pd06mr95 The President's News Conference...

	Web GovRecords.org

for a budget that actually reduces the deficit. And I am willing to work 
with them. But this balanced budget amendment does not reduce any 
spending. And the American people still don't know what's going to 
happen to Social Security. They still don't know what's going to happen 
to education. They still don't know what's going to happen to Medicare. 
They still don't know anything about what the details are.
    So the real question is: Whatever happens today--and it's obviously 
in the hands of the sponsors in the Senate, because they know what they 
have to do to get the votes to pass. They have to make it less bad; they 
have to fix at least the judicial--they have to fix the idea of giving 
the Federal judges the power to raise taxes and cut spending. And what 
are we going to do tomorrow? That's what I want them to think about. I'm 
willing to work to do more, to cut more of the deficit, but we need a 
partnership here, and we need to go beyond posturing.
    So I do not think it's a good idea, but that decision is in the 
hands of the Congress, and we'll just have to see what they do. But 
whatever happens today, the real question is, what are we going to do 
here tomorrow?
    Q. It sounds like you're throwing in the towel.
    The President. No, I'm not. No, I think----
    Q. You sound very----
    The President. I have worked--it's just that I know where those five 
people are that are undecided, and I know that there are changes that 
the majority could make in the Senate to get the votes. You know, if 
they would--for example, they plainly could pass it if they said that 
they weren't going to give Federal judges the power to raise taxes and 
cut spending and they weren't going to use Social Security in trying to 
resolve this, they weren't going to put Social Security into the 
balanced budget calculation. Then the thing would clearly pass.
    The only point I'm trying to make is, it's up to them now whether it 
passes or not, because I've talked to all five of those folks. Others 
have talked to them. They've made their positions public. They've made 
it clear where they stand. Those five Democrats are all people who, like 
me, have worked hard to try to bring down the deficit. So we'll just 
have to see what happens.
    No, I'm not sure it's going to pass, see, because I don't know 
what's in their minds. Some of the cynics believe that they want it to 
lose so they can continue to blame the Democrats.
    Q. You don't seem to have put much energy in it.
    The President. That's not--I have made my position very clear. I 
don't have a veto, as you know, in this process. I've made my position 
clear. I've had extensive talks with undecided Members. I've done 
everything I could. Our administration has testified on it. But what I 
think happens is that a lot of the Members of Congress are frustrated 
because of what's happened in the previous 12 years before we showed up 
here, and they see this mountain of debt that's piled up. But I don't 
believe the amendment is the way to solve it, because I think of the 
whole history of America. I know we could fix this without a 
constitutional amendment.
    And if we fix the big structural deficit and we're stuck with this 
amendment, then what happens the next time we have a recession? Are we 
going to make it worse? In a recession, are we going to be raising taxes 
and cutting job training programs? What happens the next time the 
Federal Reserve has to raise interest rates? Are we going to come back 
and cut Head Start and college loans?

[[Page 329]]

    So we need to continue to work on this. We need strong action. I'm 
just afraid that the American people have not been told the full 
implications of this for Social Security, for education, and for the 
economy. And I think that it's regrettable, but understandable, that the 
supporters did not want to comply with the right-to-know suggestion. But 
they're going to have to, anyway. They're going to have to before the 
States vote on it. They're going to have to tell people what the 
consequences are.
    Q. Is there anything they could change to make you go along with it 
with this point of view that it's such a bad idea to change the 
Constitution?
    The President. I think that changing--I think if you change the 
Constitution without some sort of an economic emergency--that's my 
problem. That is, my problem is, if you read Senator Moynihan's three 
lectures on this, three speeches in the Senate, he did a wonderful job, 
Moynihan did, of laying out the whole history of our budgeting and 
pointing out how this problem that we're saddled with is a new problem 
in American history. It arose from 1981 to 1993. It did not exist before 
in our country. And the point he made is, we can fix it without amending 
the Constitution if we have the will to do it and if we'll work together 
in a bipartisan fashion.
    And if we amend the Constitution and we fix it, then the next time 
it takes effect, it'll be destructive, because we'll be in a recession 
and it will make the recession worse. That's what I'm worried about. I 
don't know how they could fix that. I understand one of the Senators had 
some sort of an economic emergency amendment that would fix that. But 
that's what I see as the real problem.
    You know, I guess when you come down to it, the best argument for it 
is the drunk in the liquor store argument: Every time I drive by, I'm 
going to go in and buy a fifth; you better board it up. I mean, near as 
I can tell, that's the argument for it. And I just think that we should 
have a bipartisan determination to keep bringing that rascal down 
without amending the Constitution in ways that 10, 15 years from now are 
likely to hurt our children and our grandchildren.
    Thank you.

