Clinton's news conference on 8/19/94:

   Good afternoon. In recent weeks, the Castro regime has encouraged
Cubans to take to the sea in unsafe vessels to escape their nation's
internal problems.

   In so doing, it has risked the lives of thousands of Cubans and
several have already died in their efforts to leave. This action is
a coldblooded attempt to maintain the Castro grip on Cuba and to
divert attention from his failed communist policies.

   He is trying to export to the United States the political and
economic crisis he has created in Cuba in defiance of the democratic
tide flowing throughout this region. Let me be clear, the Cuban
government will not succeed in any attempt to dictate American
immigration policy. The United States will do everything within its
power to ensure that Cuban lives are saved and that the current
outflow of refugees is stopped.

   Today I have ordered that illegal refugees from Cuba will not be
allowed to enter the United States. Refugees rescued at sea will be
taken to our naval base at Guantanamo while we explore the
possibility of other safe havens within the region.

   To enforce this policy, I have directed the Coast Guard to
continue its expanded effort to stop any boat illegally attempting
to bring Cubans to the United States. The United States will detain,
investigate and, if necessary, prosecute Americans who take to the
sea to pick up Cubans. Vessels used in such activities will be
seized.

   I want to compliment the Coast Guard and the Immigration and
Naturalization Service for their efforts, and I want to thank
Florida's officials, including Governor Chiles and the Florida
congressional delegation, for their help in protecting and saving
the lives of Cubans who seek to escape the regime.

   Now I'd like to speak just for a moment about the crime bill. In
the last week, I have fought hard to put this crime bill back on
track. After extensive talks with members of both parties, I have
indicated my support for strengthening the provisions that require
sexual predators to report to the police and make sure their
communities are notified of their presence. And I support cutting
overall spending in the bill by 10 percent.

   These cuts will ensure that every dollar authorized in the bill
will actually be paid for -- not with new taxes and not by diverting
dollars from other needed programs, but, as I have always insisted,
with the savings we will gain from reducing the size of the federal
government by over a quarter of a million people over the next six
years, to its lowest size in over 30 years, since President Kennedy
was here. And all these historic savings will go back to the
American people to make their streets and their homes, their schools
safer.

   I have insisted that we keep the most profoundly important
elements of the crime bill -- to keep it tough by putting 100,000
police officers on the street, building more prisons, putting
violent criminals away for good, by making "three strikes you're
out" the law of the land, and by other stronger provisions on
sentencing.

   And we're going to keep it smart with the sensible crime
prevention programs that steer our kids away from drugs and gangs
and give them things to say yes to.

   The crime bill must ban handguns for juveniles and take deadly
assault weapons off our streets. Even though we've come under
intense pressure from forces that will apparently say anything to
take the assault weapons out of the bill, I have refused to do so.

   Let's keep in mind what this crime bill is all about. It's about
removing fear from our streets, our schools and our home. Innocent
Americans should not have to fear being preyed upon as so many do
today. Innocent children should not have to fear losing their
childhoods, as so many do today.

   We owe it to the American people that do the work and pay the
bills in this country to make sure that people who commit crime get
caught, that those who are guilty get convicted, and those who are
convicted serve their time. We also owe it to them to do whatever we
can to prevent crime in the first place. That's what the police and
the prevention programs are all about.

   That's why it is so important and why I have worked so hard to
make sure that we do not turn this crime issue into yet another
Washington partisan issue. This is a grass roots, mainstream,
non-partisan issue, and so it should remain. It must be an American
crime bill. We have worked hard on it, and I call upon Congress to
pass it without delay.

   Helen?

   Q: Mr. President, on behalf of all the press corps, we want to
wish you a happy birthday.

   A: Thank you.

   Q: And now --

   A: Well, you could all do a lot to make it happy. That is not a
guilt trip; feel no pressure. Thank you.

   Q: Mr. President, in the last 35 years, we've had an embargo
against Cuba and increased the economic burden on the -- I
understand that's why the refugees are coming in. What is the
problem with taking a few small, albeit brave steps to negotiate a
possible movement toward democracy with Cuba? We've dealt with many
communist countries through the last 35 years and we're dealing with
them now.

