
For Immediate Release                          February 25, 1994

  PRESS CONFERENCE BY THE PRESIDENT

  The Briefing Room

11:55 A.M. EST

     THE PRESIDENT:  
     Q    Mr. President, Russia seems to be taking the view
that the spy case is no big deal.  Are you satisfied with Russia's
response and cooperation to this?  And if they don't withdraw
individuals from their embassy here, will you expel them?
     THE PRESIDENT:  Well, let me try to clarify, first of
all, what we have sought and why we have sought it.  We have not
sought Russian cooperation in any damage assessment .  That was
simply, I think, an erroneous report.  We have sought Russian
cooperation, if you will, in terms of taking what we believe is
appropriate action in this case; and we think it's appropriate action
be taken.
     We have expressed our views in what we hoped the
Russians would do.  If they do not do that, then we will take action
and we will take it quickly, and then it will be apparent what we
have done.
     Q    Mr. President, has there been any formal response?
Out of Moscow today they said they think they can have a dignified
resolution.  Has anything been offered?  And, also, are you looking
for a second possible double agent in the CIA?
     THE PRESIDENT:  We are -- we have made our position
clear.  We have been in contact with the Russians.  We think
appropriate action will be taken one way or the other very soon.
     Q    Mr. President, you referred to the perpetrator of
the massacre today as a lone settler, and the evidence so far
suggests that he did act alone.  But there have been repeated reports
over the years of Americans providing aid, both fundraising and other
sorts of aid to extremist groups on both sides.  And I wonder
whether, in light of today's massacre, whether there is more that
needs to be done here to try to prevent Americans from providing aid
and other forms of support to Jewish extremist groups that may be
involved in these sorts of actions.
     THE PRESIDENT:  Well, let me say, based on what we now
know, we have no reason to believe that this killer was involved with
any group.  If we find out differently, we will assess our position
at that time.
     I can say this:  that Prime Minister Rabin, himself, has
recognized the need to strengthen the security provided by Israeli
forces against extremists, including Israeli extremists.  But as far
as we know, this was the action of one individual.
     Q    Mr. President, what is it about this massacre as
opposed to other setbacks that have occurred in the Middle East that
has brought you to this podium today, that makes you feel it's
necessary to make a strong statement?
     THE PRESIDENT:  First of all, its scope and setting is
horrible from a purely human point of view.  Secondly, it comes at a
time when it appears to be clearly designed to affect the lives of
hundreds of thousands of others by derailing the peace process.  And
I am hoping that the statesmanship   of the leaders in the region and
the attention that this will bring to the terrible problem will not
only diffuse what could become a much worse round of killings and
counterattacks, but will actually be used to thwart the purpose of
the murder and to reinvigorate the peace process.
     Q    Mr. President, just to follow up on the earlier
question.  There have been reports from the scene that the Israeli
army stood by and allowed this massacre to go on.  What kind of
recommendation would you make to Israel to try to do an investigation
to see what happened and change the perception maybe of that?
     THE PRESIDENT:  Well, we have no reason -- we do not
know that to be true.  I can say that at this time.  And we have --
the Secretary of State has talked with Prime Minister Rabin.  I was
not able to talk with him myself yet because of the other meetings I
had this morning.  I believe the Israelis are committed to increasing
security where they can do so.  And I don't want to comment on that
without some evidence or reason to believe its true.
     Q    Mr. President, there's a G-7 meeting on Saturday in
Frankfort.  It's supposed to focus on Russian aid.  Do we go to that
meeting with any particular proposition on the speed of aid, or the
conditionality of aid to Russia?  And also, at that meeting, Bentsen
will be meeting with Japanese Finance Minister Fujii regarding the
failed trade talks, framework talks.  Do you see the Gephardt and
Rockefeller open markets still being helpful to your mission to open
markets in Japan?  Do you support that?
     THE PRESIDENT:  Well, we've taken no position on any
particular legislation.  I think that it shows the determination of
the American people to improve our trade and open the markets;
especially the involvement of Senator Rockefeller, who's actually
lived in Japan and I think is thought of genuinely as a friend of
Japan, but someone who understands what is at stake here.
     With regard to the other question, I think we're where
we always have been.  The kind of aid and the amount of aid which
will flow to Russia, and the sources from which it flows I think will
be a function of the policies and conduct of the Russians.
     Q    Are you concerned now, sir, apart from the Ames
case, about other developments in Russia that might make your policy
there appear almost to be in denial, based on what you and others
wish were happening or hope will happen, rather than what really is
happening there?
     THE PRESIDENT:  No, I mean, this has -- my policy has
nothing to do with what I wish or hope will happen.  Our response
will be dictated by their behavior.  But I think the -- what I think
is naive in this whole element is the suggestion that we should have
ever believed for a moment that every event in Russia and every
speech made by every Russian politician in every election of every
member of Parliament  would somehow be in a constant straight line
toward a goal that we wanted to predetermine.  They have to make
their own future.  That's what I said there over and over again.
     This is not black and white; this is grey.  There will
be developments over the course of our relationship with Russia which
-- as there are over the course of our relationship with every other
country -- where we won't like everything that happens.  We should do
things based on a clear-headed appreciation of what is in our
national interest.
     No one has made a compelling case to me, publicly or
privately, that it is not in our national interests to continue to
work with the President of Russia and the government of Russia on
denuclearization, on cooperation and respect for neighbors and on
economic reform where we can support it.  That is, the privatization
movement, for example, I would just remind you, is still going on in
Russia and has basically occurred more rapidly there than in other
former Soviet countries.
     So I don't believe the fact that a few speeches are made
that we don't agree with, or that policies are pursued based on an
election they had for a Parliament that we don't agree with should
force us to abandon what is in our national interest.  When it is no
longer in our national interest to do these things, then we should
stop it.  But we cannot be allowed -- deluded into thinking that our
national interest can be defined by every election and every speech
in Russia; that can't be.
     Q    Mr. President, in inviting the parties to come here
to Washington, do you also anticipate that you or the Secretary of
State will adopt a different posture toward these negotiations?  Up
to now, we've kind of let them handle it and keep a hands-off
approach -- wisely.  But do you see, in fact, now that they're going
to be here and given the urgency you've assigned to it, do you see
yourself or the Secretary taking a different posture toward the
talks?
     THE PRESIDENT:  I think, first of all, the very act of
inviting them here indicates some sense of urgency on our part.  What
we have done to date, as you know, is largely to try to give both
sides the security they needed to proceed, and the assurances that we
would support it, but that they would have to freely make the
agreement.  We still believe they will have to freely agree.
     We believe they are close to agreement.  We want to do
things that will prevent this last terrible incident from derailing
that, and to try to send a signal to the peoples in the region to not
overreact to this horrible act, that the path of peace is still the
right path.  Whether that will require us to do more in particular
meetings, I can't say, because we have discussed this with Chairman
Arafat, with Prime Minister Rabin because we wanted to move quickly
and they did, too, and we'll just have to wait for that to unfold.
     Q    Mr. President, Senator Nunn has just said that we
should not be asking Russia to voluntarily bring back their
diplomats, but we should have simply expelled them the way we would
have during the Cold War and after the Cold War; that this is too
serious a case.  Why didn't we just expel the diplomats still working
here?
     THE PRESIDENT:  I think that the judgment of the
security services was -- and the national security team -- was that
the Russians ought to be at least told what we know -- not negotiated
with, there was no negotiation -- told what we know and given an
opportunity to take whatever action they wanted to take.  And if they
don't, then we will do what we should do.  And we will take
appropriate action.  We will do that soon.
     Q    Mr. President, does that also mean, as Senator
Leahy and Senator Mitchell and others are suggesting following your
meeting this morning, that you, the United States government, will
also expose Russian diplomats who are, in effect, who are really
intelligence officers who are not declared to the U. S. government as
intelligence officers?  Will you take that step and, if you do, don't
you invite retaliation, counterexpulsions, counterdeclarations,
exposures on the part of the Russian government against U.S.
officials in Moscow?
     THE PRESIDENT:  We intend to take the action that we
think is appropriate and you won't have to wait long to find out what
that is.
     Q    Mr. President, are you in any way interfering with
the judicial process in appearing with Congressman Rostenkowski in
Illinois on Monday?  There have been suggestions
     THE PRESIDENT:  Absolutely not.
     Q       that Attorney General Reno had concerns that you
would be appearing with someone under investigation?
     THE PRESIDENT:  First of all -- let me make a couple of
comments about that.  First of all, I have had no conversations to
that effect with anyone in the Justice Department.  Secondly, there
is no way in the world we would do anything like that.  Thirdly, this
investigation has been going on for months.  I have been in Chicago
before with Congressman Rostenkowski.  I am going there and will be
with other members of Congress, at least one other I know and perhaps
more, to talk about issues that directly relate to this
administration's work that he is a critical part of: health care and
crime.  And finally, there is still a presumption of innocence in
this country.  He has not yet been charged with anything.
     But I can tell you, there has been absolutely no contact
of any nature about this case with the Justice Department and the
White House that anyone could draw any inference of impropriety on.
And I have received nothing back the other way that I shouldn't go to
Chicago.  I am going there to fight for things I believe in that he
has played a critical role in.  I am going to be with at least one
other, perhaps more members of Congress -- I don't know yet -- and
I'm going to be doing something that I have already done while this
investigation has been going on.  No one ever said anything about it
before.

     Q    You said that the Ames case had caused significant
damage to the national security.  Can you be more specific, sir?  And
secondly, you've said the FBI investigation is ongoing.  Are you
satisfied that we know the full extent of the penetration of the CIA
at this point?
     THE PRESIDENT:  Well, I can say very little about that
except to assure you -- I talked with Director Freeh this morning
myself -- I am confident that the FBI, working with the CIA, is doing
everything that is humanly possible to fully investigate this case.
I do not want to raise red herrings or other possibilities, only to
say this:  that it is not unusual, as the FBI Director said this
morning.  Sometimes it happens that when you're in a criminal
investigation and you're on to something, the investigation turns up
information that could not have been anticipated in the beginning.  I
am not trying to say that has occurred.  I'm not trying to raise any
false hopes.  All I'm telling you is, I have directed the FBI and the
CIA and everybody else to do everything they can to get to the full
bottom of this.  And I have nothing else to say about it.
     And, again, I'm not trying to raise some tantalizing
inference, I'm just saying that we have to keep going and try to root
it out.  After all, this is fundamentally a problem within America,
about whether people here who are Americans are spying, and that's
our responsibility to try to find it out.
     Thank you.
     THE PRESS:  Thank you.
For Immediate Release                                   March 1, 1994

    PRESS BRIEFING
   BY DEE DEE MYERS

  The Briefing Room

1:48 P.M. EST

     MS. MYERS:  A couple of brief announcements here.  First
of all, tomorrow, we've added an event.  It is President Clinton will
take part in a conference call with citizens in eight cities across
the country to discuss the impact of the Clinton health care plan on
long-term care benefits.  That will be from the Oval Office with
primary care-givers for a member of their families who need home care
services.  They will be hooking up with people from eight different
communities, including Langhorne, Pennsylvania; Omaha, Nebraska;
Jonesboro, Arkansas; Fresno, California; Blacksburg, Virginia; Ozone
Park, New York; Wheaton, Kansas; and Houston, Texas for those of you
with --
     Q    What time is it?
     MS. MYERS:  That's 10:30 a.m. tomorrow, from the Oval
Office.
     Q    How long is it?
     Q    What's the coverage on it?
     MS. MYERS:  It will be pooled.  And how long?  It will
probably take 20 minutes, half an hour, something like that.
     Q    What else is he doing tomorrow?
     MS. MYERS:  That's the only major public event.  Let me
-- I can go through the schedule for the rest of the week if you guys
want.
     Today at 2:30 p.m., as you know, we have the Dallas
Cowboys.  Then tomorrow, again, at 10:30 a.m. the conference call on
long-term care.  He'll tape an interview with CBS This Morning, which
will air during their usual slot on Thursday morning -- and that will
be health care related.
     Q    What time is that?
     MS. MYERS:  That tapes around 4:30 p.m. in the
afternoon.  But, again,  it will air on Thursday morning between 7:00
a.m and 9:00 a.m.
     Thursday he has lunch with the Vice President, no public
events.  And on Friday, he has President Kravchuk in.  It's a usual
working schedule.  President Kravchuk will come in sometime around
11:15 a.m.  They'll have a series of meetings, lunch, followed by
press statements.  Saturday, he'll give the radio address live; and
that's the only event currently on the schedule for the weekend.

     Q     Why does Kravchuk get this kind of treatment and
Major didn't, in terms of a press -- full-scale press conference?
     MS. MYERS:  Well, Prime Minister Major's been here
before, as you know.  The President met with him several times at
multinational forums; they've spoken on the phone a number of times.
And I think President Clinton wanted a less formal opportunity to
talk with Prime Minister Major to discuss a number of issues; to
simply get to know one another better.  They had a very successful
visit, which concluded, as you know, with breakfast this morning in
the solarium.  They had, I think, a very good exchange and it was a
very productive meeting.
     Q    Why does any of that preclude a press conference?
     MS. MYERS:  Well, I think they then went downstairs and
took a number of questions.  Each gave a statement and took
questions, consistent with past practices; but I think we chose to do
it in a slightly different form.
     Q    So you're saying they had a press conference, but
it was more informal than most, is that what you're saying?
     MS. MYERS:  I think the whole meeting was somewhat more
informal than the usual working business, which I think is something
that President Clinton thinks is useful.
     Q    Well, they were talking on very important subjects
and three-quarters of the reporters couldn't hear it.
     MS. MYERS:  I think clearly there was a logistics
problem -- unintentional -- something that we'll resolve in the
future.  I think there was somewhat -- and it's our fault and I
apologize for that.  It was not intentional.  I think it was an
effort on our part to make sure that the Prime Minister and the
President had an opportunity to answer your questions and to make a
brief statement about the substantive discussions that they had this
morning.
     Q    Dee Dee, I'd like to ask you some questions about
the Roger Altman briefing that occurred here several weeks ago.
Number one, Treasury officials have been quoted as saying that they
regret -- or Mr. Altman regrets coming over here.  Does the White
House regret having him come over here?
     MS. MYERS:  I think Mr. Altman made a statement about
that.  What we've said is that the meeting -- nothing was
inappropriate, nothing inappropriate took place.  I think some
members of Congress and others have tried to make political hay out
of this, which is unfortunate.  But, as you know, the entire issue is
being investigated by the special counsel, and we just have no
further comment.
     Q    You don't regret his having come over here -- the
White House doesn't?
     MS. MYERS:  I think there was nothing inappropriate
about it.  But, again, the whole issue is being investigated by the
special counsel and we're not going to discuss it.
     Q    Would you explain why it was appropriate for him
not to do it again, to say -- to recuse himself?
     MS. MYERS:  I  think Mr. Altman made a statement about
that -- recused himself, and I'll let his word stand.
     Q    Was that appropriate?

     MS. MYERS:  I think, again, Roger made a statement about
that, and I'll let his word stand.
     Q    Why is Bernie Nussbaum handling this business,
rather than Mr. Kendall, the private attorney?  Why is it being done
on tax-dollar basis?  Why is he the lawyer?
     MS. MYERS:  Well, I think that, again, the briefing was
simply informational.  It was information that was available to
members of Congress and others.  Mr. Altman has addressed that, and I
have no further comment on it.
     Q    But I'm asking you about Mr. Nussbaum, not about
Mr. Altman's role.
     MS. MYERS:  Again, I think we -- there was nothing
inappropriate about that briefing, he was simply passing on
information.  We continue -- I have nothing to add to that.  There
was nothing inappropriate about it.
     Q    But Mr. Nussbaum doesn't defend, or isn't the
lawyer on this case.  Mr. Kendall is.
     MS. MYERS:  I think, again, they were simply passing on
information about issues that I think are relevant and important.
But beyond that, we have no comment on it.
     Q    What would Harold Ickes or Maggie Williams do with
that information?  What would their role be that they would use that
information?
     MS. MYERS:  I'm not going to comment any further on the
substance of the meeting, other than to say this whole thing is being
investigated, we're cooperating fully, and we have nothing more to
say about it.  I would add one point -- we're not going to jump every
time somebody tries to make a political issue out of Whitewater.
We're cooperating fully with the investigation, and we have nothing
more to say about it.
     Q    Why is this a political issue?
     MS. MYERS:  I think there are a number of people who are
trying to make it a political issue, who try to raise it.  And I
think we're not going to react every time they do.
     Q    Just to get back to Mark's original question,
though, is the White House saying that this was appropriate, or is
the White House not?  And do you share the belief that Mr. Altman
said that it shouldn't have happened?
     MS. MYERS:  I think our view is that nothing
inappropriate happened at the meeting.  As Mr. Altman --
     Q    But could this happen again --
     MS. MYERS:  -- Mr. Altman made a statement in recusing
himself.  I think he made it clear that he was taking steps to avoid
even the appearance of impropriety.  That is appropriate, and I have
nothing more to say about it.
     Q    Nothing inappropriate happened at the meeting, but
was the meeting itself appropriate?
     MS. MYERS:  I'm not going to comment on that.  I have
nothing more to add.

