On the recordFebruary 10, 1993
I didn't--I did choose the family leave bill first. Let me answer the question separately. I chose to deal with the family leave bill because I knew there was a majority support in both Houses for it and because I thought it was a pro-family bill. I thought it was a bill that would be helpful to strengthen the American family with so many people forcibly in the work force. It contained an exemption for small business. It had been passed twice by the Congress before and vetoed. I thought it would help families and illustrate we had ended gridlock. I tried to put off the gays in the military issue for 6 months. Senators in the other party wanted it dealt with now. They saw it as a way to delay family leave and to throw the whole Federal Government into debating that. I actually spent very little time on the issue myself. I met with the Joint Chiefs on a number of issues, including that; met with the Senate Democrats on the Armed Services Committee. But I was, frankly, appalled that we spent so much time the first week talking about that instead of how to get the economy going again. It wasn't my idea. My agreement with the Joint Chiefs was to study the issue for 6 months, so we could focus immediately on the economy. Thank goodness that's what we're now doing. Mr. Bonds. Some people say you probably would have been better off if you had sat down with Sam Nunn and maybe somebody like Admiral Crowe, a couple of the heavyweights in the U.S. Senate and say, ``Look, how do I approach this thing with the Joint Chiefs of Staff?'' and not get the mess that we got into.
Source
govinfo.gov




