Ak,






I


1-             I - -






K'








PUBLIC PAPERS OF THE PRESIDENTS
OF THE
UNITED STATES








I




I
0. b-.   f;. llv 
r -< - -
I                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 I.,; I'M
AL



1


I   I  I /  X.  /
PUBLIC PAPERS OF THE PRESIDENTS
OF THE
UNITED STATES


William J.


Clinton
ARES COLL EGE
DEPO 'TORY
BATES COLLEGE LIBRARY
LEWISTON, MAINE 04240-6093


1993


(IN TWO BOOKS)


t:
19,..,- A..


BOOK I-JANUARY 20 TO JULY 31, 1993


UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON: 1994




Published by the
Office of the Federal Register
National Archives and Records Administration
For sale by the
Superintendent of Documents
U.S. Government Printing Office
Washington, DC 20402




Foreword


In my inaugural address, I declared: "Our democracy must be not only the envy of the
world but the engine of our own renewal. There is nothing wrong with America that cannot
be cured by what is right with America."
In the first 6 months of our Administration, we called upon America's historic strengths
to revitalize the economy, restore the middle class, rebuild our national security for a new
era, and renew the people's sense of national community and their faith in public institutions.
We built upon the entrepreneurial energy of our free enterprise system with an economic
plan that cut the Federal deficit, invested in our workers' skills, expanded college opportunity
for the sons and daughters of the middle class, rewarded the efforts of the working poor, and
helped businesses expand and create new jobs. We strengthened American families with the
Family and Medical Leave Act, which helps Americans be good parents and good workers.
We enhanced America's world leadership with efforts to open foreign markets, ensure the
readiness of our military forces, promote democracy abroad, preserve our planet's natural environment, and advance regional security in Europe, Asia, the Mideast, and throughout the
world. We strengthened America's sense of community with initiatives here at home to encourage young people to serve their country, to protect our people from violent crime and
drug abuse, and to reinvent government to make it reflect American values. And we began
the work of preserving what is right, and fixing what is wrong, with America's health care
system.
Most of all, this volume is a testimonial to those who embody what is best about America,
the citizens of our country. The American people called for the changes chronicled in this
volume; they held the President and the Congress accountable for achieving these changes;
and, in countless actions in their own lives-from raising their children with values of responsibility and faith to helping to keep their own neighborhoods safe from crime and violencethey are continuing the work of renewing our democracy.
OsJU                 4u<tMe                ^


v








Preface
This book contains the papers and speeches of the 42d President of the United States that
were issued by the Office of the Press Secretary during the period January 20-July 31, 1993.
The material has been compiled and published by the Office of the Federal Register, National
Archives and Records Administration.
The material is presented in chronological order, and the dates shown in the headings are
the dates of the documents or events. In instances when the release date differs from the
date of the document itself, that fact is shown in the textnote. Every effort has been made
to ensure accuracy: Remarks are checked against a tape recording, and signed documents are
checked against the original. Textnotes and cross references have been provided by the editors
for purposes of identification or clarity. Speeches were delivered in Washington, DC, unless
indicated. The times noted are local times. All materials that are printed full-text in the book
have been indexed in the subject and name indexes, and listed in the document categories
list.
The Public Papers of the Presidents series was begun in 1957 in response to a recommendation of the National Historical Publications Commission. An extensive compilation
of messages and papers of the Presidents covering the period 1789 to 1897 was assembled
by James D. Richardson and published under congressional authority between 1896 and 1899.
Since then, various private compilations have been issued, but there was no uniform publication comparable to the Congressional Record or the United States Supreme Court Reports.
Many Presidential papers could be found only in the form of mimeographed White House
releases or as reported in the press. The Commission therefore recommended the establishment of an official series in which Presidential writings, addresses, and remarks of a public
nature could be made available.
The Commission's recommendation was incorporated in regulations of the Administrative
Committee of the Federal Register, issued under section 6 of the Federal Register Act (44
U.S.C. 1506), which may be found in title 1, part 10, of the Code of Federal Regulations.
A companion publication to the Public Papers series, the Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents, was begun in 1965 to provide a broader range of Presidential materials
on a more timely basis to meet the needs of the contemporary reader. Beginning with the
administration of Jimmy Carter, the Public Papers series expanded its coverage to include additional material as printed in the Weekly Compilation. That coverage provides a listing of
the President's daily schedule and meetings, when announced, and other items of general interest issued by the Office of the Press Secretary. Also included are lists of the President's
nominations submitted to the Senate, materials released by the Office of the Press Secretary
that are not printed full-text in the book, and proclamations, Executive orders, and other Presidential documents released by the Office of the Press Secretary and published in the Federal
Register. This information appears in the appendixes at the end of the book.
Volumes covering the administrations of Presidents Hoover, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy,
Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, and Bush are also available.


vii




The Public Papers of the Presidents publication program is under the direction of Frances
D. McDonald, Director of the Presidential Documents and Legislative Division. The series
is produced by the Presidential Documents Unit, Gwen H. Estep, Chief. The Chief Editor
of this book was Karen Howard Ashlin, assisted by Margaret A. Hastings, Carolyn W. Hill,
Susannah C. Hurley, Rachel Rondell, Cheryl E. Sirofchuck, Michael J. Sullivan, and Elizabeth
N. Thomas.
The frontispiece and photographs used in the portfolio were supplied by the White House
Photo Office. The typography and design of the book were developed by the Government
Printing Office under the direction of Michael F. DiMario, Public Printer.
Martha L. Girard
Director of the Federal Register
Trudy Huskamp Peterson
Acting Archivist of the United States


viii




Contents
Foreword... v
Preface... vii
Cabinet... xi
Public Papers of William J. Clinton,
January 20-July 31, 1993... 1
Appendix A
Digest of Other White House Announcements... 1257
Appendix B
Nominations Submitted to the Senate... 1269
Appendix C
Checklist of White House Press Releases... 1283
Appendix D
Presidential Documents Published in the Federal Register... 1293
Subject Index... A-1
Name Index... B-1
Document Categories List... C-1


ix








Cabinet


Secretary of State................................................
Secretary of the Treasury....................................
Secretary of Defense...........................................
Attorney General.................................................
Secretary of the Interior.....................................
Secretary of Agriculture......................................
Secretary of Commerce......................................
Secretary of Labor...............................................
Secretary of Health and Human Services.........
Secretary of Housing and Urban
Development........................................................
Secretary of Transportation................................
Secretary of Energy.............................................
Secretary of Education........................................
Secretary of Veterans Affairs..............................
United States Representative to the
United Nations....................................................
Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency...............................................
United States Trade Representative..................
Director of the Office of Management
and Budget...........................................................


Warren M. Christopher
Lloyd Bentsen
Les Aspin
Janet Reno
Bruce Babbitt
Mike Espy
Ronald H. Brown
Robert B. Reich
Donna E. Shalala
Henry G. Cisneros
Federico Peiia
Hazel Rollins O'Leary
Richard W. Riley
Jesse Brown
Madeleine Korbel Albright
Carol M. Browner
Michael Kantor
Leon E. Panetta


xi




Assistant to the President and
Chief of Staff.......................... Thomas F. McLarty III
Chair of the Council of Economic
Advisers............................... Laura D'Andrea Tyson
Director of National Drug
Control Policy.......................... Lee Patrick Brown


xii




Administration of William J. Clinton
1993








Inaugural Address
January 20, 1993


My fellow citizens, today we celebrate the
mystery of American renewal. This ceremony
is held in the depth of winter, but by the words
we speak and the faces we show the world,
we force the spring, a spring reborn in the
world's oldest democracy that brings forth the
vision and courage to reinvent America. When
our Founders boldly declared America's independence to the world and our purposes to the
Almighty, they knew that America, to endure,
would have to change; not change for change'I-s
sake but change to preserve America's ideals:
life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness. Though
we marched to the music of our time, our mission is timeless. Each generation of Americans
must define what it means to be an American.
On behalf of our Nation, I salute my predecessor, President Bush, for his half-century of
service to America. And I thank the millions
of men and women whose steadfastness and sacrifice triumphed over depression, fascism, and
communism.
Today, a generation raised in the shadows of
the cold war assumes new responsibilities in a
world warmed by the sunshine of freedom but
threatened still by ancient hatreds and new
plagues. Raised in unrivaled prosperity, we inherit an economy that is still the world's strongest but is weakened by business failures, stagnant wages, increasing inequality, and deep divisions among our own people.
When George Washington first took the oath
I have just sworn to uphold, news traveled slowly across the land by horseback and across the
ocean by boat. Now, the sights and sounds of
this ceremony are broadcast instantaneously to
billions around the world. Communications and
commerce are global. Investment is mobile.
Technology is almost magical. And ambition for
a better life is now universal.
We earn our livelihood in America today in
peaceful competition with people all across the
Earth. Profound and powerful forces are shaking
and remaking our world. And the urgent question of our time is whether we can make change


our friend and not our enemy. This new world
has already enriched the lives of millions of
Americans who are able to compete and win
in it. But when most people are working harder
for less; when others cannot work at all; when
the cost of health care devastates families and
threatens to bankrupt our enterprises, great and
small; when the fear of crime robs law-abiding
citizens of their freedom; and when millions of
poor children cannot even imagine the lives we
are calling them to lead, we have not made
change our friend.
We know we have to face hard truths and
take strong steps, but we have not done so;
instead, we have drifted. And that drifting has
eroded our resources, fractured our economy,
and shaken our confidence. Though our challenges are fearsome, so are our strengths. Americans have ever been a restless, questing, hopeful people. And we must bring to our task today
the vision and will of those who came before
us. From our Revolution to the Civil War, to
the Great Depression, to the civil rights movement, our people have always mustered the determination to construct from these crises the
pillars of our history. Thomas Jefferson believed
that to preserve the very foundations of our
Nation, we would need dramatic change from
time to time. Well, my fellow Americans, this
is our time. Let us embrace it.
Our democracy must be not only the envy
of the world but the engine of our own renewal.
There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America.
And so today we pledge an end to the era
of deadlock and drift, and a new season of
American renewal has begun.
To renew America, we must be bold. We
must do what no generation has had to do before. We must invest more in our own people,
in their jobs, and in their future, and at the
same time cut our massive debt. And we must
do so in a world in which we must compete
for every opportunity. It will not be easy. It
will require sacrifice, but it can be done and


I




Jan. 20 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


done fairly, not choosing sacrifice for its own
sake but for our own sake. We must provide
for our Nation the way a family provides for
its children.
Our Founders saw themselves in the light of
posterity. We can do no less. Anyone who has
ever watched a child's eyes wander into sleep
knows what posterity is. Posterity is the world
to come: the world for whom we hold our ideals,
from whom we have borrowed our planet, and
to whom we bear sacred responsibility. We must
do what America does best: offer more opportunity to all and demand more responsibility
from all. It is time to break the bad habit of
expecting something for nothing from our Government or from each other. Let us all take
more responsibility not only for ourselves and
our families but for our communities and our
country.
To renew America, we must revitalize our
democracy. This beautiful Capital, like every
capital since the dawn of civilization, is often
a place of intrigue and calculation. Powerful
people maneuver for position and worry endlessly about who is in and who is out, who
is up and who is down, forgetting those people
whose toil and sweat sends us here and pays
our way. Americans deserve better. And in this
city today there are people who want to do
better. And so I say to all of you here: Let
us resolve to reform our politics so that power
and privilege no longer shout down the voice
of the people. Let us put aside personal advantage so that we can feel the pain and see the
promise of America. Let us resolve to make
our Government a place for what Franklin Roosevelt called bold, persistent experimentation, a
Government for our tomorrows, not our yesterdays. Let us give this Capital back to the people
to whom it belongs.
To renew America, we must meet challenges
abroad as well as at home. There is no longer
a clear division between what is foreign and
what is domestic. The world economy, the world
environment, the world AIDS crisis, the world
arms race: they affect us all. Today, as an older
order passes, the new world is more free but
less stable. Communism's collapse has called
forth old animosities and new dangers. Clearly,
America must continue to lead the world we
did so much to make.
While America rebuilds at home, we will not
shrink from the challenges nor fail to seize the
opportunities of this new world. Together with


our friends and allies, we will work to shape
change, lest it engulf us. When our vital interests are challenged or the will and conscience
of the international community is defied, we
will act, with peaceful diplomacy whenever possible, with force when necessary. The brave
Americans serving our Nation today in the Persian Gulf, in Somalia, and wherever else they
stand are testament to our resolve. But our
greatest strength is the power of our ideas,
which are still new in many lands. Across the
world we see them embraced, and we rejoice.
Our hopes, our hearts, our hands are with those
on every continent who are building democracy
and freedom. Their cause is America's cause.
The American people have summoned the
change we celebrate today. You have raised your
voices in an unmistakable chorus. You have cast
your votes in historic numbers. And you have
changed the face of Congress, the Presidency,
and the political process itself. Yes, you, my
fellow Americans, have forced the spring. Now
we must do the work the season demands. To
that work I now turn with all the authority of
my office. I ask the Congress to join with me.
But no President, no Congress, no Government
can undertake this mission alone.
My fellow Americans, you, too, must play your
part in our renewal. I challenge a new generation of young Americans to a season of service:
to act on your idealism by helping troubled children, keeping company with those in need,
reconnecting our torn communities. There is so
much to be done; enough, indeed, for millions
of others who are still young in spirit to give
of themselves in service, too. In serving, we
recognize a simple but powerful truth: We need
each other, and we must care for one another.
Today we do more than celebrate America.
We rededicate ourselves to the very idea of
America, an idea born in revolution and renewed through two centuries of challenge; an
idea tempered by the knowledge that, but for
fate, we, the fortunate, and the unfortunate
might have been each other; an idea ennobled
by the faith that our Nation can summon from
its myriad diversity the deepest measure of
unity; an idea infused with the conviction that
America's long, heroic journey must go forever
upward.
And so, my fellow Americans, as we stand
at the edge of the 21st century, let us begin
anew with energy and hope, with faith and discipline. And let us work until our work is done.


2




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Jan. 21


The Scripture says, "And let us not be weary
in well doing: for in due season we shall reap,
if we faint not." From this joyful mountaintop
of celebration we hear a call to service in the
valley. We have heard the trumpets. We have
changed the guard. And now, each in our own
way and with God's help, we must answer the
Remarks at the Inaugural Luncheon
January 20, 1993
Thank you very much, Senator Ford, Mr.
Speaker, Majority Leader Gephardt, Senator
Mitchell, Senator Dole, Representative Michel.
I'd like to begin by saying I didn't get much
sleep last night, and if I get through this it
will be tour de force. Al Gore and I stayed
up a long time talking last night about this day
and this country and what we hoped that we
could do.
I want to say first how very grateful I am
to the Congress for the exertions here to make
this Inaugural Day such a meaningful and wonderful one. I would like to especially thank Senator Ford who worked so hard to make sure
everything went off without a hitch. And he
did.
I also thank you for the wonderful gift of
crystal, the letter opener, which I will treasure
always, that proved that we did get enough electoral votes to be here today.
And Mr. Speaker, I'm delighted to have that
key. However, with all respect, I can't believe
you were fully briefed about my proclivities in
lobbying legislators to let me come up here
without an invitation. I may be here all the
time. [Laughter] Why, just when you said you


call.
Thank you, and God bless you all.
NOTE: The President spoke at 12:01 p.m. at the
West Front of the Capitol. Prior to the address,
Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist administered
the oath of office.


wished me well in untangling my relationships
with Congress, my head, almost as if by magic,
tilted in Senator Dole's direction. [Laughter]
I make two serious points. Once in a generation we really are called upon to redefine the
public interests and the common ground. I honestly do believe much of what we have to do
today is work that knows no necessary partisan
label and does not fall easily within the conventional divisions of liberal and conservative or
Republican and Democrat.
The second point I wish to make is that I
cannot succeed as President unless Congress itself succeeds and the American people like the
Congress again, too. For I seek to do, and to
do we have to work together and move forward
together.
So I would like, in gratitude and respect, to
propose a toast to a new partnership in America's Government.
NOTE: The President spoke at 2:20 p.m. in Statuary Hall at the Capitol. Prior to his remarks,
Thomas S. Foley, Speaker of the House of Representatives, presented the President with a key
to the Capitol.


Message to the Congress on Adjustment of the National Deficit
January 21, 1993
To the Congress of the United States:        as allowed under section 253(g)(1)(B) of the Act
Pursuant to section 254(c) of the Balanced  (2 U.S.C. 903(g)(1)(B)), shall be made.
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of                       WILLIAM   CLINTON
1985, as amended ("Act") (2 U.S.C. 904(c)), no-                   WILLIAM. CLINTON
tification is hereby provided of my decision that  The White House,
the adjustment of the maximum deficit amount,  January 21, 1993.


3




Jan. 21 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


NOTE: The White House released the following
statement by the Director of Communications
George Stephanopoulos on adjustment of the national deficit:
As provided by the law, the President has today
notified the congressional leadership of technical
adjustments to be made in calculating the national
deficit. This procedure, which occurred automatically under the previous administration for 3 fiscal
Remarks to Inaugural Parade Groups
January 21, 1993
The President. Thank you. One of the first
lessons that I was told to learn about becoming
President is that the President could not fix
all the problems in America. [Laughter] But this
is pretty close to fixing the float breaking down,
don't you think?
I want to make sure that I have properly
acknowledged all the groups that are here, so
I want to call your names, and you raise your
hand if you're in one of these groups. Who's
here from the Sounds of Silence in Canton,
Ohio? [Applause] Thank you. I'd also like to
say I'm glad to see Senators Glenn and Metzenbaum here. Give them a hand. [Applause] Who's
here from the Boy Singers of Maine? [Applause]
From my alma mater, the Georgetown Chimes?
[Applause] And the Georgetown Grace Notes?


years, prevents across-the-board budget reductions in accounts such as national defense that
could equal 11 percent in the beginning of the
next fiscal year. A failure to make this adjustment
would also undermine the credibility of economic
and budget estimates.
President Clinton will soon put before the Congress a real economic program aimed at reducing
the deficit and providing long-term economic
growth.


[Applause] And from Hillary's alma mater, the
Wellesley Widows? [Applause]
Hillary Clinton. Just two left. They all had
to go back to school.
The President. Two hung in there to be represented tonight. [Laughter] I'm very sorry
about what happened yesterday, but I'm glad
you're all here today.
Anybody want to sing me a quick song?
Hillary Clinton. Let's start in order.
The President. All right, we'll start in order.
The Sounds of Silence go first.
NOTE: The President spoke at 6:45 p.m. on the
State Floor at the White House. A tape was not
available for verification of the content of these
remarks.


Memorandum on Review of Regulations
January 21, 1993


Memorandum for the Acting Director
Office of Management and Budget
The Council on Competitiveness, established
March 31, 1989, terminated on January 20,
1993.
Pending completion of a review, existing Executive orders on regulatory management will
continue to apply. You are directed to request
the agencies described in section 1(d) of Executive Order 12291 to assure that in publishing
regulations, and subject to such exceptions as
the Director or the Acting Director of the Office


of Management and Budget determines to be
appropriate, all regulations must first be approved by an agency head or the designee of
an agency head who, in either case, is a person
appointed by me and confirmed by the Senate.
WILLIAM J. CLINTON
NOTE: This memorandum was released by the Office of the Press Secretary on January 22.


4




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Jan. 22


Statement on Withdrawal of the Nomination of Zoe Baird To Be Attorney
General
January 22, 1993


Tonight I received a letter from my AttorneyGeneral-designate, Ms. Zoe Baird, asking that
I withdraw her nomination to lead the United
States Department of Justice from further consideration by the Senate.
Ms. Baird is a gifted attorney and a woman
of decency and integrity. She responded to the
call to public service with energy and a firm
dedication to the mission of the Justice Department. Her candid disclosure of the child care
matter to officials of my transition and to the


Senate Judiciary Committee led to the circumstances we face today.
Clearly, our review process prior to her selection failed to evaluate this issue completely. For
that, I take full responsibility. I hold Zoe Baird
in the highest regard, and I believe she has
much to give to her profession and to our country. I hope to continue to seek her advice and
counsel. With sadness, I have accepted her request that the nomination be withdrawn and
have so informed the Senate majority leader,
George Mitchell.


Letter on Withdrawal of the Nomination of Zoe Baird To Be Attorney
General
January 22, 1993


Dear Zoe:
I have received your letter asking that I withdraw your nomination as Attorney General of
the United States from further consideration by
the Senate. With sadness, I accept your request
that the nomination be withdrawn.
You are an exceptionally gifted attorney, and
a person of great decency and integrity. You
have responded to the call of public service with
energy and a firm dedication to the mission
of the Justice Department. I realize that it was
your candid disclosure of the child care matter
that led to the circumstances we face today.
I believe that the concerns raised about your
child care situation were unique to the position
of Attorney General.


You are highly qualified to be Attorney General. Your stated goals for a nonpartisan, independent and strongly managed Department of
Justice were fully in accord with my own. I
believe you would have been a fine Attorney
General.
Hillary and I value your and Paul's friendship.
We look forward to seeing you often. I hope
that you will be available for other assignments
for your country in my Administration.
Sincerely,
BILL CLINTON
NOTE: The White House also made available Ms.
Baird's letter requesting that her nomination to
be Attorney General be withdrawn.


Remarks on the Swearing-In of Cabinet Members
January 22, 1993


The President. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Today I am proud to present to you
and to the American people a Cabinet of talented, diverse, and seasoned leaders.


I'm deeply gratified to the United States Senate for their quick confirmation of 18 nominees
only 2 days after the Inauguration. The Senate
acted with historic dispatch because it recog

5




Jan. 22 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


nizes that our Nation needs action now on our
problems. I very much appreciate that, and like
them I am ready to get to work.
Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to now
present the Chief Justice to administer the oath
of office. Mr. Chief Justice.
Chief Justice Rehnquist. Would you each raise
your right hands and repeat after me. And the
first phrase is "I, blank," and obviously there
you insert your name-[laughter]-"do solemnly
swear.
[At this point, the Chief Justice administered
the oath of office. ]
The President. Let me, first of all, say I'm
glad no one said "I, blank." [Laughter] There
will be time enough for those blanks in the
Remarks at a Cabinet Meeting
January 22, 1993
I'd like to open our first meeting with a brief
prayer.
Our Heavenly Father, we thank you for the
unique opportunity which has been given to us
to serve our country to thy ends. Please be
with us and guide us. Keep us humble and
eager. And help us to proceed with wisdom.
Amen.
Well, good morning. I want to say again how
very proud I am of all of you and how pleased
I am to be off to what I think is quite a good
start. And I think we have an enormous reservoir of good will out in the country and a
fair amount of elbow room to face the issues
that are before us. In the next several days we
will have to make a lot of tough economic decisions that some of you have been more involved
in than others-that everybody will be involved
in.
This should be a fairly good meeting today.
I just wanted to make a few remarks and then
introduce Mack McLarty and let him talk a little


days ahead. [Laughter]
I think now we're supposed to adjourn to
the State Dining Room, is that correct? Is that
right?
I also want to recognize my Ambassador to
the   United  Nations-designate,  Madeleine
Albright, who has not quite been confirmed by
the Senate, but I think she will be soon. Because she teaches at my alma mater, I thought
she ought to have a separate swearing-in ceremony. [Laughter]
So I think that's it. Let's adjourn, please, to
the reception in the State Dining Room. Thank
you.
NOTE: The President spoke at 10:22 a.m. in the
East Room at the White House.


bit. First of all, we're going to have this Cabinet
retreat, as you know, in a few days. And some
of the issues that we might ordinarily hash out
here over an hour or two I think would be
better put off until that retreat. If I might begin
with sort of a major substantive decision. I basically very much believe in teamwork. And I
think that over time you make better decisions
if you get good input from a reasonable number
of people who have different perspectives.
Therefore, for example, when I was Governor,
I didn't have a lot of Cabinet meetings, but
I had a fair number in which people had the
opportunity to comment on matters of public
interest that were sometimes outside the narrow
confines of what they were doing.
NOTE: The President spoke at 11:08 a.m. in the
Cabinet Room at the White House. A tape was
not available for verification of the content of
these remarks.


6




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Jan. 22


Exchange With Reporters Following a Cabinet Meeting
January 22, 1993


Withdrawal of Nomination for Attorney General
Q. Mr. President, how difficult was the Zoe
Baird decision? How agonizing was it for you?
The President. I'm sad about it. But it wasn't
agonizing. I'm sad about it, and I take full responsibility, as I said in my statement, for the
way the evaluation was done. I still have a very
high regard for her. She is an extraordinary person. And I feel very badly about it, but I'm
responsible for it, and I'm going to start this
afternoon looking for an Attorney General. And


I have the process set up, and we're going to
begin as soon as the lunch hour is over, working
on the future. And that's what I intend to focus
on.
Q. Will it be a woman?
The President. I have nothing else to say. I'm
going to start this afternoon. Thanks.
NOTE: The exchange began at 11:15 a.m. in the
Cabinet Room at the White House. A tape was
not available for verification of the content of this
exchange.


