THE WHITE HOUSE                      Office of the Press Secretary ______________________________________________________________ For Immediate Release                             April 23, 1993       	                        PRESS CONFERENCE BY THE PRESIDENT 	      	                                  The East Room    1:00 P.M. EDT 	      	      	     THE PRESIDENT:  Terry, do you have a question? 	      	     Q	  Mr. President, there's a growing feeling that the  Western response to bloodshed in Bosnia has been woefully inadequate.   Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel asked you yesterday to do something,  anything to stop the fighting.  Is the United States considering  taking unilateral action such as air strikes against Serb artillery  sites? 	      	     THE PRESIDENT:  Well, first let me say, as you know, for  more than a week now we have been seriously reviewing our options for  further action.  And I want to say, too, let's look at the last three  months.  Since I became President I have worked with our allies and  we have tried to move forward, first on the no-fly zone, on  enforcement of it, on the humanitarian airdrops, on the war crimes  investigation, on getting the Bosnian Muslims involved in the peace  process.  We have made some progress.  And now we have a very much  tougher sanctions resolution.  And Leon Fuerth, who is the National  Security Advisor to the Vice President, is in Europe now working on  implementing that.  That is going to make a big difference to Serbia. 	      	     And we are reviewing other options.  I think we should  act.  We should lead -- the United States should lead.  We have led  for the last three months.  We have moved the coalition.  And to be  fair, our allies in Europe have been willing to do their part.  And  they have troops on the ground there. 	      	     But I do not think we should act alone, unilaterally,  nor do I think we will have to.  And in the next several days I think  we will finalize the extensive review which has been going on and  which has taken a lot of my time, as well as the time of the  administration, as it should have, over the last 10 days or so.  I  think we'll finish that in the near future and then we'll have a  policy and we'll announce it and everybody can evaluate it. 	      	     Q	  Can I follow up? 	      	     THE PRESIDENT:  Sure. 	      	     Q	  Do you see any parallel between the ethnic  cleansing in Bosnia and the Holocaust? 	      	     THE PRESIDENT:  I think the Holocaust is on a whole  different level.  I think it is without precedent or peer in human  history.  On the other hand, ethnic cleansing is the kind of  inhumanity that the Holocaust took to the nth degree.  The idea of  moving people around and abusing them and often killing them solely  because of their ethnicity is an abhorrent thing.  And it is  especially troublesome in that area where people of different ethnic  groups live side by side for so long together.  And I think you have  to stand up against it.  I think it's wrong. 	      	     We were talking today about all of the other troubles in  that region.  I was happy to see the violence between the Croats and  the Muslims in Bosnia subside this morning, and I think we're making  progress on that front.  But what's going on with the Serbians and  the ethnic cleansing is qualitatively different than the other  conflicts, both within the former Yugoslavia and in other parts of  the region. 	      	     Q	  Mr. President, by any count, you have not had a  good week in your presidency.  The tragedy in Waco, the defeat of  your stimulus bill, the standoff in Bosnia.  What did you do wrong  and what are you going to do differently?  How do you look at things?   Are you reassessing?  (Laughter.) 	      	     THE PRESIDENT:  I don't really believe that the  situation in Bosnia -- it's not been a good week for the world, but I  don't know that the administration could have made it different. 	      	     On the stimulus package, I'd like to put it into the  larger context and remind you that in this 100 days we have already  fundamentally changed the direction of an American government.  We  have abandoned trickle-down economics.  We've abandoned the policies  that brought the debt of this country from $1 trillion to $4 trillion  in only a decade.   	      	     The budget plan, which passed the Congress, which will  reduce the deficit and increase investment, has led to a 20-year low  in mortgage rates, dramatically lower interest rates.  There are  probably people in this room who have refinanced their home mortgages  in the last three months, or who have had access to cheaper credit.   That's going to put tens of billion dollars coursing throughout this  economy in ways that are very, very good for the country.  And so we  are moving in the right direction economically. 	      	     I regret that the stimulus did not pass, and I have  begun to ask -- and will continue to ask not only people in the  administration, but people in the Congress whether there is something  I could have done differently to pass that.  Part of the reason it  didn't pass was politics; part of it was a difference in ideas.   There are really people still who believe that it's not needed.  I  just disagree with that.   	      	     I think the recovery -- the economists say it's been  underway for about two years, and we've still had 16 months of seven- percent unemployment, and all the wealthy countries are having  trouble creating jobs.  