     Q    Are you going to answer the question, is Bernard
Nussbaum handling the Whitewater issues for the President?
     MS. MYERS:  As you know, a number of -- this involves a
number of issues across the board.  It's being investigated by a
special counsel.  It is something that, as the Commander in Chief,
the President is obviously forced to deal with.  So occasionally,
it's something that obviously has relevance here.  I'm not going to
get into the specifics.  It's being investigated; we are cooperating
fully with that investigation.
     Q    Well, I'm not looking for specifics.  I'm just
looking for a yes or no -- is he handling Whitewater issues for the
President?
     MS. MYERS:  And I just answered that.
     Q    I didn't hear a yes or no.
     MS. MYERS:  I'm not -- I said that this is something
that obviously involves the President and, therefore, there are
issues that you can't separate it completely from -- he's the
President.
     Q    Also, since the Treasury Secretary has recused
himself, why shouldn't Nussbaum?  Since most of these issues deal
with things that happened while the President was governor, why
shouldn't he recuse himself, because he's essentially the President's
lawyer here for things that happen now?
     MS. MYERS:  He's the President's lawyer, period.  He
deals with issues that affect -- I'm sorry, not the only lawyer --but
he works for the President and these are all -- you can't separate
issues that deal with the President now and before.  I think it's --
you can't make that distinction and we're not going to try.  But I
think Mr. Nussbaum handles his responsibilities in accordance as the
White House Counsel, and he'll continue to do that.
     Q    Dee Dee, is there any indication that the Ames case
may have compromised some CIA agents?  We understood that there were
10 Soviet agents that may have been compromised.  Did it involve
compromising --
     MS. MYERS:  I have no information for you on that.
     Q    Do you expect an agreement today between the Croats
and the Muslims?
     MS. MYERS:  They've made good progress over the weekend
and over the course of the last couple of days, but we have no
announcement for you yet.  If we get any, we'll certainly let you
know as soon as we have anything to announce.
     Q    Is this something that the President would
participate in, or how would that be handled?
     MS. MYERS:  Again, I think it's a little premature, but
I don't expect that the President will have any additional stops on
his schedule today.
     Q    Dee Dee, is there any comment on the announcement
by Moscow and the Bosnian Serbs that they would reopen the airport at
Tuzla?  Is this something that you expected, or did it come as a
surprise?
     MS. MYERS:  Well, we've seen a number of wire reports
and other things on that.  Obviously, there have been a number of
conversations going back to the NATO Conference on how best to open
the Tuzla airport for humanitarian purposes.  If the Russians and the
Serbs can reach an agreement that helps reach that important goal,
that's something that we would support.
     Q    You were not informed beforehand, you were not
consulted by the Russians?
     MS. MYERS:  No, we weren't consulted --
     Q       you learned by the wires?
     MS. MYERS:  Correct, we were not informed specifically
before the Kozyrev meeting this morning.  However, it's something
that we've been working on, working on it on a number of fronts.  And
again, if it helps us achieve the goal of opening Tuzla airport,
that's a positive step.
     Q    What kind of consultations are there right now
between you and the Russians?  Because they take a lot of initiative
and they seem to be doing their thing on their own.  Are they
consulting you?
     MS. MYERS:  There's a number of conversations at
different levels.  As you know, Christopher spoke with Kozyrev
earlier this week.  There's a number of conversations going on at
different levels about issues relevant to both Bosnia and other areas
in the world.  So I think there's been very good discussions on that
and we welcome their participation in this.
     Q    Did Kozyrev alert Christopher to this new
initiative with Karadzic on Tuzla?
     MS. MYERS:  Not that I am aware of, but I'll have to
take that.  Not that I am aware of, but we can take it and make sure
that that's true.
     Q    Here you have the President meeting with the Prime
Minister today on this very subject, this range of subjects, without
being aware that at the same time in Moscow there was --
     MS. MYERS:  Well, certainly, I don't think that one
precludes the other.  The President and the Prime Minister talked
about a number of issues on both the peace track and the track on the
ground.  There are a number of things happening on the ground.  We
welcome the Russians' participation in this.  We've had a number of
discussions with people about how best to open the Tuzla airport.  We
said we would do that by March 7.
     Q    But have you had discussions with the Russians
about it?
     MS. MYERS:  We've had discussions with the Russians
about it, yes.  But I wouldn't say specifically about the initiative
that they talked about today.
     Q    But how do you explain that they did not tell you
beforehand that they were trying to achieve that and that they did
not even bother to call you to inform you afterwards?
     MS. MYERS:  Well, we certainly know that they've had a
number of conversations with the Serbs about how to move the process
forward in Bosnia.  That's been, I think, the goal of their
discussions there for several weeks now.  And we have made it clear
that we encourage and welcome those initiatives and hope that they
will continue to play an active role in promoting the peace process.

     Q    Do you really think that the Russians are trying to
cooperate with this administration on Bosnia?
     MS. MYERS:  I think the Russians are trying to further
the peace process, which we think is a good goal.  And we've had a
number of good discussions with them about this.
     Q    I'm not trying to put too fine a point on it, but
do you really think they are trying to cooperate with you on this?
     MS. MYERS:  I think they're trying to be helpful, yes.
     Q    Moving to the Middle East.  The PLO and Chairman
Arafat personally have absolutely insisted that the United States
directly intervene to support an international protection body for
Palestinians in the occupied territories.  Will we support such
international protection?
     MS. MYERS:  Well, that's something that's, I think,
outlined in the Declaration of Principles.  It makes clear that -- it
allows for an international presence which both Rabin and Arafat have
supported.  That's something that has to be worked out.  Specifically
how that moves forward is something that has to be worked out by the
parties.
     I would just point out that Secretary Christopher spoke
with Chairman Arafat this morning.  He agreed that he would send a
representative here by the end of the week, before Friday, to discuss
moving forward with the discussions which is a good sign.
     Q    Was Arafat in Tunis?
     MS. MYERS:  I believe so, yes, when he spoke with
Christopher.
     Q    And he talked by telephone to him?
     MS. MYERS:  Correct.
     Q    Can you tell us a little bit more about that?
     MS. MYERS:  I think the Secretary made clear that he
wanted to see Chairman Arafat and the PLO follow through on the
commitment that Arafat made to Christopher and to the President last
week when they agreed to bring the talks here and bring the
negotiators here.  Arafat said that because of the outrage and the
pain caused by the Hebron massacre that the timing was perhaps
subject to change, but the basic goal of bringing the negotiators
here was still solid.  And so it was not a question of if, but a
question of when.  And Arafat agreed that they would send an envoy
here sometime this week.
     Q?     On Bosnia, could you tell us about this civilian
mission that Major mentioned -- how many Americans this would
involve, how long?
     MS. MYERS:  It's a relatively short-term mission.  It
would involve mostly, I think, engineers from the U.K. and the U.S.
going there to look at ways to get gas service, water service,
electrical service back to restore some of the infrastructures,
roads, bridges.  We would welcome the participation of other
countries, but I think, at this point, it's limited to Americans and
the British.
     Q    When does it start?

     MS. MYERS:  I don't have the specific dates or the
specific size of the mission.
     Q    Won't they be in danger?
     MS. MYERS:  Well, hopefully they'll be -- well, Sarajevo
is protected.  There's a cease-fire that's in effect.  They will be
working, I think, with UNPROFOR.
     Q    And who would pay for this, and how will these
people be volunteered or scripted or --
     MS. MYERS:  I don't have the specifics on who --
specifically where they would come from or how it would be paid for.
But it is a U.S.-U.K. initiative.
     Q    Can we get some details on this?
     MS. MYERS:  We can try to put some more --
     Q    You mean, this was just these guys throwing out
idea without any --
     MS. MYERS:  Yes, I think as they become available we'll
make them available to you.  I think they decided that it would be
useful to send a civilian mission to help restore some of the basic
services to the city.  As you know, this has been discussed a number
of ways to do this.
     Q    There's been no staff work on how, when, who?
     MS. MYERS:  That's underway now.
     Q       Mr. Major and the President discussed COCOM.
Could you elaborate on that a little bit?  Are both convinced that
there should be kind of a successor organization when by the end of
March COCOM is going out of business?
     MS. MYERS:  Yes, they agreed -- I'll have to get back to
you with the details on it, but they agreed that there should be a
successor to COCOM and it should be reviewed.
     Q    What part should Russia play --
     MS. MYERS:  I'll have to get back to you on the details
of that.  I don't have them.
     Q    Can you go into this COCOM issue a little more?
     MS. MYERS:  You know, I'm going to have a private
briefing in my office after this for anyone who is interested.
     Q    I want to ask you about the Middle East.  Last
week, President Clinton acknowledged that Arafat had accepted for the
talks to continue in Washington.  But you said today, the question is
not if, but when.  They are sending a representative here; is he
going to negotiate the terms when they should return, or bid for
time?
     MS. MYERS:  Yes, I think they will discuss the
modalities, the logistics of the talks in an effort to move it
forward and to get the negotiators back here as soon as possible.
     Q    Didn't the President say last week, though, that
both sides has agreed to actually discuss implementing the framework,
and not just the logistics?  Or are we talking about the same thing?

     MS. MYERS:  Yes.  Both things are still operative.
First, the PLO will send an envoy here to discuss the logistics of
the talks.  The talks themselves will be aimed at actually
implementing the declaration signed here in September.  So I think
the --
     Q    But were you under the impression last week that
they had agreed to resume the talks here?
     MS. MYERS:  Yes, and that agreement still stands.  And
that was one of Chairman Arafat's points today, was that they are
still committed to bringing the negotiators here and to working
through the declaration.
     Q    He did say that?
     MS. MYERS:  Yes, that this was a pause and not a break
in the talks.
     Q    Why are so many officials of our government,
including a presidential commission, pushing to spend $30 million at
least, a year -- maybe a lot more -- on an Asia-free Europe radio
broadcast when we are already have adequate facilities for
broadcasting and are indeed broadcasting already from USIA to Asia?
     MS. MYERS:  Well, as you know, we have a plan that would
consolidate some of the radio services under the direction of USIA.
We are shifting our priorities somewhat and I'm --
     Q       why we are doing something different, putting
something on top of it?  They are already there.
     MS. MYERS:  Well, I think we're restructuring it and
streamlining it, and if you want, I can certainly provide the details
of how it will work under the reconfigured management.  But I think
the goal here is to make -- to create an efficient radio-free system
that operates as cost-effectively as possible.  And I can certainly
provide the details of how that restructuring looks.  I don't have
them --
     Q    They were extremely effective when they had that
massacre over there in Tiananmen Square.  Our facilities that we
already had were extremely effective then.
     Q    Does the President support the moving of the GATT
starting date six months ahead?
     MS. MYERS:  They both agreed that that would be --
     Q    They both agreed to that?
     MS. MYERS:  Right.
     Q    And what is the reason for that?
     MS. MYERS:  Since the agreement has been reached,
implementing it as quickly as possible is a good goal.
     Q    Can I just come back to this issue of Russia and
Bosnia?  There has been a lot of criticism on the Hill that the
administration is having kind of a fast one pulled on them by the
Russians and Bosnia -- that they are going ahead in bringing in
troops.  He called for a summit; now we have the Tuzla airport.  You
just are dismissing that categorically and saying that the
administration is totally comfortable that the Russians have been up
front with them on this relationship, and that they have acted in the
way that is useful for everybody here?

     MS. MYERS:  I think what we've said is that we think
that the Russians are working to try to resolve some outstanding
issues in Bosnia.  It was certainly helpful when they weighed in with
Sarajevo and sent some of their peacekeepers, which then operated
under the command of -- under the control UNPROFOR.  Their troops
have been blue helmets, which is useful.  And I think with their
help, the ultimatum was successful in Sarajevo.
     We've had a number of conversations with them about ways
to move the process forward, both on the ground and through the peace
negotiations, which have also been successful, or have been met with
some success.  So while we don't know every single thing that they
have done -- obviously today is a good example -- I think that
generally they've been helpful.
     Q    Well, have you yet given a response on the proposal
that was made last week for a one-day summit?
     MS. MYERS:  We have not.  Again, we thought there was a
lot of groundwork that needed to be done before the heads of state
would sit down, and we don't think we're there yet.
     Q    Is a cancellation of Team Spirit imminent?
     MS. MYERS:  As you know, the inspectors, the IAEA
inspectors are in North Korea now.  We expect them to resume -- we
expect the inspections to resume tomorrow.  The North-South dialogue
also has to resume before we can talk about Team Spirit planning.
They've agreed to do that Thursday; they've agreed to send
representatives, working-level representatives to Panmunjom.  That
obviously has to happen before we can have further discussions about
as third round of Team Spirit.
     Q    There was an incident in New York today of gunning
down of a group of Hasidic Jews.  And there's a suggestion that that
was retaliation for what happened in the Middle East Hebron massacre.
Does the White House have any comment?
     MS. MYERS:  We've seen reports of that.  I think Mayor
Giuliani said there's no evidence to suggest that the crime was
connected to anything else.  Obviously it's a tragic, barbaric act.
But I have nothing more for you on that.
     Q    When the President was spelling out today his
opposition to the balanced budget amendment, he made a point of
saying how state government make a distinction between consumption
spending and long-term investments.  In that light, what is the
President's position to the Reid substitute today, which does make
that distinction?
     MS. MYERS:  The President's view is that we don't need a
constitutional amendment to balance the budget.  That what we need is
a disciplined plan which he implemented beginning last year, and
we've already seen a very good results from that.  By fiscal `95 we
will have reduced the deficit as a percentage of UDP by 50 percent.
We've had increased jobs, low interest rates, consistently low
inflation, and we think that that's the best route, through a
disciplined program, to both bring down the deficit and to spur
economic growth.  So generally, he's been opposed to any
constitutional amendment to balance the budget.
     Q    By any chance, did the Attorney General drop off
her recommendations on Pollard?  (Laughter.)
     MS. MYERS:  I don't think so, but let me double-check.
I don't believe so.
     Q    For the declaration of principles and the
international observers, one of the key sticking points is whether
they will be armed or unarmed.  Does the U.S. have a position on
that?
     MS. MYERS:  Something that has to be worked out by the
parties.
 END                    2:08 P.M. EST