Remarks on Signing Memorandums on Medical Research and
Reproductive Health and an Exchange With Reporters
January 22, 1993


The President. Please sit down, ladies and
gentlemen. Today I am acting to separate our
national health and medical policy from the divisive conflict over abortion. This conflict, which
stems from the Roe v. Wade decision of 20
years ago, has brought to a halt promising research on treatment for serious conditions and
diseases that affect millions of Americans, millions of American men, women, and children
who include the members of my family and
friends of mine and I'm sure virtually every
other set of family and friends in the United
States. We must free science and medicine from
the grasp of politics and give all Americans access to the very latest and best medical treatments.
Today I am directing Secretary of Health and
Human Services Shalala immediately to lift the
moratorium on Federal funding for research involving transplantation of fetal tissue. This moratorium, which was first imposed in 1988, was
extended indefinitely in 1989 despite the recommendation of a blue ribbon National Institutes of Health advisory panel that it be ended.
Five years later, the evidence is overwhelming.
The moratorium has dramatically limited the development of possible treatment for millions of
individuals who suffer from serious disorders,
including Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's dis

ease, diabetes, and leukemia. We must let medicine and science proceed unencumbered by
anti-abortion politics.
Today also marks the beginning of a new national reproductive health policy that aims to
prevent unintended pregnancies. Our administration is committed to providing the kind of
prenatal care, child care, and family and medical
leave that will lead to healthy childbearing and
support America's families. As a nation, our goal
should be to protect individual freedom while
fostering responsible decisionmaking, an approach that seeks to protect the right to choose
while reducing the number of abortions. Our
vision should be of an America where abortion
is safe and legal, but rare.
Let me also say that our administration is
particularly concerned with the epidemic of
teenage pregnancy. The greatest human cost of
our continuing national debate over reproductive
policy is borne by our children and by their
children. A few teenagers choose to have and
raise children, and we must help them to succeed. But for millions a teen pregnancy is unintended, leaving the young woman and her partner totally unprepared for the responsibilities
of parenthood. The social and economic price
paid today and for the last several years by our
Nation is enormous.


7




Jan. 22 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


So today I am also directing Secretary Shalala
to act immediately to implement her intended
suspension of the Title X family planning regulations that are also known as the "gag rule."
For almost 5 years, HHS has prohibited Title
X recipients from providing their patients with
full information and counseling concerning pregnancy. This dangerous restriction censors the
medical information and advice that health care
professionals can give their patients. As a result
of today's action, every woman will be able to
receive medical advice and referrals that will
not be censored or distorted by ideological arguments that should not be a part of medicine.
I'm also ordering today the Director of the
Agency for International Development to repeal
immediately what has become known as the
Mexico City policy, that has effectively applied
the "gag rule" to organizations that receive United States funding, even when those organizations use non-AID funds for those activities. Today's actions will allow organizations that received AID funds to provide information regarding all family planning options to individuals in
foreign nations. It will reverse a policy that has
seriously undermined much-needed efforts to
promote safe and effective family planning programs abroad and will allow us to once again
provide leadership in helping to stabilize world
population. Many believe that this is one of the
most important environmental steps we can
take.
Today I am also directing Secretary of Defense Aspin to lift immediately the near-total
ban on abortions at United States military facilities and to permit them to be performed at
those facilities provided that the procedure is
paid for entirely with private funds. This action
will allow military hospitals to perform abortions
and reverse a ban that has adversely affected
the lives of scores of men and women who
serve our Nation around the world, or members
of their families.
Finally, I am directing Secretary Shalala to
instruct the Food and Drug Administration to
determine whether the current import ban on
the drug Mifepristine, commonly known as RU486, is justified and to rescind the ban if there
is no basis for it. Here in the United States,
RU-486 has been held hostage to politics. It
is time to learn the truth about what the health
and safety risks of the drug really are. If the
FDA removes the ban, Americans will be able
to bring the drug into the country for their


personal use consistent with existing FDA policies that govern drugs not approved for distribution.
I've also ordered HHS to immediately explore
the propriety of promoting testing in the United
States as well as the possibility of licensing and
manufacturing according to the standards which
govern all other drugs so reviewed by our Government.
Taken as a group, today's actions will go a
long way toward protecting vital medical and
health decisions from ideological and political
debate. The American people deserve the best
medical treatment in the world. We're committed to providing them with nothing less.
I'd like to say in closing a special word of
personal thanks to the unbelievable number of
Americans from all walks of life and all different
political perspectives who have children with diabetes or who, like me, have lost relatives to
Alzheimer's or have friends suffering with Parkinson's and other diseases who came up to
me over the last year and made a personal plea
on the fetal tissue issue. Their statements to
me and their life stories had a far greater impact
on me even than the actions of the United
States Congress, which included, as you know,
a very broad spectrum of Republicans and
Democrats on this issue.
I'd like now to sign these directives.
[At this point, the President signed the five memorandums. ]
Thank you very much.
President's Signature
Q. Mr. President, was it "William J." or
"Bill"?
The President. After a considered policy debate-[laughter]-we decided that I should sign
my full name to all official documents of the
Government, and I'll continue to sign all my
non-my letters "Bill Clinton."
Withdrawal of Nomination for Attorney General
Q. Let me ask you: George was having a
really hard time explaining to us what you knew
about Zoe Baird's problem, when you knew it.
Press aide. Thank you.
Q. Can you please explainThe President. No, I want to answer this.
Q.     that to us, so that the American public
would really know?
The President. I think the American people


8




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Jan. 22


are entitled to know that. If you go back to
my statement, I acknowledged that there were
errors in the evaluation process, for which I
take full responsibility. What happened was this.
She voluntarily disclosed that; it was not in any
way picked up in the vetting. It was, as you
know, we were trying to make a Christmas deadline, which was probably my error again, on
this.
So just before she was announced, but after
I had discussed the appointment with her, I
was told that this matter had come up. Nobody
said anything to me about the taxes. And what
I was told was what you heard, in a very cursory
way, was that an error had been made in the
hiring of an illegal alien; that it had been made
after consulting a lawyer who was an expert
in this area, so basically they had acted on counsel's advice, but they were wrong; that they
moved immediately to try to correct it, and the
status had been corrected in terms of the legality of the person; and that the vettor's conclu

sion was there would be no problem.
I have to tell you that during the course of
these inquiries, I received other weightier
warnings, if you will, of things which had to
be worked through with other potential nominees. In retrospect, what I should have done
is to basically delay the whole thing for a couple
of days and look into it in greater depth.
But I take full responsibility for that. This
process is in no way a reflection on her. We
would not have known any of this had she not
disclosed it to us and to the United States Senate subsequently. So I will say again what I
said this morning: I'm sorry about this. I still
think she is an extraordinary person and a very
able person who will have a rich and successful
career, and I take full responsibility for what
happened in the review process.
Thank you.
NOTE: The President spoke at 3:22 p.m. in the
Roosevelt Room at the White House.


Memorandum on Fetal Tissue Transplantation Research
January 22, 1993


Memorandum for the Secretary of Health and
Human Services
Subject: Federal Funding of Fetal Tissue
Transplantation Research
On March 22, 1988, the Assistant Secretary
for Health of Health and Human Services
("HHS") imposed a temporary moratorium on
Federal funding of research involving transplantation of fetal tissue from induced abortions.
Contrary to the recommendations of a National
Institutes of Health advisory panel, on November 2, 1989, the Secretary of Health and Human
Services extended the moratorium indefinitely.


This moratorium has significantly hampered the
development of possible treatments for individuals afflicted with serious diseases and disorders,
such as Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease,
diabetes, and leukemia. Accordingly, I hereby
direct that you immediately lift the moratorium.
You are hereby authorized and directed to
publish this memorandum in the Federal Register.
WILLIAM J. CLINTON
[Filed with the Office of the Federal Register,
1:17 p.m., February 3, 1993]


9




Jan. 22 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993
Memorandum on the Title X "Gag Rule"
January 22, 1993


Memorandum for the Secretary of Health and
Human Services
Subject: The Title X "Gag Rule"
Title X of the Public Health Services Act provides Federal funding for family planning clinics
to provide services for low-income patients. The
Act specifies that Title X funds may not be
used for the performance of abortions, but
places no restrictions on the ability of clinics
that receive Title X funds to provide abortion
counseling and referrals or to perform abortions
using non-Title X funds. During the first 18
years of the program, medical professionals at
Title X clinics provided complete, uncensored
information, including nondirective abortion
counseling. In February 1988, the Department
of Health and Human Services adopted regulations, which have become known as the "Gag
Rule," prohibiting Title X recipients from providing their patients with information, counseling, or referrals concerning abortion. Subsequent attempts by the Bush Administration to
modify the Gag Rule and ensuing litigation have
created confusion and uncertainty about the current legal status of the regulations.
The Gag Rule endangers women's lives and
health by preventing them from receiving comMemorandum on the Mexico City Poli
January 22, 1993
Memorandum for the Acting Administrator of
the Agency for International Development
Subject: AID Family Planning Grants/Mexico
City Policy
The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 prohibits
nongovernmental organizations ("NGO's") that
receive Federal funds from using those funds
"to pay for the performance of abortions as a
method of family planning, or to motivate or
coerce any person to practice abortions." (22
U.S.C. 2151b(f)(1)). The August 1984 announcement by President Reagan of what has become
know as the "Mexico City Policy" directed the
Agency for International Development ("AID")


plete and accurate medical information and
interferes with the doctor-patient relationship by
prohibiting information that medical professionals are otherwise ethically and legally required to provide to their patients. Furthermore,
the Gag Rule contravenes the clear intent of
a majority of the members of both the United
States Senate and House of Representatives,
which twice passed legislation to block the Gag
Rule's enforcement but failed to override Presidential vetoes.
For these reasons, you have informed me that
you will suspend the Gag Rule pending the promulgation of new regulations in accordance with
the "notice and comment" procedures of the
Administrative Procedure Act. I hereby direct
you to take that action as soon as possible. I
further direct that, within 30 days, you publish
in the Federal Register new proposed regulations
for public comment.
You are hereby authorized and directed to
publish this memorandum in the Federal Register.
WILLIAM J. CLINTON
[Filed with the Office of the Federal Register,
1:16 p.m., February 3, 1993]


to expand this limitation and withhold AID
funds from NGO's that engage in a wide range
of activities, including providing advice, counseling, or information regarding abortion, or lobbying a foreign government to legalize or make
abortion available. These conditions have been
imposed even where an NGO uses non-AID
funds for abortion-related activities.
These excessively broad anti-abortion conditions are unwarranted. I am informed that the
conditions are not mandated by the Foreign Assistance Act or any other law. Moreover, they
have undermined efforts to promote safe and
efficacious family planning programs in foreign


10




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Jan. 22


nations. Accordingly, I hereby direct that AID  from all current AID grants to NGO's and exremove the conditions not explicitly mandated  dude them from future grants.
by the Foreign Assistance Act or any other law                    WILLIAM J. CLINTON
Memorandum on Abortions in Military Hospitals
January 22, 1993


Memorandum for the Secretary of Defense
Subject: Privately Funded Abortions at Military
Hospitals
Section 1093 of title 10 of the United States
Code prohibits the use of Department of Defense ("DOD") funds to perform abortions except where the life of a woman would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term. By
memoranda of December 21, 1987, and June
21, 1988, DOD has gone beyond what I am
informed are the requirements of the statute
and has banned all abortions at U.S. military
facilities, even where the procedure is privately
Memorandum on Importation of RU —z
January 22, 1993
Memorandum for the Secretary of Health and
Human Services
Subject: Importation of RU-486
In Import Alert 66-47, the Food and Drug
Administration ("FDA") excluded the drug
Mifepristine-commonly known as RU-486 -from the list of drugs that individuals can import
into the United States for their "personal use,"
although the drugs have not yet been approved
for distribution by the FDA. (See FDA Regulatory Procedures Manual, Chapter 9-71.) Import Alert 66-47 effectively bans the importation
into this Nation of a drug that is used in other
nations as a nonsurgical means of abortion.
I am informed that in excluding RU-486 from
the personal use importation exemption, the
FDA appears to have based its decision on factors other than an assessment of the possible
health and safety risks of the drug. Accordingly,
I hereby direct that you promptly instruct the


funded. This ban is unwarranted. Accordingly,
I hereby direct that you reverse the ban immediately and permit abortion services to be provided, if paid for entirely with non-DOD funds
and in accordance with other relevant DOD
policies and procedures.
You are hereby authorized and directed to
publish this memorandum in the Federal Register.
WILLIAM J. CLINTON
[Filed with the Office of the Federal Register,
11:50 a.m., January 27, 1993]


FDA to determine whether there is sufficient
evidence to warrant exclusion of RU-486 from
the list of drugs that qualify for the personal
use importation exemption. Furthermore, if the
FDA concludes that RU-486 meets the criteria
for the personal use importation exemption, I
direct that you immediately take steps to rescind
Import Alert 66-47.
In addition, I direct that you promptly assess
initiatives by which the Department of Health
and Human Services can promote the testing,
licensing, and manufacturing in the United
States of RU-486 or other antiprogestins.
You are hereby authorized and directed to
publish this memorandum in the Federal Register.
WILLIAM J. CLINTON
[Filed with the Office of the Federal Register,
1:20 p.m., February 3, 1993]


11




Jan. 23 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


Exchange With Reporters
January 23, 1993


Oval Cfice
Q. How do you like your new office, Mr.
President?
The President. I like it a lot. It's a wonderful
office.
Q. Did you read the note that President Bush
left for you?
The President. I did.
9. What did that say?
The President. I think we should leave it between the two of us, but it was a very generous
note and a very encouraging one.
Attorney General Nomination
Q. Mr. President, what are you doing in pursuit of a new nominee for the attorney generalship? How are you going about this?
The President. I did some work on it yesterday afternoon and had several extended conversations with people about potential nominees
and gave my staff some instructions to go do
some work on three or four folks.
Q. Three or four-men?
The President. Three or four people. [Laugh

ter] I'm not going to say whoQ. Have you talked to any prospective nominees directly?
Q. How's it gone so far?
The President. So far I've liked it very much.
Q.     surprises so far?
The President. We just got started, you know.
I've got a lotQ. Will you be keeping Mr. Sessions on?
The President. I don't want to talk aboutPresident's Schedule
Q. What are you going to do for the rest
of the day, Mr. President?
The President. Work.
Q. Not jogging?
The President. No, I'm going to go out for
a jog later. And I'm going to do a little work,
and I'm trying to get the house acclimated, get
organized.
NOTE: The exchange began at 12:08 p.m. in the
Oval Office at the White House. A tape was not
available for verification of the content of this exchange.


Statement on the Death of Justice Thurgood Marshall
January 24, 1993


I am deeply saddened by the passing of Justice Thurgood Marshall. He-was a giant in the
quest for human rights and equal opportunity
in this century. Every American should be grateRemarks on the Establishment of the
Exchange With Reporters
January 25, 1993
The President. This is the Executive order
which establishes the National Economic Council and which brings into the economic policymaking of the Federal Government not just the


ful for the contributions he made as an advocate
and Justice of the United States Supreme Court.
NOTE: The related proclamation is listed in Appendix D at the end of this volume.
National Economic Council and an
traditional Secretaries of Treasury, the OMB,
the Council of Economic Advisers but also the
Departments of Commerce, Labor, Agriculture,
HUD, Transportation, Energy, EPA, as well as


12




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Jan. 25


the Trade Office, State, so that we can all work
together. I want to thank all of the people
around this table for all the work they've done
on this and especially Mr. Rubin for the work
that he's done to try to reconcile all these things.
I believe that this will enable us to make economic policy in a much more specific, clear,
and effective way than the Federal Government
has in quite a long while.
[At this point, the President signed the Executive
order. ]
Homosexuals in the Military
Q. If the Joint Chiefs oppose this lifting of
the ban on gays in the military, are you still
going to go ahead with that?
The President. I'm going to meet with them
and discuss it this afternoon. But I intend to
keep my commitment. I want their input on
how we should do it, however. I think they're
entitled to really be listened to on a lot of the
practical issues.
Q. Is this part of what you said in your Inaugural Address, that it will require sacrifice?
The President. I think everybody wants to
make a contribution to solving these problems,
and we're going to give everyone the opportunity to do that.
Q. How quickly will you lift this ban, Mr.


President?
The President. I don't have anything else to
say about it right now. We're going to have
a meeting —
Q. Are you going to have a meeting on it?
The President. I want to talk to the Joint
Chiefs about that, and then I'll have a statement
to make later.
Q. Today?
The President. I don't know. We've got a lot
of other things to do today. Maybe; I don't
know.
Taxes
Q. Mr. President, can you say anything about
the consumption tax that Senator Bentsen addressed yesterday?
The President. No. I thought he did a very
good job on television. I wasn't sure that I was
reading about the same interview in the press
this morning. He said that no decision had been
made, and no decision has been made. We have
a lot of options under consideration, but no decision has been made.
NOTE: The President spoke at 11:30 a.m. in the
Roosevelt Room at the White House. The Executive order is listed in Appendix D at the end of
this volume.


Remarks and an Exchange With Reporters on Health Care Reform
January 25, 1993


I want to say good afternoon to members
of the press. We have just finished a very lively
discussion about the massive task before us in
health care. Vice President Gore and I made
a strong commitment to the American people
during the last election that we would present
to the United States Congress, within 100 days,
a plan that would take strong action to control
health care costs in America and to begin to
provide for the health care needs of all Americans.
As I traveled across the country last year,
no stories moved me more than the health care
stories. As I think all of you know, many of
the people in our Faces of Hope luncheon last
week during the Inaugural were people who
were struggling to overcome incredible adversity


occasioned by their health care problems. We've
met elderly people choosing every week between medicine and food; we've met people
forced to leave their jobs to get on public assistance to deal with children with terrific problems; we've met countless people who can't
change their jobs because they or someone in
their family have had health care problems.
You will all remember, at the economic conference that we sponsored in Little Rock, perhaps the overwhelming concern of the business
people there, of all sizes, was doing something
about the cost and the availability of health care.
When the Vice President and I met with the
big three auto makers and the president of the
United Auto Workers, once again they said, if
you want to do something to help rebuild the


13




Jan. 25 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


auto industry, do something to control health
care costs. And as Mr. Panetta just said again
in a rather plaintive way before you came in,
there is no way we will ever get control of
the Federal budget deficit unless we do something about health care.
The message is pretty simple. It's time to
make sense of America's health care system. It's
time to bring costs under control and to make
our families and businesses secure. It's time to
make good on the American promise that too
many people have talked about for too long,
while we have continued to spend more than
30 percent more of our income on health care
than any other nation in the world, get less
for it, and see 100,000 Americans a month losing
their health insurance.
As a first step in responding to the demands
of literally millions of Americans, today I am
announcing the formation of the President's
Task Force on National Health Reform. Although the issue is complex, the task force's
mission is simple: Build on the work of the
campaign and the transition, listen to all parties,
and prepare health care reform legislation to
be submitted to Congress within 100 days of
our taking office.
This task force will be chaired by the First
Lady, Hillary Rodham Clinton, and will include
the Secretaries of Health and Human Services,
Treasury, Defense, Veterans Affairs, Commerce,
Labor, as well as the Director of the Office
of Management and Budget and senior White
House staff members.
I am grateful that Hillary has agreed to chair
this task force and not only because it means
she'll be sharing some of the heat I expect to
generate. As many of you know, while I was
Governor of my State, Hillary chaired the Arkansas Education Standards Committee, which
created public school accreditation standards
that have since become a model for national
reform. She served as my designee on the
Southern Regional Task Force on Infant Mortality, was also chair of our State's rural health
committee in 1979 and 1980, a time in which
we initiated a number of health care reforms
that benefit the people of my State to the
present day. And on the board of the Arkansas
Children's Hospital, she helped to establish our
State's first neonatal unit.
I think that in the coming months the American people will learn, as the people of our
State did, that we have a First Lady of many


talents, who most of all can bring people together around complex and difficult issues to
hammer out consensus and get things done.
Here in the White House, Hillary will work
with my Domestic Policy Adviser, Carol Rasco;
my Senior Policy Adviser, Ira Magaziner; and
the head of our health care transition team,
Judy Feder. I've asked all of them to be as
inclusive as possible. And as a part of that, we
are inviting the American public to write us
here at the White House with their suggestions.
All of them should be sent to the Task Force
on National Health Care Reformnn at the White
House in Washington, DC 20500.
We will no doubt be criticized by some for
undertaking something very, very ambitious. But
as I said in my Inaugural Address, we're going
to have to make some tough choices in order
to control health care costs, to bring them down
within inflation, and to provide health care for
all. In order to preserve the vitality of the American private sector, in order to keep the American people's budget here at this national level
from going totally bankrupt, we are going to
have to make some tough choices. Powerful lobbies and special interests may seek to derail
our efforts, and we may make some people
angry. But we are determined to come up with
the best possible solution.
And in my lifetime, at least, there has never
been so much consensus that something has to
be done. We have a plan from the American
Nurses Association, from the American Academy
of Physicians, from the American Academy of
Family Practice, from the health insurance industry itself. We have a plan uniting business
and labor. There is an overwhelming knowledge
that we have to move and move now. We are
going to do our best to reform our system. We
are going to do our best to meet the human
needs of the people of this country.
There are all kinds of problems that have
to be dealt with that we haven't even discussed
yet: access to care in inner cities and rural areas,
coverage for little children, dealing with the
AIDS crisis adequately, still unmet needs in the
area of women's health care, the problem of
the veterans in this country who don't have access to care, even as their own network goes
broke. All these issues will be dealt with in
this task force. This is going to be an unprecedented effort. And let me just say, in general,
we're going to set up a workroom, kind of like
the war room we had in the campaign, over


14




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Jan. 25


in the Executive Office Building. And all of
the departments you see here represented and
leaders you see represented around this table
will be represented in that room. And we are
going to work constantly, day and night, until
we have a health care plan ready to submit
to the Congress that we believe we can pass.
Finally, let me say I am committed to doing
this in a partnership with the Congress. I will
ask the leadership of the Congress to work with
me on a bipartisan basis and to do whatever
we can to make sure that as we present the
plan, we have also maximized its chances of
early passage in the Congress.
I thank all these people for their willingness
to serve and to work together. I hope the American people will see just how passionately I personally am committed to doing something about
health care reform. We've talked about it long
enough. The time has come to act, and I have
chosen the course that I think is most likely
to lead to action that will improve the lives
of millions of Americans.
Q. Mr. President, can you provide universal
coverage without driving up the deficit?
The President. I think you can do it if you
control the cost of health care. You have to
really-let me just-I don't want to get into
one of these things that provoke a lot of cartoons about my policy wonk weakness, but we're
at 14 percent of our income on health care
now. The next most expensive health care system in the world is Canada's. It's at about 9.2
percent of income. That is a huge difference,
massive. And yet, every other major country
with which we compete provides some basic
health care to everybody, something we don't
do. So the answer to your question is, in my
judgment, if we do this right over the next 8
years, you're going to see huge savings in tax
dollars and even bigger savings, more than twice
the savings, in private dollars that will free up
hundreds of billions of dollars literally between
now and the end of the decade to reinvest in
economic growth and opportunity.
In the short run, our tough call will be, how
do you take the savings and phase in universal
coverage, or should there be some other way
to pay for that? We've got some short-term calls
to make. But there's no question that in the
medium term, 5 to 8 years, you're looking at
massive savings with universal coverage, in both
tax dollars and private sector dollars, if we do


it right.
Q. Mr. President, do you intend to pay the
First Lady for her efforts?
The President. No. No. I never have paid
her for her public service efforts. I don't want
to start now.
Q. Is 100 days hard and fast, or are you
willing to be flexible on that if it's not quite
ready?
The President. If it were 101 days I wouldn't
have a heart attack, but I don't want to-I want
it done now. I think we know what the major
alternatives are. What we have to do now is
something nobody's done, and that is to meld
them into the best possible legislation, taking
account of some of the problems that exist with
every course.
And let me make one acknowledgment on
the front end about this. Legitimate objections
can be raised to any course of action in this
area. That is, there is no such thing as a perfect
solution. So whatever course we choose to take,
somebody can say, "Well, it's not perfect for
these reasons." To that, I have two answers,
and I'm going to say this until I'm blue in the
face for this entire year until we get action.
Number one, the worst thing we can do is keep
on doing what we're doing now, because more
and more people are falling out of the system
and the cost is becoming more and more burdensome to those who are still bearing it. So
whatever course we take, we will preserve what
is best about American health care, some
consumer choice and the quality of care. So
whatever problems we have, they won't be as
bad as the ones we've got now. Number two,
this is not going to be the end of the line.
Whatever problems are there can be fixed later.
But we will never, never get anywhere if we
stand paralyzed, because there's no such thing
as a perfect alternative.
Q. What factors did you consider in giving
this high-profile position to Mrs. Clinton?
The President. Of all the people I've ever
worked with in my life, she's better at organizing
and leading people from a complex beginning
to a certain end than anybody I've ever worked
with in my life. And that's what I want done
here.
NOTE: The President spoke at 2:02 p.m. in the
Roosevelt Room at the White House at a meeting
of the Health Care Working Group.