So I think there was an idea base -- an  argument there, that while we're waiting for the lower interest rates  and the deficit reduction and the investments of the next four years  to take effect, this sort of supplemental appropriation should go  forward. 	      	     Now, I have to tell you, I did misgauge that because a  majority of the Republican senators now sitting in the Senate voted  for a similar stimulus when Ronald Reagan was President in 1983, and  voted 28 times for regular supplemental appropriations like this.  I  just misgauged it.  And I hope that I can learn something.  I've just  been here 90 days.  And, you know, I was a Governor working with a  contentious legislature for 12 years, and it took me a decade to get  political reform there.  So it takes time  to change things.  But I  basically feel very good about what's happened in the first 100 days  with regard to the Congress. 	      	     Q	  Waco -- 	      	     THE PRESIDENT:  Well, with regard to Waco I don't have  much to add to what I've already said.  I think it is a -- I want the  situation looked into.  I want us to bring in people who have any  insights to bear on that.  I think it's very important that the whole  thing be thoroughly gone over.  But I still maintain what I said from  the beginning, that the offender there was David Koresh.  And I do  not think the United States government is responsible for the fact  that a bunch of fanatics decided to kill themselves.  And I'm sorry  that they killed their children. 	      	     Q	  Mr. President, to follow up partly on Helen on your  stimulus package and on your political approach to Capitol Hill, Ross  Perot said today that you're playing games with the American people  in your tax policy.  He was strongly critical of your stimulus  package.  He said he's going to launch an advertising campaign  against the North American Free Trade Agreement.  How are you going  to handle his political criticism?  Will it complicate your efforts  on the Hill with your economic plan?  And do you plan to repackage  some of the things that have been in your stimulus program and try to  resubmit them to the Hill? 	      	     THE PRESIDENT:  Let me answer that question first.   We're going to revisit all of that over the next few days.  I'm going  to be talking to members of Congress and to others to see what we can  do about that.  With regard to the economic plan, I must say I found  that rather amazing.  I don't want to get into an argument with Mr.  Perot.  I'll be interested to hear what his specifics are, but I  would -- go back and read his book and his plan.  There's a  remarkable convergence except that we have more specific budget cuts,  we raise taxes less on the middle class and more on the wealthy.   But, otherwise, the plans are remarkably similar.   	      	     So I think it would be -- I'll be interested to see if  maybe perhaps he's changed his position from his book last year and  he has some new ideas to bring to bear.  I'll be glad to hear them. 	      	     Q	  To follow up, sir, how do you plan to handle his  political criticism?  He's launched a campaign against you.  Do you  think you can sit back and just -- 	      	     THE PRESIDENT:  Well, first of all, I will ask you to  apply the same level of scrutiny to him as you do to me.  And if he's  changed his position from the positions he took in the campaign last  year, then we need to know why and what his ideas are.  Maybe he's  got some constructive ideas.   	      	     I think the American people have shown that they're very  impatient with people who don't want to produce results.  And the one  thing I think that everybody has figured out about me in the last --  even if they don't agree with what I do -- is that I want to get  something done.  I just came here to try to change things.  I want to  do things.  And I want to do things that help people's lives.  So my  judgment is that if he makes a suggestion that is good, that is  constructive, that takes us beyond some idea I've proposed that will  change people's lives for the better, fine.  But I think that that  ought to be the test that we apply to everyone who weighs into this  debate and not just to the President.  	     Q	  Mr. President, to go back to Bosnia for a minute.   You continue to insist that this has to be multilateral action, a  criteria that seems to have hamstrung us when it comes to many  options thus far and makes it look as if this is a state of  paralysis.  The United States is the last remaining superpower.  Why  is it not appropriate in this situation for the United States to act  unilaterally?  	     THE PRESIDENT:  Well, the United States -- surely you  would agree, that the United States, even as the last remaining  superpower, has to act consistent with international law under some  mandate of the United Nations.  	     Q	  But you have a mandate and --  	     THE PRESIDENT:  They do, and that is one of the things  that we have under review.  I haven't ruled out any option for  action.  I would remind all of you, I have not ruled out any option,  except that we have not discussed and we are not considering the  introduction of American forces into continuing hostilities there.   We are not.    	     So we are reviewing other options.  But I also would  remind you that, to be fair, our allies have had -- the French, the  British and the Canadians -- have had troops on the ground there.   They have been justifiably worried about those.  But they have  supported the airdrops, the toughening of the sanctions.  