   A: There aren't many left. I support the embargo and I support
the Cuba Democracy Act which was passed in 1992. And I do not
believe we should change our policy there.

   The fundamental problem is democracy is sweeping the world;
democracy and freedom are sweeping our hemisphere. In the Caribbean
alone and in Central and South America, in all of this region, there
are only two countries now not democratically governed with open
societies and open economies.

   The real problem is the stubborn refusal of the Castro regime to
have an open democracy and an open economy, and I think the policies
we are following will hasten the day when that occurs. And we follow
those policies because we believe they are the ones most likely to
promote democracy and ultimately prosperity for the people of Cuba.

   Q: It's not true of Cuba -- or North Korea or China, and you're
dealing with them every day.

   A: I think the circumstances are different and I think our policy
is correct.

   Q: Mr. President, recognizing that you're slowing down the
process, do people fleeing Cuba still get automatic entry to the
United States as political refugees if they're not criminals or ill?

   A: No. The people leaving Cuba will not be permitted to come to
the United States. They will be sent to safe havens.

   Q: The people who reach here.

   A: The people who reach here will be apprehended and will be
treated like others. They will be -- their cases will be reviewed,
and those who qualify can stay, and those who don't will not be
permitted to. They will be now treated like others who come here.

   Q: Mr. President, under the law it has always been clear that
Cuban refugees had a certain priority on staying here, and the
policy, of course, was then that anybody who got here got to stay.
What restraints are you operating under in terms of the law in
changing this policy? Are you likely, sir, to be sued over this?

   A: No, the Cuban -- let me -- I'm glad you asked that question,
in contradistinction to the one you asked right afterward. The Cuban
Adjustment Act will continue to be the law of the land, but we are
doing our best within that. We will detain the Cubans who come here
now. They will not simply be released into the population at large.
And we will review all their cases in light of the applicable law,
including the Cuban Adjustment Act.

   Q: Any sense of how long that will take, how long those --

   A: It depends on how many there are, of course, and we don't
know.

   Q: Can you give us some more details? Are these people going to
be taken to Guantanamo? What kind of strain might this place on our
naval forces, the Coast Guard? Already we're being told that drug
interdiction is being cut back. And can you respond to criticism
already from Bob Dole and Newt Gingrich? In particular, Mr. Gingrich
said that your new policy is appalling, it's an example of mixed
morality and that he thinks it is illegal under the act.

   A: Well first let me answer the factual questions. The refugees,
those who are fleeing, will be taken first to Guantanamo where we
will seek safe havens for them. That is plainly not illegal under
international law, nor do we believe it is illegal under the Cuban
Adjustment Act.

   Secondly, as to whether it is immoral, I just would say it is my
belief that the American people, and that the Cuban-American people,
and the people of Florida, but the people of the entire United
States, do not want to see another Mariel boatlift.

   They do not want to see Cuba dictate our immigration policy. They
do not want to see Mr. Castro able to export his political and
economic problems to the United States. Now that is what is plainly
being set up.

   We have gone through that once. We had 120,000 people sent to
this country as a deliberate attempt -- not because they themselves
initially wanted to flee; they were encouraged to flee, they were
pushed out. We had jails open, we had mental hospitals open, all in
an attempt to export all the problems of Cuba to the United States.
We tried it that way once.

   It was wrong then and it's wrong now and I'm not going to let it
happen again.

   Q: Can you respond to the rest of the question, the --

   A: Yeah, that's my answer to them.

   Q: No, what about the naval forces, the Coast Guard, are they up
to this?

   A: I think the Coast Guard is plainly up to it. We may have to
have a little more Navy support. I met with the secretary of defense
this morning; we discussed it at length. He is confident that we can
do what we have to do without undermining our fundamental mission.

   Q: President Clinton, previously you said that the crime bill was
something that you supported, that you wanted to sign as it was. Now
you're saying you can take 10 percent out of it. Why shouldn't the
American people believe that there's still a lot of fat that should
come out of it?