15




Jan. 26 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


Exchange With Reporters Prior to a Meeting with Congressional Leaders
January 26, 1993


Q. Mr. President, are you going to have a
policy statement on gays in the military by the
end of the week?
The President. I'm going to talk to the leadership of Congress about our legislative agenda.
Q. How do you feel your meeting with the


Joint Chiefs went yesterday, Mr. President?
The President. It was a very good meeting.
I was very impressed by them. The country's
well served.
NOTE: The President spoke at 9:38 a.m. in the
Cabinet Room at the White House.


Nomination for Ambassador to Russia
January 26, 1993
The President announced today that he intends to nominate Thomas R. Pickering as Ambassador of the United States of America to
the Russian Federation.
In making this announcement, President Clinton said, "It is essential that we continue to
expand and develop our relationship with Russia.
I want to do everything I can to support democratic and economic reform there and want an
Nomination for Director of the Office
January 26, 1993
The President today announced that he intends to nominate Jim King as Director of the
Office of Personnel Management.
"Jim King will bring invaluable expertise,


experienced and dedicated Ambassador to represent our Nation in Moscow. Ambassador Pickering has demonstrated throughout his career
that he has the ability and wisdom to carry
out this important assignment. I have full confidence in him."
NOTE: A biography of the nominee was made
available by the Office of the Press Secretary.
of Personnel Management
knowledge, and enthusiasm to the Office of Personnel Management," said President Clinton.
NOTE: A biography of the nominee was made
available by the Office of the Press Secretary.


Exchange With Reporters Prior to a Meeting With Congressional Leaders
January 27, 1993


Q. Mr. President, would you consider backing
down on your lifting the ban on gays in the
military because of the opposition?
The President. We're not here to discuss that.
We're here to discuss the economy, which is
all I discussed yesterday with congressional leadership, contrary to

Q. But would you considerThe President. We're here to discuss the economy.
Q. Have you decided on a consumption tax
yet?
The President. No
Q. Are you closer to a decision

16




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Jan. 28


The President. I'm going to give a speech
to the joint session February 17th, and we'll
lay out my program then. But I've not made
any decisions yet. This is the first opportunity
I've had to meet with the economic leadership
of Congress.
Q. [Inaudible]-you decide, or announce what
you've decided on a consumption tax in youra joint address
The President. [Inaudible]
Q. Is this gay-in-the-military issue distracting


you at all, sir, from thec
The President. No, it's distracting you, it's not
distracting-[laughter].
Q. Can you reach $145 billion in deficit reductions without a consumption tax?
The President. I don't know the answer to
that. We're working on it.
NOTE: The exchange began at 2:10 p.m. in the
Oval Office at the White House. A tape was not
available for verification of the content of this exchange.


Exchange With Reporters Prior to a Meeting With Federal Reserve
Chairman Alan Greenspan
January 28, 1993


Q. Mr. President, what's the principle you're
fighting for in sticking with your plan not to
ban gays in the military? What's the principle
that you believe in that makes you want to stick
with that?
The President. I came here to talk about the
economy today with Mr. Greenspan. If he wants
to express his opinion on that subject, I'll be
glad to hear it. Most people with whom I talk,
except you folks, never discuss that. We have


other things we're trying to deal with.
Q. Sir, there was good news about the economy-[inaudible]
The President. I think that there's a lot of
response to the efforts we're making now, but
there's also a lot of troubling news about lost
jobs. And we've got a lot of work to do, a
lot of work to do.
NOTE: The exchange began at 9:37 a.m. in the
Oval Office at the White House.


Remarks Honoring the School Principal of the Year and an Exchange With
Reporters
January 28, 1993


The President. This is Janie Hatton from Milwaukee, and she is the School Principal of the
Year. You can tell she's from Wisconsin because
Senator Kohl is here, but I have to tell you
she also grew up in my hometown of Hot
Springs, Arkansas. We grew up in the same
town. She's younger than I am. [Laughter]
That's her husband, Isaac, who also comes
from Arkansas. And these other three gentlemen
are with the National Association of School Principals.
Janie Hatton. And MetLife.
The President. And MetLife, which sponsors
this award. She gave me two paperweights for


my wife and daughter, and now you're going
to give me something, right?
Mrs. Hatton. Right. This is a hat for you
to jog in, as well as, when the days are cold,
the long jogging pants, "Tech has style." And
the mornings when it's kind of warm, you can
wear the short ones that says "Tech, Milwaukee." This is the one that we're most proud
of because '93 Tech and when you have said
Milwaukee Tech, you've said it all. And we invite you to Tech at all times, any time. We're
building a referendum issue February 16. We
want you to think thumbs up because that style
is really good. So wear it with pride. And Tech


17




Jan. 28 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


is an importantThe President. I think it's going to fit, don't
you? That's great.
Mrs. Hatton. Thank you so much, Mr. President.
The President. I'm proud of you.
Mrs. Hatton. And I'm proud of you. Great
things happen to great people.
The President. Thank you.
Meetings With Members of Congress
Q. Mr. President, are you building incentives
to help the economy and working with Congress? Are you getting momentum having all
these meetings with the Hill, with Chairman
Greenspan?
The President. Well, I think so. You know,
we've got a lot more meetings ahead. I'm going
to have a huge number of meetings, I hope,
next week with Members. I needed this first
week just to kind of get our feet on the ground
here and get organized and get ready. But I
have held a lot of meetings with Congress, and
I'll do many more next week. I'll do as many
as I can leading up to the February 17 address
to the joint session. And after that I'll do as
many more as I can.
Homosexuals in the Military
Q. Mr. President, are you confident that you'll
ever get the ban on gays in the military lifted?
The President. Well, we're working on the
resolution in the Senate, as you know. And I've
been working mostly on economic issues today,
so I just heard from my staff. But they seem
to think we're pretty close toQ. Are you satisfied with 6 months down the


road?
The President. I'm satisfied with what I hope
the resolution will be. You'll have to come back
to me when there's final language there.
I think the Joint Chiefs should have 6 months
to deal with the practical issues involved. This
is not free of difficulty. There are certain factual
problems involved.
But the principle-let me answer the question
Mark [Mark Halperin, ABC News] asked me
this morning about the principle. The principle
behind this for me is that Americans who are
willing to conform to the requirements of conduct within the military services, in my judgment, should be able to serve in the military
and that people should be disqualified from
serving in the military based on something they
do, not based on who they are. That is the
elemental principle.
There is actually an enormous amount of
agreement on this. The Joint Chiefs agree, for
example, that we should not anymore ask people
about their sexual orientation when they enlist.
And I believe that any sort of improper conduct
should result in severance. The narrow issue
on which there is disagreement is whether people should be able to say that they're homosexual-and do nothing else-without being severed. But there are a whole lot of very complicated practical questions that flow from that
very narrow issue. And that's what I want to
have 6 months to give them a chance to work
on. So, I hope we can.
NOTE: The President spoke at 4:50 p.m. in the
Oval Office at the White House.


Exchange With Reporters Prior to a Meeting With Representatives of the
Close-Up Foundation
January 29, 1993


Homosexuals in the Military
Q. Mr. President, when are you going to announce your policy on gays in the military?
What time today?
The President. Well, we're waiting for an analysis of the court decision now and how it affects
what we would have to do anyway. So, that
sort of-we were here, as you know, last night


with Senator Nunn, and I thought it was quite
close to an agreement that would give the military what I think ought to be done without
anybody agreeing to change their position nowgive them a chance to look into what the practical problems are. But this court decision may
change that, and we are looking at it. And I
will probably have something to say later today.


18




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Jan. 29


Q. But do you-[inaudible]-decision because-[inaudible]-get through now?
The President. Well, we talked about it a little
last night, but I wanted to-the staff stayed here
quite late. I thought they ought to get a chance
to get a little sleep and then think through it.
So, as you know, there is virtual agreement on
everything but one issue anyway. So, you are
trying to figure out how this court case fits,
that and whether it changes anything for either
side.
So, we'll talk about it this morning and then
try to resolve it soon.
Q. Are you concerned, Mr. President, that
this controversy this week has given the American people the wrong idea of what your prior

ities are?
The President. Yes, I do. Of course, I didn't
bring it up; people in the Senate did. I just
tried-I have not, frankly, spent very much time
on it compared to the time I'm spending on
the economy, which is what I was elected to
do. And we've been working on that hard. So,
I'm just going to keep doing what I was elected
to do and try to stick up for what I believe
and see if we can work through this.
NOTE: The President spoke at 8:37 a.m. in the
Oval Office at the White House. A tape was not
available for verification of the content of these
remarks.


Teleconference Remarks on Family and Medical Leave Legislation
January 29, 1993


The President. Thank you very much, Al. And
hello, ladies and gentlemen. I want to thank
you for agreeing to join us on this telephone
call today and through this telephone call to
speak to the people in your own State and
throughout the United States.
One of the things that we are determined
to do here in Washington is open the Government to you and never let people forget, who
are here making decisions, that you and lives
are at stake and that these matters that we discuss and vote upon here really do affect real
people out in our country.
So with that, let me just now go from one
person to the next and let each of you say something about how this family and medical leave
act might affect your life in the future or could
have affected your life in the past or the fact
that we didn't have it affected you.
[At this point, the President took a series of
telephone calls from people who described their
personal experiences.]
The President. Ladies and gentlemen, I know
I speak for Vice President Gore when I thank
all of you for your courage and your support


on behalf of your own children and your own
families and working families all across this
country. We believe that next week, the Congress and the leaders who have worked on this
in both parties will help our Nation join the
72 other countries who already have family and
medical leave. And if it happens, it will be because of people like you and for people like
you.
I think a lot of you said this, but I just want
to close with this: It's easy for people to talk
about family values, but it's also important for
us to value families. And your Government is
going to be given a chance to value the American family next week. We hope and pray they'll
do it. And if it does happen, you all can claim
a lot of the credit.
Thank you so much for being with us today,
and have a wonderful time. And keep those
kids making that good noise. I like to hear it.
Bless you all. Goodbye.
NOTE: The President spoke at approximately
11:42 a.m. from the Oval Office at the White
House. He was introduced by the Vice President.


19




Jan. 29 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993
The President's News Conference
January 29, 1993


Homosexuals in the Military
The President. Good afternoon, ladies and
gentlemen. I'm sorry, we had a last-minute delay
occasioned by another issue, not this one.
The debate over whether to lift the ban on
homosexuals in the military has, to put it mildly,
sparked a great deal of interest over the last
few days. Today, as you know, I have reached
an agreement, at least with Senator Nunn and
Senator Mitchell, about how we will proceed
in the next few days. But first I would like
to explain what I believe about this issue and
why, and what I have decided to do after a
long conversation, and a very good one, with
the Joint Chiefs of Staff and discussions with
several Members of Congress.
The issue is not whether there should be homosexuals in the military. Everyone concedes
that there are. The issue is whether men and
women who can and have served with real distinction should be excluded from military service
solely on the basis of their status. And I believe
they should not.
The principle on which I base this position
is this: I believe that American citizens who
want to serve their country should be able to
do so unless their conduct disqualifies them
from doing so. Military life is fundamentally different from civilian society; it necessarily has
a different and stricter code of conduct, even
a different code of justice. Nonetheless, individuals who are prepared to accept all necessary
restrictions on their behavior, many of which
would be intolerable in civilian society, should
be able to serve their country honorably and
well.
I have asked the Secretary of Defense to submit by July the 15th a draft Executive order,
after full consultation with military and congressional leaders and concerned individuals outside
of the Government, which would end the
present policy of the exclusion from military
service solely on the basis of sexual orientation
and at the same time establish rigorous standards regarding sexual conduct to be applied to
all military personnel.
This draft order will be accompanied by a
study conducted during the next 6 months on
the real, practical problems that would be in

volved in this revision of policy, so that we will
have a practical, realistic approach consistent
with the high standards of combat effectiveness
and unit cohesion that our armed services must
maintain. I agree with the Joint Chiefs that the
highest standards of conduct must be required.
The change cannot and should not be accomplished overnight. It does require extensive consultation with the Joint Chiefs, experts in the
Congress and in the legal community, joined
by my administration and others. We've consulted closely to date and will do so in the
future. During that process, interim measures
will be placed into effect which, I hope, again,
sharpen the focus of this debate. The Joint
Chiefs of Staff have agreed to remove the question regarding one's sexual orientation from future versions of the enlistment application, and
it will not be asked in the interim.
We also all agree that a very high standard
of conduct can and must be applied. So the
single area of disagreement is this: Should someone be able to serve their country in uniform
if they say they are homosexuals, but they do
nothing which violates the code of conduct or
undermines unit cohesion or morale, apart from
that statement? That is what all the furor of
the last few days has been about. And the practical and not insignificant issues raised by that
issue are what will be studied in the next 6
months.
Through this period ending July 15th, the Department of Justice will seek continuances in
pending court cases involving reinstatement.
And administrative separation under current Department of Defense policies based on status
alone will be stayed pending completion of this
review. The final discharge in cases based only
on status will be suspended until the President
has an opportunity to review and act upon the
final recommendations of the Secretary of Defense with respect to the current policy. In the
meantime, a member whose discharge has been
suspended by the Attorney General will be separated from active duty and placed in standby
reserve until the final report of the Secretary
of Defense and the final action of the President.
This is the agreement that I have reached with
Senator Nunn and Senator Mitchell.


20




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Jan. 29


During this review process, I will work with
the Congress. And I believe the compromise
announced today by the Senators and by me
shows that we can work together to end the
gridlock that has plagued our city for too long.
This compromise is not everything I would
have hoped for or everything that I have stood
for, but it is plainly a substantial step in the
right direction. And it will allow us to move
forward on other terribly important issues affecting far more Americans.
My administration came to this city with a
mission to bring critical issues of reform and
renewal and economic revitalization to the public debate, issues that are central to the lives
of all Americans. We are working on an economic reform agenda that will begin with an
address to the joint session of Congress on February 17th. In the coming months the White
House Task Force on Health Care, chaired by
the First Lady, will complete work on a comprehensive health care reform proposal to be
submitted to Congress within 100 days of the
commencement of this administration. We will
be designing a system of national service to
begin a season of service in which our Nation's
unmet needs are addressed and we provide
more young people the opportunity to go to
college. We will be proposing comprehensive
welfare reform legislation and other important
initiatives.
I applaud the work that has been done in
the last 2 or 3 days by Senator Nunn, Senator
Mitchell, and others to enable us to move forward on a principle that is important to me
without shutting the Government down and running the risk of not even addressing the family
and medical leave issue, which is so important
to America's families, before Congress goes into
its recess. I am looking forward to getting on
with this issue over the next 6 months and with
these other issues which were so central to the
campaign and, far more importantly, are so important to the lives of all the American people.
Q. Mr. President, yesterday a Federal court
in California said that the military ban on homosexuals was unconstitutional. Will you direct the
Navy and the Justice Department not to appeal
that decision? And how does that ruling
strengthen your hand in this case?
The President. Well, it makes one point. I
think it strengthens my hand, if you will, in
two ways. One, I agree with the principle embodied in the case. I have not read the opinion,


but as I understand it, the opinion draws the
distinction that I seek to draw between conduct
and status. And secondly, it makes the practical
point I have been maling all along, which is
that there is not insignificant chance that this
matter would ultimately be resolved in the
courts in a way that would open admission into
the military without the opportunity to deal with
this whole range of practical issues, which everyone who has ever thought about it or talked
it through concedes are there. So I think it
can-it strengthens my hand on the principle
as well as on the process.
Q. Mr. President, there's a glass of water
there, by the way, while I ask the question.
Do you think, since you promised during the
campaign-your literature put out a very clear
statement: lift the ban on homosexuals in the
military immediately-do you think you didn't
think through these practical problems? What
have you learned from this experience in dealing
with powerful members of the Senate and the
Joint Chiefs? And how much of a problem is
this for you to accept a compromise which
doesn't meet your real goals?
The President. Well, I haven't given up on
my real goals. I think this is a dramatic step
forward. Normally, in the history of civil rights
advancements, Presidents have not necessarily
been in the forefront in the beginning. So I
think the fact that we actually have the Joint
Chiefs of Staff agreeing that it's time to take
this question off the enlistment form, that there
ought to be a serious examination of how this
would be done, even though they haven't agreed
that it should be done; that the Senate, if they
vote for the motion advocated by Senators Nunn
and Mitchell, will agree; Senators who don't
agree that the policy should be changed are
agreeing that we ought to have a chance to
work through this for 6 months and persuade
them of that, I think, is very, very significant.
Now, I would remind you that any President's
Executive order can be overturned by an act
of Congress. The President can then veto the
act of Congress and try to have his veto sustained if the act stands on its own as a simple
issue that could always be vetoed. But I always
knew that there was a chance that Congress
would disagree with my position. I can only
tell you that I still think I'm right; I feel comfortable about the way we have done this; and
I'm going to maintain the commitment that I
have.


21




Jan. 29 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


Q. But do you think that you hadn't examined
the practical problems —
Q. Sir, I just wonder, do you think in retrospect that-obviously, you didn't intend the first
week-I'm sorry, you want to
The President. No, I had always planned to
allow some period of time during which policies
would be developed to deal with what I think
are the significant practical problems. This, in
effect, may reverse the process over what I intended to do, but there has to be a time in
which these issues, these practical issues are developed and policies are developed to deal with
them.
Q. Obviously, you didn't intend the first week
of your administration, given your promise to
have the laser focus on the economy, to be
seen around the country as military gay rights
week. I wonder if in retrospect you think you
could have done things differently to have avoided that happening?
The President. I don't know how I could have
done that. The Joint Chiefs asked for a meeting
about a number of issues, in which this was
only one. We spent a lot of time talking about
other things. This issue was not put forward
in this context by me; it was put forward by
those in the United States Senate who sought
to make it an issue early on. And I don't know
how I could have stopped them from doing that.
Q. You don't think that in making the promise
and then in promising to follow through on it
early that you might have given rise to this,
do you, sir?
The President. Well, I think it was pretty clear
to me that we were talking about some sort
of 6-month process days and days ago. And the
people who wanted it debated now were not
deterred by that, and probably a lot of them
won't be deterred by the agreement announced
today. I think that we must-they have the perfect right to do this. But the timing of this
whole issue was clearly forced by the people
in the Senate who were opposed to any change
of the policy no matter what the facts are. And
I think that was their right to do, but they
control the timing of this, not me.
Q. Two questions. First of all, just to make
sure that we're clear on this: July 15th this happens, period, regardless of what comes out at
these hearings, is that correct? The ban will
be issued, or will be lifted, rather?


The President. That is my position. My position is that I still embrace the principle, and
I think it should be done. The position of those
who are opposed to me is that they think that
the problems will be so overwhelming everybody
with good sense will change their position. I
don't expect to do that.
Q. So you definitely expect to do it. And
secondlyThe President. I don't expect to change my
position, no.
Q. What do you think is going to happen
in the military? There have been all sorts of
dire predictions of violence, of mass comingsout, whatever. What do you think the impact
of this is going to be, practically?
The President. For one thing, I think if you
look at the last 10 years of experience here,
according to the reports we have, this country
spent $500 million in tax dollars to separate
something under 16,500 homosexuals from the
service and has dealt with complaints, at least,
of sexual abuse, heterosexual abuse, largely
against women, far greater volumes. But during
this period, we have plainly had the best educated, best trained, most cohesive military force
in the history of the United States. And everybody, ask anybody, and the Joint Chiefs will
tell you that.
They agreed that we should stop asking the
question. This single thing that is dividing people on this debate, I want to make it very clear
that this is a very narrow issue. It is whether
a person, in the absence of any other disqualifying conduct, can simply say that he or she is
homosexual and stay in the service. I do not
expect that to spark this kind of problem. And
I certainly think in the next 6 months, as people
start to work it through and talk it through,
a lot of legitimate, practical issues will be raised
and dealt with in a more rational environment
that is less charged. That is certainly what I
hope will happen.
Thank you.
Q. Want to tell us what the other problem
was you were working on, Mr. President, on
the Middle East, sir?
The President. No, tomorrow or the next day.
NOTE: The President's first news conference
began at 1:44 p.m. in the Briefing Room at the
White House.


22




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Jan. 31


Memorandum on Ending Discrimination in the Armed Forces
January 29, 1993


Memorandum for the Secretary of Defense
Subject: Ending Discrimination on the Basis of
Sexual Orientation in the Armed Forces
I hereby direct you to submit to me prior
to July 15, 1993, a draft of an Executive order
ending discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in determining who may serve in the
Armed Forces of the United States. The draft
of the Executive order should be accompanied
by the results of a study to be conducted over
the next six months on how this revision in


policy would be carried out in a manner that
is practical, realistic, and consistent with the
high standards of combat effectiveness and unit
cohesion our Armed Forces must maintain.
In preparing the draft, I direct you to consult
fully with the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the military services, with other Departments affected
by the order, with the Congress, and with concerned individuals and organizations outside the
executive branch.
WILLIAM J. CLINTON


Nomination for Deputy Secretary of Commerce
January 29, 1993


The President today nominated John A.
Rollwagen, the head of the world's largest manufacturer of supercomputers, to be the Deputy
Secretary of Commerce. Rollwagen is the chairman and CEO of Cray Research, Inc.
"The Department of Commerce will play a
leading role in the development of a high skill,
high wage economy," President Clinton said.
"Having presided over a high skill, high wage
corporation for 15 years, John Rollwagen can
help us bring this about. As a proven CEO
of a high technology company, Rollwagen is an


innovative thinker and highly respected manager. He combines business savvy, international
experience, and high technology knowledge. I'm
convinced that he is the best choice to work
together with Secretary Ron Brown to make the
Commerce Department a powerful part of our
administration's work of restoring the competitiveness of American business," said the President.
NOTE: A biography of the nominee was made
available by the Office of the Press Secretary.


Remarks at a State Dinner for the Nation's Governors
January 31, 1993


You ever had the feeling you've been here
before? [Laughter]
Governor and Mrs. Romer and distinguished
Governors and spouses and our very special
guests from around the Nation, Hillary and I
are delighted to welcome all of you here to
our first state dinner. This is something that
I have looked forward to for some time, and
as I'm sure you know, I am delighted that this
is the first official dinner we're having in the
White House. I couldn't be more pleased to


see you here.
Many of you were kind enough to come to
the luncheon that I hosted, along with Hillary
and Vice President Gore and Tipper, for all
the Governors and former Governors with whom
I had the honor to serve. And I would just
like to say tonight on this occasion that I'm
looking forward to getting to work with you tomorrow.
This country needs your involvement and your
support to deal with the health care crisis, which


23




Jan. 31 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


is threatening to bankrupt many of you; to deal
with the budget crisis, which is undermining
the economic stability of every State in America;
and to seize the opportunities that are out there.
The time I spent as a Governor and the time
I spent working with you and those who preceded you was some of the best time I ever
spent in my life. I look back on it with great
pride and gratitude. And to all of you I say
that I honor the work that you must do, and
I look forward to being a real partner.
I'm delighted that you're here, and I hope
you have a great time tonight as we move from
the dinner into the entertainment. I want to
say that I expect to have a special treat tonight
for you in the entertainment. I think you'll all
Remarks in a Telephone Conversation
Champion Dallas Cowboys
January 31, 1993
The President. Jerry?
Jerry Jones. Mr. President.
The President. How are you doing, man?
Mr. Jones. Bill, I'm telling you, I appreciate
this call so much.
The President. Congratulations.
Mr. Jones. Thank you.
The President. I'll tell you what, this is a lot
bigger deal at home than me getting elected
President. [Laughter]
Mr. Jones. I'll tell you this right now, you
were an inspiration to us.
The President. Great.
Mr. Jones. I saw how to get out on a knee
and come back up swinging.
The President. Thanks, man. This is great.
AMr. Jones. Well, I really appreciate this call.
And I've got Jimmy standing by me.
The President. Thanks. I've got somebody who
wants to say hi to you, and then I want to
talk to Jimmy.
Mr. Jones. Okay, fine.
Gov. Ann Richards. Jerry, it's Ann Richards.
Listen, I got to watch the ball game in the
White House with Mario Cuomo.
Mr. Jones. Ann, you are wonderful for calling
us.
Governor Richards. It was absolutely wonderful. And let me tell you, we gave him the hard

enjoy it very much.
But please know here that this house is your
house, that I am well aware of the fact that
I am just a temporary tenant, and that while
here I intend to do my very best to be faithful
to the lessons that I learned as a Governor that
most of what you do ought to be done by you
and not by us. And I will try to be a good
partner, and I hope you will be mine, as we
get this country to face its problems and seize
its promise.
I now propose a toast to the Governors and
their spouses, friends, and family members.
NOTE: The President spoke at 9:13 p.m. in the
State Dining Room at the White House.
Congratulating the Super Bowl
est time in the world.
Mr. Jones. Well, you've answered my question: You didn't go easy on him then, did you?
Governor Richards. No, darlin, we did not
let our foot off his neck.
Mr. Jones. Did you tell him you hadn't been
to one we lost? [Laughter]
Governor Richards. Here's the President.
We're so proud of you. You tell Emmitt Smith
that he's number one for me.
Mr. Jones. Thank you, Governor. Thank you.
Hey, Mr. President.
The President. Yes, yes.
Mr. Jones. Thank you so much for calling.
I can't tell you what it means.
The President. Thanks, Jerry.
Mr. Jones. And here's Jimmy. Here's Jimmy.
Jimmy Johnson. Hello, Mr. President.
The President. Jimmy, how are you doing?
Congratulations.
Mr. Johnson. Well, thank you. I think you
understand how much we put into this thing
and where we are. I'll tell you, it's a great feeling for all of our guys.
The President. Well, you've come a long way
in a short time and with a lot of courage. And
I'll tell you, I watched your team all year long
just basically wear everybody down by hanging
in there, and it was amazing what you did.