They  welcomed the American delegation now in Europe, working on how to  make these sanctions really work and really bite against Serbia.  And  I can tell you that the other nations involved are also genuinely  reassessing their position, and I would not rule out the fact that we  can reach an agreement for a concerted action that goes beyond where  we have been.  I don't have any criticism of the British, the French  and others about that. 	      	     Q	  Would that be military action? 	      	     Q	  Mr. President, several of the leading lights in  your administration, ranging from your FBI Director to your U.N.  Ambassador, to your Deputy Budget Director to your Health Services  Secretary, have issued statements in the last couple of weeks which  are absolutely contradictory to some of the positions you've taken in  your administration.  Why is that?  Are you losing your political  grip? 	      	     THE PRESIDENT:  Give me an example.  	      	     Q	  Example?  Judge Sessions said that there was no  child abuse in Waco.  Madeleine Albright has said in this morning's  newspapers, at least, that she favors air strikes in Bosnia.  All of  these are things you said that you didn't support. 	      	     THE PRESIDENT:  First of all, I don't know what -- we  know that David Koresh had sex with children.  I think that is  undisputed, is it not?  Is it not?  Does anybody dispute that?  Where  I come from that qualifies as child abuse.  And we know that he had  people teaching these kids how to kill themselves.  I think that  qualifies as abuse.  And I'm not criticizing Judge Sessions because I  don't know exactly what he said. 	      	     In terms of Madeleine Albright, Madeleine Albright has  made no public statement at all about air strikes.  There is a press  report that she wrote me a confidential letter in which she expressed  her -- or memo -- in which she expressed her views about the new  direction we should take in response to my request to all the senior  members of my administration to let me know what they thought we  ought to do next.  And I have heard from her and from others about  what they think we ought to do next.  And I'm not going to discuss  the recommendations they made to me, but in the next few days when I  make a decision about what to do, then I will announce what I'm going  to do.  So I wouldn't say that either one of those examples qualifies  speaking out of school. 	      	     Q	  How about the Value Added Tax, Mr. President? 	      	     THE PRESIDENT:  What was that? 	      	     Q	  The Value Added Tax -- Mrs. Rivlin and Miss Shalala  both said that they thought that that was a good idea. 	      	     THE PRESIDENT:  I don't mind them saying they think it's  a good idea.  There are all kinds of arguments for it on policy  grounds.  That does not mean that we have decided to incorporate it  in the health care debate.  No decision has been made on that.  And I  have no objection to their expressing their views on that.  We've had  a lot of people from business and labor come to us saying that they  thought that tax would help make their particular industries more  competitive in the global economy.  I took no -- that wasn't taking a  line against an administration policy. 	      	     Q	  Mr. President, a week ago a group of gay and  lesbian representatives came out of a meeting with you and expressed  in the most ringing terms, their confidence in your understanding of  them and their political aspirations, and their belief that you would  fulfill those aspirations.  Do you feel now that you will be able to  meet their now enhanced expectations? 	      	     THE PRESIDENT:  Well, I don't know about that.  And I  don't know what their -- it depends on what the expectations are.   But I'll tell you this:  I believe that this country's policies  should be heavily biased in favor of nondiscrimination.  I believe  when you tell people they can't do certain things in this country  that other people can do, there ought to be an overwhelming and  compelling reason for it.  I believe we need the services of all of  our people, and I have said that consistently.  And not as a  political proposition.  The first time this issue came up was in 1991  when I was in Boston.  I was just asked the question about it. 	      	     And I might add -- it's interesting that I have been  attacked -- obviously, those who disagree with me here are primarily  coming from the political right in America.  When I was Governor, I  was attacked from the other direction for sticking up for the rights  of religious fundamentalists to run their child care centers and to  practice home schooling under appropriate safeguards.  I just have  always had an almost libertarian view that we should try to protect  the rights of American individual citizens to live up to the fullest  of their capacities, and I'm going to stick right with that. 	      	     Q	  Are you concerned, sir, that you may have generated  expectations on their end and criticism among others that has  hamstrung your administration in the sense of far too great emphasis  on this issue? 	      	     THE PRESIDENT:  Yes, but I have not placed a great deal  of emphasis on it.  It's gotten a lot of emphasis in other quarters  and in the press.  I've just simply taken my position and tried to  see it through.  And that's what I do.  It doesn't take a lot of my  time as President to say what I believe in and what I intend to do,  and that's what I'll continue to do. 	      	     