   A: First of all, any time you start -- I've never seen a bill
that started new programs that you couldn't cut some and maintain
its fundamental integrity.

   I said that crime bill was a strong and good bill as it was, and
it was a strong and good bill. But one of the things that happened
in conference that I think has been largely overlooked is that, in
an attempt to get as much money as possible for police officers and
law enforcement and for prisons and for border patrol, funds were
appropriated or were authorized in the crime bill that came out of
conference in an amount greater than we could provide in the trust
fund.

   Keep in mind the great beauty of this crime bill is it's the
first major program in American history that's being financed
entirely by reducing the size of the federal bureaucracy and taking
all the savings from the federal government and putting it in a
trust fund to help grassroots Americans get better control over
their own lives.

   The practical impact of what we are doing by cutting 10 percent
of this will be to be able to put everything that's left into the
trust fund. So in terms of real dollars I believe there will be more
money actually appropriated and spent for tough law enforcement and
for police officers.

   And I believe that all the fundamental important things in the
prevention strategy will be maintained at a very high level and
dramatically higher than now. The principles of the bill are intact.

   It's the biggest increase in police in the history of the
country. It's the toughest increase in punishment in the history of
the country. It's the biggest increase in prevention programs in the
history of the country.

   I'm not a member of the Congress. They have to work out all the
details. If they'd produced this bill out of the conference, I would
have happily supported this as I did the other one.

   Q: Were you just giving in to politics then by accepting the
original here?

   A: Now, that's one of those questions designed to spoil your
birthday. Because it's something else designed to confuse the
American people about what really goes on up here.

   The president is not a member of the Congress. The Congress made
a decision that they had a bill that they all wanted. They
accommodated the interests as best they could. It met all my
fundamental criteria -- assault weapons ban, ban on handgun
ownership by kids, tougher penalties, longer imprisonment, more
prevention.

   So does this bill. This bill has the added virtue of being able
to be fully funded in the trust fund that we are creating by
reducing the federal government to its lowest size in 30 years. And
if in fact -- let me just say, Rita, that if in fact -- there has
been no conference -- if in fact the conference proceeds along the
lines that I generally believe it's going on, and it has the added
virtue of some strengthening of the language which was put in
involving the sole sexual predator issue, so in that sense, I think
it is a fine bill, it meets all the criteria, and it doesn't just
gut the prevention programs, which I was determined to see not
happen.

   Q: Mr. President, you say that you are not going to allow Fidel
Castro to dictate U.S. immigration policy, but hasn't he just done
that by forcing you to reverse three decades of a policy? And
secondly, what do you say to Cuban Americans, especially in Florida,
who feel betrayed by this change in policy?

   A: Well, I believe that most Cuban-Americans want us to be very
firm. The Cuban-Americans that I know, without regard to their
party, supported the Cuban Democracy Act, and they remember how
awful it was for the United States when the Mariel boat lift
occurred.

   They remembered what it did in this country and how -- the
feelings that it generated in this country. And I do not believe
they want another Mariel boatlift, and I do not believe we can
afford to do that.

   And so my own view is that most Cuban-Americans will support what
we're trying to do and wish us to be firm. I would remind you that
the attorney general, who is in charge or oversees the INS and who
has done a lot of work on this and who will have a press conference,
I think, when I finish to answer some of the details of this policy,
was the prosecuting attorney in Dade County. I talked to the
governor last night about this -- of Florida.

   I think the -- my own feeling is, and I've talked to Cuban
Americans, of course, exhaustively for years now, and we've been in
touch with them and with the Florida congressional delegation. I
believe this policy will have broad support. I will be surprised if
it does not have broad support.

   Q: By telling Cubans to -- basically to stay home and at least
temporarily to stomach conditions there, does that make it incumbent
on you to be more active in seeking to oust Castro?

   A: Well, what we are telling Cubans is that we have a provision
for their coming to the United States through in-country processing,
and at least as of this date we have no evidence that the Castro
government has done anything to discourage Cubans from coming to the
in-country processing, applying for the visas if they're eligible to
come here, and getting them.