24




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Feb. 1


Mr. Johnson. Well, you know a little bit about
perseverance yourself, so I understand.
The President. Well, I really admire what you
did. And this is a great night for you, and I
want you to get back to your players. I just
wanted to say hello and we're proud of you.


Mr. Johnson. Thank you a lot, Mr. President.
The President. Goodbye, Jimmy.
NOTE: The President spoke at 9:59 p.m. from the
State Floor at the White House. In his remarks,
he referred to Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones
and head coach Jimmy Johnson.


Remarks Following Entertainment at a State Dinner for the Nation's
Governors
January 31, 1993


The President. Ladies and gentlemen, first I
think we ought to acknowledge the musicians:
Peter Howard, John Beal, Martin Erskine, John
Redsecker, and Wally Harper. Let's give them
a hand. [Applause] I'd also like to thank the
people who put this wonderful program together: Marty Bell, Beverly Camhe, Phyllis
Newman, and my good friend Bobbie Handman,
who's here with her husband, Len, tonight and
whose daughter and son-in-law have been so
instrumental in our political life, Harold Ickes
and Laura Handman. Let's give all of them a
hand. [Applause] I want to thank Ms. Handman
and Ms. Newman, in particular, for writing this;
and for Peter Howard for his musical direction
tonight.
And now let me say that I hope that we
can take good care of this house and that this
house will always be a house of America's family. I can't help but note, I don't want to embarrass Phyllis, but Phyllis and her husband, Adolph
Green, who sang a little tonight-stand up, Adolph-[applause]-they're celebrating their 33d
wedding anniversary. As you can see, he had
to get not only her parents' permission but the
law's as well to marry her at that young age.


[Laughter]
Phyllis Newman. That's the nicest thing you've
said. [Laughter]
The President. I understand that this is Governor Dean's wedding anniversary tonight, too,
and I want to acknowledge that. This is Governor Mickelson's birthday.
This is also a very important birthday: Tonight
is Carol Channing's birthday. I want all of us
to sing "Happy Birthday" to her in just a moment, but I want to tell you that she performed
here with George Burns for President and Mrs.
Kennedy. She performed here when President
Johnson was here. She made President Nixon's
hate list, so she didn't perform then. [Laughter]
We all knew about her in "Hello Dolly" and
"Gentlemen Prefer Blondes," where she immortalized that song that you heard about being
a little girl from Little Rock. I wish she had
been.
I'd like to ask us all now to stand and sing
"Happy Birthday" to her. George, you come
up here to lead the singing.
NOTE: The President spoke at 11:45 p.m. in the
State Dining Room at the White House.


Remarks Following a Meeting With the Nation's Governors
February 1, 1993
The President. Well, I want to say good morn-  on the Governors, Romer and Campbell, to
ing to the members of the press who are here  make a statement about the meeting we had
from Washington and many of you from around  here today and the actions which I will take
the Nation.                                 today as a result of this meeting and the work
I'd like to read a statement and then call that I have been doing over the last couple


25




Feb. I / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


of months.
The day before my Inauguration, on one of
the last days people called me Governor, I had
lunch with many of the Governors here and
many others with whom I have served over the
past 14 years. I pledged to them a partnership
between the country's Governors and this administration, rooted in our common experience
on the front lines of people's lives.
I've told my friends, my colleagues, that the
one thing I hoped that I could actually demand
from them was a commitment to keep me rooted in that common experience and the real
problems of real people. The White House, after
all, only works when it is the people's house.
Today we have continued our partnership in
earnest. We agreed to challenge together the
one obstacle that could keep us from success
in virtually every arena of national endeavor:
the twin monsters of spiraling health care costs
and the agony of having no access to health
care, no health care coverage, or living in fear
of losing it.
Left unaddressed, the health care crisis has
had devastating impacts on families, businesses,
the fiscal conditions of State and local government, and the economic performance of the
United States. For 12 years our national Government has ignored the problem, partisan gridlock
has prevented action, and Americans are paying
the price. The amount we spend on health care
has more than tripled. Now we spend far more
than any other nation on Earth, about 30 percent more of our income, and we get less for
it.
We send American companies out into the
world with this 30 percent handicap simply because of high health care costs. The average
American car alone includes over $1,000 in
health care costs, twice as much as its Japanese
competitor. You know as well as I do that the
real people of this country are paying the price:
working families who live in fear of losing their
insurance; small businesses who have to choose
between dropping coverage or going broke;
State and local governments who have to balance their books every year and are now choosing between cutting education, raising taxes, or
cutting other needed investments just to pay
more for the same health care bills.
If every person striving to overcome this challenge will bring to that work the same depth
of drive and determination that our Nation's
Governors have brought here to the White


House today with their policy position, the
American people will have the commitment it
takes to solve this problem.
This meeting was a model of everything I
want my relationship with our Governors to be.
It wasn't scripted or staged. It was simply an
honest discussion where real work was done,
real opinions were argued and a room filled
with women and men who left their partisan
banners outside the door. And in that spirit and
what I hope is the first of a series of announcements we will make together, I want to announce that I am taking the following steps to
help them meet the health care needs of their
people in their States.
For years the Nation's Governors have been
arguing that the process through which waivers
from the Medicaid mandates imposed on them
by the Federal Government is Byzantine and
counterproductive. They are right. I have today
directed the Department of Health and Human
Services and its Health Care Financing Agency
to take immediately a series of actions designed
to streamline the Medicaid waiver process to
enable the States of our country to serve more
people at lower costs. These include a requirement that from now on the Health Care Financing Agency and its regional centers will have
only one opportunity to ask for additional information and clarifications on States' waiver requests. I also want the Health Care Financing
Agency to examine the development of a list
of standard initiatives for automatic approval for
State action.
In consultation with the National Governors'
Association, I want a rapid review of the entire
waiver request process that produces a list of
additional streamlining recommendations within
60 days. And I am directing the Health Care
Financing Agency to reopen negotiations with
the National Governors' Association to issue new
regulations related to how they can use provider
taxes and disproportionate share reimbursement
to meet the needs of the people in their State.
Finally, I am directing the Department of
Health and Human Services to conduct a similar
review of the non-Medicaid waiver submissions
not addressed in the matters I have just discussed.
I'm also happy to announce that Hillary and
the leadership of the National Governors' Association have agreed on a formal process for the
Governors to have input into the Health Care
Task Force. Their input, their advice, their per

26




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Feb. 1


spective is essential to our success. When all
this is said and done, the health care problems
of this country can only be met if we have
a good partnership.
And for those of you in the press and the
general public who may not understand all the
language that I have used about Medicaid and
waivers, if I could put it in simple terms, it
amounts to this: The Federal Government requires the States to provide a certain number
of health services in a certain way to people
who are poor enough to qualify for Medicaid.
The States very often believe that they can provide more services at lower cost if we don't
impose our rules and regulations on them.
For years and years and years, Governors have
been screaming for relief from the cumbersome
process by which the Federal Government has
micromanaged the health care system affecting
poor Americans. We are going to try to give
them that relief so that for lower costs we can


do more good for more people. This will be
one big step on a long road to giving this country the kind of health care system it needs.
Governor Romer.
[At this point, Gov. Roy Romer and Gov. Carroll Campbell made statements on cooperation
with the administration on health care reform.]
The President. That's our statement. I know
a lot of you here want to take pictures of your
Governors, so have at it.
Governor King, of all of the people of America, they know you from behind as well as from
the front, but turn around. I think you ought
to turn around. How about giving them a profile, at least, that sort of tough western profile?
[Laughter]
Thank you all very much.
NOTE: The President spoke at 11:23 a.m. in the
East Room at the White House.


Statement on Revocation of Certain Executive Orders Concerning Federal
Contracting
February 1, 1993


Today I am taking two actions to restore a
needed balance in America's workplace. I believe that these steps, by reducing unnecessary
Federal Government intrusion into workplace
relations, ultimately will promote the shared
goals of American workers and management and
strengthen the ability of this country's businesses
and industry to compete in the world economy.
First, I am revoking Executive Order No.
12818. This order, issued on October 23, 1992
by President Bush, prohibits contractors that
have entered into project agreements with
unions from bidding on Federal construction
contracts. American taxpayers and the Federal
Government are not well-served by this restriction. Such agreements establish labor standards
for work early in the process. They reduce instances of cost overruns by permitting contract
bidders to make more reliable cost estimates
before bidding. They promote completion of
projects in a timely manner by assuring a stable
supply of skilled workers. And they promote safe
working conditions. By revoking Executive
Order No. 12818 today, such project agreements


will again be allowed in Federal construction
contracts.
Second, I am revoking Executive Order No.
12800, issued on April 13, 1992. This order required unionized Federal contractors to post a
notice in the workplace that workers are not
required to join or support a union and threatened sanctions against contractors who did not
comply. The effect of this order was distinctly
antiunion as it did not require contractors to
notify workers of any of their other rights protected by the National Labor Relations Act, such
as the right to organize and bargain collectively.
By revoking this order, I today end the Government's role in promoting this one-sided version
of workplace rights.
WILLIAM J. CLINTON
The White House,
February 1, 1993.
NOTE: The Executive order revoking Executive
Orders 12800 and 12818 is listed in Appendix D
at the end of this volume.


27




Feb. 1 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


Message on National African-American History Month
February 1, 1993


This February we rediscover, celebrate, and
honor the history and achievements of AfricanAmericans during National African-American
History Month.
In 1993, I am proud to recognize that more
African-Americans serve in the President's Cabinet than ever before in the history of our country. We are nearing the day when we will have
built a new home for America, a home where
all Americans will have a place at the table.
Understanding our past makes us aware of
how far we have come and how far we have
to go. Last month, for the first time in many
years, our National Archives displayed for the
public the Emancipation Proclamation. That
document, signed by President Abraham Lincoln
on January 1, 1863, launched the beginning of
a life of freedom for millions of African-American people.
For several months last year, individuals and
groups of citizens had been writing to the National Archives to inquire whether the historic
document would be exhibited over the new year
holiday in honor of its anniversary. After considering the matter, the National Archives decided
to arrange an exhibit.
The fragile document was shown in our Na

tion's Capital for five days adjacent to the original Charters of Freedom-the Declaration of
Independence, the Constitution of the United
States, and the Bill of Rights. The exhibit reminded America of how liberty had once been
denied to a particular segment of our population. The diverse backgrounds of the people
in those lines each day, however, showed how
the history of African-Americans touches all of
us.
The public response was overwhelming. People came from all walks of life, with their children or their friends, from every corner of our
country, to see for themselves the pieces of
paper that meant for millions the difference between slavery and freedom. Each night at closing time, the National Archives had to extend
the visiting hours to accommodate people who
had waited in line for nearly three hours. Indeed, the efforts of the few citizens that gave
birth to the exhibit brought to life for thousands
the story of freedom in America.
I invite all Americans to rediscover that story
and others as our Nation observes National African-American History Month.
WILLIAM J. CLINTON


Nomination for President and Chairman of the Export-Import Bank of the
United States
February 1, 1993


The President today announced his intention
to nominate Kenneth D. Brody as President and
Chairman of the Export-Import Bank of the
United States.
"I'm very pleased to make this announcement
today," said the President. "Having someone
with Ken Brody's experience and knowledge at


the helm of the Export-Import Bank will help
to ensure the orderly flow of trade and the
promotion of American exports, a vital part of
our Nation's economy."
NOTE: A biography of the nominee was made
available by the Office of the Press Secretary.


28




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Feb. 1


Remarks at the Democratic Governors' Association Dinner
February 1, 1993


Thank you very much, Governor Walters. And
thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for that wonderful welcome.
I am full of gratitude tonight as I remember
that just a year ago when I was at this banquet,
I came in from the cold of New Hampshire,
cold in more ways than one-[laughter]-and
received from the leadership of this organization
a white scarf, which I wore for the remainder
of the campaign in New Hampshire to stay
warm, a cap which I still have, and a renewed
sense that the battle in which I was engaged
was worth the effort.
I want to thank every one of you who had
anything to do with that. I noticed in the audience tonight the Secretary of Commerce, Ron
Brown, who did such a brilliant job as the head
of our party and keeping us going; representatives of many groups, teachers, working people,
and others out here in this audience, that have
worked so hard to give us a chance to put our
children first in this country again; and many
others who raised money, knocked on doors,
and walked along roads.
I want to pay a particular tribute tonight to
my good friend the Governor of Hawaii, not
only for his leadership as the chair of the Democratic Governors' Association but for being my
friend and supporter and for giving us a model
of what an aggressive, active Democratic leader
ought to be. Under John's leadership, the
Democratic Governors' Association had one of
its busiest and most successful years. There are
now two more Democratic Governors. The
DGA worked closely with our campaign, and
largely as a result of that teamwork we won
8 of the 12 races in which we were engaged
last year, the best showing by the Democratic
Governors since 1982 when I, as the youngest
ex-Governor in the history of America, made
my comeback. [Laughter] Now we have Democratic Governors in 30 of the 50 States, our
best margin since 1985.
I've also been impressed by John's extraordinary political leadership in Hawaii. When he
was supporting me in the primary campaign last
year, I kept angling for an invitation to Hawaii.
I kept saying, "You know, I need to carry Hawaii. I haven't carried any western States. Don't


you think I ought to show up out there?" And
he said, "If I can't carry Hawaii for you without
your presence, I shouldn't be the Governor out
here." And sure enough, we did. I think it has
something to do with his native Hawaiian heritage. We were playing golf once together in Hawaii, John and I, and we played on a course
on which there were no sand traps; there were
only lava flows-[laughter]-so that the ball simply disappeared, never to be seen again. And
we both hit long drives that sliced slightly into
the lava flows. Mine disappeared; his hit a rock
and bounced into the middle of the fairway.
He informed me that his ancestors, who included King Kamehameha, who united the Hawaiian Islands, believed in a form of ancestor
worship. And now, surely I can see the ultimate
truth of his faith. Anyway, I think John and
Lynne are great, and I hope that they will have
many more years in public service. This country
would be a lot better off if that happens.
I also want to salute the new chair of the
DGA, my friend David Walters from Oklahoma.
He and Rhonda were among those who were
in the snows of New Hampshire with me. I
told them the other day when I saw them that
I just looked at a picture of us a year ago;
here we are now in Washington celebrating a
new inauguration. A year ago, I have a picture
of us with Mike Sullivan; the former Governor
of Vermont, Madeleine Kunin; and the former
Governor of Michigan, Jim Blanchard, standing
at the Super 8 Motel in Manchester. [Laughter]
And it's a great commentary on how we get
things done in this country. I think David Walters and Ann Richards will be a great team;
that is, if Ann Richards is not too boastful about
the Super Bowl victory last night. [Laughter]
I remember last fall when the Democratic
Governors joined me in a western fly-around
and a campaign we called "Winning the West."
Most people thought the Democrats had no
chance in the West. We traveled to seven States
and won six, in no small measure because of
the inordinate support that the western Democratic Governors gave the Clinton-Gore campaign.
Democratic Governors from the South participated-[applause]-clap,  Governor  Roberts.


29




Feb. 1 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


That's good. You can clap for yourself. Democratic Governors in the South participated in
a fly-around and campaigned for me in a region
in which we invested relatively small amounts
of money. They went to six States, and for the
first time in 12 years we carried three of them.
As someone who answered to the term "Governor" until just 12 days ago, I'm proud to be
here with the men and women who have been
my friends and colleagues in the struggle to
deal with the legacy of the 1980's, people who
deal with the real problems of real people, who
can't make excuses or print money when there's
no money there, who struggle with health care
and welfare and jobs and education and the
ways that national economic trends and international development actually touch people's
lives for good or ill.
As you and I learned from the elections last
year, the American people want their political
system and their Government to end gridlock,
to face problems, and to make progress. They're
tired of a process that's been too divided by
partisanship or dominated by special interests
or driven by short-term advantage of politicians
instead of the long-term interests of people.
They sent us to the statehouse and to the White
House to change America. And they want action
now. That is our mandate, and we must never
forget it.
We have a chance to create a new Democratic
majority in this country, rooted in the experience of governing and living. But we must never
forget some basic things. First of all, we have
to do this together: the Congress and the President, the States and the communities and the
National Government.
I see in the audience a person who ran for
President last year and turned out to be the
best supporter I ever had in the Presidential
campaign, Senator Tom Harkin from Iowa, and
I want to thank him. After a tough primary
campaign, when he began to work for me, even
in the primary when it was still going, I realized
that he had gotten into this race for the same
reason I had: He believed that we had to change
this country. And the changes were more important than him or me or anybody else. Well,
I still believe that. And if we remember that,
we can succeed.
I think that you might be interested to know
that there were some surveys conducted after
the Inaugural week. After the television ratings
turned out to be very high and there were huge


crowds at all the events, the people had watched
the gala all over America, and they'd watched
that magnificent service at the Lincoln Memorial, and they'd watched our church service, and
800,000 people showed up at the Inaugural. But
you know what people in America remembered
most about the Inaugural week? That on the
day after the Inauguration, we opened the
White House to ordinary Americans. That is
what registered out in the country.
I say that because somehow we've all got to
find a way to remember every day that the
people who can't come to these dinners are
the people we hold these dinners for. We also
have to remember we got elected to try a new
approach, to expand opportunity, not Government, to increase investment, and to show literally that we can reinvent Government.
I was amazed, you know, the other crowd's
had the White House for 12 years, and they
have presented themselves as businesslike and
modern, you know, and tried to make the
Democrats look like yesterday's crowd. Well,
when I got to the White House, guess what
I found? Same phone system Jimmy Carter had,
with technology that was put in during Kennedy's time and changed only to put pushbuttons instead of dials. No E-mail, no conference calls, but anybody could pick up the
button I was talking on anywhere in the White
House and listen in on the conversation.
[Laughter] So we could have the conference
call we didn't want, but we couldn't have the
one we did.
People said last week, "Well, you know, when
you're going to do controversial things, you need
to gin up your operation again and send the
talking points out and communicate with people." There's not even any E-mail in the office.
It's a yesterday place, and we need to make
it a tomorrow place.
I also want you to know that two of my Cabinet members have already met with every employee in their Departments, in their national
headquarters, and were told, both of them, that
they were the first Secretaries in 12 years to
meet with all the employees in their Departments. The leadership of one of our Cabinet
agencies abolished the executive dining room
and saved $125,000 or $150,000 and brought
the career employees up to the executive suite,
and there were people who worked there for
25 years and had never seen where the bosses
work. We are going to change the culture of


30




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Feb. 1


the way this Federal Government works. We
are going to reinvent it, and we're going to
make it work again.
We are going to try to do what our adversaries always talked about, and that is to empower
people, not entitle them. Whether it's welfare
or trade or industrial policy or technology policy,
what the American people want is a hand up,
not a handout, and we're going to give it to
them, if we can get the kind of support we
need across the country to support these
changes.
And most importantly, we're going to try to
recreate a sense of partnership and community
in America again, an America in which we don't
have a person to waste. I believe as strongly
as I can say that if we could create in this
country a feeling burning in the heart of every
American, that it was simply unacceptable to
let one life go that could be saved, we could
solve virtually every problem we have. Because
if you look at every place where the system
has broken down, the manifestation of that
breakdown is somebody's life that is less than
it ought to be. These children being shot in
the streets-we're in Somalia, debating how we
can keep peace in Somalia when the mortality
rate is greater in some neighborhoods in the
United States of America.
The immunization initiative that you've read
about that we're going to be announcing in the
next few days, you know, we were actually criticized in a story in the New York Times for
the idea that the National Government might
use its purchasing power to buy enough vaccines
to immunize all the kids in the country. And
people say, well, that would be bad if we did
that. it would be better if we don't and we
let these kids get sick?
All the factory workers in this country that
are losing their jobs because we have no real
strategy to create jobs, let me just say in parentheses here: As Democrats, we ought not ever
to forget that there is a big difference between
economic measurements of progress and whether that progress is manifested in the real lives
of people. In the 1980's, the stock market tripled, but the Fortune 500 companies reduced
employment. And the difference was made up
by small business. So we can have a strong economy on the surface where the stock market is
booming, but if small business people can't get
bank loans at the local bank, jobs won't be created for all these people that are losing their


big employee jobs. And we have to remember
things like that. With all this so-called economic
recovery of the last 6 months, we're not creating
jobs yet. And we've got to find a way to put
people back to work. That is the ultimate and
first test of whether life is working in America.
Finally, let me reiterate a line that I borrowed
from President Roosevelt for the Inaugural
speech. We learned in the 1980's that we had
to be about bold, persistent experimentation.
That is what I want to try to convince Congress
and the country we ought to do. It means that
we will try some things that will not work. And
when we do, we have to have the courage to
quit. One of the weaknesses of our Government
is that when we start something that doesn't
work, or whether we start something that does,
we keep on doing it. We have to have the courage to experiment, to try, to stop, to start again.
I am convinced that if we do that, we can deal
with the health care crisis; we can deal with
the deficit; we can deal with all these problems,,
but ultimately, we can change the shape of people's lives. And if I might say-I know that
it defies the momentary conventional wisdomI think we're off to a pretty good start.
The United States Congress in the next few
days-maybe both Houses after the recess-will
pass the new budget for the National Institutes
of Health. And now we'll be able to go back
to doing research, including fetal tissue, that
offers great progress in dealing with children
with diabetes and Parkinson's and Alzheimer's
problems and other problems. I think that is
progress.
The United States Senate was good enough
to confirm every one of my Cabinet members,
save one, on the day after I became President,
the first time in longer than a generation that
that had happened. And I did get into a controversy. But you know something? If you just
want me to do things that are easy, you should
have elected somebody else President.
When we deal with things that are hard, there
ought to be debate. There ought to be discussion. People ought to say they disagree. They
ought to call the White House and jam the
phone lines. And by the way, there's a 1964
switchboard in the White House. That's one reason that the phone lines are jammed. But I'm
just telling you, I think this is exciting. We need
to shake things up. We need to have a debate
in this country again. We need to do things
and talk about things, get them out and let


31




Feb. 1 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


people argue.
I think together we can do what we were
hired to do. But remember: I think we are about
the business of creating a new Democratic majority if, but only if, we go to where the people
are, lift them up, bring them with us, and
change their lives. That requires a decent attention to the opinions of Republicans who want
to help in change, too, and most importantly,
a passionate determination never to forget that
there is a real reason that most Americans re

membered-2,000 of their number who won a
lottery to come to the White House. They
haven't felt like it was their house in a long
time. You help me give it back to them, and
we'll have a bright future.
Thank you, and God bless you all.
NOTE: The President spoke at 9:21 p.m. at the
National Building Museum. In his remarks, he referred to Gov. Michael J. Sullivan of Wyoming
and Gov. Ann Richards of Texas.