Q	  Mr. President, getting back to the situation in  Bosnia -- and we understand you haven't made any final decisions on  new options previously considered unacceptable.  But the two most  commonly heard options would be lifting the arms embargo to enable  the Bosnian Muslims to defend themselves and to initiate some limited  air strikes, perhaps, to cut off supply lines.  Without telling us  your decision -- presumably, you haven't made any final decisions on  those two options -- what are the pros and cons that are going  through your mind right now and will weigh heavily on your final  decision?   	      	     THE PRESIDENT:  I'm reluctant to get into this.  There  are -- those are two of the options.  There are some other options  that have been considered.  All have pluses and minuses; all have  supporters and opponents within the administration and in the  Congress, where, I would remind you, heavy consultations will be  required to embark on any new policy. 	      	     I do believe that on the air strike issue, the  pronouncements that General Powell has made generally about military  action, apply there.  If you take action, if the United States takes  action, we must have a clearly-defined objective that can be met.  We  must be able to understand it and its limitations must be clear.  The  United States is not, should not, become involved as a partisan in a  war.   	      	     With regard to the lifting of the arms embargo, the  question obviously there is if you widen the capacity of people to  fight will that help to get a settlement and bring about peace?  Will  it lead to more bloodshed?  What kind of reaction can others have  that would undermine the effectiveness of the policy? 	      	     But I think both of them deserve some serious  consideration, along with some other options we have. 	      	     Q	  Do you think that these people who are trying to  get us into war in Bosnia are really remembering that we haven't  taken care of hundreds of thousands of veterans from the last war and  we couldn't take care of our prisoners and get them all home from  Vietnam?   And now many of them are coming up with bills for  treatment of Agent Orange.  How can we afford to go to any more of  these wars? 	      	     THE PRESIDENT:  Well, I think that's a good argument  against the United States itself becoming involved as a belligerent  in a war there.  But we are, after all, the world's only super power.   We do have to lead the world  and there is a very serious problem of  systematic ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia, which could  have not only enormous further humanitarian consequences -- and  goodness knows there have been many -- but also could have other  practical consequences in other nearby regions where the same sorts  of ethnic tensions exist.  	     Q	  Did you make any kind of agreement with Boris  Yeltsin to hold off either on air strikes or any kind of aggressive  action against the Serbs until after Sunday?  And in general, how has  his political situation affected your deliberation on Bosnia?  	     THE PRESIDENT:  No, I have not made any agreement, and  he did not ask for that.  We never even discussed that, interestingly  enough.  The Russians, I would remind you, in the middle of President  Yeltsin's campaign, abstained from our attempt to get tougher  sanctions through the United Nations in what I thought was the proper  decision for them and one that the United States and, I'm sure, the  rest of the free world very much appreciated.   	     Q	  Do you wish, Mr. President, that you'd become more  involved in the planning of the Waco operation?  And how would you  handle that situation differently now?  	     THE PRESIDENT:  I don't think as a practical matter that  the President should become involved in the planning of those kinds  of things at that detail.  One of the things that I'm sure will come  out when we look into this is -- the questions will be asked and  answered, did all of us who up the line of command ask the questions  we should have asked and get the answers we should have gotten?  And  I look forward to that.  But at the time, I have to say, as I did  before, the first thing I did after the ATF agents were killed, once  we knew that the FBI was going to go in, was to ask that the military  be consulted because of the quasi, as least, military nature of the  conflict given the resources that Koresh had in his compound and  their obvious willingness to use them.  And then on the day before  the action, I asked the questions of the Attorney General which I  have reported to you previously, and which at the time I thought were  sufficient.  I have -- as I said, I'm sure -- I leave it to others to  make the suggestions about whether there are other questions I should  have asked. 	      	     Q	  Mr. President, what is your assessment of Director  Sessions' role in the Waco affair?  And have you made a decision on  his future?  And if you haven't, will you give him a personal hearing  before you do decide? 	      	     THE PRESIDENT:  Well, first of all, I have no assessment  of his role since I had no direct contact with him.  And I mean no  negative or positive inference.  I have no assessment there.  I stand  by what I said before about my general high regard for the FBI.  And  I'm waiting for a recommendation from the Attorney General about what  to do with the direction of the FBI. 	      	     Q	  Mr. President, since you said that one side in  Bosnia conflict represents inhumanity that the Holocaust carried to  the nth degree, why do you then tell us that the United States cannot  take a partisan view in this war? 	      	     