     I'd like to introduce the next speaker, Chief Sylvester
Daughtry, the Chief of Police in Greensboro, North Carolina, and the
President of the International Association of Chiefs of Police.
     CHIEF DAUGHTRY:  Thank you, Mr. O'Malley.
     To General Reno and other members on the platform, I am
delighted to be here today to lend my support to this national
anticrime initiative, and to express my gratitude to the Clinton
administration for concentrating its efforts and resources into this
critical area of concern for every American.
     Last year, the International Association of the Chiefs
of Police held a summit on violent crime, and issued a report
detailing the enormity of the problem and making recommendations that
would maximize and improve actions to identify, apprehend and
incapacitate violent criminals preying on the American society.
     We found that the rate of violent crime has increased in
this country 371 percent since 1960.  In the last 40 years, we've
moved from having three police officers in the United States to
respond to every violent crime to our current status where we have
fewer than one police officer to respond to every three violent
crimes.
     Clearly, we need to marshal every available resource in
this country to combat our violent crime problems, and today's
initiative is going to take us a long way towards meeting that goal.
This is a new program with a promising difference.  With a clear
recognition that violent crime is primarily a state and local
problem, this effort moves federal agencies into a genuine
partnership with state and local agencies.
     Absent are the turf wars.  Gone are the recognition and
credit issues.  Missing is the notion that this will be an effort to
develop a bureaucracy far from the field.  Present are the important
themes of working together to identify true problems of determining
jointly those resources and programs that should be applied.
     Most importantly from my perspective, this is a program
that will put the federal government into a more effective role in
fighting violent crime.  It is so because the mandate of the
initiative is to focus on the problem of violent crime by merging
national organizations with state and local law enforcement on the
front lines.  And that's where the action is, and that's where we
need the help.
     I know I speak for law enforcement executives around the
country, Mr. Vice President and General Reno, when I express my
thanks for this initiative.  We welcome the involvement and look
forward to the progress I know that we will make.
     Q  General Reno, you said a few minutes ago that
violence is basically a local problem that can't be solved with a
top-down approach, and almost everybody else at the podium has
repeated that point.  Given that, how can you say that either this
reorganization of priorities within the Justice Department or the
three strikes you're out bill, no matter how narrowly drawn, is going
to make what Vice President Gore described as a huge dent in violent
crime?
     ATTORNEY GENERAL RENO:  Because I think they are
tremendous tools.  As a local prosecutor who watched the federal
government do top-down for a long time and approached it from a
fragmented point of view, watched DEA do one thing and the FBI do
another, I saw missed opportunities.  As a local prosecutor who
sorely needed that assistance, needed that assistance focused on
problems in Miami that we understood better, I longed for the day
when there would be a true partnership with the federal government,
using all its resources in the wisest way possible, to supplement,
assist, and where appropriate, prosecute in federal court.
     If there is a federal crime and if it's part of a three
strikes you're out formula, as I mentioned earlier in response to the
first question, that can be an extraordinarily effective tool in
getting truly dangerous career criminals off the streets.
     Q  If I could just follow -- in coming up with your
three strikes you're out definition today, were you able to discover
exactly how many crimes a year that would apply to if it's only
applied to federal crimes?
     ATTORNEY GENERAL RENO:  It will depend in terms --
because it's hard to determine now based on our present prison
population, because we do not know how often it could have been used
by state and local officials and it's not been used because they
didn't have the cooperation, they didn't havon today, were you able to discover
exactly how many crimes a year that would apply to if it's only
applied to federal crimes?
     ATTORNEY GENERAL RENO:  It will depend in terms --
because it's hard to determine now based on our present prison
population, because we do not know how often it could have been used
by state and local officials and it's not been used because they
didn't have the cooperation, they didn't havK~exactly how many crimes a year thatt would apply to if it's only
applied to federal crimes?
     ATTORNEY GENERAL RENO:  It will depend in terms --
because it's hard to determine now based on our present prison
population, because we do not know how often it could have been used
by state and local officials and it's not been used because theythat is absolutesly
possible from a federal perspective in this matter.
     Q  Do you have any reason to believe it's terrorism?
     ATTORNEY GENERAL RENO:  I would not comment on anything
such as that during a pending matter.
     Q  General Reno, is it possible or is there a danger
that the constitutional rights of Americans might be short-changed as
the federal government intensifies its effort against violent crime?
For example, we read last week about a search warrant being executed
on the wrong house in Philadelphia.  If shortcuts are taken, is there
a danger that rights are in jeopardy?
     ATTORNEY GENERAL RENO:  I am dedicated to doing
everything I humanly can to see that the constitutional rights of all
Americans are protected in every way possible.  I have seen in local
and in other situations where they have been abused.  Wherever they
are abused action must be taken and vigorously taken.  But I think
the professional law enforcement people with whom I have come in
contact in the federal agencies, and the dedicated people on the
front line and local agencies can work together to effectively and
constitutionally and vigorously address the problem of violence in
America.
     Q  How much of your plan rests on funneling people
into the federal courts so that you could get stiffer sentences, as
with the Jungleboys?  And how do you get around the fact that many
federal courts say that they're already overburdened?
     ATTORNEY GENERAL RENO:  I think that everybody in
America recognizes that violence is the number one crime.  Federal
judges, like others, understand that there are appropriate times for
federal prosecution, and that in most instances, as we have already
acknowledged, the prosecution should be in state court.  But as I
have mentioned, the fact that the federal agencies will now be
sharing intelligence, that they will now be sharing tips will be
critical to the solution of local crimes.  If federal agencies are
able to provide information that cuts across state lines that might
not be immediately available to local prosecutors and investigators,
it's going to be a tremendous tool and will result in cases brought
in state court.
     We're not seeking to prosecute every case in federal
court; we're not seeking to prosecute every case in which we use a
wire tap.  We're trying to do everything we can to support local law
enforcement the right way.  If it belongs in federal court, then it
should be there.  If it belongs in state court according to
principles of federalism and what's right for the community, then it
should be there.
     Q  Director Freeh, given the shootings in New York
today, what are the Bureau's concerns that the emotions from this
attack in Israel are going to translate into further violence here in
this country?
     DIRECTOR FREEH:  Well, I'd rather not comment on that.
We have a preliminary investigation going on with the New York Police
Department.  Before we can translate that incident into anything more
than what it appears to be right now, which is uncertain, I'd just
rather not comment on that.
     Q  Aside from that case itself, what are the concerns
that there is going to be a spread from there to here?
     DIRECTOR FREEH:  Well, we've had continuing concerns in
the federal government with respect to all the agencies regarding
terrorism which was highlighted last February by the incidents in New
York.  That's an ongoing concern for which we give great care and
preparation.
     Q  Is their concern then heightened by the
developments in Israel?
     DIRECTOR FREEH:  Yes.
     Q  How so?
     DIRECTOR FREEH:  Well, every incident that takes place
around the world impacts on our assessments and preparedness and
analysis of possible incidents in the United States.
     Q  Is there any reason to believe that any of the
information that Ames allegedly provided to the Russians led to the
death of any CIA officials in the United States?
     DIRECTOR FREEH:  I can't comment on that.
     Q  Because of the increased concern of what's happened
in Israel, have you taken any additional safeguards, any additional
heightened alerts at all in the United States?
     DIRECTOR FREEH:  We are in continuous and daily
consultation not just within our enforcement agencies, but with the
intelligence agencies.  But I can't really comment on the details.
     THE PRESS:  Thank you.
For Immediate Release                              March 1, 1994

  PRESS CONFERENCE BY THE PRESIDENT
       AND PRIME MINISTER MAJOR

       The Diplomatic Entrance

9:20 A.M. EST

     THE PRESIDENT:  We'd like to just make a couple of brief
remarks and then we'll answer some questions.

     Those are some of the things that we discussed.  And
I'll now turn it over to Prime Minister Major to make a few remarks
and we'll answer some questions.
     Q    Are all your differences wiped out?

     THE PRESIDENT:  Well, let me give the Prime Minister a
chance to make some remarks first.
     PRIME MINISTER MAJOR:  Can I firstly say how enjoyable
this visit has been, and thank the President for his hospitality, and
also the people of Pittsburgh.  It was a memorable day and a
memorable evening yesterday, and I thoroughly enjoyed every moment of
it.
     I don't want to add a great deal to what the President
has had to say; perhaps a word or two about Bosnia in general, and
Sarajevo, in particular.

     Q    Can I ask you what in the new world order does the
Anglo-American relationship mean to both of you?
     PRIME MINISTER MAJOR:  Shall I start, or will you?
     I think it's a partnership of shared interests and
shared instincts.  If one looks at problems around the world,
overwhelmingly, we are likely to take the same view of those.  That
has been the case in the past and is the case now.  And I think it's
those shared instincts and interests that actually underpin the long-
term relationship between the United Kingdom and the United States.
     THE PRESIDENT:  I agree with that.  I think it's a great
mistake to overstate the occasional disagreement and understate the
incredible depth and breadth of our shared interests and our shared
values.  It's still a profoundly important relationship, I think, to
both countries and, I also believe, to the future of the world.
     Q    Could you tell us a little bit -- in this country
today, the Senate is beginning to take up the balanced budget
amendment -- what your view is on that, where you think it's going?
     THE PRESIDENT:  I don't know where it's going, but I
hope that it won't be passed because if it is passed, it runs the
risk of endangering our economic recovery by requiring excessive tax
increases or very damaging cuts in defense, or in investments in
technology and job training, or Medicare and Social Security.  If it
is disregarded -- there's a provision in there to disregard it if 60
percent of both Houses want to do it -- it amounts to turning the
whole future of America over to 40 percent plus one of each House of
the Congress.  In an intensely partisan atmosphere that's a recipe
for total paralysis.
     So I just -- also, unlike all these state and local
balanced budget amendments, this one makes utterly no distinction
between the long-term investment and annual consumption.  So for
those reasons, I hope it won't be adopted.
     Finally, we're proving you can bring the deficit down.
The deficit is now going to be about half the percentage of our
annual income that it was when I took office if this new budget is
adopted.  So we're going to keep bringing it down.
     I think the administration has credibility on cutting
spending.  We presented the first cuts in discretionary spending
since 1969 in this budget.  So I think we've got a record; I think
we're on the right track.  And I think this remedy, while it's a very
serious problem -- what's happened to the deficit -- this remedy is
the wrong one.  I hope the Congress will reject it.
     Q    Mr. President, on Bosnia, you've agreed to send
some civilians.  Does that -- that you might prefer to see other
civilians help monitor the cease-fire, and are you still adamant you
won't send troops in at all at the present?
     THE PRESIDENT:  Well, our position has always been that
we would be prepared to help enforce an agreement if we could work
out a peace agreement; that in the absence of the peace agreement we
would confine our involvement to the support we're giving through
NATO in our air power, and to, essentially, the technical personnel
who are there now and others that might be able to do that kind of
work.  That is still our position.
     But let me say that I think we have a terrific
opportunity here to try to build on what happened in the situation
involving Sarajevo, to try to keep the Russians involved in a very
constructive leadership way, and to try to work on these talks now
under way here in Washington between the Bosnian government and the
Croatians -- to move to that kind of settlement.  If we can get that,
then I think all the responsible countries of the world have got to
try to help make it work.
     A question for the Prime Minister?

     Q    Could I ask the Prime Minister, then, has the
President given you a promise about future conditions for the
readmission of Gerry Adams?  Will he have to renounce violence to get
another visa to get into the United States?
     PRIME MINISTER MAJOR:  I think everyone has seen what
has happened with regard to this.  I think the important issues is to
look forward and see how we produce a solution to the Northern
Ireland problem.  I'm not interested in looking back.  And I think as
one looks forward, one only has to look at the very remarkable
expression of opinion that we've seen over the last few days of
support for the joint declaration.  Now, that joint declaration is
there.  It is now a living fact.  It is a series of principles upon
which we hope to base a solution to the problems that have bedeviled
Northern Ireland for too long.  Now, that is the main issue that I
want to address and those are the issues we've been discussing.
     Q    Mr. President, to follow -- you're talking about
following on the progress that you've made in Bosnia.  Did you talk
about any steps to end the fighting in other places beyond Sarajevo,
perhaps extending the ultimatum to Tuzla or Srebrenica or other
areas?
     THE PRESIDENT:  Well, we feel pretty good about where
things are in Srebrenica now.  We think that the troop exchange  will
be able to occur between the Canadians and the Dutch, and we're
working on Tuzla.  We do believe that we should keep working to
fulfill the commitment that NATO made at its last meeting in January,
to try to see what can be done to open the Tuzla airport.  But there
are ongoing negotiations there now.
     Again, we have sought the involvement of the Russians in
this regard, and we think that there's a chance that we'll be able to
have some success in Tuzla.  We've discussed what our options are and
I think you'll see more about that in the days ahead.
     Q    Are you concerned about the recent NATO air strikes
that resulted in increased bombing of the Tuzla area?  I mean, your
message is that you're not going to tolerate violation of the no-
flight zone, but how do you reenforce that to prevent the increased
activity?
     THE PRESIDENT:  Well, right now our authority beyond
what's going on in Sarajevo is confined to enforcing the no-fly zone.
And we did that.  But I want to say again what I said yesterday:  It
was based on the authority vested through the United Nations last
April.  It was something done in the course of business to do what we
are required to do.  It should not be read in any way as a departure
of strategy or tactics because of what's going on now generally.  And
I think it should only serve to make people want to resolve this more
quickly, to go on with the negotiations now.  That's what I'm hopeful
of.
     Q    To follow up, if I may, sir, though -- if there
were indeed other bombing missions and the attacks step up on these
other areas outside of Sarajevo, what can NATO do to prevent the
spread of this violence?
     THE PRESIDENT:  Well, right now, I'll say again, the
authority we had with regard to artillery -- that is, on the ground
attacks -- is the authority to remove artillery from around the
Sarajevo area to create the safe zone.  All other authority is
related to stopping the war from spreading into the air.  And we're
talking about what we can do in Tuzla now.  That's what you'll see, I
hope, unfolding in a very positive way over the next few days.
     PRIME MINISTER MAJOR:  I have something to add.  I mean,
it's just -- I think what people have to realize is that what is
developing is developing on a twin track.  There is the track of
seeking a political settlement, and some progress has been made
between the Muslims and the Croats here in Washington over the last
couple of days.  And then, of course, there's the second track of
what is actually happening on the ground.  And I think one saw in
Sarajevo a classic illustration of how an agreement can be reached on
the ground that leads in due course to the corralling of weapons.  So
I think both those tracks will continue.
     But as far as the no-fly zone is concerned, the incident
that occurred yesterday, where I think it was entirely justifiable to
shoot down the planes that were intruding in the no-fly zone, could
have happened at any stage in the last year.  It certainly isn't a
departure from accepted policy.  At any time in the last 12 months
that could have occurred.
     THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you very much.
     PRIME MINISTER MAJOR:  Thank you.
For Immediate Release                                   March 2, 1994

                            PRESS BRIEFING
                           BY DEE DEE MYERS

                          The Briefing Room

2:01 P.M. EST

     MS. MYERS:  Just a quick announcement on the schedule
for the meeting with President Kravchuk on Friday.  The meeting will
begin at 11:30 a.m., followed by lunch at 12:20 p.m. in the
Residence.  At 1:30 p.m. there will be the usual press availability
which will likely include the signing of some agreements in the areas
of economics -- particularly in the areas of economics.
     So that's an exciting moment for us to all look forward
to.
     Any questions?
     Q  It won't be outside in the snow, huh?  (Laughter.)
     MS. MYERS:  Well, you guys enjoyed that a lot yesterday,
so we're thinking of making that permanent venue for foreign leaders.
No, it will be in the East Room.
     Q  The leaders looked awfully dignified also.
     Q  Is the President still satisfied with Mr. Hubbell
in light of the investigation by his former law firm?
     MS. MYERS:  Let me tell you everything that I know about
that at this point.  The White House learned of the issue yesterday
after inquiries from The Washington Post.  Upon receiving phone
calls, Chief of Staff Mack McLarty telephoned Mr. Hubbell, and Web
told him essentially what his lawyer told The Washington Post, which
was that it did not happen.  At that time, Mack --
     Q  What did not happen?
     MS. MYERS:  Well, the charges outlined in The Post
story.
     Q  Charges of overcharges or --
     MS. MYERS:  Yes, exactly.  And at that point Mack
informed the President.  That is essentially what we know at this
point.  And I understand that Webb Hubbell will have more to say
about this later.
     Q  Today?
     MS. MYERS:  Today.  I'm not sure in what forum, but --
     Q  What was the President's reaction upon being told
this?

     MS. MYERS:  Well, he stands by Webb.  He believes him.
He believes his denial.
     Q  All that happened is Mack calls him up and says,
how about it, Webb; and Webb says, not true; and that's good enough
for everybody here?
     MS. MYERS:  That's correct.
     Q  They're all friends from Arkansas and shouldn't
somebody other than an Arkansan and a great friend of Webb Hubbell
look into this for the White House?
     MS. MYERS:  Well, Mack McLarty is the Chief of Staff.  I
think it is appropriate that he would be the one to make the inquiry.
He did.  He spoke to Webb about it, and again, Webb told him the same
thing that Webb's lawyer later told The Post, which is that it just
didn't happen.  It wasn't true.
     Q  Did he ask for any specifics about what it is about
-- obviously, it's enough to trigger an investigation within that
firm.  Did Mr. McLarty inquire any further than, how about it, old
buddy, is this true or not, or what?
     MS. MYERS:  I don't know all the details of their
conversation.  I think the specifics are an internal matter at the
Rose law firm, and I can't speak for them.  But I think Webb received
-- Mack received assurances from Webb that it wasn't true.  And the
President's dissatisfied by that.
     Q  That what wasn't true -- that the investigation is
not taking place or that what he's being investigated for are not
true?
     MS. MYERS:  I don't know any more about the
investigation than what I read in The Post -- that the charges that,
of overbilling and misuse of funds were not true.
     Q  Were you able to verify there was a review, there
is an ongoing review internally?  I mean, does the White House know
whether the law firm is investigating him or --
     MS. MYERS:  No.  I mean, I think that, again, what we
know about it is what was in The Post this morning in terms of an
investigation.  That's something you'd have to talk to the Rose firm
--
     Q  Well, did Hubbell dispute in his conversation with
McLarty that it's being looked into?
     MS. MYERS:  He simply assured him that the charges were
not true.  And, again, Webb will have more to say about this, and I
would let him --
     Q  And Mr. McLarty didn't even want to find out
whether there was an investigation going on in the firm?
     MS. MYERS:  I think he was -- what he wanted to know was
were the charges true, and Webb said they were not.  Again, I don't
speak for the Rose firm.  Webb will have more to say about this
later, and I just can't talk about the details.
     Q  Are you saying that McLarty will not go further --
     Q  You don't know if Mack even asked him, or are you
saying that Mack doesn't know whether there's an investigation?