   That is all -- that's what we're saying to them. That is, we do
not have any evidence that would justify believing that that process
won't work in Cuba as it has in other places. And indeed, the Castro
government has encouraged Cubans to go down and apply to come here.
But we don't object to that. That's the policy we have everywhere
and that's the policy we should have there.

   Q: But doesn't it make it incumbent on you to unilaterally or
multinationally press for the ouster of Castro in some way --
military, economic, whatever?

   A: The United States has done more than any other country to try
to bring an end to the Castro government, and there -- we have done
it through the Cuba Democracy Act, we have done it through the
embargo. We have worked hard, often laboring almost alone, to that
end. And we will continue to do that by whatever reasonable means
are available to us.

   Q: Mr. President, one of your fellow Democrats in the Senate, Sam
Nunn of Georgia, said yesterday that it would be months, if not
years, before a health care reform bill is produced, and the
Congressional Budget Office said that a possible moderate compromise
didn't cost out.

   There's a growing feeling in Washington that this health care
crusade is hopelessly bogged down in Congress at this point. What is
your view of the situation?

   A: That they should keep working at it. That if we don't move
now, there's a chance that it won't happen at all.

   You know, the congressional timetable is often different from the
American timetable. I mean, it took seven years to pass the Brady
bill and seven years to pass family leave. But for 60 years people
have acknowledged that not covering all Americans and having no
system for dealing with the explosive costs and the inequalities in
the health care system were a problem.

   They have reached a significant crisis stage here, with five
million more Americans losing their health insurance in the last
five years alone, with the costs exploding in the last 12 years, and
I believe that the time has come to deal with this.

   Now, Senator Nunn simply observed what I think is clearly a fact,
which is that in the Senate there is unlimited debate and you can
have unlimited amendments. But a lot of these issues do need to be
worked through.

   I think that the comments Senator Kennedy and Senator Mitchell
made today about the fact that this bipartisan group was at least
attempting to work with them and, in the process of so attempting,
finding out how hard it is -- it's easy to stand on the sideline and
lob brickbats at these efforts, and quite another thing to produce
your own effort, but their comment made me believe that there is
still a chance that people will work together and resolve this.

   So I would say to them, keep working, keep working at it, because
if you delay you may well lose it all together.

   Q: Well this one may take something less than what Mitchell or
Gephardt has proposed just to keep the process moving since, as you
say, if we don't get it now we probably --

   A: Well, I think that -- for one thing, that's no so easy to do,
because as we've also seen from the studies of the Catholic Health
Association and others, the so-called "something less" approach
often does more harm than good, that when you just try to patchwork
this often you lead to more people without insurance and higher
insurance rates.

   What I would say to you is give the process time to unfold. I
know for you it's been going on a long time, since we first began to
debate this a year and a half ago. I think for the American people
it's almost like the baseball season, the pennant has just begun --
and I hope we can have the pennant in the other one, too, and the
Series. But I think we need to let this thing unfold a little more.
I wouldn't prejudge it yet.

   Q: Mr. President, back to the crime bill. If the approach you're
offering, the changes you're offering now, does not produce enough
votes to pass the bill, will you under any circumstances agree to
sever the assault weapon ban for a separate vote in the House and
Senate?

   A: I won't agree to that because I think it's a mistake. And let
me say -- I don't want to overly comment on it, but let me try to
describe what the problem is. The bill has already passed the House,
but in the Senate, as you know, we could have 55, 56, 57, 59 votes
for that bill in the Senate and it could still be filibustered, and
we should not permit that to happen.

   I also believe that there is a chance that this whole process in
the last few days -- we may look back on this in a year or so and
think that this was the beginning of an effort again in other areas
to work in good faith across party lines.

   I have shown my good faith, I have taken the risks that all
people take, when they talk to people who are opposed to them, of --
well, being asked the questions like Rita asked me. But in this town
it won't work if we have American problems unless we try to reach
out across party lines. A lot of these issues don't work like that.

   So if we can work through this in good faith, my view is that
we'll maybe be setting the stage to have more things like NAFTA and
the Brady bill and the education bills and then this one where we
can work together. So I don't believe we will have to do that, and I
am against doing it. I think it would be a real error.