THE PRESIDENT:  Well, I said that the principle of  ethnic cleansing is something we ought to stand up against.  That  does not mean that the United States or the United Nations can enter  a war, in effect, to redraw the lines, geographical lines of  republics within what was Yugoslavia, or that that would ultimately  be successful. 	      	     I think what the United States has to do is to try to  figure out whether there is some way consistent with forcing the  people to resolve their own difficulties we can stand up to and stop  ethnic cleansing.  And that is obviously the difficulty we are  wrestling with.  This is clearly the most difficult foreign policy  problem we face, and that all of our allies face.  And if it were  easy, I suppose it would have been solved before.  We have tried to  do more in the last 90 days than was previously done.  It has clearly  not been enough to stop the Serbian aggression, and  we are now  looking at what else we can do. 	      	     Q	  Yesterday you specifically criticized the Roosevelt  administration for not having bombed the railroads to the  concentration camps and things that were near military targets.   Aren't there steps like that that would not involve conflict --direct  conflict or partisan belligerence that you might consider? 	      	     THE PRESIDENT:  There may be.  I would remind you that  the circumstances were somewhat different.  We were then at war with  Germany at the time and that's what made that whole incident so -- series of incidents -- so perplexing.  But we have -- as I say, we've  got all of our options under review. 	      	     Q	  The diplomatic initiative on Haiti is on the verge  of collapse.  What can you do to salvage it short of a full-scale  military operation? 	      	     THE PRESIDENT:  Well, you may know something I don't.   That's not what our people tell me.  I think Mr. Caputo and  Ambassador Pezzullo have done together a good job.  The thing keeps  going back and forth because of the people who are involved with the  de facto government there.  It's obvious what their concerns are.   They were the same concerns that led to the ouster of Aristide in the  first place, and President Aristide, we feel, should be restored to  power.  We're working toward that.  I get a report on that -- we  discuss it at least three times a week, and I'm convinced that we're  going to prevail there and be successful.   	      	     I do believe that there's every reason to think that  there will have to be some sort of multilateral presence to try to  guarantee the security and the freedom from violence of people on  both sides of the ledger while we try to establish the conditions of  ongoing civilized society.  But I believe we're going to prevail  there. 	      	     Q	  Mr. President, would you care to make your  assessment of the first 100 days before we make one for you?   (Laughter.) 	      	     THE PRESIDENT:  Well, I'll say if -- I believe, first of  all, we passed the budget resolution in record time.  That was the  biggest issue.  That confirmed the direction of the administration  and confirmed the commitments of the campaign that we could both  bring the deficit down and increase investment, and that we could do  it by specific spending cuts and by raising taxes, almost all of  which come from the highest income people in this society --reversing  a 12-year trend in which most of the tax burdens were borne by the  middle class, whose incomes were going down when their taxes were  going up, while the deficit went from $1 trillion to $4 trillion, the  total national debt, and the deficit continued to go up. 	      	     We have a 20-year low in interest rates from mortgages.  We have lower interest rates across the board.  We have tens of  billions of dollars flooding back into this economy as people  refinance their debt.   	      	     We have established a new environmental policy, which is  dramatically different.  The Secretary of Education has worked with  me and with others and with the governors to establish a new approach  in education that focuses on tough standards, as well as increasing  opportunity.  We have done an enormous amount of work on political  reform, on campaign finance and lobbying reform.  And I have imposed  tough ethics requirements on my own administration's officials.   These things are consistent with not only what I said I'd do in the  campaign, but with turning the country around.  The Vice President is  heading a task force which will literally change the way the federal  government operates and make it much more responsive to the citizens  of this country.   	      	     We are working on a whole range of other things.  The  welfare reform initiative, to move people from welfare to work.  And,  of course, a massive amount of work has been done on the health care  issue, which is a huge economic and personal security problem for  millions of Americans.   	      	     So I think it is amazing how much has been done.  More  will be done.  We also passed the Family Leave bill.  A version of  the motor voter bill -- that has not come out of conference back to  me yet.  And everything has been passed except the stimulus program.   So I think we're doing fine and we're moving in the right direction.   I feel good about it. 	      	     Q	  Sir, a follow-up.  