     MS. MYERS:  I don't know all the details of their
conversation.  I think what Mack was looking for was an assurance
that the charges were not true.  Webb gave him that.
     Q  It's possible that Mack asked --
     MS. MYERS:  It's possible.  I don't know what the
details, the extent of their conversation.
     Q  Did Chief of Staff McLarty call anyone else other
than Webb Hubbell and -- in other words, did he call the Rose firm
and ask the managing partner whether there is in fact an
investigation?  Did the Chief of Staff make any effort to call anyone
else to pursue this?
     MS. MYERS:  Not that I know of.
     Q  So all he did was to call his old friend of many
years standing who is the subject of this alleged investigation and
ask him --
     MS. MYERS:  To ask if the charges were true, correct.
     Q  Is anyone in the Counsel's Office looking into this
and pursuing this in any way?
     MS. MYERS:  Not that I know of.  Again, it's an internal
Rose matter at this point.
     Q  Is anybody elsewhere in the White House or
elsewhere in the administration looking into what happened or what
didn't happen, or is Mack's inquiry, "Webb, did this happen," "No, it
didn't" the extent of this?
     MS. MYERS:  Well, let's focus on what it is.  It is an
internal -- what The Washington Post says today is that there's an
internal investigation.  That is something that is being conducted
internally.  I think -- we can't speak to that.  That is not a White
House issue.  That is not --
     Q  Well, wait a minute, Dee Dee --
     Q  But somebody could sit down with Webb and go
through with him what his billing practices were and what his
understanding is of this investigation.
     MS. MYERS:  That's the firm's responsibility.
     Q  You said it doesn't have to do with the White
House.  Doesn't the White House care whether or not Mr. Hubbell
engaged in what is, internal Rose investigation or not, plainly
unethical behavior?  And if it does care, why does it not do
something --
     MS. MYERS:  That is something --
     Q     more than call a guy up on the phone and say,
how about it, old friend?
     MS. MYERS:  Wait, wait, wait, Brit.  That is something
that is being looked at, according to The Washington Post, at the
Rose law firm.  I can't speak to that.
     Q  You just said it has nothing to do with the White
House.  But doesn't the White House care -- Rose firm investigation
or not, doesn't the White House care about this?

     MS. MYERS:  The specifics of that are not something that
we are involved in.  That is something that is being -- that is
something that -- I can't speak for the Rose firm.
     Q  Then what was the purpose of the call then?
     MS. MYERS:  The purpose of the call was to establish
whether or not the charges were in fact true.
     Q  But asking the defendant is normally --
     MS. MYERS:  Webb has denied those --
     Q     not the number one way of finding out whether
the charges are true or not.
     MS. MYERS:  I would also remind you that there isn't
anybody on the record who acknowledges these charges.  I would also
point out that Webb Hubbell was fully vetted.  He went through a
Senate confirmation process by the White House Counsel's Office.  And
I think a Senate confirmation process, which I don't think anybody
here would suggest that those are taken lightly or not thorough or in
many cases quite combative, so --
     Q  What about the Attorney General?  Has anybody here
spoken with her about her approach to this and whether or not the
credibility of the Justice Department is now on the line, considering
that there has been a cloud of some sort cast over the person who has
to supervise all of the civil work for the entire department?
     MS. MYERS:  Nobody has spoken to Attorney General Janet
Reno.  And again, I would just point out that Webb Hubbell will have
more to say about this later.
     Q  Did Mack McLarty recommend Mr. Hubbell make a
public statement?
     MS. MYERS:  I don't believe so, no.
     Q  Have they had a conversation since that
conversation yesterday, or was it just the one?
     MS. MYERS:  No, Mack just spoke to him yesterday.
     Q  Has the President spoken to Mr. Hubbell at all
since --
     MS. MYERS:  No.
     Q  Has the First Lady?
     MS. MYERS:  Not that I know of.  I don't believe so.
     Q  In what forum is he making this statement?
     MS. MYERS:  I don't know.  That's something that they --
I don't think they've decided yet exactly what form it will take.
     Q  Do you happen to know if the First Lady as a former
senior partner at Rose law firm was aware of the investigation?
     MS. MYERS:  She was not.  She learned about it yesterday
from her staff after they received similar queries from The
Washington Post.
     Q     if it came up during the FBI background
investigation of Mr. Hubbell?

     MS. MYERS:  I don't know all the details of the FBI
background investigation.
     Q  Can you answer the question of whether -- you said
the Counsel's Office isn't doing any work on this.  Is anyone in the
administration of the White House currently gathering records,
interviewing people, looking at it, organizing to react to it -- any
possible -- separate from the Rose investigation?
     MS. MYERS:  We're doing our best to answer questions
about it.  But I don't know of any -- I don't think there's any
additional inquiry or investigation here.  I don't believe that's
happening.
     Q  This investigation supposedly started in the summer
of 1992 when Bill Kennedy was managing partner of the Rose law firm.
Has anybody at the White House asked him if he was aware of this
investigation?
     MS. MYERS:  He was not.
     Q  What was the question?
     Q  He was not aware of any such investigation.
     MS. MYERS:  The question was, was Bill Kennedy aware of
the investigation as managing partner at the Rose law firm.  The
answer is no.
     Q  And he never became subsequently aware of it in his
continuing contacts --
     MS. MYERS:  He learned of it yesterday.
     Q  Who asked Kennedy?
     MS. MYERS:  I'm not sure who talked to him.  We talked
to him today.  I'm not sure who first informed him about it.
     Q  But you're saying that -- just to make this clear,
you're not saying that Hubbell has confirmed or not confirmed that
there is an ongoing investigation; you're simply saying that the
substance of any charges that he either double-billed or charged
personal expenses to the firm were untrue.
     MS. MYERS:  Correct.
     Q  But that you have not yet ascertained whether there
is in fact or isn't in fact an investigation by the firm.  Is that --
     MS. MYERS:  Right.  And my response to that is that Webb
will have more to say about this later.
     Q  Do you know if Mr. Hubbell knew of this
investigation?
     MS. MYERS:  He'll have more to say about this later.
     Q  How does the White House know that Hubbell's going
to say something?
     Q  You're saying that Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Hubbell had
no idea that this investigation was going on?
     MS. MYERS:  We talked to some folks over there today to
find out if --
     Q  Then who spoke to whom, may I ask?

     MS. MYERS:  I believe that we spoke to --
     Q  We --
     MS. MYERS:   We in the Communications Office -- I
believe Mark spoke with somebody over there in their communications
office to find out how they were handling inquiries.
     Q  Were any recommendations transmitted from this end?
     MS. MYERS:  No.
     Q  That's just an inquiry to find out what you were
saying or what they were saying?
     MS. MYERS:  Yes, just to find out what they were doing
so that we could --
     Q  Coordinate your accounts?
     MS. MYERS:  -- push those questions off to them --
(laughter) -- as appropriate.
     Q  Dee Dee, Super 301 announcement today?  Is that
erroneous or can we expect that?
     MS. MYERS:  No announcement is scheduled.  The final
decision has not been made.  There are snickers in the front row.
     Q  NEC is meeting on this this afternoon?
     MS. MYERS:  There is an NEC meeting.  I believe it's
happening now.  A final decision has not been made on this.  As soon
as a decision is made, if one is made, we will let you know.
     Q  Could it be today?
     Q  Is it possible that immediately after the meeting,
the option is presented to the President, he signs off --
     MS. MYERS:  I don't want to rule anything out.  I
wouldn't hold my breath for this afternoon.
     Q  I want to clarify some part of what the President
said this morning -- the quote, "Since the framework agreement may
well not be carried out" -- unquote.  What he wanted to say is since
the framework talks did not end successfully or something or --
     MS. MYERS:  Well, I think he -- since Prime Minister
Hosokawa left, we have not heard back from the Japanese government on
the framework talks.  Essentially, the ball is in their court.  The
President has made clear what the U.S. requires which is some kind of
a qualitative and quantitative measure of progress.  Some way to
guarantee that there has been progress.  I think since the Prime
Minister left again, we haven't heard from them.  We're certainly
open to any ideas they have for reaching our standard for
quantifiable, qualitative, and quantitative measures to guarantee
that markets are opening and that there is more access for U.S. goods
and services.  But so far, we haven't heard from them.
     Q  When 301 is decided, what form will the
announcement take?
     MS. MYERS:  No decision on that yet, either.
     Q  Will it be the President or will it more likely be
a piece of paper?

     MS. MYERS:  I don't think we've -- we'll have to get a
decision and then decide how we want to go about making the
announcement should that be necessary.
     Q  The President mentioned hope for a phone call with
King Hussein.  Has that come off yet?
     MS. MYERS:  It was supposed to happen at 1:00 p.m..  I
don't know -- I haven't verified that it happened.
     Q  What is he saying to Mubarak and Hussein and all
the people that he's talking to?
     MS. MYERS:  Well, I think he just wanted to urge
everybody to continue in the peace process.  One of the things that
he said today was that if the tragedy in Hebron succeeds in derailing
the peace process, then the extremists will have been handed a
victory.  And he thinks that is the last thing that we should allow
to happen.
     Q  So is he asking them to pressure Arafat?
     MS. MYERS:  I think he's just asking everybody to
continue to work toward peace, yes, to participate in the process.
The PLO announced the name today of the person that they're sending.
Let me give you that.  It's Nabil Shaath, who was scheduled to arrive
here tomorrow.  We'll meet with some of the peace team on Thursday,
and then we'll meet with Secretary Christopher on Friday morning
before he leaves for Asia.  So we'll continue to work with the
Palestinians and with the Israelis to try move toward getting the
talks restarted here in Washington.
     Q  Has the President talked about Florida politics
with his brother-in-law?
     MS. MYERS:  I don't know specifically the answer to
that.  He said -- he answered that question himself today about his
position on Hugh.
     Q  We talked about Rodham having to make the decision,
but it left open the question of whether Rodham had asked him his
feeling about such a campaign.
     MS. MYERS:  I can take that.  I honestly don't know the
answer to that.
     Q  He seems very cool to his brother-in-law's
candidacy.
     MS. MYERS:  Well, I think he's pointed out that it's up
to Hugh to decide what he's going to do.  And he said in the fall he
expects to be campaigning for all the Democrats.  So I'll leave this
answer at that.
     Q  You said he hadn't filed, and, in fact, he did file
yesterday.  There was also quite a contrast between his feeling for
his brother-in-law and his feeling on Rostenkowski in London.
(Laughter.)
     MS. MYERS:  Again, at this point, I think I'll let the
President's statement stand.  I have nothing to add to what he said
today.
     The phone call to Hussein did happen.  It was a brief
call, and we may have -- we'll probably put out a couple of sentences
on that later.

     Q  When the President said that he wouldn't  get
involved in primaries, what did he think he was doing in Chicago on
Monday?
     MS. MYERS:  He did not endorse a candidate in Chicago on
Monday.  But I think he made very clear that he's going to support
candidates who support his initiative.  Chairman Rostenkowski worked
hard last year on the budget, on NAFTA.  He's fighting hard for
health care reform and a tough but smart crime bill.  And we'll
continue to work with him.
     Q  Hugh Rodham isn't being supportive enough on health
care.  Is that the problem?
     MS. MYERS:  Again, I have nothing to add to what the
President said today about his brother-in-law.
     Q  It can only go downhill.
     MS. MYERS:  Yes.
     Q  I'm sorry to drag you back --
     MS. MYERS:  Don't do it, Ruth, please.
     Q  I'm really sorry.  I feel terrible about this, I
do.  But -- (laughter) --
     Q  Do it, Ruth, do it.  (Laughter.)
     Q  You'll feel better later.
     Q  The idea that a significant figure in the Clinton
administration is allegedly under investigation for some pretty
serious things by his own law firm and the administration is
satisfied with a brief telephone conversation with the Chief of
Staff, and then is going to look into the matter no further seems
like a pretty kind of lax attitude.  And I'm wondering if you can
comment on that.
     MS. MYERS:  Well, two things:  one, again I would just
remind you that Webb Hubbell will have more to say about this himself
and I don't want to be in a position of trying to speak for him.  In
terms of our view of this, it is something that is being handled
internally by the Rose firm.  I think that's something that they
certainly can choose how to run their internal matters, and I can't
speak for them either.  But I think Mack McLarty was assured by Webb
that the charges were not -- that the allegations or the questions
raised in The Post story were not true.  And I don't think any other
specific charges have been filed in any kind of -- I mean, they're
reviewing this internally.  Nobody's accused him of doing anything
wrong.  Let's just wait and see what he has to say later today.
     Q  Dee Dee, would you expect to get some sort of
report or information from the Rose law firm on what they find?
     MS. MYERS:  I don't think they are anticipating
reporting to the White House; I don't think that that's their
obligation.
     Q  I know, but would the White House like it if they
did?
     Q  How will you find out whether or not the charges
are true?
     MS. MYERS:  I think we asked Mr. Hubbell whether the
charges were true.

     Q  Suppose he lied?
     MS. MYERS:  I would never suppose such a thing.  And
again, Webb will have more to say about this later and I just would
urge you to wait and hear what he has to say.
     Q  Did the President have any prior knowledge of this?
     MS. MYERS:  No.
     Q  I mean, these guys play golf together, they know
each other very well.
     MS. MYERS:  Again, the President was informed yesterday
by Mack after he spoke with Webb.
     Q  What time was that?
     MS. MYERS:  It was late afternoon, early evening when
Mack reached Webb, and I think he informed the President sometime
thereafter; so probably early evening.
     Q  Dee Dee, you said that you didn't know whether or
not the FBI background check had uncovered this.  It's possible,
then, that they could have uncovered this and discounted it.  Could
you take that question and see if --
     MS. MYERS:  I would just -- yes, I'll see what we know
about that.
     Q  Along those lines, do you know anything about the
origin of this investigation?
     Q  Can you tell us who in the Counsel's Office vetted
Webb?
     MS. MYERS:  Somebody in the Counsel's Office, but we're
not providing any names.
     Q  But it's all internal, it wasn't one of the outside
vetters?
     Q  Bill Kennedy?
     MS. MYERS:  No, it was not Bill Kennedy.  I will say
that.  Yes, he was on staff, the vetter.
     Q  Does Hubbell plan to remain as Associate Attorney
General?
     MS. MYERS:  The President has full confidence in him.
     Q  Does he intend to -- to the best of your knowledge
--
     MS. MYERS:  To the best of my knowledge, yes.
     Q  He's not going to resign today or anything?
     MS. MYERS:  No, to the best of my knowledge.  I, again,
leave you to his statement later today.
     Q  Were there inquiries made to the RTC or the FPIC
about whether they were looking into this?  Or was there any
communication with either of the banking or financial --
     MS. MYERS:  With the White House?

     Q  Yes.
     MS. MYERS:  No, absolutely not.
     Q  Then no communication was faxed to them?
     MS. MYERS:  I'm sorry?
     Q  The White House did not ask them, and neither of
those agencies communicated in any way with the White House on the
Webb Hubbell matter today?
     MS. MYERS:  No.
     Q  Anything new on North Korea?
     MS. MYERS:  No, we expect inspections to resume soon.
The inspectors are there, and we expect that the North-South dialogue
will be -- representatives, working level representatives will meet
in Panmunjom tomorrow; so we'll see how that goes.
     Q  What does tomorrow look like?
     Q  Any indication of what the President's doing
tomorrow?
     MS. MYERS:  Tomorrow the President --
     Q  REGO.
     MS. MYERS:  Yeah, this is exciting.
     Q  Oh, no.
     MS. MYERS:  You have all earned this today.  (Laughter.)
At 10:30 a.m. tomorrow --
     Q  Are you scheduling events to punish us?
(Laughter.)
     MS. MYERS:  I want you to keep in mind what happens.  At
10:30 a.m. tomorrow, in the Roosevelt Room, the President and Vice
President will do an event to commemorate the one-year anniversary of
the President asking the Vice President to perform his REGO study.
(Laughter.)  To undertake the REGO project.
     Q  Wait a minute, you're going to do a year
anniversary of the bloody assignment?
     Q  Why?
     MS. MYERS:  Because we're going to talk about the
results -- how much progress we've made in the last year.  There will
be people there --
     Q  What are you going to do in a year of this report
-- have a week-long festival in the Roosevelt Room?  (Laughter.)
     Q  Are you going to have a one-year anniversary of the
request that the Attorney General look at Pollard?  (Laughter.)
     MS. MYERS:  Still -- we're getting close to that, we're
working up to that.  Still no report on Pollard.
     Oh, but wait, there's more on REGO tomorrow.  At 1:00
p.m., Leon Panetta and Elaine Kamarck will be right here in this very
Briefing Room at this podium to talk about how much progress they've
made.