Remarks to the National Governors' Association
February 2, 1993


Thank you very much. Thank you very much,
Governor Romer, ladies and gentlemen. I felt
pretty good sitting at that table although that's
my real place over there. [Laughter] We had
a wonderful meeting yesterday, I thought, for
a long time, maybe the longest time a President
has ever met with a group of Governors, but
we were discussing a terribly important issue:
health care. And then we also got to discuss
the deficit crisis and the budget problems a
little bit.
I wanted to come here today, as you prepare
to leave, to once again reaffirm my commitment
to working in partnership with the Governors.
You deal with real people in a more immediate
way than, unfortunately, the President often gets
to do. When I was a Governor, every day I
would hear directly from people or see people
who had suffered from layoffs or had their businesses closed down or who were afraid of losing
their health coverage or who desperately wanted
to improve their schools.
As you and I learned from last year's elections, the only pattern was not a partisan one.
It was a pattern of determination on the part
of the American people to have their political
system and their Government address their real
concerns. They don't want our process divided
by partisanship or dominated by special interest
or driven by short-term advantage. They know
things that have too often been forgotten here
over the last dozen years. The values that are
central to our country's character must be
central to our Government: work, family, faith,
opportunity, responsibility, and community.


What I appreciated about this meeting is that
no matter what our region or our party, we've
always gotten together and tried to pay serious
attention to our problems. I think the Governors
have exemplified for the last dozen years the
bold, persistent experimentation that President
Roosevelt called for at the beginning of the
Great Depression when he took office. And I'm
here to tell you that I'm going to do everything
I can to work with you in partnership to share
ideas and resources and energy to try to do
what we can to move this country forward.
As we discussed health care, economic policy,
and the deficit yesterday, I'd like to spend just
a few moments today talking about something
that many of us have been working on since
the middle 1980's, the issue of welfare reform.
I've often spoken with many of you about
the need to end welfare as we know it, to make
it a program that supports people who have
fallen on hard times or who have difficulties
that can be overcome, but eventually and ultimately a program that helps people to get on
their feet through health care, child care, job
training, and ultimately a productive job.
No one likes the welfare system as it currently
exists, least of all the people who are on it.
The taxpayers, the social service employees
themselves don't think much of it either. Most
people on welfare are yearning for another alternative, aching for the chance to move from dependence to dignity. And we owe it to them
to give them that chance.
In the middle 1980's, when I was a Governor
here, I worked with Governor Castle, now a


32




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Feb. 2


Member of the Congress-he and Governor
Carper changed jobs, and in 6 months they're
going to have a vote to see who won and who
lost-[laughter]-to try to work with the Congress to develop a national welfare reform program. With the support of people in the House
and the Senate, with the particular help of Senator Moynihan, now the chairman of the Senate
Finance Committee, and with the support of
the White House, the Governors had an unprecedented role in writing the Family Support Act
of 1988, which President Reagan signed into
law shortly before he left office and which Senator Moynihan said was the most significant
piece of social reform in this area in the last
generation.
The Family Support Act embodies a principle
which I believe is the basis of an emerging
consensus among people without regard to party
or without regard to their traditional political
philosophies. We must provide people on welfare with more opportunities for job training,
with the assurance that they will receive the
health care and child care they need when they
go to work, and with all the opportunities they
need to become self-sufficient. But then we
have to ask them to make the most of these
opportunities and to take a job.
As all of you know, the States never had the
chance to fully implement the Welfare Reform
Act of 1988 for two reasons: first, because over
the last 4 years the welfare rolls have exploded
everywhere and health care costs have gone up
as the job market has declined and the economy
has grown at the slowest rate in half a century;
secondly, because of the economic problems,
Government revenues have been down and the
Congress and the administration were never able
to fully fund the education and training portion
of the act. This was clearly manifested not only
in the growth of welfare rolls but in the fact
that last year, for the first time since the program began, 1 in 10 Americans were on food
stamps. So as the weak economy left millions
of more in poverty, and the welfare rolls increased 5 times greater during the last 4 years
than under the previous two administrations
combined, it made it more difficult to make
welfare reform work.
In spite of that, I think it would be a great
mistake to conclude that that act was of no
significance or that nothing good has occurred.
Bipartisan efforts in State after State from New
Jersey to Georgia, to Wisconsin, and many oth

ers all across the country, have resulted in innovative approaches to help move people off welfare rolls and onto payrolls.
In our State, through the program we call
Project Success, more than 17,000 people
moved from welfare to work. And more importantly, at a time when the rolls were exploding,
our rolls grew much more slowly than the national average. Many of you have your own successes to report, and I had the opportunity to
visit, in many of the States here represented,
projects that were terribly impressive to me.
I say this to make the following point: The
bill that is on the books will work, given the
right economy and the right kind of support
systems, but we need to do more than fully
implement it; we need to do that and go beyond.
I salute you for forming a State officials advisory group on welfare reform with Governors
and legislators and health and welfare directors
from 10 States. I want to tell you today that
within the next 10 days I will announce a welfare reform group to work with you. I will ask
top officials from the White House, the Health
and Human Services, and other agencies involved to sit down with Governors and congressional leaders and develop a welfare reform plan
that will work. I have asked the best people
in the Nation on this subject to come and help
me do this.
The day I took office I promised the American people I would fight for more opportunity
for all and demand more responsibility from all.
And that is a commitment I am determined
to keep, with your help, by putting an end to
welfare as we know it.
Our working group will learn from and work
with State officials, business and labor folks, and
leaders from every walk of life who care about
this issue. On welfare reform, as on health care
reform, there are no top-down, made-in-Washington solutions that will work for everyone. The
problems and the progress are to be found in
the communities of this country.
But I do want to tell you the principles this
morning that will guide my administration as
we work with you to reform welfare. First, welfare should be a second chance, not a way of
life. I want to give people on welfare the education and training and the opportunities they
need to become self-sufficient. To make sure
they can do it after they go to work, they must
still have access to health care and to child


33




Feb. 2 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


care. So many people stay on welfare not because of the checks; the benefit levels, as many
of you know, in real dollar terms are lower
than they were 20 years ago. They do it solely
because they do not want to put their children
at risk of losing health care or because they
do not have the money to pay for child care
out of the meager wages they can earn coming
from a low education base. We have got to
deal with that.
I believe 2 years after a training program is
completed, you have to ask people to take a
job ultimately, either in the private sector or
in public service. There must be, in addition
to the full implementation of the welfare reform
act of 1988, in my opinion, a time-certain beyond which people don't draw a check for doing
nothing when they can do something. And there
is a lot of work out there to be done.
Senator Boren and Senator Wofford have offered a bill to try to recreate on a very limited
basis a pilot project that would take the best
of what was done with the work programs of
the thirties and try to throw them into the context of the nineties. We must begin now to
plan for a time when people will ultimately be
able to work for the check they get, whether
the check comes from a private employer or
from the United States taxpayers.
Today, about half the people on welfare are
just the people welfare was meant to help. They
fall on hard times, and they have to have public
assistance. They're eager to move on with their
lives. And after 5 or 6 months or 8 months
they're right back at work again, struggling to
make their way in the American way. About
half the people on welfare stay on for over 2
years. But one in four persons, the people that
we really need to try to help to break the cycle
that is gripping their children and grandchildren,
about one in four stays a recipient for 8 years
or longer. Those are the folks that Governor
Wilder I know is now working on, that many
of you have tried to address the problems of,
and I want to help you with that.
Second, we need to make work pay. We have
to make sure that every American who works
full-time, with a child in the home, does not
live in poverty. If there is dignity in all work,
there must be dignity for every worker. Therefore, I will propose an expansion in the earnedincome tax credit which supplements the income
of the working poor.
We can do that. We ought to be able to


lift people who work 40 hours a week, with
kids in their home, out of poverty. And we will
remove the incentive for staying in poverty. It
will be much less expensive than to have Government direct supplements to pay people to
remain idle. And it will reinforce the work ethic.
If we can do that and at the same time do
what we discussed yesterday, control health care
costs and expand coverage so that no one has
to stay on welfare just to take care of their
children's medical needs, I think you will see
a dramatic breakthrough in our efforts to liberate people from their dependency.
Third, we need tougher child support enforcement. An estimated 15 million children have
parents who could pay child support but don't.
We need to make sure that they do. Parents
owe billions of dollars in child support that is
unpaid, money that could go a long way toward
cutting the welfare rolls and lifting single parents out of poverty and money that could go
a long way toward helping us control Government expenditures and reducing that debt.
We're going to toughen child support enforcement by creating a national databank to track
down deadbeat parents, by having the States
go as far as they possibly can to establish paternity at the hospital when children are born, and
if I can prevail up here, by using the IRS to
collect unpaid support in seriously delinquent
cases. I've said it before because it's the simple
truth: Governments don't raise children, people
do. And even people who aren't around ought
to do their part to raise the children they bring
into this world.
Fourth, we need to encourage experimentation in the States. I will say again what you
know so well: There are many promising initiatives right now at the State and local level, and
we will work with you to encourage that kind
of experimentation. I do not want the Federal
Government, in pushing welfare reforms based
on these general principles, to rob you of the
ability to do more, to do different things. And
I want to try to flesh out a little bit of the
idea we discussed yesterday about the waivers.
My view is that we ought to give you more
elbow room to experiment.
I know I was perplexed during the recent
campaign when I tried to make a statement
that some people in the press said reflected
waffling, and it seemed to me to express the
real genius of the federal system. I said that
if I were President I would approve waivers


34




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Feb. 2


of experiments that I did not necessarily agree
with. And they said, "You're trying to have it
both ways." I said, "No, I'm not. I'm trying
to honor the Founding Fathers." If we didn't
disagree on anything, what would be the need
for experiments? That is the nature of the experiment, is that one person has an idea different
from another person.
So I will encourage all of us to work together
to try things that are different. And the only
thing I want to ask you in return is, let us
measure these experiments and let us measure
them honestly, so that if they work, we can
make them the rule, we can all adopt things
that work. And if they don't, we can stop and
try something else. That's the only thing I ask
of you. If we say, okay, we're going to have
more waivers and you're going to be able to
experiment in projects that use Federal dollars,
let's measure the experiment, let's be honest
about it. And if it works, let's tell everybody
it works so we can all do it. And if it doesn't,
let's have the courage to quit and admit it
didn't.
I think all of us want what most people on
welfare want, a country that gives you a hand
up, not a handout. We don't have a person
to waste. We need the talent, the energy, the
skills of every man and woman, every boy and
girl in this country.
Of all the problems we have with competitiveness, whether it is the deficit or the level of
investment or anything else, I think all of us
know in our heart of hearts America's biggest
problem today is that too many of our people
never get a shot at the American dream and
that if all of our people were living up to the
fullest of their potential, we would surely have
a much easier path in solving all the issues that
we constantly debate about at these meetings.


Of all my moments as Governor, one I remember with the most pride occurred here at
a National Governors' Association meeting during that 2-year period when we were working
on welfare reform. Governor Castle and I sponsored a panel, and I think 40 Governors attended. And we had welfare recipients from all
over the country come in and talk to the Governors about what it was like to be on welfare.
A woman from Arkansas who was there,
whom I knew but had not vetted for this conversation, started talking about her program and
how she'd gone into a training program and
she had gotten a job, all of that. And I did
something lawyers are told never to do: I asked
a question without knowing the answer. I said,
"Do you think this program ought to be mandatory? Should everybody have to participate in
this?" She said, "I sure do." And I said, "Why?"
And she said, "Well, because if it wasn't, there
would be a lot of people like me home watching
the soaps because we don't believe we can make
anything of ourselves anymore. So you've got
to make it mandatory." And I said, '"hat's the
best thing about having a job?" She said, "When
my boy goes to school, and they say, 'What
does your mama do for a living?', he can give
an answer.
I think that moment says more than I will
ever be able to say about why this is important,
not just important for the poor but important
for the rest of us. We must end poverty for
Americans who want to work. And we must
do it on terms that dignify all of the rest of
us, as well as help our country to work better.
I need your help, and I think we can do it.
Thank you very much.
NOTE: The President spoke at 10 a.m. at the J.W.
Marriott Hotel.


Letter to Federal Emergency Management Agency Acting Director
William C. Tidball on Disaster Assistance for Louisiana
February 2, 1993
Dear Mr. Tidball:                             and magnitude to warrant a major disaster decI have determined that the damage in certain  laration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster
areas of the State of Louisiana, resulting from  Relief and Emergency Assistance Act ("the Stafsevere storms and flooding on January 20      ford Act"). I, therefore, declare that such a
through January 25, 1993, is of sufficient severity  major disaster exists in the State of Louisiana.


35




Feb. 2 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


In order to provide Federal assistance, you
are hereby authorized to allocate from funds
available for these purposes, such amounts as
you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance
and administrative expenses.
You are authorized to provide Individual Assistance in the designated areas. Public Assistance may be added at a later date, if requested
and warranted. Consistent with the requirement
that Federal assistance be supplemental, any


Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act
for Public Assistance will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs.
Sincerely,
WILLIAM J. CLINTON
NOTE: This letter was made available by the Office of the Press Secretary but was not issued as
a White House press release.


Letter to Governor Edwin W. Edwards on Disaster Assistance for
Louisiana
February 2, 1993


Dear Governor Edwards:
As requested, I have declared a major disaster
under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief
and Emergency Assistance Act (the Stafford Act)
for the State of Louisiana due to damage resulting from severe storms and flooding on January
20 through January 25, 1993. I have authorized
Federal relief and recovery assistance in the affected area.
Individual Assistance will be provided. Public
Assistance may be added at a later date, if requested and warranted. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the
Stafford Act for Public Assistance will be limited
to 75 percent of the total eligible costs in the
Nomination for Deputy Secretary and
Urban Development
February 2, 1993
The President today nominated four recognized leaders in the housing field to work with
Secretary Henry Cisneros as top officials at the
Department of Housing and Urban Development. The nominees for Deputy Secretary and
three Assistant Secretary positions are recognized and experienced leaders in the housing
field.
As Deputy Secretary, the President nominated
Terry Duvernay, executive director of the Geor

designated areas.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency
("FEMA") will coordinate Federal assistance efforts and designate specific areas eligible for
such assistance. The Federal Coordinating Officer will be Mr. Leland R. Wilson of FEMA.
He will consult with you and assist in the execution of the FEMA-State Disaster Assistance
Agreement governing the expenditure of Federal
Funds.
Sincerely,
BILL CLINTON
NOTE: This letter was made available by the Office of the Press Secretary but was not issued as
a White House press release.
Assistant Secretaries of Housing and
gia Housing and Finance Authority, and HUD
Chief of Staff under Secretary Moon Landrieu.
Also nominated were Andrew Cuomo, the
founder and president of an innovative and successful New York area housing organization, to
be Assistant Secretary for Community Planning
and Development; San Francisco Board of Supervisors member Roberta Achtenberg, to be
Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal
Opportunity; and Jean Nolan, formerly director


36




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Feb. 3


of communications for The Enterprise Foundation, a national foundation that works to provide
housing for low-income people, to be Assistant
Secretary for Public Affairs.
"I am committed," said the President, "as is
Secretary Cisneros, to turning the Department
of Housing and Urban Development into a center for action and a home for innovation. Terry
Duvernay, Andrew Cuomo, Roberta Achtenberg,


and Jean Nolan have a big task ahead of themrebuilding housing opportunity for all Americans
and repairing the torn fabric of our nation's
urban communities. These four outstanding individuals have the experience, the knowledge, and
the ability to make that happen. They will be
an essential part of my team."
NOTE: Biographies of the nominees were made
available by the Office of the Press Secretary.


Remarks to Office of Management and Budget Employees
February 3, 1993


Thank you very much, Mr. Vice President.
Mr. Panetta, Ms. Rivlin, ladies and gentlemen.
I'm really sorry to know that the Vice President
has a lavish office in this building. If it gets
any hotter over at the White House he may
want to occupy it. [Laughter]
I want to tell you how very proud I am to
be here today, how grateful I am for the enormous amount of work I know all of you have
been doing because of the tight timetables we
have set on ourselves leading up to the February
17th address to Congress. Nobody in this country is working any harder than you are to give
the promises I made to the American people
a chance to take life. And I just wanted to
come by here today and say a simple thank
you.
For years politicians have run for President
and Governor and other offices by running
against the Government. And to be sure, there
is a lot to run against; there is a lot which
needs to be changed. There are people here
in this room today that know more specifically
about what needs to be changed than those of
us who give speeches about it. But I think it
is terribly important, in the midst of all that
rhetoric, not to forget that behind that Government that needs to be changed there are people
who have decided to give their lives to the interest of the United States and its citizens. And
they deserve to be honored. And I do appreciate
that.
I wanted to tell you today a little bit about
why I think I got elected to this job and what
I hope, together, we can do, and most importantly, what's behind the enormous and increas

ingly complex challenges facing this country.
Let me begin by relating a simple experience
I had a few months ago which affected me
deeply, involving a man named Benjamin Edwards, a 52-year-old man who lived in Philadelphia. The night of the first Presidential debate,
he had a viewing party at his house, but it
was a highly unusual viewing party. He was out
of work, and his electricity had been turned
off because he couldn't pay the bills. So his
neighbors brought over television sets and lamps
and ran extension cords from a nearby apartment because that's the only way they could
watch it. About 100 of them did. And the next
day Benjamin Edwards took a bus 15 miles to
attend one of our campaign rallies. As I came
down the line, he grabbed my hand and told
me to win the election because he had to have
a job. I told him that if I won the election
I'd try to get him a job. Well, he's got a job
now because he became somewhat famous as
a result of this incident. [Laughter]
But there are millions and millions of other
Americans who still don't. I read an article yesterday in the paper about another unemployed
person who had voted for me who had only
gotten a form response from the White House.
And I told somebody today to pick up the phone
and call him and talk to him and try to make
him feel connected to his Government again.
I say this to reiterate something that I think
most of you already know, but it's easy to forget
here working in the splendid isolation of the
Capital City. Budgets are not about numbers;
they're about people. They mean jobs and health
care, education or training. We can't ever afford


37




Feb. 3 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


to let our people get lost in a blizzard of statistics.
Since the election we've learned even more
about the difficulty of the budgets and the difficulty of putting together an economic program
that puts people to work in the short run and
deals with the long-term problems of this economy.
Just today we got the news about the economic indicators for the month of December
being the best in 10 years and yet the disturbing
prospect that a lot of new jobs are not being
created. How could this be so? Well, partly because there's been no inflation in the economy
and interest rates have been down for some
while; people are now beginning to refinance
their home, debts, or buy and sell new homes,
so that generates a lot of economic activity. And
partly because we have an inordinate number
of companies in our free enterprise system who
have gotten more and more productive and
therefore earning more money. The problem is
that a lot of them are doing what we need
to do, which is to gradually downsize. A lot
of them are not hiring new people, even though
their incomes are going way up.
Now, during the eighties that happened to
the Fortune 500 companies, which reduced employment by over a couple hundred thousand
a year all during the eighties. But all those jobs
were made up for in the eighties by small businesses hiring new people. And yet, now small
business hiring is dropping, too, as small businesses are loathe to hire new people because
they can't afford to pay for health care or because they can't get credit from their local
banks.
So we have this anomalous situation where
the economy seems to be growing but employment is not, and where more and more middleincome workers are working harder and harder
every year but their wages aren't keeping up
with inflation, and the costs of health care and
education are outstripping inflation.
So we have this perplexing dilemma. How
can we build on what the free enterprise system
is doing that is good, get small business growth
going again, and increase investment so that we
generate more high-wage jobs, so that the economy can grow, not just in the overall statistics
but in the real lives of real people? That's important to you, not only because of your mission
at OMB but because how you do is a reflection
of how the taxpayers do, since they pay your


bill.
So you have an immediate as well as a longrange interest in the success of what is our
economic commitment: to do something which
the American people have never before had to
do, to increase investment and bring down the
deficit at the same time. That is our challenge.
And on February 17 we're going to start anew
in an effort to meet that challenge. We've got
to turn this country around to build a longterm stable growth of jobs and income. We cannot go 10 more years with insufficient jobs and
insufficient income growth for people who are
working hard, playing by the rules, willing to
become educated and trained in ever-new skills,
meeting ever-new challenges.
That is our challenge. And we are doing our
best to meet it. Since no one has ever tried
to do both these things at once, to get the
job base going, which we want to do with a
modest stimulus program in the beginning, increase permanently investment in people and
jobs and growth, and reduce the deficit, it is
not always clear exactly what specific decisions
we must make. But the general path we have
to follow is clear, because if we don't do something about investment, we won't have the kind
of high-wage jobs that will shape a good future
for ourselves and our children. If we don't do
something about the deficit, it will eventually
overwhelm our ability to borrow money at affordable rates and to have any money left in
the public purse to take care of people in need
and to invest in our future.
So we have no choice but to embark on this
course, but it is an uncharted course. No one
has ever tried to do both things at the same
time before. President Roosevelt elected to pursue investments in putting the American people
back to work; deflation was so bad he didn't
have to worry about the deficit. And before he
had to deal with it, we were in a world war
with full production and a massive deficit that
then dropped dramatically as a percentage of
our income for the next 35 years for the simple
reason that we were growing so fast we didn't
have to worry about it. Now we need a new
commitment to investment, but we cannot ignore our debt.
We have to remember a few basic things,
I think, in putting this program together. The
first is that while every American is willing to
make a contribution, the contribution we ask
of every American must be viewed against what


38




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Feb. 3


happened to them in the 1980's. In the 1980's,
the middle class paid the bill while the wealthiest Americans enjoyed the fruits of their labors.
Taxes went up on middle class Americans while
their real incomes went down. Taxes went down
on upper income Americans while their real incomes went up.
The expansion of Government services, the
expansion of all the public programs was basically done on the backs of the people who
weren't having any income growth. That means
before we ask them to do more, we have to
demand that Government do everything it can
to do with less. Before I ask working Americans
to work harder and pay more, I will ask the
economic elite, who made more money and paid
less in taxes, to pay their fair share. We have
to literally be about the business, as Vice President Gore said first, of reinventing Government.
I have been very careful, I will say again,
to honor the contribution of public employees.
I know that to a major degree, I cannot succeed
as President unless you and the people who
work in all these other departments believe in
our common mission.
I know that for every subject I could bring
up that I want do do something about, there
are 10 employees in this city of the Federal
Government who know more about the details
of what ought to be done than I do. I need
your ideas and your energy. When I say we're
going to reinvent Government, we're going to
downsize some things; we're going to stop doing
other things. We're going to do it in a way
that lifts up the influence, the energy, and values the ideas of our best employees, not that
grinds them down or uses them as political footballs. I have no interest in doing that to you
or to anybody else. I think the American people
know you want a change, too.
But let me just give you two or three examples. When I took office, the Labor Department
had a nice executive dining room for its Secretary but not enough money to train unemployed workers. I'm going to propose a stimulus
package that has some more money to train
unemployed workers, and the Secretary of Labor
is now eating in the dining room with the employees.
When I took office, the White House had
a telephone system that had been there since
President Carter and a switchboard that has
been there since the 1960's. They talk about
jamming the White House switchboards-you


can do it tomorrow if you want to; it's not hard.
I could not have a conference call in my office
on my telephone, except an unwanted one. Anybody in the central office could punch a lighted
button and listen to what I had to say. [Laughter] The American people, I think, would be
pretty surprised and disappointed that after a
dozen years of people who promised to run the
Government like a business-they meant a business in the 1950's, not for the 21st century.
[Laughter]
So we are committed to making the kinds
of structural changes that every major organization in this country has had to make in order
to survive. It is not right for us to spend taxpayers' money on antiquated communications
systems, on unjustifiable perks, and on a system
that cannot be, cannot be justified to the American people, given the times that they're having
and the sacrifices we're going to ask of them.
In the next several days, I will be finalizing
and announcing plans which will demonstrate
a substantial reduction in spending at the White
House, reversing many years of growth in services and personnel provided to the President.
We're going to rely more on help from people
in the departments to run the Government and
on a new partnership to move the country forward. And we're going to set an example by
saving money for the taxpayers, which will then
have to be followed by everybody else in the
executive branch and I hope in the legislative
branch as well.
Second, I'm going to ask, as I said, those
who made more money in the eighties and paid
fewer taxes to pay their fair share before I ask
anyone in the working middle class to pay more.
But we have to recognize that together we have
to find a way to change the mix of Government
spending away from so much consumption toward more investment and, at the same time,
to reduce the deficit so we can bring interest
rates down and bring up long-term living standards. We have no right, frankly, to continue
to finance a Government budget that is 20 percent debt-financed, and will be more debt-financed in the years ahead, and leave it to our
children to figure out how to live with lower
incomes than they otherwise would have. And
believe me, it isn't just our children. We're
going to be living with the consequences in the
very near future.
And I might add something that all of you
who work on budgets know, which is that one


39




Feb. 3 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


of the huge dilemmas we face-and that can't
be resolved today in this speech, but I just want
to lay it out there-is one that all of you know.
And that is we are spending 14 percent of our
income on health care. No other country except
Canada spends more than 9, and they're just
a little above 9.
And every day we read in the paper another
expert, just like there's one today, saying, well,
you certainly can't save any money on health
care costs in this country. God forbid that you
should put any of that in there; you can't do
that. If we can't do that, we can't fix the deficit;
we can't fix the economy; we can't turn America
around. And if we could lower the rate of health
care spending increase, we would save more
than twice as much money in the private sector
and in the public sector, unleashing more money
for investment than anything we can do in terms
of tax cuts, spending increases, or anything else
to turn this economy around. So there's plenty
for us to do.
What I want you to know is that I do not
believe our problems are insoluble. And one
of my major goals is to leave the next President
with a new set of things to worry about. [Laughter] I'm getting bored reading the same problems in the paper, decade after decade. I want
people to have to deal with new problems.
I am asking you today to do two things: First
of all, to personally invest yourself in this great
mission. It is our job in this generation to deal
with these problems so that the American dream


can endure. Ultimately, that is why everybody
should come to work for the Federal Government and why everyone's job counts. And I am
asking you to remember how terribly difficult
life is for many people who pay our bills and
pay your salary and mine.
I got an incredibly moving call the other day
from a friend of mine, shortly before I took
office, in which he said he had just talked to
a person who worked in his office who said
that-in bad grammar but compelling truthhe said, "This woman came up to me and said,
'You know, it's scary to be a little people.'
And it really is.
I want to send a signal to this country that
I may not do everything right, and I can't do
everything that's just popular in the short run,
but every day in every way we're trying to set
an example for the people that sent us here.
We don't want the people to sacrifice their income before the Government sacrifices everything it can. We don't want the people who
bore the burden in the eighties to make any
contributions before people who reaped the
benefits of the eighties do their fair share, and
that together we really believe we can make
a difference. If you help me and we work together, I'm confident that we can.
Thank you, and bless you all.
NOTE: The President spoke at 11:02 a.m. in the
New Executive Office Building.