Note: The President spoke at 9:32 a.m. in the Roosevelt Room at the 
White House. In his remarks, he referred to Secretary of the Treasury 
Robert Rubin; Jerry Lovitt, Kentucky State police commissioner; former 
White House Press Secretary James Brady, who was wounded in the 1981 
assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan; and Mr. Brady's wife, 
Sarah, who is head of Hand Gun Control, Inc. Public Law 103-159, ``To 
provide for a waiting period before the purchase of a handgun, and for 
the establishment of a national instant criminal background check system 
to be contacted by firearms dealers before the transfer of any 
firearm,'' approved November 30, 1993, took effect on February 28, 1994.


<DOC>
[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents]
 [frwais.access.gpo.gov]


[Page 329-330]
 
Monday, March 6, 1995
 
Volume 31--Number 9
Pages 315-359
 
Week Ending Friday, March 3, 1995
 
Exchange With Reporters Prior to Discussions With Prime Minister Wim Kok 
of The Netherlands

February 28, 1995

Iran

    Q. Mr. President, are you concerned about Iran placing anti-aircraft 
missiles at the mouth of the Persian Gulf?
    The President. I think that I'll wait until later to answer any 
questions.
    Q. Even the ones--the Republicans saying that they're willing to 
change the balanced budget amendment so that the courts cannot raise 
taxes or cut spending?

The Netherlands

    Q. And about The Netherlands--[laughter]----
    The President. It's a great country and a great ally of the United 
States.

[At this point, one group of reporters left the room, and another group 
entered.]

``Apache'' Helicopters

    Q. Mr. President, how will you react if the Dutch Government decides 
not to buy Apache helicopters?
    The President. Well, that's a decision for the Dutch Government to 
make. Obviously, I hope that that will be the decision because I think 
on the merits, it's the best product. But that's a decision that the 
Government has to make.
    Q. Mr. President, are you trying to sell the Prime Minister on the 
benefits of the Apache helicopter?

[[Page 330]]

    The President. I've already done that. I've already made my pitch, 
if you will.
    Prime Minister Kok. And Mr. President, if we don't buy them, we 
remain a great country.
    The President. That's right. We have--you know, our relationship 
with the Dutch, it's a very--it's a deep and broad and complex one. 
There are a lot of things involved in it, and this is just one part of 
it. We are allies in every sense of the word, in so many ways. And we 
have to continue to work together. There are a lot of problems in Europe 
and beyond that require our cooperation and our mutual support. And of 
course, we have a terrific commercial relationship as well. So we have a 
lot riding on this relationship, and no single element of it can be 
allowed to define it.

U.N. Peacekeeping Forces

    Q. [Inaudible]--about U.N. peacekeeping forces that may be in 
jeopardy because of the attitude of the Republican Party?
    The President. Well, I don't agree with the attitude of the party 
with regard to the peacekeeping forces in Bosnia and with regard to at 
least some of what I've seen in the House of Representatives on 
peacekeeping generally. I believe the United States should participate 
in peacekeeping. I think we should pay our way. I think we should 
continue to be a strong force there.
    With regard to Bosnia, I think we should--the United States should 
support the Contact Group and should support those countries that do 
have their soldiers on the ground and at risk there. And we have said, 
for example, if we had to withdraw, if UNPROFOR collapsed, we would try 
to do our part to help people get out of Bosnia safely. But I think it 
would be a mistake for the United States to go off on its own and start 
making independent Bosnia policy. We don't have our soldiers there. The 
Europeans do have soldiers there; the Canadians have soldiers there. 
They have put their lives at risk. We have spent a lot of money in 
Bosnia, and we have supported from air and sea and from our hospital in 
Croatia, and a lot of other ways we've supported the operation of the 
U.N. in Bosnia.
    Q. So you're with our Prime Minister and against the Republicans in 
this matter?
    The President. That's correct. That's essentially----
    Q. [Inaudible]
    The President. [Inaudible]--Constitution----
    Q. [Inaudible]
    The President. There has to be a difference of opinion in the United 
States or you're on the long end of it--you're in the right position. 
[Laughter]

Note: The exchange began at 10:27 a.m. in the Oval Office at the White 
House. A tape was not available for verification of the content of this 
exchange.