     Q  That will be on background, of course.  (Laughter.)
     MS. MYERS:  Probably.  (Laughter.)  And then on Friday
we have the Kravchuk schedule, which I gave you.  And Saturday, live
radio address.  And at this point he's scheduled to be off for the
rest of the weekend.
     Q  Dee Dee, has anyone involved in the reinventing
government project attempted to call the White House main switchboard
number?  And if so, have they gotten an answer?
     Q  Which we used to get.  Like a real human being
answering the phone.
     MS. MYERS:  As opposed to the automated system?
     Q  As opposed to -- Reinventing Government and the
phone will ring and ring and ring, 25, 30 times before anybody picks
up on it.
     MS. MYERS:  Is that right?  I am unaware of that, but
I'll get on it right away and ask them to reinvent their phone
system.
     Q  I wouldn't call them, I'd go over there.
(Laughter.)
     Q  Let's get those wonderful operators back who did
such a brilliant job --
     MS. MYERS:  I will take that question, though, and find
out what the situation is.  I think we've had enough --
     Q  It's really true, you cannot get through for love
or money.
     Q  One quickie.  Nobody from the White House or
elsewhere in the administration has called anybody at the Rose law
firm to get their assessment of the situation?
     MS. MYERS:  Not that I'm aware of.
     Q  Could you take the question --
     MS. MYERS:  Yes, I'm quite sure that that has not
happened.  The question is, has anybody from the White House called
anybody at the Rose firm.
     Q  Why not --
     MS. MYERS:  Well, I think the Rose firm answered the
question in the story today; Webb's lawyer answered the question in
the story today.  We spoke with Webb's lawyer, and it's an internal
matter --
     Q  You spoke with Webb's lawyer?
     MS. MYERS:  I'm sorry, we spoke with Webb.  Mack spoke
with Webb.  The Post spoke with Webb's lawyer.  The managing partner,
or whoever is speaking for the Webb firm was on the record in that
story.
     Q  Saying, "no comment."
     MS. MYERS:  And I would leave the rest of it to Webb
later today.
     Q  Why wouldn't you want to talk to the Rose law firm
to find out if there's something going on that you should know about?

     Q  A possible cloud over your Justice Department.
     MS. MYERS:  Again, Webb's going to have more to say
about this.  And I think that's the best place to go next is to let
him speak.
     Thank you.
     THE PRESS:  Thank you.
For Immediate Release                              March 4, 1994

PRESS CONFERENCE BY PRESIDENT CLINTON
  AND PRESIDENT KRAVCHUK OF UKRAINE

    The East Room

2:10 P.M. EST

     PRESIDENT CLINTON:  Good afternoon.  It's a great
pleasure for me to welcome President Kravchuk and his entire
delegation from Ukraine to the White House today.  Before I go
forward, I think I should acknowledge the presence in the Ukrainian
delegation of two of the Ukraine's Olympic athletes, Victor Petrenko
and the Olympic Gold Medalist in skating, Oksana Baiul.  Welcome to
the United States.  (Applause.)
    
     PRESIDENT CLINTON:  Thank you, Mr. President.
     Now, what we will -- we'll attempt to alternate between
the American press and the Ukrainian press on questions.  So we'll
start with Helen.
     Q    Mr. President, is Mr. Nussbaum leaving your staff,
and have you decided how you're going to approach these daily spate
of stories concerning Whitewater -- been likened in Post cartoons as
torture, Chinese torture, and so forth?
     PRESIDENT CLINTON:  Well, I think that's a decision more
for you than for me whether there will be a daily spate of stories.
Most of the newspapers in the country asked me to have a special
counsel appointed.  That's what I have done; I did it so that I could
go on with my work.  It's been an interesting thing since no one has
still accused me or any -- as far as I know of doing anything wrong
in this whole encounter.  So we have a special counsel, and I intend
to let the process unfold.
     Yesterday, I said what I had to say about the meetings
that had occurred, or the conversations that had occurred.  I think
we have constructed a clear and appropriate fire wall between the
White House and any federal regulatory agency that might have
anything to do with this, as I think it is absolutely imperative to
do.  And I have told again everybody on my staff to just bend over
backwards to be as cooperative as possible.  I want a full
investigation.  I want this thing to be done fully, clearly and to be
over with.  That is my only interest and I intend to pursue it with
great vigor.
     Q    How about Mr. Nussbaum?
     PRESIDENT CLINTON:  I have nothing more to add to what I
said yesterday.
     Q    It was said that the moment is historic in the
history of Ukraine.  Is this historic moment is different from any
other historic moment in the history of Ukraine?
     PRESIDENT KRAVCHUK:  I do understand your question.
Every country lived through a historic period of -- the time that we
are living through is very complicated.  It's a period of
transformation, transfer from one system to another.  Ukraine is in a
very bad, very difficult situation and friendly relationship with the
United States of America, the good neighborly relations in all areas
of political and economic life.  It is really a true historic moment.
And the fact that United States of America and Ukraine signed
documents which opened up the way to   market reforms and strong
democracy, which still have to take place on the territory of the
former republics of the former Soviet Union.  This is truly a
historic moment.

     Yes, the word had its own history, but it cannot be
interpreted as an archaic word.  This is the word of a very high,
lofty sounding.
     Q    President Kravchuk, your Ukrainian Parliament has
failed to ratify the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.  Are you
confident that it will ratify this treaty?  And will the $700 million
of aid that you talked about today go forward if the Parliament fails
to take that step?
     PRESIDENT CLINTON:  First, I am confident it will ratify
the treaty.  Perhaps I should let President Kravchuk speak for
himself on this.  I believe that because the Parliament has supported
the trilateral agreement, the START Treaty, the Lisbon Protocol,
which is the first step toward becoming a nonnuclear -- I mean,
agreeing to the Nonproliferation Treaty.  I'm also confident because
this country has already begun to implement its commitment to reduce
the nuclear presence.  And the Nunn-Lugar funds, in particular, as
you know, are tied to making sure that countries can afford to do it
and can reduce their nuclear capacity in a technically and competent
and safe way.  So I feel a high level of confidence in this.
     President Kravchuk again assured me today that the he
thought the NPT would be acceded to by the Rada and that the real
problem -- the reason it hasn't happened just before his coming here
is because so many people are out campaigning, something that we all
understand in this country.  But I think it would be good to let him
make a comment about this.
     PRESIDENT KRAVCHUK:  The thing is that having ratified
START I and removing the reservations as to Article V of the Lisbon
Protocol, the Ukraine has committed itself, the political commitment,
to accede to the NPT as a nonnuclear power.  This question is now
open as a committing task for Ukraine.  So you shouldn't have doubts
about the ratification or nonratification of the NPT.  As to the
money which is allocated to Ukraine, that money is allocated for
dismantling the weapons.  And we have already started dismantling the
nuclear weapons in Ukraine.
     Q    This is a question to President Clinton.  You have
already landed in Ukraine, and that was a very short stopover.  Are
you planning on official state visit to Ukraine?
     PRESIDENT CLINTON:  I would very much like to come back.
This year I have a full schedule of travel, perhaps as much as I can
accommodate this year.  But I certainly wouldn't rule it out.  I had
such a good time on my brief stay, I wanted to do more and to see
more.
     Q    Mr. President, I have a question for both
Presidents.  Are you satisfied with the progress on removing nuclear
missiles from the Ukraine under the January Moscow agreement?
     PRESIDENT CLINTON:  I personally am.  I think they're
making good progress and proceeding just as they agreed to do.  There
were some -- obviously, there are always technical details to be
worked out.  And this is a delicate matter that has to be handled
with great care.  But I'm personally well satisfied.
     Mr. President, do you want to answer that question?
     PRESIDENT KRAVCHUK:  As I've already said answering to
the part of that question, the Ukraine has already begun the
practical implementation of that issue.  But speaking more
definitely, a whole trainload of nuclear warheads has been delivered
-- is on the way to Russia.  The treatment has been signed between
Russia and Ukraine because this is a joint issue of removing the
weapons to Russia.  And Ukraine will fulfill its commitment.  I also
believe that other sides, other parties, would fulfill their
obligations.  And Ukraine would certainly stick to its commitments.
     PRESIDENT CLINTON:  If I might just add one other thing,
too.  I think that it's important for us here in the United States to
note that one of the big issues when I went to Ukraine and to Russia
in January has been resolved; and that is the question of Ukraine
will be compensated for the highly enriched uranium in its nuclear
arsenal.
     Q       your recent statement about the resurrection of
the Russian imperialism, would they bring damage to Ukraine?
     PRESIDENT CLINTON:  Well, the United States supports the
territorial integrity of Ukraine.  And I personally have been very
impressed that all the parties involved in the Crimean issue have
seemed to be very responsible in their comments and their policies
recently.  So I think you're asking me a hypothetical, which doesn't
seem too probable in light of the policies and the statements which
have been made.
     Q    Mr. President, the defendants in the World Trade
Center bombing were all convicted today.  Do you think Americans have
any reason to feel any more secure against terrorism now than they
did one year ago?
     PRESIDENT CLINTON:  Well, I think the authorities did a
terrific job in cracking the case.  And I'm glad to see that it has
been handled in this way.  I think that the signal should go out
across the world that anyone who seeks to come to this country to
practice terrorism will have the full weight of the law enforcement
authorities against them and we will do our best to crack the cases
and to bring them to justice, just as they have today.  This will
send a very important signal around the world.  And I am very
gratified by the work that was done.
     PRESIDENT KRAVCHUK:  I didn't answer the question which
was raised previously.  I believe that our integration within the
limits of the CIS does not contradict the integration in the
political and economic area with the countries that make up the new
independent states.  This has been foreseen by many documents in the
CIS.
     Ukraine does not make a task of leaving the CIS or
curtailing relationship with the countries that have been created
under the authority of the former Soviet Union.  We believe that the
joint efforts of the CIS countries and their cooperation with the
Western states will give an opportunity to avoid the burdensome and
heavy processes which are now taking place in Russia and in many
other countries.
     We cannot limit the process towards the process in
Russia or Ukraine.  These are universal processes and we have to
interact on them.  But there is a tendency of creating difficult
processes including the extremist or expansionist character.  There
are such tendencies, but if we act together we would be able to avoid
such developments.
     Q    Mr. President, this is the Ukrainian wire service.
Did you discuss today with the President of Ukraine a question of
providing additional material assistance to Ukraine except for the
provision of assistance for the denuclearization?
     PRESIDENT CLINTON:  Yes, we did.  And the United States
agreed to do two things.  One is we are increasing the assistance
that we had previously pledged not only in the denuclearization area,
but in other -- in economic assistance as well, so that we will have
about $350 million in each category.

     Now, over and above that, we agreed to send an economic
team to Ukraine as quickly as President Kravchuk says you are ready
to receive them to discuss what we might do to get more countries
involved in assisting Ukraine, and to speed up the timetable by which
Ukraine can receive assistance from the International Monetary Fund
and the World Bank.
     Q    Mr. President, in Annapolis today, Republicans were
calling upon Speaker Foley to hold hearings on some of these latest
meetings.  Would you object to such hearings?  Do you think they're
necessary?  And secondly, do you think a stronger signal needs to be
sent from the White House that you are, indeed, so sensitive to these
ethical distinctions?  Do you need to make other changes beyond the
memo that was issued yesterday?
     PRESIDENT CLINTON:  Let me say, first of all, it's up to
the House to do whatever they think is appropriate to do, not for me
to tell them what to do.  I think that it is clear that the
Republicans have behaved in a fairly blatant, bald and totally
political way in this regard.  And since there is no evidence of
abuse of authority on my part as President, or any of the kinds of
things for which their parties and administrations were accused, I
think that -- and since they have often complained in the past of
political motivation, I think that they would show a little more
restraint and judgment in this case.
     All I can tell you is -- even the editorial writers, you
know, they say, well there is no evidence Bill Clinton did anything
wrong; we're spending millions of dollars to dig around in all of
this, but no one has ever accused him of doing anything wrong.  We're
just going to do it anyway.  Now, they better not mess up the
process.  So I sent the message to the people who work here, "Don't
mess up the process.  Nobody thinks we've done anything wrong, but
we've, because I'm President, have had to launch this massive, hugely
expensive, unusual inquiry, while everybody says, I really don't
think anything happened wrong, but let's have this massive inquiry.
Now, let's make sure they don't mess it up, and if they do, let's
find them."  So I said, "Let's don't mess it up."
     I mean, I've made it as clear as I can.  Bend over
backwards to avoid any appearance of conflict; set up a fire wall
between the White House and any of the appropriate agencies; have a
central point of contact if anyone calls us.  You know, one of these
disputed meetings arose out of press questions, for example.  We have
to be careful.
     I think I have sent a very clear and unambiguous signal
that there is no point in letting a process mess this White House up,
when we have not yet been accused of any wrongdoing.  Since there was
no wrongdoing on my part, I want a full, complete, thorough
investigation.  And I want it to go forward unimpeded and then to be
over.  I think that is in the national interest.  And I'm going to do
my best to make a abundantly clear that that is precisely what
happens.
     Yes, sir?
     Q    Mr. Clinton, the newspaper Kiev Herald.  Has there
been a change in the last five years of your understanding of the
Ukrainian situation in Europe?  And if there has been a change,
please present your arguments.
     PRESIDENT CLINTON:  Well, I'll attempt to answer the
question as I understand it.  I certainly, over the last half year,
have come to have higher hopes for the prospect of a full Ukrainian
partnership in a democratic Europe where all the countries respect
each other's territorial integrity and work together in an atmosphere
of free markets, and respect for democracy and human rights.
     I think that is due in no small measure to the
leadership of President Kravchuk in concluding the nuclear agreement
with the United States and Russia and in the efforts in Ukraine to
support the START Treaty and Lisbon Protocol. I also know what a very
difficult economic time Ukraine is going through.  And I see the
beginnings of a real effort to restructure the economy.  And I
believe the United States should support that.
     Finally, let me say one point which has not been made
yet:  I was very pleased that Ukraine so quickly accepted the
invitation from NATO to join the Partnership For Peace.  This is just
what we conceived could happen -- that we could literally build a
united Europe where the parties respect each other's borders and
integrity and commit to work with one another to promote the peace
and to protect the people of all the countries involved.
     Q    Mr. President, Secretary of State Christopher is
heading to China soon.  Isn't the Chinese government basically
thumbing its nose at the U.S. by rounding up dissidents on the eve of
his visit and, of course, with Congress getting ready to kick around
the Most Favored Nation status?
     PRESIDENT CLINTON:  I wouldn't presume to know what
motivated the Chinese government.  All I can tell you is that we have
sent a very stern statement.  We strongly disapprove of what was done
and it obviously is not helpful to our relations.  I have done what I
could to make it clear that the United States does not seek to
isolate China economically or politically, and that we want a
constructive and strong relationship with them; but that the
observance of basic human rights is an important thing to us, along
with nonproliferation, along with fair trade rules.  And that was
certainly not a helpful action.
     Q    Mr. President, this is Ukrainian Television.  I
have a question to both President Kravchuk and President Clinton.
     Mr. Kravchuk, the Ukraine has been living through a very
difficult period of time.  We are very active in the denuclearization
policy and Ukraine has called at the same time the stabilizing
factor.  What is your opinion on that?  What would be the development
of that issue?
     PRESIDENT KRAVCHUK:  We should take a look at Ukraine,
not only from the position of today, but also take into consideration
its great, economic, spiritual, human and natural resources.  The
relations which are now developing between the United States and the
Ukraine and the understanding which President Clinton showed, and the
administration of the United States demonstrated, show that they take
into account exactly that perspective view, not the view of today but
the view of tomorrow.
     From that point of view, Ukraine can play a great
stabilizing role in the future; that is one thing.  Secondly, Ukraine
can, with the help of rapid economic and political reform, can
introduce such principles of coexistence which are in the limits of
high standards.  For instance, we do not have any problems with human
rights, or ethnic, or interethnic or international conflicts in the
Ukraine.  We preserve the political calm and stability and the
conditions when we are getting ready for the elections.
     The most important is the economic situation.  If
Ukraine, by itself, and with the help of the United States and other
states, will manage this economic crisis, it would be ready to use
the economic potential that it has and will be able to perform its
role in Europe.