Wouldn't you say, though, that  one of your biggest initiatives, aid to Soviet Russia, is now  practically finished -- if we can't pass a stimulus bill in our own  country, how can we do it for them? 	      	     THE PRESIDENT:  Let me recast the question a little bit.   It's a good question -- (laughter) -- it's a good question, but to be  fair we've got to recast it.  We have already -- the first round of  aid to the Soviet -- to non-Soviet Russia, to a democratic Russia, is  plainly going to go through, the first $1.6 billion.  The aid that we  agreed with our partners in the G-7 to provide through the  international financial institutions, which is a big dollar item, is  plainly going to go through.  The question is, can we get any more  aid for Russia that requires a new appropriation by the United States  Congress?  And that is a question I think, Mary, that will be  resolved in the weeks ahead, in part by what happens to the American  workers and their jobs and their future.  I think the two things will  be tied by many members of Congress.  	     Q	  The tailhook report came out this morning,  documenting horrendous and nearly-criminal conduct on the part of the  Navy.  How much did you discuss the incident and what might be done  about it with your nominee to be the Secretary of the Navy?  	     THE PRESIDENT:  First, let me comment a little on that.   The Inspector General's report details conduct which is wrong and  which has no place in the armed services.  And I expect the report to  be acted on in the appropriate way.  I also want to say to the  American people and to all of you that the report should be taken for  what it is, a very disturbing list of allegations which will have to  be thoroughly examined.  It should not be taken as a general  indictment of the United States Navy or of all the fine people who  serve there.  It is very specific in its allegations, and it will be  pursued.    	     The only thing I said to the Secretary-Designate of the  Navy and the only thing I should have said to him, I think, is that I  expected him to take the report and to do his duty.  And I believe he  will do that.  	     Q	  Mr. President, to back to Russia for just a minute.   The latest poll show that Mr. Yeltsin will probably win his vote of  confidence.  But there seems to be a real toss-up on whether or not  voters are going to endorse his economic reforms.    	     THE PRESIDENT:  I understand that.    	     Q	  Can you live with a split -- (laughter) -- can you  live with a split decision, though, or do you need both passed in  order to then build support for Russian aid?  	     THE PRESIDENT:  I believe -- the answer to your question  is, for the United States, the key question should be that which is  posed to any democracy, which is who wins the election.  If he wins  the election, if he is ratified by the Russian people to continue as  their President, then I think we should do our best to work with him  toward reform. 	      	     You know, we had a lot of other countries here for the  Holocaust Museum dedication -- their leaders were here.  Leaders from  Eastern Europe, leaders from at least one republic of the former  Soviet Union; all of them having terrible economic challenges as they  convert from a communist command and control economy to a market  economy in a world where there's economic slowdown everywhere.  And  in a world in which there's economic slowdown and difficulty, all  leaders will have trouble having their policies be popular in a poll  because they haven't produced the results that the people so  earnestly yearn for.  You can understand that.   	      	     But if they have confidence in the leadership, I think  that's all we can ask.  And the United States will -- if the Russian  people ratify him as their President and stick with him then the  United States will continue to work with him.  I think he is a  genuine democrat -- small d -- and genuinely committed to reform.  I  think that we should support that.  	     Q	  Mr. President, Mr. Perot has come out strongly in  what is perceived behind the line against a free trade agreement -- NAFTA.  How hard are you going to fight for this free trade agreement  and when do you expect to see it accomplished? 	      	     THE PRESIDENT:  I think we'll have the agreement ready  in the fairly near future.  You know, our people are still working  with the Mexican government and with the Canadians on the side  agreements.  We're trying to work out what the environmental  agreement will say, what the labor agreement will say, and then what  the fairest way to deal with enforcement is.   	      	     The Mexicans say, and there is some merit to their  position, that they're worried about transferring their sovereignty  in enforcement to a multilateral commission.  Even in the United  States, to be fair, we have some folks who are worried about that -- about giving that up.  On the other hand, if we're going to have an  environmental agreement and a labor standards agreement that means  something, then there has to be ultimately some consequences for  violating them.  So what we're trying to do is to agree on an  approach which would say that if there is a pattern of violations -- if you keep on violating it past a certain point -- maybe not an  isolated incident, but a pattern of violation -- there is going to be  some enforcement.  There must be consequences.  And we're working out  the details of that. 	      	     But I still feel quite good about it.  And this is just  an area where I disagree with Mr. Perot and with others.  