Exchange With Reporters Prior to a Meeting With Economic Advisers
February 3, 1993


Q. Mr. President, while we have you, why
do Social Security recipients in the middle class
appear to be getting a little bit more nervous
as your economic plan unfolds? Should they be?
The President. Well, the way you folks were
leaking the story today-[laughter].
The people of this country ought to know
that I'm going to do my best to be fair to
the people that I ran to represent and to get
the job machine of this country moving again
and bring the deficit down. And I think the
people will believe that I've been fair and comprehensive when the plan comes out. But you


know, it's very difficult for us to make decisions
in an environment where we have no control
over who says what, about what really comes
out, and half the stuff that comes out is not
even accurate. So all I can tell you is I'm not
going to comment on the specifics until I settle
on the plan, and then I'll come forward with
it. But it will be consistent with what I said
today to the employees over at the OMB.
Thank you.
NOTE: The President spoke at 2:25 p.m. in the
Roosevelt Room at the White House.


40




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Feb. 3


Exchange With Reporters Prior to Meeting With Democratic Congressional
Leaders
February 3, 1993


Q. Mr. President, when do you want campaign's finance reforms to go into effect?
The President. We're here to talk about what's
going to be in the bill. I want to pass a bill
early this year, as early as we can, and we're
going to talk about that.
There was a good bill last year-it had a
lot of good features in it-which was vetoed
by President Bush. And I guess we'll start talking about that and see where we go from there.


But I hope we can get a good bill.
In terms of when it goes into effect, and
the last bill skipped an election cycle and was
widely applauded by all the public interest
groups as a great advance over where we are
now. I think when it goes into effect is a subject
of discussion here. But I want to pass a good
bill. That's my concern.
NOTE: The President spoke at 3:49 p.m. in the
Cabinet Room at the White House.


Letter to Federal Emergency Management Agency Acting Director
William C. Tidball on Disaster Assistance for California
February 3, 1993


Dear Mr. Tidball:
I have determined that the damage in certain
areas of the State of California, resulting from
severe winter storms, mud and rock slides, and
flooding on January 5-22, 1993, is of sufficient
severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act
("the Stafford Act"). I, therefore, declare that
such a major disaster exists in the State of California.
In order to provide Federal assistance, you
are hereby authorized to allocate from funds
available for these purposes, such amounts as
you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance


and administrative expenses.
You are authorized to provide Individual Assistance and Public Assistance in the designated
areas. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be supplemental, any Federal
funds provided under the Stafford Act for Public
Assistance will be limited to 75 percent of the
total eligible costs.
Sincerely,
BILL CLINTON
NOTE: This letter was made available by the Office of the Press Secretary but was not issued as
a White House press release.


Letter to Governor Pete Wilson on Disaster Assistance for California
February 3, 1993


Dear Governor Wilson:
As requested, I have declared a major disaster
under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief
and Emergency Assistance Act (the Stafford Act)
for the State of California due to damage resulting from severe winter storms, mud and rock


slides, and flooding on January 5-22, 1993. I
have authorized Federal relief and recovery assistance in the affected area.
Individual Assistance and Public Assistance
will be provided. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be supplemental,


41




Feb. 3 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


any Federal funds provided under the Stafford
Act for Public Assistance will be limited to 75
percent of the total eligible costs in the designated areas.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency
("FEMA") will coordinate Federal assistance efforts and designate specific areas eligible for
such assistance. The Federal Coordinating Officer will be Mr. Frank Kishton of FEMA. He
will consult with you and assist in the execution
Nomination for Deputy Secretary of D
February 3, 1993
The President today nominated William J.
Perry, a highly respected expert on military
technology, to serve as Deputy Secretary of Defense under Secretary Les Aspin.
"William Perry is a sound and sophisticated
adviser whose expertise on military technology
and policy is unmatched," said President ClinRemarks at the National Prayer Breakf
February 4, 1993
Thank you very much. Congressman Emerson
and distinguished guests at the head table; to
my friend Reverend Billy Graham and Ruth;
and to all those who have given such moving
presentations. This has been a wonderful morning, I think, for all of us.
When I heard Wentley Phipps recounting our
first, rather awkward meeting, I thought that
I would admit to being Governor of Alabama
just to hear him sing. [Laughter]
My mind has been full of memories this
morning. I helped to start the first Governor's
prayer breakfast in my State; it became a very
important part of our life there. And every year
I had the pleasure of delegating two Arkansans,
one a clergyman or -woman and one a citizen,
to come to this wonderful event.
I thought about the first time I ever saw
Billy Graham-appropriate to mention now. He
came in the 1950's, in the heat of all our racial
trouble, to Arkansas to have a crusade. And the
white citizens council tried to get him, because


of the FEMA-State Disaster Assistance Agreement governing the expenditure of Federal
Funds.
Sincerely,
BILL CLINTON
NOTE: This letter was made available by the Office of the Press Secretary but was not issued as
a White House press release.


ton. "Secretary Aspin and I will rely heavily
on his knowledge, imagination, and judgment
as we work to keep our military the strongest
in the world in a time of budgetary constraints."
NOTE: A biography of the nominee was made
available by the Office of the Press Secretary.


of the tensions of the moment, to agree to segregate his crusade in the fifties in the South.
And he said, "If I have to do that, I'm not
coming." And I remember I got a Sunday school
teacher in my church-and I was about 11 years
old-to take me 50 miles to Little Rock so I
could hear a man preach who was trying to
live by what he said. And then I remember,
for a good while thereafter, trying to send a
little bit of my allowance to the Billy Graham
crusade because of the impression he made on
me then.
I am honored that all of you are here not
for a political purpose. We come here to seek
the help and guidance of our Lord, putting aside
our differences, as men and women who freely
acknowledge that we don't have all the answers.
And we come here seeking to restore and renew
and strengthen our faith.
In this town, as much as any place on the
face of the Earth, we need that. We need faith
as a source of strength. 'The assurance of things


42




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Feb. 4


hoped for, the conviction of things unseen," the
Scripture says. What it means to me is that
here, if we have enough faith, in spite of all
the pressures to the contrary, we can define
ourselves from the inside out, in a town where
everybody tries to define you from the outside
in.
We need our faith as a source of hope because it teaches us that each of us is capable
of redemption and, therefore, that progress is
possible-not perfection, for all the reasons Reverend Graham said, but progress. We need our
faith as a source of challenge because if we
read the Scriptures carefully, it teaches us that
all of us must try to live by what we believe
or, in more conventional terms, to live out the
admonition of President Kennedy that here on
Earth God's work must truly be our own.
But perhaps most important of all for me,
we need our faith, each of us, President, Vice
President, Senator, Congressman, General, Justice, as a source of humility, to remember that,
as Bishop Sheen said, we are all sinners. St.
Paul once said in an incredibly moving Scripture
in the Bible, "The very thing which I would
not do, that I do, and that which I would, that
I do not." And even more, not only because
we do wrong but because we don't always know
what is right.
In funerals and weddings and other important
ceremonies, you often hear that wonderful verse
from Corinthians cited: "Now abideth faith,
hope, and love, but the greatest of these is
love." But the important thing is often left out,
which is the verse above. Why is the greatest
of these love? Because "now I see through a
glass, darkly... now I know only in part."
None of us know all that we need to know
to do what we need to do.
I have always been touched by the living example of Jesus Christ and moved particularly
Exchange With Reporters During a L
February 4, 1993


by all the religious leaders of His day who were
suspicious of Him and always trying to trap Him
because He was so at ease with the hurting
and the hungry and the lonely and, yes, the
sinners. And in one of those marvelous attempts
to trick Christ, He was asked, "What is the
greatest Commandment?" And He answered,
quoting Moses, "You shall love the Lord, your
God, with all your heart and with all your soul
and with all your mind." And then He added,
as we should add, 'This is the great and foremost Commandment. And the second is like
it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself."
Just 2 weeks and a day ago, I took the oath
of office as President. You know the last four
words, for those who choose to say it in this
way, are "so help me God." And the Chief Justice was giving me the oath, and I was trying
to remember the words. And I said, you know,
when I get to the end I'm going to think of
the ringing voice of Washington and Jefferson
and Lincoln and the Roosevelts and Kennedy
and all the other great Presidents through the
ages, and I will say "so help me God" with
all the strength at my command. And I did.
But deep down inside I wanted to say it the
way I was thinking it, which was, "So, help
me, God." [Laughter]
So today my prayer for you as we begin this
great new adventure, and I pray that your prayer
for me, will be that God will help us to have
the strength to define ourselves from the inside
out, not the outside in, to have the hope that
it takes never to give up and the determination
it takes always to make progress in an imperfect
world and the humility to walk by faith and
not by sight.
Thank you very much.
NOTE: The President spoke at 9:30 a.m. at the
Washington Hilton.
1uncheon With the Vice President


The Economy and Job Creation                  The President. Well, we haven't-it could
Q. Mr. President, with productivity soaring  mean that more evidence will come in the defiand factory orders up, does this mean it's a  cit will be smaller. But there's no-it could
strong recovery and you might have to adjust  mean that we'll have more jobs, which is the
your economic plan?                         real issue. But we don't see it yet.


43




Feb. 4 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


I think the real issue-what appears to be
the case is that American productivity is up and
that a lot of Americans are refinancing their
homes or buying new homes because of low
interest rates. But so far, we're not adding jobs
to the economy. That's the critical thing.
I think it means we need to take a real close
look at the credit crunch for small business.
I think it means we need to redouble our efforts
on health care cost restraints because that's one
of the things that's preventing small business
from hiring more people. But if you look at
the downsizing going on in a lot of these big
companies, we still need a program which will
help us to generate jobs and higher income jobs.
And that's the focus that I had for several
months now.
I'm happy that the productivity rates picked
up, and I'm glad that people are able to finance
their homes at lower interest rates. But I'm still
not convinced that this country is yet set on
the right course in terms of generating the jobs.


And that's the key thing: jobs.
Q. What if the markets, which seem encouraged by your commitment to deficit reduction,
go down if you don't live up to your promise
of 145,000 jobs?
The President. I think they want us to have
a steady, disciplined, downward path on the deficit. But I also would point out that sometimes
when the markets have been up, the job market
has been down. The market that counts is the
market that affects ordinary Americans. Do they
have jobs? Are their incomes going up? And
that's why I think we have to increase investment for jobs and decrease the debt. And we're
going to do our best to do both. On February
17th I'm going toNOTE: The exchange began at 12:30 p.m. in the
Oval Office at the White House. A tape was not
available for verification of the content of this exchange.


Statement on Secretary of State Warren M. Christopher's Trip to the
Middle East
February 4, 1993


In accord with my pledge to maintain continuity in the Arab-Israeli peace negotiations, I
have decided to dispatch Secretary of State
Christopher to the Middle East. His purpose
will be to convey to all the parties my commitment to advance the peace negotiations. He will
elicit their views on how best to promote
progress, and he will discuss bilateral issues and
regional problems, including Iraq.
This will be Secretary Christopher's first mission abroad. It is an indication of the priority
my administration attaches to peacemaking in
the Middle East. It also presents an opportunity
for the parties to focus their energies on the
formidable challenge of achieving peace in a
strife-torn region.
With violence engulfing so much of the world,
it is striking that in the Middle East a process
of direct negotiations has begun. Israel, all its
Arab neighbors, and the Palestinians have been


engaged in a common endeavor to achieve a
just, lasting, and comprehensive peace based on
U.N. Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338.
The United States, together with our Russian
cosponsor, played a critical role in launching
these negotiations. It is my intention to see that
we continue that role.
We cannot impose a solution on the Middle
East. Only the leaders of the region can make
peace. Theirs is an awesome responsibility.
Those who oppose the process, who seek to
subvert it through violence and intimidation, will
find no tolerance here for their methods. But
those who are willing to make peace will find
in me and my administration a full partner. This
is an historic moment. It can slip away all too
easily. But if we seize the opportunity, we can
begin now to construct a peaceful Middle East
for future generations.


44




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Feb. 4


Exchange With Reporters Prior to Discussions With Foreign Minister
Klaus Kinkel of Germany
February 4, 1993


National Service Plan
Q. Mr. President, are you disappointed that
you've had to scale back your national service
plan? You've scaled it back to a pilot program,
and is that a big disappointment to you?
The President. No, I haven't. That article was
a complete surprise to me this morning.
Q. How so?
The President. I haven't made any decision
to scale it back to a pilot program. I had a
meeting just yesterday on national service, and
I'm working on funding it just as close to what
I recommended in the campaign book, "Putting
People First," as possible. We always knew that
we would phase it in to some extent in the
sense that there would be a limited number
of young people in the early years that would
be in the service programs, and that it would
build up over a 6-year period. That's what we
proposed all last year. But I'm not at all sure
that we're going to cut back much from what
we recommended.
Q. So you think it will take 6 years to fully
fund it and have every American have an opportunity for a college education?
The President. No, no. I think it will take
6 years before the number of young people who
choose the service option as opposed to the
repayment option hits its maximum number.
That's what we calculated last year in the campaign and what we put out in our book. But
unless the mechanics are such that we can't
implement the service program, which I don't
believe is the case, I would expect us to be
well beyond what you would call a pilot program
as soon as we implement it. I was surprised
by the slant of the Post story this morning, because I think we'll do more than that.
Bosnia
Q. Mr. President, can you think of anything
positive to say about the Bosnian peace plan
that has been offered?
The President. Yes, I think anything, any effort that increases the chance of some ultimately
peaceful solution is important. But I think the
United States has under review now all of its
options in that area. And I think at this time


the position that the Secretary of State has taken
is the one that we have agreed on and the
one that I think is proper.
Q. Are you close to an announcement,
though?
Q. When will you have something more to
say about that, Mr. President?
Q. Sprechen Sie deutsch, Mr. President?
Q. Are you practicing your German?
The President. I haven't been conversational
in 24 years. Maybe I can brush up on it.
Q. But you read it?
The President. Yes, I can still read pretty well.
Foreign Minister Kinkel. Do you know our
country?
The President. Yes, I've been there several
times. When I was at Georgetown, I took 3
years of German. And I was in Germany in
'69 and '70, and I've been back a few times
since. And then I was in Baden-Baden in 1991
at the Bilderberg meeting.
Foreign Minister Kinkel. Oh, I see. For some
days?
The  President.  For  several  days. The
Bilderberg meeting was 3 or 4 days, I would
guess.
Foreign Minister Kinkel. That means that you
understand a little bit German?
The President. A little, yes. I haven't spoken
it, literally, in 24 years. But when I was in
the country, I heard the people talking, and
usually I know a lot of what they're saying.
Foreign Minister Kinkel. You can read a newspaper, perhaps?
The President. I can read quite a bit of the
newspaper. I ran-I was in-where was I-in
the English gardens in Munich. I ran in a 10K
race there a couple of years ago when I was
over there on a trade mission. And they wrote
it up in the newspaper. And someone sent me
the article, and I read the whole article. I could
read that. So I can read a little bit. And my
daughter goes to German camp every summer.
Foreign Minister Kinkel. Yes, I read it in my
paper. This is important because these are my
press people from Germany. And they are interested especially in this, your relations to our
country.


45




Feb. 4 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


The President. Oh, I've been there many
times. I first went in '69, and I've been going
a lot since then. And my daughter, as I said,
goes to this German village in Minnesota, language camp, every year now for 5 years.
Foreign Minister Kinkel. And she speaks our
language?
The President. Well, a little bit. You know,
it's a children's camp. They send the kids to
the camp, and the camp is built like a German
village. And they give them German names,


German money, a German passport, and they
have to speak conversational German.
But next year, when she moves into high
school, she will go for a month and begin an
academic study. And then she will get, and each
year she goes for the next 4 years, a year's
academic credit for studying it. So by the time
she finishes in high school she should be pretty
close to conversational.
NOTE: The exchange began at 4:20 p.m. in the
Oval Office at the White House.


Remarks at a Dinner Honoring the New Jersey Congressional Delegation
February 4, 1993


Good evening. Thank you. I know we're not
really, but it feels like it's nice to be back in
New Jersey. And I'm glad to have you here
in the Nation's Capital. You may or may not
be able to see this, but on the way in tonight,
Bill Faherty gave me a New Jersey tie, which
I have proudly donned. They even had a mirror
outside for me to be able to tie it in a straight
and appropriate fashion. [Laughter]
I want to tell you how very glad I am to
be here tonight with the State chamber, how
much I want to welcome you to our Nation's
Capital. I've just been here as President 2 weeks
and a day, and I'm already hoping we can keep
an infusion of people from the heartland coming
in to keep us in touch with reality.
I'm glad to see all the Members of the House
here. Senator Bradley and Senator Lautenberg
are voting tonight as the United States Senate
attempts to work out the family leave bill. I
do want to say a special word of appreciation
to both of them in front of their constituents
for not only the support they have given me
but for the genuinely good advice across a whole
wide range of issues. I have the sort of relationship with them which I really respect and which
I hope the Members of Congress here will take
to heart. Either one of them is liable to call
me at any time of the day or night from places
unknown. Always all right places, but-[laughter]-I mean, when they're around, you know.
And I'm very, very grateful to both of them
not only for their support in the recent election
but for their involvement in the great issues


of this time.
I've been working hard for the last 2 weeks
to try to be worthy of the trust of the voters
of this country who gave me a chance to become
President, including the people of New Jersey
who voted for a Democrat for the first time
in 28 years. I know you haven't always been
able to tell it from the news, but I spent virtually all of my time working on the economy,
the jobs issues, the deficit, meeting in long periods with my staff, with people from around the
country who know about these matters, with
Members of the United States Congress, working with people in both parties to try to end
the gridlock and to reach agreement so that
we can move forward.
We've had, as all of you know now, an economic upturn in the last few months, and we
hope that we are coming out firmly of the longest recession we've had in a good long while.
There is much to be encouraged about in two
or three areas. First of all, interest rates have
been down for a good long while now, and
millions of Americans have refinanced their
homes or been able to buy new homes in ways
that have generated significant economic activity.
Second, and even more encouraging over the
long run, there has been a big increase in the
productivity of American businesses and workplaces. That is, after all, the key to our economic
future. And finally, beginning in December with
a little bit in November, but a big increase in
December in consumer confidence, which has
strengthened the consumer market in our coun

46




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Feb. 4


try, something we hope will carry through for
the next few months.
Still, there are clear challenges before us.
With all these good numbers coming in, very
few new jobs have been created in America
yet in this recovery. Most big businesses that
are doing better are still downsizing; it's a part
of their productivity. That happened all during
the 1980's, when in every year of the 1980's
the Fortune 500 companies reduced employment in total by more than a quarter of a million in the United States. But throughout much
of the eighties, that reduction was more than
offset by the creation of jobs in the small business sector.
In the last couple of years and regrettably
even in the last few months, small business is
not taking up the slack because of the crushing
burden of health care costs and because of the
credit crunch, which is much more severe in
some States and regions than others but which
is a very serious problem for our economy.
We also have a deficit that next year is projected to be $50 billion bigger as of December
than we were told in August and is growing
exponentially, even though the Congressmen
who are here can tell you that they made a
good faith effort in 1990 to rein the deficit in
with spending cuts and tax increases they
thought would do it. It didn't happen because
the taxes didn't bring in as much money as
they thought, but even more importantly because  health  care  costs  have  continued
unabated, rising at breathtaking rates. So that
at the end of this year-those of you who pay
health insurance will know this-but we now,
alone of all the advanced countries in the world,
are spending 14 percent of our income on
health care. No other country except Canada
is over 9.
That is a terrific competitive disadvantage. It
is costing you a great deal of money not only
as taxpayers, for what you pay for Government
health care, but in the private sector. And the
hemorrhage is such that about 100,000 Americans a month are now losing their health insurance, many of them finding their way onto the
public rolls and leading to explosive increases
in the Government's health care burden.
So as we look ahead to our challenges and
as I look ahead to this speech I have to give
on February 17th to the joint session of Congress, I still believe in the fundamental themes
on which I ran for President: We have to in

crease job growth and income growth without
increasing inflation. We have to face the serious
problems of our urban areas and the serious
problems of the underclass in ways that liberate
the ability of all people to perform at high levels
in this economy if we want to continue the
increase in productivity. That means that we
have to shift away in the money that you give
us to spend, away from consumption, more toward investment. We have to increase investment in new technologies and education and
training, in infrastructure and the things that
will grow this economy. It also means that we
have to provide more incentives in our Tax
Code for investment in the private sector. And
it means we have to act at long last to bring
health care costs in line with inflation. If we
did that, it would do more to free up private
sector dollars to invest in economic growth than
any tax cut I could sign into law or any spending
increase that Congress and I together can enact.
So we will begin in earnest as soon as this
break is over to do those things that your National Government has never had to do simultaneously before: We will attempt to increase investment and reduce the deficit at the same
time. It will require an enormous amount of
discipline and a willingness to try some new
things and to cut some things in ways that we
have not done before.
I hope you will all wish us well, and I hope
you will tell every Member of your congressional
delegation up here, without regard to party, that
you know they're going to have to cast some
difficult votes in order for this country to face
its problems, and if they do it in good conscience and explain to you why you did it, you
will not hold it against them. That's what they
were hired to do, and you'll stick with them
if they can do it.
You know, when I was Governor-and I did
that job for a dozen years, and I had a good
time doing it-there were many times when I
had to cut spending five or six times in a given
year. And people would be a little disconcerted
at first, but we never got in debt. And I was
always proud of the fact that my State had such
a disciplined system. We paid a terrible price
for it during the eighties when times were
tough. But because we rode them out, last year
we ranked first or second in job growth in virtually every month when I was off running for
President, not because of anything that happened last year but because of the foundations


47




Feb. 4 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


that were laid in investments, in being competitive, and in fiscal integrity, in keeping those
books balanced. Those are the kind of difficult
decisions we're going to have to make now.
Not so long ago, you elected a Governor who
had to make some of those decisions. And let
me say that, again without attempting to be
too partisan, the truth is that if you live in
a State, you don't get to print your own money.
You can't get in the mess that your National
Government is in because you can't run that
long without having the brakes come on, without
throwing people through the collective windshield that keeps us all in the same boat. And
I have to tell you that for all the pain that
the decisions made by Governor Florio and the
legislature then caused him and them, the truth
is that your house is in order now. New Jersey
is going to have a balanced budget without a
tax increase, and you even have a rainy day
fund at a time when many States are going
bankrupt.
Sooner or later, we all have to face the music.
And when we do, we are normally rewarded.
So New Jersey is being rewarded. Look at your
credit rating. Look at the overall health of the
economy. Look at the trends in the State. I
hope that together with the Senate and the
House, with the Republicans and the Democrats
in this great Capital of yours, we can come
to grips with our problems in ways that the
American people will understand and embrace,
perhaps with less political fallout, but I hope
in the end with the same sort of stability and
success that you have achieved with Governor
Florio. And I hope you're proud of it, because
I am.
Let me just mention one other thing. I happened to think of this-it really hadn't occurred
to me, but I think I ought to mention it. I
asked Governor Florio, through the Trade Ambassador, Mickey Kantor, to serve on our intergovernmental advisory committee, because
there's so much relationship now between our
national trade policies and the policies followed
at the State and local level for growth. I think
he'll do a good job on that, but I wanted to
emphasize it because a big part of our economic
strength is in our capacity to export.
While our administration has found it necessary to take some pretty tough positions on
trade issues in the last 2 weeks, I want to emphasize to you I do not take those positions
in the hope of provoking a trade war or raising


trade barriers in this country but only so that
we can have expanded trade on fair terms for
ourselves and for all nations. We cannot grow
this economy, and no wealthy nation can grow,
unless there is global economic growth. And I
want to pledge to you that I will do my best
to  help   all the   world-class  companies
headquartered in New Jersey have an environment in which they can grow and flourish in
the international economy, with a trade system
that is constantly expanding, but expanding on
terms that are genuinely fair not only to ourselves but to our trading partners as well.
I ask you all without regard to your party
to wish us well. And I ask you one more time
to give the Members of Congress here a pat
on the back at the end of the dinner tonight.
We're going to have a very challenging few
months ahead of us. But it is an exciting time,
and it is a fabulous opportunity for us to put
our house in order and to deal with these problems and to move this country ahead.
We are now positioned better than we have
been in more than a decade to reassert the
leadership of the United States economically and
politically in the world in a way that is very
positive if we will ensure future growth, get
job growth along with economic growth, and
put our financial house in order. I think we
can do it if all the American people, again without regard to party, agree generally on the goal.
We will disagree on the details, but in the end
we will come to the people's business with a
resolution. That's what you need, and most importantly, it's what your children need. We cannot afford to permit the Government to go on
out of control, leaving our children with a legacy
of debt and diminished living standards, when
we can do so much better now.
I want to thank you for what you have done,
all of you in the private sector, to restore America's productivity to the breathtaking rates we've
seen in this last quarter. We're going to try
to give you that kind of productivity in your
National Government. Thank you very much.
[At this point, the President was presented with
a gift.I
I just want to say, if I ever heard a chamber
of commerce speech in my life, it was that.
He said, "This is a Parker pen; it's for your
wife. It's the nicest one they make." And then
he said, "And this other one's for you."
[Laughter]


48




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Feb. 5


[At this point, the President was presented with
a second gift.]
Let me say, I wish she were here to thank
her personally. But this is a gift for the White
House, for the American people. And I hope
a lot of you from New Jersey will see this when
you come in and know that it is yours. We'll


leave it there for all time from the people of
New Jersey.
Thank you.
NOTE: The President spoke at 7:43 p.m. at the
Washington Sheraton Hotel. In his remarks, he
referred to William H. Faherty, president, New
Jersey Chamber of Commerce.