     PRESIDENT CLINTON:  I agree with what President Kravchuk
said.  I might just add one point.  The United States recognizes that
it is very important to be supportive as Ukraine tries to reform and
get through this period of economic transition.  One of the things
that we've been able to do in the last year or so is to take a broad
view of the need for defense conversion measures as the
denuclearization occurs.
      So, for example, tomorrow the President and the
Ukrainian delegation will go and meet with the Secretary of Defense,
Secretary Perry, to talk about what kinds of defense conversion
things that will help the long-term Ukrainian economy -- can be done
as part of the process of denuclearization.  And that, I think, is
some evidence that the United States believes that the potential of
Ukraine is enormous and that we have to have a long-term view of our
partnership.
     Q    Mr. President, I'd like to ask you a question about
a human rights case.  An American young man living in Singapore has
been convicted of petty vandalism there and sentenced to a caning, a
punishment that is said to leave permanent scars.  This would seem to
outweigh the crime.  And since Singapore is an ally of ours, is there
anything the United States can do about this?
     THE PRESIDENT:  This is the first I've heard of it.
I'll look into it.  Thank you for bringing it to my attention.
     Q    President Clinton, just a little while ago, Nabil
Shaat, the envoy from the PLO, said that the United Nations is close
to agreement, with U.S. backing, on some kind of international
security force in the occupied territories.  Can you tell us a little
bit about that and what the U.S. participation in that would be?
     PRESIDENT CLINTON:  I can't because we haven't made the
agreement yet.  I can say that there is -- I believe we have some
more movement in the Middle East.  There is still some -- I wouldn't
over -- I am encouraged in a way by what he said, but I wouldn't
overstate it.  We are continuing to inch ahead, but I don't want to
jump ahead of actual developments.  And I think I better wait and see
what actually is agreed to before I can comment.
     Q    Mr. Kravchuk, supplies of Russian gas are supposed
to be cut off today because of Ukraine's inability to pay.  Did you
discuss this issue today with Mr. Clinton?  And, Mr. Clinton, did you
have any suggestions; were there any moves to help Ukraine in this
instance?
     PRESIDENT KRAVCHUK:  Yes, I informed President Clinton
about this case.  We discussed this matter together, but it's hard to
tell you any definite steps.  But I believe that we would find a
joint resolution of that process because it is related not only to
the economic issues but also related to a number of treaties,
including matters related to the production in the Ukraine.  So far,
it is very hard to answer your question.
     PRESIDENT CLINTON:  Yes, we discussed it and we
discussed it in some detail.  And we -- I said that I would have the
United States explore two or three options to see if we could find
some way to avert an even worse crisis.  It's a serious problem.  We
didn't achieve a total resolution today.
     Thank you very much.
     Q    Have you heard about George Mitchell --
     PRESIDENT CLINTON:  I have.  I would like to make a
statement about Senator Mitchell, if I might.

     We had a long talk about this last night.  He came over
for dinner and asked if he could stay afterward, and asked if I would
not tell anybody.  So I didn't -- and it didn't leak.
     I didn't know George Mitchell very well when I became
President and, therefore, I didn't know what to expect.  After the
last 14 months, I can tell you that I think he is one of the finest,
ablest people I have ever known in any kind of work.  There is no
doubt in my mind that we would not have had the success we had last
year had it not been for his incredible persistence and patience and
strength.  And he will be very difficult to replace.  But he made
this decision, I am convinced, for the exactly the reasons that he
will say, as he goes home to Maine to make this statement.  And I
think I should let him speak for himself.
     He is wonderful man.  He has made a very personal
decision.  I will miss him a lot, and America is deeply in his debt.
Thank you.
     THE PRESS:  Thank you.
For Immediate Release                                      March 7, 1994

 BACKGROUND BRIEFING
  BY
   SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS

    March 7, 1994

  The Roosevelt Room

4:51 P.M. EST

     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  This is on background.
     Q    Shall we begin with what I was trying to point out
to you a while ago?  I think you said that you didn't know whether
Mrs. Clinton's papers and others will be looked at or not.
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  They will.
     Q    They will be?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  They will be.  Mrs.
Clinton's papers and the President's will be produced --
     Q    I was wondering how they could escape it with
Caputo and Miss Maggie --
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  They will.
     Q    Does it apply to those political consultants who
are on the DNC payroll but not on the White House staff who are --
would it apply to them?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I don't believe it
would.  I haven't even thought of that question, but I don't believe
so.
     Q    What about Gergen's papers?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  All White House
employees, staff; that would include David Gergen.
     Q    What's the accountability on this search?  What's
to keep someone from chucking a memo or even carrying something out?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  To keep anyone from
doing that, I would hope -- my memorandum, which has been reiterated,
that to do so is a criminal penalty and obstruction of justice.  And
we intend that to mean exactly what it says.  And if we find out
about that, we will assure that proper steps are taken in the right
direction.
     Q    So it's sort of an honor system?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  It is, and when you say
an honor system, it's upon peril of criminal violation; in that
sense, yes.  The way the system works is we have approximately
hundreds of employees here covered by that subpoena.  Each one of
them has been made to understand what his or her personal obligation
is.  We intend to fully enforce it.  We have said time and again, if
you have any doubt about any document -- whether it's covered -- you
produce it.  We want the document.  So that's the way the system is
going to work.
     Q    Just to clarify -- what papers of the President's
and the First Lady's will be produced?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  What's covered by they
subpoena.  If there are papers that are within the compass of that
subpoena, conversations -- I don't have the language in front of me
-- those are called for; they will comply with that.
     Q    And there's no argument of executive privilege or
anything like that?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Let me just say as I
said in the last session, as far as any privileges, we simply have
not -- I have not crossed that bridge because I am trying to get the
documents together; I spent the weekend getting these memos and
documents together.  The privilege does not belong to the lawyers.
And so at some point we will, in the next couple of days, cross that
bridge and that decision will be made.  Don't read anything into it
other than, in trying to brief you today at 5:00 p.m., that question
has not been on our screen.
     Q    You mean anything the President does --
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  No, it's a very narrow
privilege.  I'm not suggesting -- in any event, the question is, you
remember last time when he turned over the Whitewater documents, he
had waived all privileges at that point.  That was what he did when
he turned that over the last time.  I have no reason to think that --
well, let me just say, it's very hard for lawyers to do background
only in one sentence.
     I have an obligation to my client that I cannot breach
in a background meeting.   But I really would beg you not to read
anything into that.  We are going to proceed and we are going to keep
you posted on issues like that.  We're not going to hide anything.
     Q    What is your role vis a vis the President?  Do you
call him your client?  What is the counsel's relationship to the
President in a situation where his personal dealings are under
investigation?
     Q    Well, this subpoena that we're dealing with -- this
subpoena is a subpoena to the White House -- all people here; and
we're responding in that capacity.  Obviously, the President has
private counsel with respect to all the individual matters affecting
him.  Our representation, or our legal efforts are with respect to
his official capacity; and responding to this subpoena on the White
House is in that context.
     Q    So what would these papers be?  Would these be the
Whitewater papers?  Or would these be --
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  No.
     Q    What specifically?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  These are -- the
subpoena calls for papers or documents -- and you have the
background, I don't have the language -- but it has to do with
conversations between officials.  That's what it concerns.
     Q    Are there papers that the President or Mrs. Clinton
have about these conversations, about these meetings?

     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I honestly don't know.
We're in the process -- that's what we're doing today is having
people collect the papers.  We're going to get those papers together
and then we are going to produce them.  I just am -- I'm doing
background sessions; I am getting --
     Q    Conversations with officials -- you get into some
very secretive stuff there, wouldn't you?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  No, ma'am, I mean, I --
whatever the facts are, they are.  I don't think it's secretive.  I
think we are going to be fully forthcoming in this regard.
     Q    Can you tell us what you know about when the
President said that he had learned of this at least -- a fact of the
referral in October.  Do we know any more about how he learned about
that?  From whom he learned about that?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I think you need to
direct that to Dee Dee.  In my role, I only talk about process
issues.
     Q    Well speaking of process, then, can you elaborate a
little bit more about how the process of looking at the Clinton's
papers, combing through their papers, looking for items that would be
covered by this subpoena -- how that process works?  Who's doing it
and --
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I just don't have that
information.  All I know is I was asked a specific question; I was
assured that they're going to do compliance --
     Q    Who is they?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I said, President and
the First Lady.
     Q    They personally are looking through their papers
for this?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I assume -- I just
don't know how it's being done as I sit here right now, okay?
     Q    The six White House officials who were subpoenaed
-- I gather that that subpoena falls under the conduct of their
official duties.  Do you have any -- are you advising them legally?
And what is the process for them?  Are they actually going to appear
somewhere to testify, or is it just to turn over documents?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Let me explain that to
you because I think that I can be helpful.  I am not advising any of
those individuals legally.  They will retain their own counsel, and
their counsel will advise them.
     The documents that are called for under the White House
subpoena include their documents -- the White House documents.  We
will produce those documents as a mechanical matter.  As for the
testimony and the testimony about those documents and about these
events, that will be handled by their lawyer and the special counsel.
We don't handle that.  All we will do is produce our documents with
one of our -- the person who is responsible for the -- custody here
at the White House that will have all these documents will produce
them to the special counsel with the appropriate affidavits --
     Q    Technically, how is that done?  On Thursday
somebody from your office just takes them over --

     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I really need -- the
special counsel will tell us how he wants it done.  And you can
direct the question to him.  But we will do it how he wants it --
     Q    How are you compiling stuff now?  I mean, are you
just gathering stuff in a carton somewhere?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  No, each individual is
going to have to certify -- they're going to give us their documents
within an envelope -- sealed envelope -- it's going to be certified
that these are their documents, and the only documents; if they have
no documents, they have to certify that --
     Q       specify what they are?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  They just give us the
documents.
     Q       Whitewater?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Only concerning what's
under the subpoena.
     Q    Do they only concern three meetings, or were there
other meetings as well?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  They concern any
meetings that took place.  That's what the subpoena covers, and
that's what this document request --
     Q    How many meetings is that?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I -- let me just say, I
am only going to talk about process.  I cannot do my job and the
Grand Jury cannot do its job if we get into substantive discussions,
so that's just not going to --
     Q    On process, what are the obligations of an
individual on the White House staff who may not have any records of
conversations?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  What are their
obligations?
     Q    I mean, to -- if they had a casual conversation in
the hallway or over the phone about this, but have no documents
pertaining to it?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  That is a -- I mean, I
don't know what -- obligation.  I'm not sure I understand.
     Q    I mean, are they obliged to --
     Q    (Inaudible)
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  No, no, no, no.  They
are not.  They're not.  They're only -- right now, we're just doing
the subpoena compliance issue, and that just calls for these
documents.
     Q    Okay, so it only calls for documents that exist --
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  (Inaudible)
     Q    It's not clear to me -- the President said today
that people are going back through their records to see if there were
additional contacts beyond these three that we're now talking about.
Your first notification of any additional contacts will come when you
open up these envelopes to see, oh yes, there was a fourth meeting --
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I'm just not going to
comment about that matter -- what additional or non-additional --
     Q    But how will you find out if there are additional
contacts that the President outlined today?  How will you know that?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  We will know that
through the documents, through information.  If we have questions
about the documents -- information -- people will provide to us in
the process.  That's the way --
     Q    So at this point you're asking people to come
forward with any additional contacts --
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  At this point we're
asking really to find their documents.  They know, of course, what
contacts they had.  They will look at their documents in that
context.  That's the way --
     Q    When will you sit down and sort of say, okay, we
have eight additional contacts --
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  In the day -- in the
next several days.  That's the way --
     Q       before they're turned over?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  We will look at the
documents.
     Q    What's your definition of obstruction of justice?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I'm not going to get
into any legal analysis here.
     Q    Now, will they all go and be questioned on Thursday
also, the six people?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Let me just say this --
that's up to the special counsel and their lawyers.  I don't know
what they will do.  In my experience, what happens in similar
situations is you subpoena people for a particular day, then some
people may testify then, they may adjourn their subpoena for -- I
just have no idea --
     Q    But the subpoena calls for that on the 10th, the
documents have to be turned over and they have to be available for
questioning.
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  That is subject to any
individual --
     Q    Unless they were told, come back on the 23rd.
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Exactly.
     Q       you said this subpoena includes only the
documents related to conversations between the officials as laid out
by what this warrants.  Isn't it true -- is it true that all the
other documents that the Clintons had related to Whitewater were
turned over in December voluntarily?  So there should be no
Whitewater documents in their possession.
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  What you said is
correct.  What has happened anytime since then, of course, you'd have
to direct to Kendall.  But what you said is correct.  All their
documents were turned over --
     Q    Has anyone else been subpoenaed, other than the 10
within the administration?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  To my knowledge no.  Is
it 10 -- I don't know.  I thought it was nine.
     Q    DeVore --
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  -- Jack, okay.
     Q    Has there been any request for interviews?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Not to my knowledge.
And I'm not trying to -- (inaudible) -- but I've busy today; nobody
has told me that; and I would assume I would have heard.  But --
     Q    On this firewall issue that's been discussed, can
you tell us what the procedure was -- I'm a low-ranking official; I
want to talk to the regulatory agencies -- how do I do that?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  About these matters --
     Q       future -- under -- you're apparently the
gatekeeper on these contacts --
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Say you wanted to talk
to somebody about -- let's take the simplest question -- you want to
get a press release that's been issued by somebody about --
     Q    Or something substantive.  I want to find out
what's going on with some aspect of the case or some thing.
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  You should come to me,
and I would tell you that it was absolutely inappropriate, not to
make that call.
     Q    So what are the criteria you use as gatekeeper now
-- from now on?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Well, right now I have
gotten -- that is, the criteria I will use is my best understanding
of law and ethics and propriety.  Those are the criteria I will
apply.  And I will tell you, because the President has said it, if
somebody comes to me and says they want to call any investigative
agency, somebody in the White House or so forth, to talk to them
about any ongoing investigation, my answer to that is no.
     Q       permissible under your criteria?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Under my current
criteria, for example -- I don't want to start developing common law
here with you -- but let me -- the easiest one would be public
documents information like that.  When the President said a firewall,
he meant the firewall.  And it's not a wall that's easily breached.
I don't expect there will be many contacts, but right now what -- the
example I would give you is for public information.  That would be
allow --
     Q    Can you tell me, is there any law or rule that says
that people cannot get together to try to put out president?  There's
a big move on in the country by individuals and by organizations and
by political parties to try to -- and they openly say that what their
purpose is, is to embarrass Mr. Clinton so that he will resign.  They
want to avoid impeachment.  And they want to avoid delay.  And they
have been so organized that April has been put as a deadline for
this, to try to embarrass him so much that he will resign.  And
that's openly spoken of, not just -- one individual or one
organization.  Is this -- is there any law against people doing this?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  The Constitution
protects their right to --
     Q       Constitution takes care of it.  What did you
mean --
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  No, no, the
Constitution protects people's right to organize, express their
opposition at any point, absolutely.
     Q    Do you have any evidence at this point that there
were any contacts between any officials here and the --
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I am just not going to
answer substantive questions.  I'm not trying to -- I just cannot
perform here to background you on process.  I'm sorry about that.  It
is unfair to -- I think all of us have to understand -- it's unfair
to the integrity of the whole grand jury process.  We cannot have a
discussion of the substance.  We are complying fully.  The
information is going to go through the process.  We've got to protect
the rights of everybody in the process and the integrity of the
process.  And we can't do that if we talk substance.
     Q    At some point, if you learn about more meetings at
all, will the White House decide that it's best to -- (inaudible) --
and announce that there had been some other meetings or some other
developments?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  We will deal with those
matters as -- as we come to them.  We will deal with them in a proper
fashion.
     Q    After 8:00 p.m. tonight, perhaps through the press
office, in the morning or whenever, would you be in a position to
just give a rough result of your procedure today?  In other words,
how many documents were turned over to you that you'll be passing on
to the counsel to show that the process worked?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I assume I can, but let
me just tell you one thing so that you don't misunderstand what I'm
saying.  As I read the subpoena, every press clipping that talked
about any of these events would be covered.  So if I said to you we
had 1,000 or 10,000 pages, it would be meaningless number if they
were all press clippings.  So let me see what the documents are, let
me see -- again, I am trying to balance two things which I hope you
understand.  I want to give you people information so that you
understand what we're doing.  I also have to protect the integrity of
the process.  He's calling people into testify; he's got to make sure
that he can do what he's got to do.  So consistently with that, I
will try to give you information about the magnitude of the
documents.
     Q    I don't understand why this would cover press
clippings.  This is supposed to relate, I thought, to conversations
or meetings --
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  It says all documents
-- this is sort of what it means to be a lawyer is you end up reading
subpoenas -- it says all documents relating to. . .; the word
"relating to" means anything.  If I have a New York Times article
that says, Mr. Altman testified yesterday, that relates to a
conversation; so that includes press clippings.
     Q    Well have you already received some documents?