I think  that we will win big if we have a fair agreement that integrates more  closely the Mexican economy and the American economy and leads us  from there to Chile to other market economies in Latin America, and  gives us a bigger world in which to trade.  I think that's the only  way a rich country can grow richer.  If you look at what Japan and  other countries in the Pacific are doing to reach out in their own  region, it's a pretty good lesson to us that we had better worry  about how to build those bridges in our own area.   	      	     So this is an idea battle.  You know, you've got a lot  of questions and I want to answer them all, but let me say not every  one of these things can be distilled simply into politics -- you  know, who's for this and who's for that, and if this person is for  this, somebody else has got to be for that.  A lot of these things  honestly involved real debates over ideas, over who's right and wrong  about the world toward which we're moving.  And the answers are not  self-evident.  And one of the reasons that I wanted to run for  President is I wanted to sort of open the floodgates for debating  these ideas so that we could try to change in the appropriate way.   So I just have a difference of opinion.  I believe that the concept  of NAFTA is sound, even though, as you know, I thought that the  details needed to be improved. 	      	     Q	  Mr. President, there was a tremendous flurry of  interest earlier this month in the Russian document that purported to  show that the Vietnamese had held back American prisoners.  General  Vessey has now said publicly that while the document itself was  authentic, he believes that it was incorrect.  Do you have a personal  view at this point about that issue?  And more broadly, do you  believe that, in fact, the Vietnamese did return all the American  prisoners at the time of the Paris Peace Accord? 	      	     THE PRESIDENT:  First let me say, I saw General Vessey  before he went to Vietnam and after he returned.  And I have a high  regard for him and I appreciate his willingness to serve his country  in this way.  As to whether the document had any basis in fact, let  me say that the government of Vietnam was more forthcoming than it  had been in the past and gave us some documents that would tend to  undermine the validity of the Russian documents claim. 	      	     I do not know whether that is right or wrong.  We are  having it basically evaluated at this time, and when we complete the  evaluation, we'll tell you.  And, of course, we want to tell the  families of those who were missing in action or who were POWs.  I  think that we'll be able to make some progress in eliminating some of  the questions about the outstanding cases as a result of this last  interchange, but I cannot say that I'm fully satisfied that we know  all that we need to know.  There are still some cases that we don't  know the answer to.  But I do believe we're making some progress.  I  was encouraged by the last trip. 	      	     Q	  I'd like to follow up on that.  Before the U.S.  normalizes relations, allows trade to go forward, do you have to be  personally sure that every case has been resolved or would you be  willing to go forward on the basis that while it may take years to  resolve these cases, the Vietnamese have made sufficient offerings to  us to confirm good faith? 	      	     THE PRESIDENT:  A lot of experts say you can never  resolve every case, every one, that we couldn't resolve all the cases  for them and that there are still some cases that have not been  factually resolved, going back to the Second World War.  But what I  would have to be convinced of is that we had gone a long way toward  resolving every case that could be resolved at this moment in time,  and that there was a complete, open and unrestricted commitment to  continue to do everything that could be done always to keep resolving  those cases.  And we're not there yet.   	      	     Again, I have to be guided a little bit by people who  know a lot about this.  And I confess to being much more heavily  influenced by the families of the people whose lives were lost there,  or whose lives remain in question than by the commercial interest and  the other things which seem so compelling in this moment.  I just am  very influenced by how the families feel. 	      	     Q	     your economic stimulus package, are you doing  some kind of reality check now and scaling back some of your plans,  your legislative plans for the coming year, including the crime bill,  the health care initiative and other things?  Are there any plans to  do that?  And also, did you underestimate the power of Senator Bob  Dole? 	      	     THE PRESIDENT:  No, what I underestimated was the extent  to which what I thought was a fairly self-evident case, particularly  after we stayed below the spending caps approved by this Congress,  including the Republicans who were in this Congress last year -- when  we had already passed a budget resolution which called for over $500  billion in deficit reduction.  When they had voted repeatedly for  supplemental appropriations to help foreign governments, I thought at  least four of them would vote to break cloture, and I underestimated  that.  I did not have an adequate strategy of dealing with that.   	      	     I also thought that if I made a good-faith effort to  negotiate and to compromise, that it would not be rebuffed.  Instead,  every time I offered something they reduced the offer that they had  previously been talking to the Majority Leader about.  