Remarks on Signing the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993
February 5, 1993


Mrs. Yandle, I never had a better introduction. Before we thank anyone else, I think all
of us should acknowledge that it was America's
families who have beaten the gridlock in Washington to pass family leave, people like this fine
woman all over America who talked to Members
of Congress, both Democrat and Republican,
who laid their plight out, who asked that their
voices be heard. When Senator Gore and I ran
in the election last year, we published a book
called "Putting People First." I'm very proud
that the first bill I am to sign as President
truly puts people first.
I do want to thank the United States Congress
for moving expeditiously on this matter and for
doing it before their first recess so that every
Member of Congress who voted for this bill
can go home and say, "We are up there working
on your problems and your promise, trying to
make a better future for you." This sends a
clearer signal than any words any of us could
utter, that we have tried to give this Government back to the American people. And I am
very appreciative that the Congress has moved
so rapidly on this bill.
There are many, many Members of Congress
here and many others who are not here who
played a major role in this legislation. Time does
not permit me to mention them all, but I do
want to thank the Senate majority leader for
his heroic efforts in the 11th hour to make sure
we passed this bill; Senator Kennedy and Senator Dodd for their passionate and years-long
commitment to this effort. I want to thank the
Speaker, Speaker Foley, and Congressman Ford,
the chairman of the committee that had jurisdiction over this bill, and Congresswoman Pat
Schroeder and all the other Democrats who


worked on this bill.
But I want to acknowledge, too, consistent
with the promise I made in my Inaugural to
reach out to members of both parties who would
try to push for progress, that this bill also had
passionate support among Republicans. My old
colleague in the Governors' Association, Senator
Kit Bond from Missouri, I thank you for your
leadership. Senator Jeffords and Senator Coats
I don't believe are here, but they supported
this bill strongly; and Congresswoman Marge
Roukema from New Jersey, her commitment on
this was unwavering; Congresswoman Susan
Molinari from New York and many other Republicans voted for, spoke for, and worked for
this bill. I thank them, the subcommittee chairs
who are here, and all the others who worked
so hard to make this bill a real live promise
kept for the Congress to the people of the United States.
Family medical leave has always had the support of a majority of Americans, from every part
of the country, from every walk of life, from
both political parties. But some people opposed
it. And they were powerful, and it took 8 years
and two vetoes to make this legislation the law
of the land. Now millions of our people will
no longer have to choose between their jobs
and their families.
The law guarantees the right of up to 12
weeks of unpaid leave per year when it's urgently needed at home to care for a newborn
child or an ill family member. This bill will
strengthen our families, and I believe it will
strengthen our businesses and our economy as
well.
I have spent an enormous amount of time
in the last 12 years in the factories and busi

49




Feb. 5 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


nesses of this country talking to employers and
employees, watching the way people work, often
working with them. And I know that men and
women are more productive when they are sure
they won't lose their jobs because they're trying
to be good parents, good children. Our businesses should not lose the services of these dedicated Americans. And over the long run, the
lessons of the most productive companies in the
world, here at home and around the world, are
that those who put their people first are those
who will triumph in the global economy. The
business leaders who have already instituted
family and medical leave understand this, and
I'm very proud of some of the business leaders
who are here today who represent not only
themselves but others all across America who
were ahead of all of us who make laws in doing
what is right by our families.
Family and medical leave is a matter of pure
common sense and a matter of common decency. It will provide Americans what they need
most: peace of mind. Never again will parents
have to fear losing their jobs because of their
families.
Just a week ago, I spoke to 10 people in
families who had experienced the kinds of problems Mrs. Yandle has talked about today. Vice
President Gore and I talked to people all across
America who moved us deeply. We were saddened to hear their stories, but today all of
us can be happy to think of their future.
Statement on Signing the Family and
February 5, 1993
Today, I am pleased to sign into law H.R.
1, the "Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993."
I believe that this legislation is a response to
a compelling need-the need of the American
family for flexibility in the workplace. American
workers will no longer have to choose between
the job they need and the family they love.
This legislation mandates that public and private employers with at least fifty workers provide their employees with family and medical
leave. At its core is the provision for employees
to take up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave for
the care of a newborn or newly adopted child,
for the care of a family member with a serious


Now that we have won this difficult battle,
let me ask all of you to think about what we
must do ahead to put the public interest ahead
of special interest, to pass a budget which will
grow this economy and shrink our deficit, and
to go on about the business of putting families
first. There's a lot more we need to do to help
people trapped in welfare move to work and
independence; to strengthen child support enforcement; to reward those who work 40 hours
a week and have children at home with an increase in the earned-income tax credit so we
can really say we're rewarding work instead of
dependence; to immunize all the children of
this country so more parents won't have to take
advantage of family leave because their children
will be well and strong and healthy.
Let all of us who care about our families,
our people, the strength of our economy, and
the future of our Nation put our partisan and
other interests aside and be inspired by this
great victory today to have others when Congress returns to this city and we go on about
the people's business.
Thank you very much.
NOTE: The President spoke at 9:22 a.m. in the
Rose Garden at the White House. In his remarks,
he referred to Vicki Yandle, whose daughter's illness had resulted in both parents losing their jobs.
H.R. 1, approved February 5, was assigned Public
Law No. 103-3.
Medical Leave Act of 1993
medical condition, or for their own illness. It
also requires employers to maintain health insurance coverage and job protection for the duration of the leave. It sets minimum length of
service and hours of work requirements before
employees become eligible.
The need for this legislation is clear. The
American workforce has changed dramatically in
recent years. These changes have created a substantial and growing need for family and medical
leave for working Americans.
In 1965, about 35 percent of mothers with
children under 18 were labor force participants.
By 1992, that figure had reached 67 percent.


50




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Feb. 5


By the year 2005, one of every two people entering the workforce will be women.
The rising cost of living has also made two
incomes a necessity in many areas of this country, with both parents working or looking for
work in 48 percent, or nearly half, of all two
parent families with children in the United
States.
Single parent families have also grown rapidly,
from 16 percent of all families with children
in 1975 to 27 percent in 1992. Finally, with
America's population aging, more working
Americans have to take time off from work to
attend to the medical needs of elderly parents.
As a rising number of American workers must
deal with the dual pressures of family and job,
the failure to accommodate these workers with
adequate family and medical leave policies has
forced too many Americans to choose between
their job security and family emergencies. It has
also resulted in inadequate job protection for
working parents and other employees who have
serious health conditions that temporarily prevent them from working. It is neither fair nor
necessary to ask working Americans to choose
between their jobs and their families-between
continuing their employment and tending to
their own health or to vital needs at home.
Although many enlightened companies have
recognized the benefits to be realized from a
system providing for family and medical leave,
not all do. We all as a nation must join hands
and extend the ethic of long-term workplace
relationships and reciprocal commitment between employer and employee. It is only when
workers can count on a commitment from their
employer that they can make their own full
commitments to their jobs. We must extend the
success of those forward-looking workplaces
where high-performance teamwork has already
begun to take root and where family and medical leave already is accepted.
Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics support the conclusion that American business has
been fully responsive to the need of workers
for family and medical leave. This data showed
that, in 1991, for private business establishments
with 100 workers or more, 37 percent of all
full-time employees (and 19 percent of all parttime employees) had unpaid maternity leave
available to them, and only 26 percent of all


full-time employees in such establishments had
unpaid paternity leave available. The most recently available data for smaller business establishments (those with fewer than 100 workers)
are for 1990, and show that only 14 percent
of all these employees had unpaid maternity
leave available, and only 6 percent had unpaid
paternity leave available.
The insufficient response to the family and
medical leave needs of workers has come at
a high cost to both the American family and
to American business. There is a direct correlation between health and job security in the family home and productivity in the workplace.
When businesses do not give workers leave for
family needs, they fail to establish a working
environment that can promote heightened productivity, lessened job turnover, and reduced absenteeism.
We all bear the cost when workers are forced
to choose between keeping their jobs and meeting their personal and family obligations. When
they must sacrifice their jobs, we all have to
pay more for the essential but costly safety net.
When they ignore their own health needs or
their family obligations in order to keep their
jobs, we all have to pay more for social services
and medical care as neglected problems worsen.
The time has come for Federal legislation to
bring fair and sensible family and medical leave
policies to the American workplace. Currently,
the United States is virtually the only advanced
industrialized country without a national family
and medical leave policy. Now, with the signing
of this bill, American workers in all 50 States
will enjoy the same rights as workers in other
nations. This legislation balances the demands
of the workplace with the needs of families.
In supporting families, it promotes job stability
and efficiency in the American workplace.
The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993
sets a standard that is long overdue in working
America. I am very pleased to sign this legislation into law.
WILLIAM J. CLINTON
The White House,
February 5, 1993.
NOTE: H.R. 1, approved February 5, was assigned
Public Law No. 103-3.


51




Feb. 5 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


Exchange With Reporters Prior to Discussions With Prime Minister Brian
Mulroney of Canada
February 5, 1993


The President. Hi, Helen [Helen Thomas,
United Press International].
Q. Hi.
Prime Minister Mulroney. Hi, Helen. How are
you?
Unemployment
Q. What's your reaction to the unemployment
numbers, Mr. President?
The President. Better, but still too high: you
know, at the trough of the recession, unemployment was 6.8 percent, lower than it is now.
And now we've had 14 months over 7 percent,
and I hope it's going down. But until we get
it way down, there will still be a lot of unused
capacity in the country and a lot of idle people.
Bosnia
Q. Are you going to have a statement soon
on Bosnia, Mr. President?
The President. Well, Mr. Christopher is working on it, and we're working on it. I've spent
a good deal of time on it in the last 2 weeks.
But I don't have anything to say yet. It's a
very difficult problem, I'm very concerned about
it, and I have spent a good deal of time on
it. When I have something to say, I will.
Q. Will that be a topic for this meeting, sir?
The President. We're going to talk about a
lot of things. We don't have a typed agenda.
Q. This isn't the first time you've met, is
it?
The President. Yes, but we've talked before
several times.
Q. On the phone, but not
The President. This is our first meeting.
Prtime Minister Mulroney. And you were probably mentioned in those conversations. [Laughter]
[At this point, one group of reporters left the
room, and another group entered.]
Trade
Q. Prime Minister, will you be seeking some
assurances against the winds of protectionism
in Congress you mentioned yesterday?
Prime Minister Mulroney. Yes, I will. I think
that any time protectionism takes hold in the


United States or Canada or elsewhere, it's bad
for prosperity. It cripples growth everywhere.
And so the President's a free trader, and so
am I. And so I expect that we'll resolve the
difficulties that we have, not in today's meeting
but over a period of time. And so I look forward
to the meeting. I have been very encouraged
by my earlier telephone conversations with the
President in regard to trade and other matters.
[At this point, a question was asked and answered in French, and a translation was not
provided. ]
Q. Mr. President, what do you think about
the free trade of Canada? Is it important for
U.S., do you think?
The President. I think it's very important for
both of us. And I think it will have real benefits
over the long run. As a Governor, I was one
of those who took responsibility for trying to
lobby the original agreement through the Congress here. And I hope we can complete the
North American Free Trade Agreement, bringing in Mexico, making some changes that I think
will be good for the Mexicans and good for
the Canadians and the Americans.
But I think that if you just look at the last
50 years, the only way you can have growth
within advanced countries over the long run is
to have global growth. The only way you can
have global growth is to expand trade.
This is a difficult time. Europe is in distress
economically. Japan is having some difficulties.
And of course, there will always be discussions
among us about whether the rules of trade are
fair or not. But our goal must continue to be
the opening of trade and the increase in volume
of trade.
Q. So do you want to reassure Canadians?
Because there's a little fear in Canada about
U.S. protectionism.
The President. Oh, I think Canada is our most
important trading partner. I hope that we can
do some things that will improve the economy
of Canada. I'm very concerned that-our economy has started to pick up now. And normally
when it does, Canada follows behind just by
a few months. I want some of that growth to


52




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Feb. 5


come back into Canada now.
One of the reasons I want to try to generate
more jobs here is I think that would create
more jobs in Canada. The more people we have
with incomes and the more consumers we will
have, the more economic impact we'll be able
to have in Canada to bring that unemployment
down there.
Q. What are the problems, if any, in the relationship?
The President. Well, let me say, this is our
first conversation face to face. I don't want to
dwell on the problems. The opportunities overwhelm the problems. And I'm sure we'll work
through the problems.
Prime Minister Mulroney. Maybe I could just
say, Mr. President, in regard to that, that our
total trade, all in, is in Canadian dollars about
$275 billion a year. It dwarfs anything that the
United States has anywhere in the world. But
more importantly, at the end of the year when


you factor everything in, from interest payments
to dividends, our trade is in rough balance. It
is extraordinary that the largest trading relationship between two nations in history is in rough
balance at the end of the year, which means
that with the imperfections that we have, that
we've got a pretty good system that is self-governing. And from time to time, the President
and the Prime Minister of Canada have to intervene to make sure that this really remarkably
productive relationship with both countries is
preserved and strengthened.
That's what President Clinton did. He was
selling the free trade agreement when he was
Governor of Arkansas throughout the United
States. So I'm very encouraged by his attitudes
and his record in regard to developing world
trade.
NOTE: The exchange began at 11:38 a.m. in the
Oval Office at the White House.


The President's News Conference With Prime Minister Brian Mulroney of
Canada
February 5, 1993


Canada-U.S. Relations
The President. Good afternoon. I'm delighted
that my first meeting as President with a foreign
leader is with the Prime Minister of Canada,
Brian Mulroney. On the day after I was elected,
I spoke of the essential continuity of our country's foreign policy. Our steadfast relationship
with Canada is an indispensable element of that
continuity. Prime Minister Mulroney and the
people of Canada should know that the United
States is still their friend and their partner.
It is worth noting that the United States and
Canada share the world's longest undefended
border and that we haven't had a battle between
us since the War of 1812. Now having said
that, Mr. Prime Minister, I will tell you that
I look forward to winning back the World Series. [Laughter]
Canada has long stood as our partner in promoting democracy and human rights around the
world. Today Canada is demonstrating her international leadership for peace and freedom
through her commitment of troops in peacekeeping efforts around the world, in Somalia,


in Bosnia, and elsewhere. Canada is our largest
trading partner. Both our nations benefit enormously from the immense river of goods and
services flowing across our border, with an increase of $30 billion just since the free trade
agreement went into effect.
It is remarkable how relatively few disputes
have attended the vigorous trading between us.
Yet it is inevitable that there will be some disagreements even among close partners. And we
agreed today to maintain high-level attention to
that trading relationship, to ensure that the
problems are addressed before they become crises.
The Prime Minister and I discussed the North
American Free Trade Agreement. I assured him
that my administration intends to move forward
with NAFTA while establishing a process to provide adequate protection to workers, to farmers,
and to the environment. Canada was our partner
in working with Mexico to negotiate NAFTA,
and Canada will be our partner as we move
forward to put it and its related agreements
into effect. We've made a good start here today


53




Feb. 5 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


in setting the stage for working together.
We also discussed the GATT agreement, and
I reassured the Prime Minister that the United
States will do what it can to secure an agreement at GATT that all the world can be proud
of and can be a prosperous part of.
We reviewed a broad range of global issues,
including the developments in Russia and elsewhere in the former Soviet Union, the crisis
in the Balkans, the situation in Somalia and
Haiti. We also discussed our participation in the
Group of Seven and what the United States
and Canada might hope to achieve this year,
and especially this summer when the G-7 meets
in Tokyo, to help move the global economy out
of recession and into a strong recovery.
This was a very good beginning. I want to
thank Prime Minister Mulroney for coming
down from Canada and tell him that he'll always
be welcome here. And I look forward to visiting
you on your home turf soon.
Prime Minister Mulroney. Thank you, Mr.
President. I'll simply say that, as the President
indicated, we had a very full review of quite
a large number of items in the few hours we
spent together and a very productive working
lunch. I thought it was a very good meeting
and a very good beginning of the relationship
of Canada with the new administration.
The President has indicated the complex issues that we've touched on, tried to deal with,
principally, of course, and I think you'll understand, the relationship between Canada and the
United States itself. The relationship is by far
the most important one the United States has
in the world. This is the biggest trading relationship ever between two nations. And at the end
of the year the important thing is it tends to
be in rough balance, which indicates that you
can have free trade and prosper.
And so we're very concerned about the
GATT, and we're very concerned about trading
currents generally and very reassured by the
President's strong commitments and strong positions in respect of the manner in which you
bring back and reenergize prosperity around the
world.
So we covered our bilateral arrangements, and
we covered a lot of the hot spots around the
world. And I'm sure that the President and I
would be happy to take a few questions.
[At this point, the Prime Minister repeated his
statement in French.]


Thank you very much, Mr. President.
NAFTA
Q. Mr. Prime Minister, what do you think
of the changes the President wants to make
in the NAFTA agreement?
Prime Minister Mulroney. Well, Helen [Helen
Thomas, United Press International], the
changes that the-the President doesn't-he indicated-he will, himself, I'm sure, but the
President has indicated many times that he is
going to sign the NAFTA agreement as it is
but that he proposes to bring in supplemental
agreements with Mexico, particularly in regard
to some of the points that he has mentioned,
that do not impact on the NAFTA agreement
as concluded. That may change. If it does, I'm
sure we'll hear from the President. But our information is that, by and large, that the NAFTA
agreement with those supplemental accords is
something that he could promote and defend
very vigorously.
I think, Mr. President, that's the position.
The President. That's right. And I might add
that the Prime Minister's administration in Canada has had a strong record on the environment,
something that we want to try to beef up in
a supplemental agreement, and that Canada
would be, I think, more or less in line with
the United States in terms of its impact on
any supplemental labor accord we might reach.
So we certainly intend to work with them.
After all, this is a three-way agreement, not a
two-way agreement. But I still believe, as I said
many weeks ago, that we can negotiate these
agreements without reopening the NAFTA itself.
Bosnia
Q. [Inaudible]-the best way to proceed is
to attempt to modify the U.N. plan? And how
long do you think that negotiations can be relied
on before stronger action is taken?
The President. Perhaps the best way to answer
your question would be to let the Prime Minister communicate his views, which he communicated to me, and then let me tell you what
my response is. Shall we do that?
Prime Minister Mulroney. In regard to the
Bosnian situation, we think, Susan [Susan Spencer, CBS News], that the elements of an agreement-there's been a lot of constructive work
done, but that there are inadequacies in it that
can be corrected at the Security Council by


54




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Feb. 5


the involvement, a greater degree of involvement by the United States in terms of the accord itself and also the involvement of President
Yeltsin.
We believe that the elements of an agreement, impacted by the concern of the United
States and Canada in the area of human rights,
in the area of war crimes, for example, can
be-these amendments can be of significant
substance without altering a lot of the hard and
constructive work that has taken place so far
by Cy Vance and David Owen.
But it would be important that in this process
at the Security Council there be greater involvement by Russia and by President Yeltsin. And
I took the liberty of making some recommendations along those lines to the President, and
he'll reflect upon them and probably have something to say.
The President. Let me answer now to just
reaffirm what our present posture is. We have
given the Bosnian situation urgent consideration.
We have reviewed a wide range of options. We
certainly will take into account what the Prime
Minister has said. Our reluctance on the VanceOwen proposals, while I applaud the effort both
personally and as President, is that the United
States at the present time is reluctant to impose
an agreement on the parties to which they do
not agree, especially when the Bosnian Muslims
might be left at a severe disadvantage if the
agreement is not undertaken in good faith by
the other parties and cannot be enforced externally.
So we are looking at that. I think one of
the things the Prime Minister said is absolutely
right: If there is to be a diplomatic political
solution to this over the long run, we very much
need President Yeltsin involved and the support
of Russia. He reaffirmed to me just a few days
ago in our telephone conversation his general
support for the policy that we have outlined.
But I'm sure you can understand why with a
problem this difficult, we would like a few days
longer just to seriously review this to come up
with what our policy is going to be. Then we'll
announce it as clearly and forcefully and follow
it as strongly as we possibly can.
Haiti
Q. [Inaudible]-is it time to strengthen pressure on Haiti? Do think we should have stronger
action

[At this point, a question was asked and answered in French, and a translation was not
provided. ]
Q. Mr. President, the same question, please.
The President. As the Prime Minister has said,
our Secretary of State met today with President
Aristide and discussed a wide range of issues
with him as well as what our efforts have been,
the progress and the lack of progress of Mr.
Caputo's efforts. We talked about where we're
going with this relationship in the future.
Let me say that I am committed to restoring
democracy to Haiti. I am doing my best to work
through the U.N. and the OAS with Mr.
Caputo. I am, frankly, disappointed that the
Prime Minister in Haiti has apparently backed
off a little bit of his original willingness to let
us send in some third-party observers, not just
to protect the petitions for refugee status but
also to try to stabilize conditions leading toward
a restoration of democracy there. And we're
going to talk to Mr. Caputo, see where he thinks
things are, and then reassess our position.
But I share the Prime Minister's determination. The United States and Canada should be
and are one in our commitment to restoring
democracy to Haiti. And we will continue to
push ahead either on the course we're now on,
or if that fails, on a more vigorous course toward
that end.
Israel
Q. What did you tell the President on the
deportees in Israel?
Prime Minister Mulroney. We touched peripherally on the Middle East because the Secretary
of State is going to, I gather, to the Middle
East at an early moment. The position of Canada, my own view is that we tend not to try
and give Israel lessons in regard to the determinations it has to make about its own national
security. Israel's entitled to make some important value judgments about itself.
That being said, I congratulated the President
and the Secretary of State for their leadership
in bringing about the first step of the return
of the hundred deportees, which I think was
an excellent example of diplomacy and international leadership by the President.
It's the first step. It's not the whole answer.
And it's a complicated matter which I think
will be resolved-where the resolution of which
will be clearer after Secretary of State Chris

55




Feb. 5 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


topher has had al opportunity to visit the region. But I think that we're supportive of the
U.N. resolutions, but I'm always very concerned
when people start to lecture Israel on the manner in which it has to look after its own internal
security, because for very important historical
reasons, Israel, of course, is better qualified than
most to make determinations about its own wellbeing.
Bosnia
Q. Mr. President, on Bosnia, do you expect
that there would be an American diplomatic initiative to replace what you see as the flaws in
the Vance-Owen initiative?
The President. I can't say that at this time.
As I say, I applaud the efforts that have been
made by Lord Owen and by Secretary Vance.
I think that they have done the very best they
could. And I don't criticize the details so much
as-it's not a criticism so much as a reluctance
on the part of the United States to impose on
parties an agreement which they do not freely
accept themselves, particularly one that might
work to the immediate and to the long-term
further disadvantage of the Bosnian Muslims.
But I would not rule out any option at this
time. We have a wide range of options under
consideration. We are working very hard on this.
We will settle on a course and then do our
best to consult with our allies and win broad
support for it. You heard the Prime Minister
say that over the long run we need President
Yeltsin's involvement in this, and I agree. You
heard me say that we hardly ever do anything
in foreign policy that we don't have Canada's
support in, and we'll need that.
So we've got a lot of work to do on this.
We've been working very hard and we'll try
to bring it to a quick closure.
Q. There seems to be disagreement, though,
in that the Prime Minister seems to think that
that can be built uponQ. -   come up with some agreement.
The President. I hope we can revive them.
Our biggest problem in this country is the expiration of fast track authority. But we have begun
a lot of talks in earnest within the administration
about that. I've done my best to send a signal


to our trading partners and to the parties to
GATT that we very much want a successful
agreement. And I'll have more to say about that
in the days ahead.
Thank you.
Haiti
[At this point, a question was asked and answered in French, and a translation was not
provided. ]
The President. Let me answer that also. I
take it by what I believe was your French, of
what then was a good translation I got, that
you mean by complexity of the situation in Haiti
the fact that Father Aristide was plainly elected
by an overwhelming majority and is plainly
still-has the support of an overwhelming majority of the people; but while, in the brief period
when he was in authority, made some statements which caused people in the military and
others to have fear for their security, their personal security, in ways that are inconsistent with
running a democracy, which has to recognize
human rights-does that present the complexity?
Yes, that is the nub of the issue.
We have to be able to restore democracy
in a way that convinces everybody that their
human rights will be respected and, for an interim period, protected. And obviously, that's
what the Caputo mission is designed to do.
But the complexity of the issue cannot deter
us from the fundamental mission, which is to
restore a democratically elected government that
will not abuse the human rights of ordinary Haitians. And I agree with the Prime Minister, we
certainly ought to be able to do that here in
our backyard, and we're going to work hard
on it.
Thank you very much.
Prime Minister Mulroney. Thank you very
much.
NOTE: The President's second news conference
began at 1:44 p.m. on the South Lawn of the
White House. In his remarks, he referred to Lord
David Owen and Cyrus Vance, Cochairmen of the
International Conference on the former Yugoslavia, and Dante Caputo, U.NJOAS Special
Envoy to Haiti.