     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I have not.  I am sure
the lawyers who are in the back, who are doing this process -- people
have probably given them documents, given them signed statements if
they have no documents.  I just don't know where the process is, I've
been out here.
     Q    To what degree was Kennedy involved in any of this
handling of this type of documents or this type of search or
explanation of the subpoena?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  He is not involved in
this process.  This process is involving four lawyers, I believe, in
addition to myself, in the White House; and Mr. Kennedy is not one of
them.
     Q    Was Kennedy was omitted by design because of his
background?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  No, no, no, no.  The
people who were chosen -- try to deal with people who basically we
felt were the proper people to work on this project, and that's the
way it was done.  We're not going --
     Q    Who are they?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  What?
     Q    Who are they?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Who are the people that
are working on it?  We have one -- Cheryl Mills, who's an associate
counsel; Marvin Krislov, who's an assistant counsel; we have one
detailee from the Office of Administration -- there's a whole lot of
issues here about computer files and stuff like that; Christopher
Cerf, who's the counsel over there.  I think we have a volunteer
counsel and somebody else.  But anyhow, those are the key people on
it.
     Q    Is there a channel through which White House
employees can give documents directly to the inspector, rather than
have them go through your -- go through the White House Counsel's
office?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  If any employee asked
me that question, the answer would be yes, they should turn them over
to the special counsel.  In other words, if they said they didn't
want me to see the documents or something like that.  In the routine
course it would be normal for the attorneys to see the documents
because there might be issues about privilege and so forth, that's
the way it works.  That hasn't come up, and we would obviously deal
with it if it came up.
     But we are not trying to -- far from it, we are trying
to encourage our employees -- we have put the word out -- as I've
said, it's an obstruction of justice not to get the documents to us.
And I will tell you that when we get the documents, it is our job to
turn them over in proper order.  That's what we intend to do.
     Q    But it's not necessarily an obstruction of justice
to violate the firewall?  That's just internal management, right?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Right.
     Q    You're going to inventory everything before
Thursday that's sent over?

     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Yeah.  I'm not sure
we'll inventory every single press clipping, as I imagine we'll get a
lot of them.  But otherwise, we will make our own inventory of
documents.
     Q    So, for instance, Mr. Lindsey's personal files
about Whitewater and all the stuff he maintained in order to answer
questions -- all of that will go?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  To the extent it is
responsive to this subpoena, it will go.
     Q    But most of it would not be -- as the subpoena
suggests, most of Lindsey's files dating back to the 1970s and
Whitewater would not be responsive to the subpoena.  Is that --
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Not to this subpoena
right now, that's correct.
     Q    Is this search anything like something you've ever
handled before in your career?  Are there any parallels to this kind
of --
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Well, when you do a
corporate matter, you can do a large corporation where you do a
corporate-wide search; it is similar.  The one difference, of course,
is they usually don't do press briefings in the afternoon.
(Laughter.)  Other than that, the process is quite similar.
     Q       thousands of pages of material coming out of
this?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I just don't know.  As
I said, I don't know who the packrats are on the press clippings or
not.  But just to give you an amusing example so all of you at least
know what it feels like to be here, if I got a phone call that says,
Mr. Smith from the XYZ Journal is calling re: contacts with Altman,
that phone call message is covered by this subpoena.  So that's the
whole package.
     Q    You're expecting to get an envelope from every
staffer, whether they have papers or not?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  For everybody on the
White House staff, either an envelope with papers or a signed
statement that they have no such papers.
     Q    And that is also the same with Treasury -- the
Treasury Department?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I am dealing with the
White House; and since I am the firewall, I am just dealing over
here.
     Q    The Treasury's doing it their own way?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I just -- you can
direct those questions to Treasury; I just don't have any idea how
they're handling --
     Q    Have you had any meetings with Mrs. Clinton in the
past couple of days?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I have not, no.
     Q    Anybody from your office?

     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I -- those are
questions I'm just not going to get into, no.
     Let me just -- I just have a 5:00 p.m -- if there's
anything else --
     Q    Can you answer a couple of --
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  We're still on
background.
     Q    How did Ickes, being so new, how did he get
involved?  He was at the meetings?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Who?
     Q    Ickes -- how did he get involved since he was so
new on the staff?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Yeah, he was the press
counsel -- indicated he was at one of the meetings.
     Q    So what have you found out about what the President
knew and how he found out about the --
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  All I can tell you
about that is that the President found out sometime in October.  He
doesn't remember precisely who told him or when.  But all indications
are that -- from memories of people here and what the President
remembers about being told -- was that it occurred after the subpoena
-- I mean, after the referral actually went to --
     Q    When did it go?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  October 10th,
apparently, which we didn't learn until recently.  But the reason is
because we started to get press inquiries after October 10th about
it; and I think, to the best of our recollection, the President was
told subsequent to the press calls.
     Q    So it was not directly after the first meeting,
which was what, July, June, I mean, September 29th?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  No, --
     Q    Somewhere between that and the next --
     Q    Bernie Nussbaum talked to the Treasury Department
and they said, Mr. and Mrs. Clinton are about to be named in a
criminal referral --
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  No.
     Q    He didn't tell the President?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Right, he did not tell
the President.
     Q    How about the First Lady?  Any -- (inaudible) --
today to figure out --
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Bernie didn't tell the
President or the First Lady.
     Q    Do we know what she knew and when she knew it?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  First of all, I think
you can't assume that Bernie was told that -- what he may have known
about it was that in 1984, Clinton's governor campaign, it was maybe
mentioned.
     Q    But not the President and the First Lady
themselves.
     Q    You said that Bernie didn't tell Mr. and Mrs.
Clinton.  So we know -- the President doesn't know how he learned,
but he knows it wasn't from Bernie?  It was someone else other than
Bernie after October 10th?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Bernie -- the President
didn't remember who told him.  Bernie did not tell the President,
according to Bernie.
     Q    What about --
     Q    Why didn't Bernie tell him if he knew that?  Didn't
he have an obligation to tell him?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  It just -- he didn't.
He didn't think for whatever reason -- I mean, that was his judgment.
     Q    This guy -- (inaudible) -- profile that comes from
the House Judiciary Committee -- kept secrets from bosses.
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Bernie did not tell
Mrs. Clinton.
     Q    No, but has Mrs. Clinton, today, at any point said
--
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Said how she knew?  No,
I don't know the answer to that.
     Q    How did the President and Mrs. --
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  The President doesn't
remember.
     Q    Can you describe how Mack helped to set up this
meeting?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I don't know.
     Q    But it had to be, by definition, Bernie telling
someone who told the President and the First Lady --
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  No.
     Q    How else could they have -- (inaudible) -- Bernie
was in the meeting?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Press inquiries.  You
can't assume that.
     Q    You're suggesting that he might have learned just
from reading in the newspapers that he had been named?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  No.  Before it was in
the newspaper we got calls about it.  It was something that was, I
think, reporters were in the process of working on for a while
before.  I don't think --
     Q    But wasn't the second meeting the result of press
inquiries?

     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Yes, the October 14th
the meeting was to discuss --
     Q    October 14th, was that the date of the second
meeting?
     Q    How would press inquiries work their way up to the
President?  What would the process be?  Who would actually walk in
the door and say, people have been calling?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Oh, it could be any
number of people who would do that.  And I just can't be anymore
specific because the President doesn't remember who told him.  Other
people may talk to him about it, but it's unclear who the first
person obviously, was -- but all indications are --
     Q    Do you know what the President and Mrs. Clinton are
doing to comply?  I mean, just physically have they going through
files?  Are their assistants going through papers, or anything?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Well, you've got to
understand that the scope of the subpoena is fairly limited.  I mean,
it's documents relating to conversations among and between RTC,
Treasury and White House officials regarding these meetings -- just
to be clear about it.  And whatever documents they might have
regarding those would be turned over.  I have no idea whether they
have any documents.
     Q    And do you know anything more about the process to
find them?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I have no idea.  I
don't think -- I don't know.
     Q    Is the White House overflowing in garbage today?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  It's not too bad.  It
wasn't that -- we just went through the weekend, so there's really
two days of trash -- some people who were here over the weekend.
     Q    Have any other meetings or contacts been found or
discovered today?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I can't -- as my
colleague pointed out, we can't talk about the substance.
     Q    Do you know if anyone else has been subpoenaed?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Not that I know of.
     Q    Do you know if anybody from the First Lady's office
has been subpoenaed?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Nobody other than those
already mentioned.
     Q    Already?
     Q    I can understand why your colleague didn't want to
talk about substance, why cant' you?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  For the same reason --I
can't -- we've been told not to -- on the substance of this stuff, I
just don't think we can talk about it.
     Q    Who has told you not to say anything?

     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Counsel.  I mean, the
White House is not discussing the substance of this.  The special
counsel is looking into it and we're going to comply with it.  I
think that's the prudent course.
     Q    On what basis did the President say today that
there had been no efforts in the White House to influence any
government agencies on this matter -- the exact wording but it was
something like that?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  To the best of his
knowledge.  I mean, conversations.
     Q    But it's -- of course, he doesn't know what's going
to turn up in these envelopes and all this stuff.
     Q    Has anybody on the staff done like a little round
of phone calls, or a little investigation for him so that he can
answer these questions?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  What, about what
happened at the meetings?
     Q    No, whether there was any effort --
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I think based on his
information, based on his conversations that is what he believes.
     Q    I'm not saying that it isn't true, but --
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  There's no suggestion
-- I don't think anybody has suggested otherwise, period.  I don't
think anybody has suggested --
     Q    Implied, but not with any evidence.
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Well, questioned, but
not even implied.  I don't even think there's evidence to imply that
that might have happened.
     Q    He obviously talked to Bernie.  Did he talk to
Altman?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I don't know.
     Q    At the meeting?
     Q    So do you think it was after it was referred on the
10th -- do you know if it was after the spin meeting on the 14th, or
not?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I don't --
     Q       somewhere in that period.
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Yes, at somewhere in
October all indications are that it, again, was after the 10th --
after the RTC referral actually happened because we started to get
these -- learned about this, more about this from press calls --
     Q    And probably before the 14th?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  (Inaudible)
     Q    Is that right?  It's probably in that window
between the 10th and the 14th?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Not necessarily.

     Q    Would the meeting of -- the larger meeting, October
14th, have occurred without the President's knowledge?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  The inquiries, if you
go back and look at what happened, what prompted that meeting, the
inquiries came first to Treasury.
     Q    What's the status of the --
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  -- and then to us
through Treasury, originally.
     Q    Does the firewall prevent the President conducting
any routine business with Altman in Altman's capacity as Deputy
Treasury Secretary that he might need to do on a whole range of
matters?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I'm not a lawyer, but
he recused himself from Madison, and so dealing Treasury matters, I
don't think that it would affect that.
     Q       RTC -- where are you on that?  And how will this
affect the person you choose?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I think that's moving
forward.  I don't know how close we are to an announcement on it.
     Q    What's the status of the search for a replacement
for Nussbaum?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  As the President said,
he's actively engaged in the process.  We expect to have an
announcement soon.
     Q    Who's heading the search?  Is there a specific
person who's in charge of that job?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Mack.
     Q    By soon, do you mean this week?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Oh, yeah.  Well, I
think that's the hope.
     Q    Tomorrow?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Beyond saying we hope
to get it done this week, I don't even want to speculate.
     Q    Is -- still the leading candidate?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I can't answer that.
     Q       kitchen table question here -- with all the
months that have lapsed, this whole subpoena, isn't it too late?  I
mean, why would anyone by hanging on to documents given allegations
of shredding and everything that's been going on for all these --
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  No one has alleged that
anybody in this White House ever shredded a single document.
     Q    All I'm just saying, is this too little, too late?
Why now after all the news, everything that's been going on --
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Wait a minute, all this
subpoena applies to is documents related to the conversations.

     Q    True, but that's even been months.
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Well, but the subpoena
came on Friday.  We received it around 7:00 p.m.; by 8:00 p.m., the
memo was circulated to staff to tell them not to destroy their
documents.  I don't know how much more quickly we can act.
     Q    It also wasn't initiated until -- public.
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I think that is as
quickly and effectively and as forthcoming as anybody could expect.
I mean, within an hour a memo was out to all 400-plus White House
employees to protect and preserve all their documents, their trash,
their computer records, their notes, any other records they might
have of conversations that -- specifically outlined in the subpoena.
I think we are bending over backwards here to comply, and I think the
Counsel's Office has done everything it can to make sure people
understand how important this is and what the consequences are.  For
doing something like you suggest is an obstruction of justice
punishable by criminal law.
     Q    Can I ask you about the --
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Why don't people here
break the law everyday?  Because they don't.  It's not the way we
operate.
     Q    Can I ask you about this rather stirring defense of
the First Lady by the President?  Had he talked to his aides about
the need to make those kinds of remarks during this presentation
today?  He clearly was anticipating an opportunity to do that.
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I think that all you
have to do is pick up the morning paper over the last couple of days
and anticipate that this question was coming.  It doesn't take a
rocket scientist.  I mean, there's clearly been a number of attacks
on her, and he is not happy about it.  I don't think anybody had to
prompt him to defend his wife.
     Q    But has he expressed his unhappiness in other
contexts -- internally?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Absolutely.
     Q    How has he done that?  What form is it taking?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Just by talking with
aides about how he just is very unhappy about it.  And I think his
comments today speak for themselves, but that basically reflects his
feelings about it.
     Q    When did she find out about the RTC -- did he tell
her that period?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I don't know.
     Q    You don't know if she knew first, or afterwards, or
when?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  No.
     Q    How angry was he at Bernie last Thursday and Friday
when all this reached critical mass?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Oh, I think that the
President's letter speaks for itself about that.  I think he thinks
Bernie served him loyally and well.

     Q    He thinks he served him well?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Yes.
     Q    What did he tell the President about that meeting
when he heard that?  If he was serving him loyally and well, why
didn't he tell him?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I think that hindsight
was the right thing to do under any circumstances.
     Q    The President says he wants to be as forthcoming as
possible.  Either on the CNN or ABC, McLarty is quoted as saying that
the President didn't know anything about what happened at these
meetings.  And the President today says that --
     ?                  Q    (Inaudible)
     Q    I thought he did.
     Q    He didn't say they knew they were having meetings,
he just said he knew about the referral, I think.
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I don't understand the
question?
     Q    Well, I'm just trying to figure out -- it's been
unclear what the President has done, or even if he has known anything
about it -- (inaudible) -- aides.  And the President today said -- at
what point did somebody go in and ask him to make this statement, or
did somebody go in and ask him what happened; did you know about the
referral or whatever happened --
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Prior to today's --
     Q    Yeah, yeah.
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I think people asked
him what he remembered about it today.  I don't know about before
that -- over last day and a half, maybe.
     Q    Not Thursday, after the Post story ran?  You would
think the first thing he would do is --
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Well, no, I think about
the other meetings, I think, which we said was that he learned about
them as the press inquiries came in.  So the first story broke on
Wednesday; I think he learned about it either Tuesday night or
Wednesday morning; instructed Mack to issue the memo.  The next
couple meetings were revealed I guess on Thursday, Friday?
     Q    Thursday.
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Thursday -- which he
also learned about in the context of press inquiries either the night
before or the morning of, actually -- and that's what he knew about
those meetings, which he said at the time.
     Q       but it was a total surprise to him, because at
some point in October he knew that these meetings occurred.
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  No, he learned about
the meetings when the press started to inquire about them.  He did
not know about the meetings before that.
     Q    Did you check out what the press was telling you
about these meetings?  Or was it just passed on that the press has
these questions about some meeting that took place in the referrals?

     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I don't remember the
exact conversation.  I generally try to present him with the facts,
not just questions from you guys --
     Q    Does anybody know what Foster was going to talk to
the President about when he said on Monday night --
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Sure don't, Sarah.
For Immediate Release                                      March 7, 1994

 BACKGROUND BRIEFING
  BY
    SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL

    March 7, 1994
  The Roosevelt Room

3:31 P.M. EST

     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I thought I would start
by just walking you through the process thus far, so you see where we
are right now.
     Sometime, I think it was about 5:00 p.m. or 5:30 p.m. on
Friday afternoon, we received notice that there were going to be some
subpoenas served.  At that point I notified the Chief of Staff, and
he asked me to head up the response for any subpoena that was served
on the White House.  We were told that there would be one subpoena
served on the White House of what's called the "custodian of records"
-- a records subpoena, document subpoena -- and that there would be,
as well, a subpoena served on individuals.
     At approximately 7:00 p.m., as I recall, the subpoena
was served on Patsy Thomasson, who is the -- she is the custodian of
records as the head of administration over there; and she then turned
the subpoena over to me.
     The first actions we took were essentially to cancel, as
you've all reported, the tossing out of trash and burn bags or
anything.  So we locked in place everything as it stood on Friday
night.  And we got a memo out to all employees throughout the complex
with respect to that.
     Having locked things in place, we have spent the weekend
now preparing -- I have, in addition to myself five other lawyers who
were working with me in terms of this compliance project.  And we
have spent the weekend preparing a series of memoranda with respect
to staff so that they know how to conduct their compliance effort.
     People have to search their files, people have to go
back through if they have trash and look through trash to see if they
have responsive documents; and we're going through that process as we
speak today at the White House.  That process is ongoing.  We're
obviously getting questions from people, and we are advising people
if they have any question about a document, we'd like to have the
document and we can pursue the question with them.  We are
establishing a process that requires individuals to certify their
production, and we're talking about hundreds of individuals here --
out of an abundance of thoroughness -- that are going to certify
their productions with respect to this matter.   Then we have an
individual custodian of the record, who will be responsible for the
change in custody issues, and will be responsible to produce those to
the grand jury.
     Q    Who's that?  Patsy Thomasson?