   Q: Mr. President, Fidel Castro's been very high on the list of
American demonology because he was a national security threat. I
think of the Cuban missile crisis. He would provide a base for the
Soviet Union. That's all ended now. Do you foresee a form of
government, democratic government, in Havana with free elections
that includes Fidel Castro? Or is it a case that Castro must go
before there is any normalization?

   A: Well, in any democracy, it's up to the people to make their
own decisions. The United States does not pick leaders or delete
leaders for other countries. We let people make their own decisions,
and I don't want to get into that. I think, you know, what we need
is a movement toward democracy and a free economy.

   Q: Mr. President, when the legal defense fund was set up for you
to handle the costs of defending against the litigation, Lloyd
Cutler said that he was intervening in that as presidential counsel
because it threatened the presidency, these tremendous costs. Since
then, the fund has decided it cannot legally solicit, leaving no
explanation since then of, a., how will the money be raised to pay
these bills and, two, in lieu of enough funding to do it, what other
options do you have to protect the presidency from the threat that
he was talking about?

   A: I don't know. I don't know the answer to that. I haven't --
I'll just have to let you ask Mr. Cutler that. I can't -- I'm just
trying to stay away from that whole issue of the fund, and I can't
answer those questions.

   Q: Mr. President, I hate to ask you one of those questions that
might spoil a birthday again, but in light of the problems that you
have been having up on Capitol Hill, many people are wondering if
changing your communications strategy, shuffling your staff might
not be really addressing the problem, that perhaps -- I was
wondering if you've thought about this -- that as a president
elected with 43 percent you may be trying to do too much, too fast,
and Democrats on Capitol Hill may be trying to take too much of a
partisan advantage of having control of the entire government and
perhaps exceeding your mandate.

   A: Well, first, I don't want the Democrats to take partisan
advantage. I just want us to get what's necessary for the country
done. I do not believe the country believes that we should sit still
up here.

   And for all your talk about trouble, let me remind you that every
objective survey says that in 1993 this administration got more
support from Congress than any administration since World War II
except President Eisenhower in 1953, when he had a less ambitious
agenda, and President Johnson in 1965, when he had a bigger mandate
and more support from the Congress. So I think we're doing quite
well with the Congress if you look at it in any kind of historic
pattern.

   Now, I realize the fights and the conflicts and the delays endure
more than the achievements, but we reversed Reaganomics. We passed
an economic program that was part of a strategy that has given us
three years of deficit reduction for the first time since Truman,
over four million jobs. We have the most advances in trade that
we've had in a generation in the last year and a half. This economic
program is working. We broke seven years of gridlock with the Brady
bill. We passed NAFTA, which was deader than a doornail when I
became president. We revived it and passed it.

   So I believe this Congress is capable of working together, often
on a bipartisan basis, and they still have some great opportunities
here. They have the crime bill, the campaign finance reform bill,
the lobby reform bill, a bill that passed the House last week that
has not yet passed the Senate to require the Congress to live under
the laws it imposes on the American people, which I think is a very
good bill, and of course, the health care challenge.

   But I believe what I have to do is to keep trying to change
things. Any time you try to provoke as much change as I have, you
are going to have resistance, and you will be criticized.

   Is it more difficult that I had 43 percent of the vote? Perhaps
it is. But I think you can make another argument, which was that 62
percent of the American people voted for fundamental change in the
things that we were doing and in the way government works.

   If anything, I would say that I've been most disappointed,
looking back, not so much in my inability to get things done --
because once people look at the list, it's a very long and
impressive list -- but I haven't been as successful in changing the
way it works; that is, in trying to get the Democrats and
Republicans to reach across to each other in good faith and work
through these things.

   That's why I think this crime bill could be an important thing.
It would be a way of people in both parties saying we're putting you
first, for a change -- not ourselves.

   Q: Mr. President, the Federal Reserve raised interest rates again
this week. Some Democrats are saying that it could cause an economic
slowdown. How many more rate increases will you take before you also
criticize the Fed?