So it was a  strange set of events.  But I think what happened was what was a  significant part of our plan, but not the major part of it, acquired  a political connotation that got out of proportion to the merits, so  that a lot of Republicans were saying to me privately, "Mr.  President, I'd like to be for this, but I can't now.  And we're all  strung out and we're divided."   	      	     And I think we need to do a reality check.  As I said,  what I want to know -- let me go back to what I said -- what I want  to know from our folks and from our friends in the Senate on -- and  Republicans or Democrats -- is what could I have done differently to  make it come out differently.  Because the real losers here were not  the President and the administration.  The real losers were the  hundreds of thousands of people who won't have jobs now.  We could  have put another 700,000 kids to work this summer.  I mean, we could  have done a lot of good things with that money.  And I think that is  very, very sad.  And it became more political than it should have.   But the underlying rationale I don't think holds a lot of water -- that it was deficit spending.  That just won't wash. 	      	     Q	     and redo -- 	      	     THE PRESIDENT:  No.  I mean, you know, for example --you  mentioned the crime bill.  I think it would be a real mistake not to  pass the crime bill.  I mean, the crime bill was almost on the point  of passage last year.  And they were all fighting over the Brady  Bill.  Surely, surely after what we have been through in this country  just in the last three months, with the kind of mindless violence we  have seen, we can pass a bill requiring people to go through a  waiting period before they buy a handgun.  And surely we can see that  we need more police officers on the street.   	      	     That's another thing that -- I really believe that once  we move some of that money -- not all, but some of it up into this  jobs package to make some of the jobs rehiring police officers on the  street who'd been laid off, that would be a compelling case.  I mean  people are scared in this country and I think we need to go forward.  I feel very strongly that we need to go forward on the crime bill. 	      	     Q	  Mr. President, back to the tailhook report for a  second.  That report contained very strong criticism of the Navy's  senior leadership in general, but did not name any of the senior  officers.  Do you believe that the senior officers who are implicated  in this, including Admiral Kelso who was there one night in Las  Vegas, should they be disciplined and do you believe the public has a  right to know the names of the senior officers? 	      	     THE PRESIDENT:  You should know that under the rules of  law which apply to this, I am in the chain of command.  There is now  an Inspector General's report and the law must take its course.  If I  were to answer that question I might prejudice any decisions which  might be later made in this case.  I don't really think -- I think  all I can tell you is what I have already said.  I was very disturbed  by the specific allegations in the Inspector General's report, and I  want appropriate action to be taken.   	      	     Until the proper procedures have a chance to kick in and  appropriate action is taken, I have been advised that because I am  the Commander-in-Chief I have to be very careful about what I say so  as not to prejudice the rights of anybody against whom any action  might proceed or to prejudice the case in any other way either pro or  con.  So I can't say any more except to say that I want this thing  handled in an appropriate and thorough way. 	      	     Q	  Mr. President, could I ask you for a clarification  on Bosnia?  You said that you were not considering introduction of  American forces.  Does that include any air forces as well as ground  forces, sir? 	      	     THE PRESIDENT:  I said ground forces. 	      	     Q	  You said ground forces.  Could I ask you, sir, if  you fear that using U.S. air strikes might  draw the United States  into a ground war there? 	      	     THE PRESIDENT:  I just don't want to discuss our  evaluation of the options anymore.  I've told you that there's never  been a serious discussion in this country about the introduction of  ground forces into an ongoing conflict there. 	      	     Q	  With hundreds of thousands of gays in Washington  this weekend for the march, did you ever reconsider your decision to  leave town for this weekend?  Did you ever consider in any way  participating in some of the activities?  	      	     THE PRESIDENT:  No. 	      	     Q	  Why not? 	      	     THE PRESIDENT:  Because I -- and, basically, I wouldn't  participate in other marches.  I think once you become President, on  balance, except under unusual circumstances, that is not what should  be done.  But more importantly, I'm going to the American Society of  Newspaper Editors, a trip that presumably most of you would want me  to make, to try to focus anew on what I think are the fundamental  issues at stake for our country right now.  And I expect that I will  say something about the fact that a lot of Americans have come here,  asking for a climate that is free of discrimination; asking,  basically, to be able to work hard and live by the rules and be  treated like other American citizens if they do that, and just that.   And that's always been my position -- not only for the gays who will  be here, but for others as well.   	      	     Thank you very much.