<DOC>
[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents]
 [frwais.access.gpo.gov]


[Page 330-335]
 
Monday, March 6, 1995
 
Volume 31--Number 9
Pages 315-359
 
Week Ending Friday, March 3, 1995
 
The President's News Conference With Prime Minister Kok of The 
Netherlands

February 28, 1995

    The President. Please be seated. Welcome. It's indeed a pleasure to 
welcome Prime Minister Kok to the White House. Since the days of our 
Revolutionary War when The Netherlands gave shelter to John Paul Jones' 
ships, The Netherlands has consistently been one of our most valued and 
trusted allies.
    I also have warm personal recognition, Mr. Prime Minister, of your 
country. I last visited it a few years ago when I was Governor of 
Arkansas, and I hope I have a chance to visit it again. In the 
meanwhile, I'm glad we had the opportunity to return the hospitality 
today.
    The Prime Minister comes here at a very important time, when we are 
seeking to work together to meet the challenges of the post-cold-war 
era. One of the most vital issues we discussed is the effort to build a 
more integrated, more secure Europe, to ensure that democracy and 
prosperity grow strong in the years ahead. We reaffirmed our intention 
to press ahead with the enlargement of NATO to include Europe's new 
democracies.
    The Netherlands is playing a leading role in building bridges to 
these new democracies. It was the first NATO nation to host a 
Partnership For Peace exercise on its own

[[Page 331]]

soil, something for which we are very appreciative.
    We also agreed that in parallel with this expansion NATO must 
develop close and strong ties with Russia. We share a vision of European 
security that embraces a democratic Russia.
    The Prime Minister and I discussed a broad range of issues, 
including our interest in continuing to expand trade between our two 
nations. Not many people know just how rich our partnership is. The 
Netherlands is our eighth largest trading partner. And the Dutch people 
obviously think the American economy is a good bet because they have 
invested more in the United States than anyone except Britain and Japan. 
I hope this trading relationship will continue to grow with our 
friendship in the years ahead.
    During our talks, we also agreed on the importance of indefinite 
extension of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty to prevent the spread 
of nuclear weapons. We reviewed our joint efforts in the Caribbean where 
we are working together to combat narcotics trafficking.
    I want to thank the Prime Minister and all the people of The 
Netherlands, especially, for the support they have given to our common 
efforts to restore democracy in Haiti, a truly remarkable success story 
to date. No other European nation has been as forthcoming at every stage 
of this endeavor, from sending ships for sanctions enforcement, to the 
police monitors in the multinational force, to the Dutch Marines, who 
are part of the U.N. mission. Like their involvement in the peacekeeping 
in the former Yugoslavia, this vital help to the people of Haiti writes 
yet another chapter in the great Dutch tradition of supporting 
humanitarian relief efforts in human rights around the world.
    When I spoke 2 weeks ago at the Iwo Jima Memorial commemoration, I 
admired once again the wonderful gift that The Netherlands gave us in 
thanks in part for our part in liberating their country in World War II, 
the wonderful Netherlands Carillon. Today, I want to thank the Prime 
Minister and the people of The Netherlands for renovating and updating 
the Carillon, which is now receiving a 50th bell. This is the gift that 
I have here. Now, as the Prime Minister reminded me, some of the bells 
are as big as he and I are. But this 50th bell, which I assure you, it's 
been over in the Oval Office for a day or so, and we have all lifted it, 
it's quite heavy and quite wonderful, and we thank him for this.
    Bells have rung out the news of victory and liberty for centuries. 
As we move forward to meet the challenges of this new century, it is 
fitting that we and our Dutch friends will be reminded of the common 
cause we shared 50 years ago by the sound of this beautiful new bell. 
May it also be sounding 50 years from now and even beyond.
    Mr. Prime Minister.
    Prime Minister Kok. Thank you very much, Mr. President. Let me, 
first of all, express my gratitude and, too, the gratitude of Minister 
for Foreign Affairs Van Mierlo to be here. Having been here at this 
official working visit, this visit underlined once and again the close 
links and the excellent cooperation and relation between our two 
countries, both on a bilateral basis and also in the international 
framework. And so I want to thank you for that occasion.
    You said three words about this bell. Indeed, this is one of the 

Other Popular 1995 Presidential Documents Documents:

Other Documents:

1995 Presidential Documents Records and Documents