     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  No, that will be Marvin
Krislov, the gentleman behind --
     Q  And are all five of these lawyers White House
lawyers, or are they outside counsel?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  They are all currently
White House lawyers.  We have one detailee and that is from the
Office of Administration.  We have a detailee because there are a
variety of administrative issues that we're dealing with -- access to
computers here to make sure the documents that are on computer are
properly accessed.  But these are all either existing White House
attorneys or this one detailee.
     Q       you found out whether there have been any other
meetings or contacts by members of the White House staff with anyone
in the Treasury Department or any other point of the government on
this similar topic?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  That inquiry is part of
the production of documents, and I am not prepared to comment further
on it at this point.
     Q    You're not prepared because you don't know, or
because --
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Because the levels --
the documents are being searched and this is an ongoing process and I
am not prepared at this time to make any further comments.
     Q    Will you tell us when you have completed this?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  This is -- let me say
one thing so we understand this.  This process is currently before
the grand jury.  And it is important in terms of the individuals
involved as well as the integrity of the grand jury process that we
work fully, completely with the grand jury to get the information to
the special counsel's office.  And that is a process we are going to
use.  I don't anticipate at this time that we are going to have day-
to-day disclosures of information.  I don't think -- and if I can go
off the record for a second, let me say -- I don't --
     Q    You're on background already.
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Here's the point -- I
don't want to in any way have any impression that we are putting out
information about who said what to whom or anything like that.  It's
very important, and we're working very hard on this.  I have
instructed staff about this.  There will be no coordinated defenses
in terms of people's sort of comparing stories.  I don't want any of
that.  And one of the problems when you put information out there is
that it is seen as information potentially that -- well, this person
said this, and this person said that.  The process we are going to
follow, and I think we're going to follow it absolutely in good faith
and to the letter, is to comply fully, expeditiously --
     Q    Back on background then, can you explain the
President's answer to Terry Hunt's question?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  All that was off the
record --
     Q    Is off the record that you don't want people to
compare stories and --
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  If you want to put that
on -- obviously, we don't want anybody to compare stories.  I'm
perfectly happy to have that on background.

     Go ahead, we're on background.
     Q    If you could explain the President's answer to
Terry Hunt's question, which had to do with what briefings he had had
and when he came to know about certain things.  The answer was a bit
confusing.  I'm not clear on what he was saying regarding whether he
knew about the criminal referral before or after it had been made.
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I have no idea in
either case.  That is, I didn't hear what the President said, and
you'd have to clarify --
     Q    Do you know the facts as to whether he had the
fruits of those meetings, he or the First Lady --
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I do not know the
answer to that.
     Q    Can somebody --
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Let my colleague
clarify that.
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  He learned of it -- he
had no formal briefing, but he learned of it sometime in October.  He
doesn't remember exactly when.  It was presented to him as a done
deal.
     Q    And he doesn't remember who?
     Q    By whom?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  He doesn't remember by
whom.
     Q    Did Bernie Nussbaum write a memo off that memo?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  He believes it was in
the context as press inquiries started to build about it --
     Q    It was some staff, it wasn't from a newspaper
reporter.
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  No, but it was in the
context of we started to take questions about it.
     Q    Did Bernie -- or do you guys know whether Bernie
wrote a memo off that meeting -- everybody seems to write memos off
meetings around here.
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Not that I know of, but
--
     Q    Do you know?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I can't answer that,
because --
     Q    Since the President has answered that subject, if
you could find an answer to that.
     Q    That might help solve the --
     Q    Because this could be a whole news cycle based on
the President's answer to it.

     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  There's no formal
briefing and the President didn't talk about any memo --
     Q    This is going to be a question.  Now, you all can
answer it the best you can or you cannot, but what you've done --
she's right.  I mean, we hear what you say, what he said we heard,
too.  But what we're trying to get across to everybody is if we could
get cooperation here on this, we'd appreciate it.
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  -- the question was,
was there a memo.
     Q    No, the outstanding question is this:  October
31st, the first published report of the criminal referrals occurred.
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Correct.
     Q    On September 29th, Hanson told Nussbaum about it.
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Right.
     Q    The President said he learned of them on October.
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Right.
     Q    From mid-October until the end of October, press
inquiries started occurring before there were actual printed stories.
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Correct.
     Q    So one is left with the conclusion that he could
have been told by Nussbaum, based on -- or whoever, based on the
Hanson-to-Nussbaum briefing, or you could have been told by Bruce,
because there were press inquiries.  And the question is, did the
fruit of the Nussbaum-Hanson inquiry produce the President's
knowledge?  You know, that's not that hard to find out, is it?  Does
he remember --
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  No, the answer is he
doesn't.
     Q    He doesn't know what produced his knowledge?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Right, he --
     Q    He doesn't remember any --
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  It was not a formal
briefing, he was not formally briefed about it as a result of the
meeting.  That's what he said.
     Q    Well, I'm not asking -- I didn't say anything about
formal.  The question was --
     Q       or did he learn from Mrs. Clinton?  Nussbaum to
Hillary to the President.
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I don't see what more
we can say about it.  That's his answer -- I mean, he was told
sometime in October by staff.  He doesn't remember --
     Q    I would think I'd remember if somebody was telling
me that I was in that kind of trouble.  I probably would remember.
     Q    That memo that you circulated this morning -- does
that also affect the President and the First Lady?  Do they have to
go through all their burn bags and wastebaskets?  Are they doing the
same thing that everybody else on the White House staff is today
doing to comply with the subpoena?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  That subpoena applies
--
     Q    It applies?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  The memo that we
circulated today goes to everybody, and it would include everybody.
     Q    The President and the First Lady?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Everybody.
     Q    Would it affect a presidential diary?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I believe -- I mean,
again, the answer is, the subpoena speaks for itself.  If there are
relevant documents in response to the subpoena, they are covered,
yes.
     Q    Is the First Lady covered even if she's not a White
House official?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I believe it covers all
White House people and I think that would be carte blanche.  It says
staff, not officials.
     Q    Is the First Lady covered?  Is the First Lady
required to supply all the documents?
     Q    Is she going through her garbage pails right now?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I'll get back to you on
that.
     Q    On the question of the First Lady.  But the
President is covered?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  We'll post something --
     Q    When you said staff --
     Q    Is it possible that the First Lady's office is not
covered by the memo?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  No, the First Lady --
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  No, no.  And the only
-- let me get back to you on a definitive answer so we get it right.
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  We'll post it.
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  On the President --
     Q    The President and the First Lady.
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  -- and the First Lady.
Let me get back to you on that.
     Q    Do you have a sense now of what's going to happen
Thursday?  I understand they've retained -- individuals have retained
counsel.  But do you expect them to give grand jury testimony on
Thursday?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I don't know that
because that's a discussion between the individual's counsel and the
special counsel.  What I know is what we are doing is we will produce
our documents.  That's what our effort is.  And beyond that --
     Q    What about executive privilege and lawyer-client
privilege?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  At this point, we
haven't seen the documents to know even whether such a privilege
would apply, would be available.  We've been spending all weekend
figuring out a system to get the documents.  We will make those
determinations in due course.
     Q    When you say that individuals will be required to
certify -- hundreds of individuals -- what exactly does that mean?
You all as the lawyers will be reviewing these documents before
they're handed over to Mr. Fiske?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Yes.  The individuals
who will produce the documents to Mr. Krislov.  Our lawyers will
review them, and then he will -- if there are issues that come about
privilege, about coverage, those determinations will be made.  If
there are any questions about those, we'd obviously get counsel from
the special counsel.  Then we will produce the documents.
     Q    I take it by your answer that it -- you cannot rule
out the possibility that Mr. Nussbaum, with regard to his own
testimony and with regard to documents that he was asked to produce,
may make an assertion of executive privilege and-or lawyer-client
privilege?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I don't think -- let me
just say here, the way I think about this.  I think the privilege
that as far as any White House documents, the privilege belongs to
the White House, to the executive.  They're not individual
privileges.  Therefore, it is my view that if there is a privilege to
be asserted, it's a White House privilege.
     Q    By whom?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Presumably that would
be done either by -- I would go to the Chief of Staff; he would make
the proper determination.  The Chief of Staff is the person I am
reporting to on this.
     Q    What would be privileged?  What kind of
communications would be privileged?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I don't want to
speculate about that.
     Q    Well, just categories, general --
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I mean, there are --
what Brit has mentioned are the traditional privileges.  There is
attorney-client privilege; there is an executive privilege.  Those
are the privileges.
     Q    And it at least potentially could be asserted here?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  They at least -- let's
not mislead anybody, because I don't want the story, the White House
says these privileges could be asserted.  Nobody has made any
determination that there are any privileges to assert --
     Q    But you're not ruling it out.
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  -- much less -- nobody
-- I haven't even thought about the question.  I am trying to get all
these documents.  I've got, really, people calling, "what documents,"
how --
     Q    I was trying to ask -- if you could hypothetically
just say what kind of -- I understand lawyer-client privilege -- but
in terms of executive privilege since all of these documents relate
to the Executive Branch, what --
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  It's a very --
     Q    Is it narrow or very broad?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  -- it's a narrow legal
privilege.
     Q    Well, has the President made any decisions about
whether he wants a former White House Counsel -- or actually, he's
still the White House Counsel -- to testify fully -- is that the
advise he's been given here?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  My understanding is the
President has certainly -- each individual in terms of his counsel
will make certain determinations.  The President has urged every
individual to cooperate fully with the grand jury --
     QQ           You're the President's lawyer.  Mr. Nussbaum will
have to go down there and face that question ethically and otherwise
when he goes in that grand jury room.  What is his guidance from the
people whom he serves here?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Well, the guidance I've
just given you.
     Q    I know, but to cooperate fully?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  To cooperate fully.
     Q    You cooperate fully - that doesn't mean you will
waive legal privileges or that they've been waived --
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  The privileges -- let
me explain something.  The privileges are not Mr. Nussbaum's --belong
to the President.  The President --
     Q    But they are asserted by counsel in situations --
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  They are typically
asserted by counsel, but they are asserted by counsel on behalf of
the client.
     Q    So the lawyer can waive them; the President can
waive these --
     Q    And did he not say whether he would so?
     Q    Lawyers frequently say that they are not going to
waive attorney-client privilege.  They don't feel that they can even
if their --
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Well, look, this bridge
will be crossed, but I don't think -- let's just be realistic.  I
think that's not a realistic scenario.
     Q    What about the executive privilege?  You were
saying just a few moments ago -- you started to say that it's now
only drawn such as --

     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  It would be the kind of
thing, typically, in terms of advice that one gives the President of
the United States.  I mean, issues regarding high policy issues,
things like that.
     Q    Could you say at this point there are no plans for
the White House to assert privilege?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  To say there would be
no plans at this point would say that there would be -- there are no
plans either way.  I don't even know if any privileges apply.
     Q    Are you reviewing the documents to see whether
there's a need to assert the privileges?  Is that why you want to
review all the documents after you collect them?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I want to review the
documents to see whether there are any privileges that are even
applicable.  The privilege is not mine; the privilege belongs to the
Executive Branch.
     Q    So you would review them and then they go to Mack
or the President?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  What Brit said is
important in this sense -- I have to advise my clients.  Understand
here, I am not the person whose privilege it is.  I will advise
people properly and fully, and clients will make the appropriate
determination.
     Q    What about classified data?  Do you have to worry
about that also?  Do you have to worry about top secret, about secret
--
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  If they were classified
data, that would be an issue we'd have to address as well.
     Q    You talk about altered documents.  Have you come
across any?  And you also about recreating some of these documents or
material or anything that's been lost or destroyed.  Can you just
explain how that process will work?
      SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  That is in their
subpoena, okay?  Now let's just say, hypothetically, to take it out
of this context, if I get a subpoena tomorrow and it says just what
that says -- any altered document or -- suppose I had literally
ripped something up and put it in a burn bag.  Under that subpoena, I
am required to go get it, take it out of the burn bag and produce it;
or if I put it someplace and I knew that, that's what the terms mean.
     Q    But if it's already been destroyed?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  If it's already been
destroyed and you have knowledge of that, in the course of your
testimony you could be asked about that.  But if you can't recreate
it, obviously you can't recreate it.  If we know about any such
matters, we will --
     Q    Have you come across any?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I have not.
     Q    Has Mack been subpoenaed yet?  Do you know anything
about a plan to subpoena Mack McLarty?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I do not.

     Q    Has he given you an indication that he is about to
be or may be subpoenaed?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  No, I have no such
notification.
     Q       delay in producing these documents?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  No.
     Q    Do you think you can produce them all by Thursday?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  It is our current
intention to do so based on what we have now, and we will continue to
work toward that timetable.  If, as in any document production, if it
turns out that there are further questions than need to be answered,
we may make a partial or 90 or 95 or 100 percent -- that process is
going forward and we are shooting for a Thursday production.
     Q       Treasury were the people -- information.  Do you
know if they're going through the same documents?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I have no -- we are not
talk -- I have not talked to them.  (Laughter.)  You're looking at
the firewall.  I don't plan to have a meltdown.  (Laughter.)
     Q    Do you and Hanson have a meeting in the hallway --
(laughter.)
     Q    The point is, the President did make the case that
everything's going to be turned over and all these documents are
being sealed, but the people with the facts -- that is, the situation
at the RTC and how it affected the Clintons -- are the people who are
there, not here.
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  And, obviously, I think
you should obviously direct your questions over there.
     Q    Can you give us some sense about how disruptive
this has been to operations?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Well, let me just say,
I think, as I said, it sounds like it's been disruptive, but
certainly in the narrow sense -- right now, what -- you're looking at
me -- if I look like somebody has been disrupted -- but it's been
very clear from the Chief of Staff, it's been very clear as messages
come down, this White House has a lot of business to do.  Virtually
all of the people in the White House who are involved in issues,
economics and so forth, they're doing their business.  We don't want
people talking about this for the very reason I said before.  This is
not something where we want to be seen saying X said this to Y, Y
said this to Z.  Each individual is dealing with his or her lawyer --
the White House is dealing through a very orderly process, and the
rest of the White House is conducting its business.  Obviously,
whatever time it takes to pull together subpoenaed documents, we will
take.
     Q    Let me just take this one step further --
     Q    Can you put down on the record -- that part, the
answer to that question?  Do you mind?  On the record?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I don't want to be on
the record in the sense that -- I'm trying to explain the process,
which I think you're all entitled to know.  But I have --
     Q    Is there a grand jury that is actually --

     Q    Let me just follow up, because I want to be
absolutely clear on how big or how small this thing is.  Is this
really a White House-wide thing that's going on here, touching every
single --
     Q    You said hundreds.  Why?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Why, because the
subpoena runs to the White House, and we want to be fully compliant.
We didn't want to go back in and try to say only X, only Y --
     Q    Except the President and the First Lady.
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I said I would get back
to you on that.
     Q    Yes.
     Q    So is this everybody in the Executive Office of the
President, everybody in the White House Office?  What's the
definition?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Everybody in the White
House Office, and we are also asking -- they were going to make
individual certifications.  We're also asking for people in the
Executive Office of the President to make -- those people to check.
Outside the White House Office, we're not doing an individual --we've
asked those people to determine whether anybody on their staffs have
any such documents and to let us know.
     Q    Like OMB or STI or --
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Right.
     Q    So we're talking about 400 more people here.
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Oh, we're talking about
many more than that.  The total White House employees, White House
Office --
     Q    Here we go.
     Q    We've been waiting for this number.  (Laughter.)
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I was going to say it's
more than that.
     Q    What is your guess on the volume?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I have absolutely no
idea.
     Q      you have no rough guess?
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  We haven't gotten any.
All we did this weekend, Jim, was freeze them.  We have no idea.
     Q    Does this subpoena mean that two of the subpoenaed
people cannot sit down and discuss how do we respond to Newt
Gingrich's latest tirade, let's say?  Can people who have been
subpoenaed meet and discuss Whitewater and tactics and how to help
the President on Whitewater, or are they now instructed by you that

