chinese, the Japanese, the Russians and
others.
     We still hope that this can be resolved, and we believe
it can be.  But the choice is really up to North Korea.  Will they be
isolated from the world community, or will they be a full partner?
They could have a very bright future indeed.  They have many
contributions to make, indeed, to a united Korea.  And we hope that
it will work out.
     But we did -- I did decide to deploy the Patriots on the
recommendation of General Luck as a purely defensive measure in the
wake of the difficulties we've had, and we'll make further decisions
as we go along.
     With regard to South Africa, I am immensely hopeful.  I
have tried once to encourage Chief Buthelezi to join in the political
process.  And I still have some hope that he will.  It is not too
late, and they have made real efforts to try to accommodate the
conflicts between national and local interests.  But I think we will
be celebrating in late April a great triumph of democracy of the
first nonracial or multiracial democratic process in South Africa.
     With regard to Russia, I think that on balance, our
relationship is still sound.  It is based on our perception and their
perception of our shared interests, and when we disagree, we will say
so.  And we will act accordingly.  But I do think that the Russians
have made a constructive contribution to our efforts in Bosnia which
have had a lot of success.  We've go a long way to go, but we've had
some real success.  And I'm hopeful that they will elsewhere.  I know
they made a suggestion on Korea today, and we'll see what happens
there.
     Q    Mr. President, Congressman Stark's health care bill
doesn't do everything that you have proposed.  Would you veto it if
it reaches your desk?
     THE PRESIDENT:  No, because it does what I ask.  It
doesn't solve all the problems.  But it does provide universal
coverage.  It emphasizes the workplace.  That is, there is no tax on
people unless they elect not to take out insurance.  And it provides
comprehensive benefits, which I think are very important.  And it
leaves Medicare alone with the integrity of Medicare.
     There are things that it doesn't do that I wish it did.
I don't think it's as successful or would be as successful in holding
down costs and expanding opportunity as our plan; but certainly if it
were to be enacted by the United States Congress I would sign it,
because it meets the fundamental criteria I set out of covering all
Americans with health care.
     One more, then I guess we've got to go.  Everybody wants
to be watching these ball games, I think -- (laughter).  I'm going to
make -- nobody's asked me if we're going to tax gambling or anything.
(Laughter.)  Go ahead.
     Q    Mr. President --
     THE PRESIDENT:  This is a set-up -- it's my joke.  Only
people who bet against my team in the NCAA.  (Laughter.)
     Q    Mr. President, I take it that the tax returns
you're putting out tomorrow are the ones that have already gone to
the special counsel.  If the special counsel wanted to question you
about that, would you answer a subpoena?  Would Mrs. Clinton?  And
what about congressional hearings -- what would be the protocol on
going before Congress to explain it to them?
     THE PRESIDENT:  Let me answer the first question first.
We decided in addition to putting out the '78 and '79 returns, we
should go ahead and put out the '77 returns.  But that would be an
appropriate starting point, because that's the year I first entered
public life.  I know there's -- it's kind of a moving bar here.  None
of us are quite sure how far back anybody should go anymore about
anything.  But we thought that we would do that.  And at least you
would then have a complete record of the money we earned and the
taxes we paid -- Hillary and I together did -- as long as I've been
in public life.
     In terms of the information, I expect that the special
counsel will want to question me and will want to question the First
Lady.  It's my understanding that typically in the past it's been
done in a different way.  I mean, I will cooperate with him in
whatever way he decides is appropriate.
     Similarly, if Congress wants any information direct from
us, we will, of course, provide it to them in whatever way seems most
appropriate.  Again, I understand there are certain protocols which
have been followed in the past which I would expect would be followed
here.  But I intend to be fully cooperative so that I can go back to
work doing what I was hired to do.
     Thank you very much.
     Q       welfare reform?
     THE PRESIDENT:  What did you say about --
     Q    What about welfare reform?
     THE PRESIDENT:  What about it?
     Q       going to tax --
     THE PRESIDENT:  No.  What I said -- I made a joke about
that.  I said I was going to try to tax anybody who bet against my
team in the basketball finals.
     But I have made no decision on the financing of welfare
reform. I can tell you this:  It's a tough issue because we have to
pay for anything we do.  And there are all kinds of proposals out
there.  I know that the Republican welfare reform proposal has a lot
of things in it that I like.  But I think it's way too hard on
financing things -- savings from immigrants.  I think it goes too far
there.  So there are no real easy answers.
     But I can say categorically that I have been briefed on
a very wide range of options and that nobody in this administration
has made any decision, and no one will make a decision except me,
about how to fund it.  That decision has not been made.  We will come
forward with that plan.  We do think it offers the real promise of
ending welfare as we know it, of moving people from welfare to work
if we can also guarantee these welfare parents that when they go to
work their children will not lose the health care that they have on
welfare, so they won't be punished for going to work.  That's the key
issue.
     Thank you very much.