   A: Well, when the Federal Reserve raised rates this week, the
chairman, Mr. Greenspan, said that he thought that this would be
sufficient for a time.

   The truth is that our economic strategy has produced more rapid
growth than they thought it would and than we thought it would. We
are even doing better than we thought we would. We've got over 4
million jobs already in the last year and a half, and we've got
rapid growth in the economy, dramatic new investments in the private
sector, so they are worried about inflation.

   When it is apparent to me that the drag on the economy will be
more about slowing the economy down than stopping inflation, I will
do what I can to influence that policy. But I think my policy of
letting them do their job and having me do mine has worked out
rather well.

   And I would remind you that from the time we announced -- let me
just go back for a little history here -- from the time we announced
that we would have a serious assault on the deficit after the
election in November, from that day for a very long time thereafter,
we had dramatic drops in interest rates which fueled last year's
expansion. So I think that we have to recognize that the Fed did
respond to the efforts we made, and what it's responding to now is a
robust and growing economy. Of course it could be slowed down too
much, but we don't have any evidence at this time that that has, in
fact, occurred.

   Q: Mr. President, happy birthday.

   Next Sunday Mexico is going to have presidential elections. Can
you give us your assessment? What do you think? What do you expect?
And what is going to be the impact in the relations of Mexico and
the United States? Do you expect continuity?

   A: I expect the elections to be free, open and fair, and I expect
them to produce a result which will be accepted by the people of
Mexico. And I expect the United States to continue its deepening
friendship with Mexico. I think that our relationships are growing.
I think in spite of the political changes and the economic
difficulties of Mexico in the last two years, we have had great
success.

   I think NAFTA clearly was a great success if you look at the
economic benefits to the United States and what has happened. So I'm
looking forward very optimistically to the future with Mexico.

   Q: Mr. President, on the Middle East, Sir, progress continues
between Israel and the Palestinians but there's still violence. I
wondered, Sir, if you have an assessment on that. Is there any
update on the Syrian front? Have you heard recently from President
Assad? And also, has any progress been made in countering worldwide
terrorism?

   A: You asked me a lot of questions there.

   A: Let me answer -- try to answer them all. I believe we are
still on a path of steady progress in the hope of achieving an
agreement that resolves the differences between Israel and Syria.
Serious problems remain, but I would say significant advances are
being made.

   With regard to the Palestinian agreement, I think everyone always
knew there would be some operational difficulties because the PLO
had -- to be fair to them -- never been in charge of a country. That
is, they had never had to operate a government and to deal with all
the mundane and maybe sometimes even boring day-to-day problems
that, unless they're properly managed, you can't keep a society
together.

   I think we're making some headway there. I don't want to minimize
the difficulties, but I do not expect them to be so great as to
derail what we're doing.

   On the terrorism front, I can tell you that every week, several
times a week, I get an update on our efforts, and while -- as you
could appreciate -- I cannot discuss many of them in great detail, I
believe that we are making progress. But I believe this is a problem
we'll all have to be very vigilant about for years to come.

   Q: Mr. President, can we turn the subject to your birthday today?

   A: Sure.

   Q: What stirs within you as you celebrate another birthday? And
if you could have three wishes fulfilled today, what would those
three wishes be?

   A: Well, I woke up this morning just grateful to be here. That's
what I'm feeling. I'm grateful to be alive, grateful to have my
health, grateful to have my family, grateful to have the chance to
serve.

   And you know, I like the tough fight, so this is an exhilarating
period for me. I like the big challenges. I think we're all put on
this earth to try to make a difference.

   If I had three wishes, I would wish for the crime bill to pass --
one.

   I would wish that I would make more progress on the way we do
things around here as well as on the substance, because if we can
open our minds and hearts to each other and play a little less
politics, we can solve the health care problem, too, and other
things.

   And I would wish that I won't have to give up my whole vacation
because I still have dreams of breaking 80 on the golf course before
I'm 50.

   Let me say I feel that I -- you know, this is not an easy job for
you, either, so since it's my birthday, if we adjourn here, let's go
into the dining room and we can have some cake and whatever else is
in there.

   Thank you very much.