56




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Feb. 5


Remarks to the National Conference of Mayors
February 5, 1993


Let me say, first of all, welcome to the White
House.
Mayor Jackson, I saw your brother earlier
today at the signing of the Family and Medical
Leave Act, and he was bragging on you, said
you're now as thin as he is. I assured him I
would still be able to recognize you when I
saw you. [Laughter]
This has been a wonderful day here at the
White House. Congress adjourned-[laughter]but only after passing the Family and Medical
Leave Act. We had a great signing this morning.
It was a great bipartisan effort; about a third
of the Republicans in the Senate voted for it.
And it was a really good, good way to start
the day.
I'm glad you're here. I know you've been
meeting with Secretary Cisneros, who's one of
your own. There are times when we meet when
I can't tell whether he's changed positions or
not-[laughter] -which I suppose from your
point of view is a good thing.
Most of you in this room I know well. I've
spent a lot of time in your communities, and
you have played a major role in my political
education. I assure you that I think every day
about many of the places we've been and the
things we've seen and the things that I have
learned from you. I think that the time I spent
in our country's cities in this last election, that
was in many ways the most instructive time that
I spent. And one of the things that impressed
me so much is that so many things, against
all the odds, are being done that work. And
I want you to help me now figure out how
to make those things that work the rule rather
than the exception in American life.
I told the Governors when they came in here
and spent some time with me earlier this week
on the subject of health care that if somebody
asked me to name my greatest failing as a Governor after 12 years, it was that I never could
quite figure out a way to make the exception
the rule, to take those things that worked and
make them work everywhere.
In that connection, I have been working with
Secretary Cisneros and have sent, after working
it out with him, a directive to him today to
deal with a number of specific things that I


know are important to all of you:
First, to establish a weekly mechanism for
communication with the State and local leaders
of our country on issues of housing and urban
development. And I hope we'll have a chance
to talk about both of them because they are
related, but they aren't the same.
Second, to try to expedite the programs that
are already there now, to unclog some $6 billion
that have been inexplicably tied up in the pipeline of the Federal Government that have already been appropriated; to speed up by 3 to
4 months the processing of the over $3 billion
in public housing funds that are available and
to try to accelerate the real implementation of
the HOME Program where there's $2.5 billion
in largely unmoved funds because the administrative system of this Department has been
largely paralyzed.
I told Henry when I asked him to take this
position that there was some risk because of
the pall which had been cast over HUD and
the problems of past years and because there
had been a lot of rhetoric but not enough action
out of the Department in recent years. We're
going to do what we can to marry rhetoric and
action. We don't promise to shut up, but we
promise to try to do some things.
I also want to tell you that I'm going to do
the best I can in this upcoming stimulus and
economic package to do what I said I would
do: to bring down the deficit but to increase
investment at the same time in ways that will
make available more funds for the cities.
I remember, Mayor White, when we were
in Cleveland with Congressman Stokes, you said
you thought we ought to increase the community development block grant funds because you
could move those more quickly to create jobs.
And there will be a fairly sizable increase in
that in the proposed stimulus package to try
to help you create jobs.
Let me just make a couple of general remarks
about where we are on this whole economic
approach, and then I'd like to hear from you,
and I'd like to just be as informal and conversational as possible.
The economic news is good but mixed and
incomplete. That is, starting in the last quarter


57




Feb. 5 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


we have begun to have two pieces of good economic news. One is that productivity is increasing, and that's good. Companies are making
more money. They're figuring out how to compete in a tough international environment. Two
is that there's a lot more economic activity
around housing as low interest rates finally are
letting millions of Americans refinance their
home mortgages, others get into buying homes,
and that's all been good.
Then since the election, there have been two
good pieces of economic news that I think the
election can fairly claim some credit for. One
is that consumer confidence started going up
in November and exploded in December, and
it's going to be strong in January. The second
is that the financial markets generally are upbeat
about the direction that our administration has
outlined, which means they take us seriously
that we're going to try to do what many say
is impossible, which is to increase investment
and reduce the debt at the same time.
So, that's the good news. The bad news is
that in this economy, the downsizing of big firms
is continuing apace. It started in the 1980's,
when every year of the 1980's the Fortune 500
together reduced employment in the United
States by about 400,000 people per year, big,
big reductions in employment. In most years,
that was offset by job increases in small and
medium-sized companies. Now that is not happening, even though this recovery is in place.
So you have this strange thing where the economic indicators are going up in the last quarter
like crazy, but the unemployment rate is higher
than it was at the depth of the recession. And
for 14 months we've had a national unemployment rate over 7 percent. Why is that?
I think there are several reasons, but let me
just say there are plainly three. One is that
small business cannot afford to hire new workers
and make up the slack from big business cuts
because of the exploding costs of health care.
Two is that the small businesses that want to
hire workers can't get credit because of the
credit crunch, which is more heavily concentrated in some places than others and particularly in California and southern FloridaMayor Lanier, still in Texas-but generally
across the country. The third is that the defense
cutbacks have accelerated the loss of high-wage
manufacturing jobs without any offsetting industrial strategy or conversion strategy in America,
which has been particularly devastating for


southern California, for Connecticut, and for
one or two other places, but has been generally
felt across the country.
So the first thing I've got to try to figure
out how to do is how to keep this economic
recovery with all these big numbers going but
to actually help real people out of it. How are
we going to generate some more jobs? One way
is to put some more money into basic construction, which would affect you. We're going to
try to accelerate the funding of ISTEA, which
would help you. We're going to try to put some
money into this stimulus package. It will be
modest because we don't want to be accused
of ignoring the economic indicators, but it will
be substantial to several areas.
And the other is to outline a 5-year investment plan which will increase our investment
in infrastructure, which will have a defense conversion plan, and which will attempt to address
these very serious problems that are killing small
business, namely controlling health costs and
providing basic health care to all Americans and
trying to break open the credit crunch.
If you think about it, two best things I could
do for you are both indirect. If we could bring
health costs in line with inflation and get banks
to lending again, economic activity would pick
up among people who would then pay taxes
to your local government, and you could take
that money and do what you need to do.
The best thing I could do for the private
sector, if we could bring health costs in line
with inflation between now and the year 2000,
we would save the private sector 21/2 times as
much as the public purse, freeing hundreds of
billions of dollars a year to be reinvested in
the economies of this country.
So, what I'm going to try to do is just that.
It's never been done before in this country,
having to bring down the deficit and increase
investment at the same time. It's going to require some very tough choices. I spent 2 hours
yesterday trying to cut the budget in areas that
I thought were inessential in order to free up
monies that would be invested. And obviously
most of our investment money goes directly
back to State and local government.
I'm sure that a lot of you will wish we were
spending more. But let me say that it is critical,
I'm convinced, that we show some discipline
in bringing down this deficit, because every
point we drop long-term interest rates frees up
$50 billion for new investment in this economy.


58




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Feb. 5


So I'm going to try to spend more in terms
of investment and reduce the deficit, which
means I'm going to have to cut consumption
even more. And we're working on it. And I
hope that we can work together closely, and
we can do a very good job together.
One of the things that I've been impressed
with-Secretary Cisneros' work over at the Department-is he came back saying what a lot
of our Secretaries have said. He said, "This
thing's not working very well when we've got
all this money out there that's not even being
spent." We've got $6 billion in the pipeline.
We got $3.1 billion that's been approved that's


going to take 4 months too long to get out
there. We've got this HOME Program; nobody
can access the money because of the administrative problems. So, we can keep you busy for
a year or so if we just run the Department
right. And we're going to do our best to do
that.
I think the floor is now yours. Thank you.
NOTE: The President spoke at 3:26 p.m. in the
State Dining Room at the White House. In his
remarks, he referred to Mayor Maynard Jackson
of Atlanta, GA, and Mayor Bob Lanier of Houston, TX.


Letter to Congressional Leaders on Certification of Major Narcotics
Producing and Transit Countries
February 5, 1993


Dear Mr. Chairman:
In accordance with section 490(h) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended (FAA),
I am submitting a list of countries which, as
of January 1, 1993, have been determined to
be major illicit drug producing and drug transit
countries. These countries have been selected
on the basis of information from the March
1, 1992, International Narcotics Control Strategy
Report (INCSR) and from other U.S. Government sources. The list of countries is identical
to the one submitted by the Secretary of State
on October 1, 1992, pursuant to the provisions
of section 481(k)(3) (now repealed) of the FAA
and using the definition of a major illicit drug
producing country and a major drug transit
country given in sections 481(i) (2) and (5) of
the same law.
The International Narcotics Control Act of
1992 (INCA) amended the FAA on November
2, 1992, by changing the reporting date to January 1, 1993, and by suspending the sections
481(i) (2) and (5) definitions for fiscal years 1993
and 1994. In fiscal year 1995 the section 481(i)
definitions will again apply. Since the section
481(i) definitions, however, have provided a generally sound and consistent basis for classifying
major drug producing and transit countries, we
will continue to use them with some practical
adjustments to take into account more accurate
measurement techniques and the effect on the


illicit U.S. drug market. We will not add or
remove countries to or from the major drug
producers list until we have our own confirmation that conditions in the country so warrant.
We expect to revise the list during 1993 based
on information in the next International Narcotics Control Strategy Report and survey information. At this time, there are reports that there
may be significant illicit cultivation of opium
poppies in Vietnam and in the former Soviet
Central Asian republics. When we complete the
relevant surveys of these countries, we will decide whether the data justify their inclusion on
the list.
The following countries are subject to certification on narcotics cooperation: The Bahamas,
Belize, Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Guatemala, Jamaica, Mexico, Panama, Paraguay,
Peru, Venezuela, Afghanistan, India, Iran, Lebanon, Morocco, Nigeria, Pakistan, Syria, Burma,
China, Hong Kong, Laos, Malaysia, and Thailand.
Sincerely,
BILL CLINTON
NOTE: Identical letters were sent to William H.
Natcher, chairman, House Committee on Appropriations; Robert C. Byrd, chairman, Senate Committee on Appropriations; Claiborne Pell, chairman, Senate Committee on Foreign Relations;
and Lee H. Hamilton, chairman, House Commit

59




Feb. 5 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


tee on Foreign Affairs. The related Presidential  D at the end of this volume.
determination of March 31 is listed in Appendix
Statement on the Withdrawal of Kimba Wood as a Candidate for Attorney
General
February 5, 1993


I understand and respect Judge Wood's decision not to proceed further with the possibility
of being nominated as Attorney General. I was
The President's Radio Address
February 6, 1993
Good morning. This is Bill Clinton. And this
morning, on my first radio address, I want to
talk with you about the most important challenge facing our country and the challenge that
has consumed almost all my time since I became
your President on January 20th: how we can
build a strong and growing economy for ourselves and for our children.
Lately we've had some good news about our
economy. Our business productivity is up. Our
people are producing more at lower cost. And
lower interest rates are giving people the opportunity to refinance their home mortgages and
to show more activity in the housing market.
Now that change is in the air, people have more
hope. Consumer confidence is up, and the financial markets are performing well. And all
of that is good news for the economy.
But chances are, you're not satisfied. And neither am I, because our economy isn't numbers,
it's people and how their lives are affected. And
still today, all across America, more than 16
million of us are looking for full-time jobs and
can't find them. Our unemployment rate, at 7.1
percent, is over 7 percent for 14 months now
and still higher than it was at what we thought
was the bottom of the recession. Our country
is simply not producing enough new jobs, even
in the recovery. And we're having a harder time
hanging on to the good jobs that give people
a good standard of living and give their children
a good future. Too many people are working


greatly impressed with her as a lawyer, a judge,
and a person. I respect her legal talents, judicial
record, and integrity. I wish her well.


longer and harder just to stay even, living in
fear that their families will be devastated by
a serious illness. And too many parents are wondering if their children will live as well as they
have or even if they'll be able to afford a college
education.
As I traveled across our country last year,
I spoke with many thousands of you about my
ideas for creating new jobs and increasing our
families' incomes. Now, in my first weeks as
President, I've learned, as you have, that the
economic situation has some greater problems
than we thought. Shortly after the election, the
Federal Government announced that the proposed deficit for next year and the year after
that and the year after that was about $50 billion
more than we'd been told last August. The difference between what the Government spends
and what the Government takes in is much larger than we had thought before and poses new
challenges for our administration.
For the past 12 years, our leaders haven't
completely leveled with us. They loved to tell
us how much they cared about us and how
much they hated big Government. But Government kept spending more money, and the deficit
kept growing. And even worse, all the time Government took care of a privileged elite while
our country's real problems kept worsening.
So today we have to do something no generation has ever had to do before. We have to
build a high-growth, high-skilled, high-wage


60




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Feb. 7


economy by investing in the health, the education, the job training, and the technologies
of our people and their future. And at the same
time, we have to cut that enormous Federal
deficit before it chokes off our ability to invest
in our future and undermines your living standards and those of your children. When the Government keeps borrowing more and more
money, it becomes more difficult for business
and Government and for our own families to
make the investments we all need. Today the
government is spending about a $1.20 for every
$1.00 it takes in taxes. We've got to act and
act now. There is simply no alternative.
In the days ahead, I'll be discussing with you
in greater detail my plan to put our economy
back on track. But this morning I just want
to tell you about my guiding principles. They
are the same ones that got me into this campaign well over a year ago, that kept me going
all through the year 1992, and that I carry with
me to work every morning in the Oval Office.
We have to ask everyone to contribute something to get the job done. But we're going to
ask the most from those who have got the most
and gave the least during the past dozen years,
those at the top of the ladder. And we're going
to do everything we can to protect people who
are suffering the most from declining incomes
and vanishing jobs, the middle class and the
working poor.
First, we've got to control the cost of Government, starting with my own people. I'll be making big cuts in the White House staff, cutting
payrolls and perks and privileges. I want to set
an example so that I can take the fight to the
rest of the Government to eliminate unnecessary
commissions, to reduce the Federal payroll, to


get rid of needless luxuries like posh dining
rooms. And we're going to take on the lobbyists
for the special interests that have grown used
to getting special favors from our Government.
Then we'll ask the people who have benefited
most from the eighties to give something back
to their country. While most Americans paid
higher taxes on lower real incomes, the privileged few paid lower taxes on much higher real
incomes. We're going to ask them now to pay
their fair share, along with corporations whose
tax burden has been dramatically reduced in
the last 12 years. I'm going to cut the cost
of our Government and get rid of windfalls for
the wealthy before I ask any of the rest of
the American people to make a contribution
that is fair and essential to grow our economy.
I'd ask you to remember that we didn't get
into this mess overnight. In the last 12 years,
our debt has grown to 4 times what it was
before. We're now spending 14 cents of every
tax dollar paying interest on past debt, almost
as much as we're spending on our social services
and our defense budget. We can't get out of
this overnight, but we have to make a beginning.
Together we can return to the time-honored
American values of rewarding work, offering opportunity, demanding responsibility, and providing for our future as a community. We're all
in this together. We're going up or down together. I'm convinced we're going up, if we
have the courage to invest, if we have the courage to reduce our deficit, and if we have the
courage to do it in a fair way.
Thank you, and good morning.
NOTE: The President spoke at 9:06 a.m. from the
Oval Office at the White House.


Statement on the Death of Arthur Ashe
February 7, 1993


I am deeply saddened by the death last night
of Arthur Ashe. The embodiment of true sportsmanship, Arthur rose from the segregated courts
of Richmond, VA, to the championship at
Wimbledon displaying grace, strength, and courage every step of the way.
Arthur Ashe never rested with fame. He used


the strength of his voice and the power of his
example to open the doors of opportunity for
other African-Americans, fighting discrimination
in America and around the world.
In the last years of his life he continued his
tenacious battle for others in the face of a disease he could not beat. He was a true American
hero and a great example to us all.


61




Feb. 8 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


Letter to Representative William F. Clinger, Jr., on the President's Task
Force on National Health Care Reform
February 5, 1993


Dear Congressman Clinger:
Thank you for your letter of February 1 concerning my health care task force. I appreciate
your support of my efforts to formulate a national health care policy. It is my intention to
develop a plan for high quality, affordable health
care for all Americans, and I have asked the
health care task force to help me develop legislation for comprehensive health care reform.
I have referred your questions concerning the
Federal Advisory Committee Act to Bernard
Nussbaum, the White House Counsel. Mr.
Nussbaum has prepared a letter addressing your
concerns, which he will deliver to you under


separate cover. I have also asked Mr. Nussbaum
and his staff to be available to answer any further questions you may have on legal issues relating to the health care task force.
With best wishes,
Sincerely,
BILL CLINTON
NOTE: The President's letter was made available
by the Office of the Press Secretary on February
8 but was not issued as a White House press release. The White House Counsel's letter was attached to the President's letter.


Remarks Announcing the Creation of the White House Office on
Environmental Policy
February 8, 1993


Good morning. I want to make a statement
this morning and then turn the microphone over
to the Vice President to discuss the environmental issues. And then he will take questions
on the matter.
Today I am announcing the creation of a
White House Office on Environmental Policy,
keeping a commitment that both the Vice President and I made to the American people to
bring new leadership and new energy to these
issues. And I am today reinforcing my intention
to work with the Congress for legislation that
will make the Environmental Protection Agency
a part of my Cabinet.
We face urgent environmental and economic
challenges that demand a new way of thinking
and a new way of organizing our efforts here
in the White House and in the National Government. This Office represents in action our commitment to confront these challenges in a new,
more effective way, recognizing the connection
between environmental protection and economic
growth and our responsibility to provide real
leadership on global environmental issues.
We must move in a new direction to recognize that protecting the environment means


strengthening the economy and creating new
jobs for Americans. And we must be ready to
take advantage of the absolutely enormous business opportunities that exist both here and
around the world for new environmental technologies that protect the environment and increase business profits and jobs.
The days of photo-op environmentalism are
over. The Competitiveness Council is closed and
so is the back door the polluters used to be
able to use to get out from under our laws.
This Office represents our commitment to the
environment and to a new, more efficient and
effective way to craft policies that work, policies
that recognize that protecting the environment,
strengthening the economy, promoting the global environment, and dealing with global environmental problems have all too often been relegated to the bottom of the agenda. These are
policies that will renew for the American people
a genuine commitment to their health, their
safety, and their jobs.
This Office will be responsible for coordinating environmental policy. The Director of the
Office will participate in the National Security
Council, the National Economic Council, and


62




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Feb. 8


the Domestic Policy Council and will work with
all the relevant agencies. I am pleased to announce today that Kathleen McGinty will lead
this Office and its efforts.
We are today changing the way Government
works, replacing the Council on Environmental
Quality with a new office that will have broader
influence and a more effective and focused mandate to coordinate environmental policy. The
American people look to us to make Government work better and more efficiently and more
effectively for them. We are taking an important
step in that direction today. The American people, our economy, and our environment will
benefit as a result of this.


And I'd like to say a special word of thanks
to Vice President Gore for the work that he
has done on this since the election. We have
been working hard now for more than 2 months
to determine exactly how we ought to reorganize
our environmental efforts and how we could
integrate the environment, for the first time
really, into national security policy, national economic policy, and other domestic policies. I
think we've taken a long step in that direction.
I thank the Vice President for his leadership,
and I turn the microphone over to him.
NOTE: The President spoke at 11 a.m. in the Roosevelt Room at the White House.


Exchange With Reporters Prior to Discussions With President Turgut Ozal
of Turkey
February 8, 1993


Tax Payment for Domestic Help
Q. Mr. President, are you now going to ask
all of your Cabinet Secretaries and Deputy Secretaries whether they have paid Social Security
taxes and whether they ever had hired any illegal domestic help?
The President. I've handled that through the
White House Legal Counsel. I think Mr.
Stephanopoulos has already given a statement
about it.
Q. Do you feel confident that everyone will
now pay back taxes?
The President. I do. I think everybody will
do what they're supposed to do.
Q. Sir, when are you going to

Bosnia
Q. Sir, when do you expect to have a statement on Bosnia?
The President. We're very close. I don't want
to give you a specific time, but we're very close.
As you know, we've done an awful lot of work
on it. I spent a lot of time on it last week
and a considerable amount of time today. So
we're quite close.
Q. Do you think this week you might have
a diplomatic initiative?
The President. I think we might be prepared
to make a statement in the next few days, yes.
NOTE: The President spoke at 2:04 p.m. in the
Oval Office at the White House.


Remarks and an Exchange With Reporters Prior to a Meeting With
Economic Advisers
February 8, 1993


Stimulus Package
Q. Mr. President, do you have any response
to the Republican letter? Did they say that they
will not support your economic plan unless you
do more on the spending side?


The President. They said they were against
the stimulus program, and -that's basically a
statement that they think things are fine in the
economy now, and I just disagree with that.
I'd like to read this statement, and then I'll


63




Feb. 8 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


be glad to answer it. That reflects the old way
of thinking, you know, we're coming out of a
recession, therefore we don't need a stimulus
package. It overlooks the fact that there are
now 3 million jobs less in this economy than
there would be if we were in a normal recovery,
that we now have fewer nonfarm payroll jobs
today than we did 2 years ago-3 years ago,
646,000 fewer jobs than in January of 1990.
Let me make this announcement about unemployment, and then I'll answer a couple of more
questions on this.
Unemployment
You all know that we've been here working
every day for hours and hours, putting together
this economic package designed to increase income and generate jobs and reduce the deficit.
Before we begin our next meeting, I have
two things that I want to say: First, despite
these encouraging statistics about the increased
productivity, there are still millions of Americans
who want to go to work to support their families, but they can't find jobs. The unemployment
rate, indeed, is 7.1 percent. It's been above 7
percent for 14 months and is now higher than
it was at the so-called bottom of this recession.
Secondly, no short-term solution to the problems of the unemployed is adequate. Many unemployed workers are what we call "permanently displaced." And they need much better
access to reemployment services that will provide them the information and the changing
skills necessary to compete in the changing
world. The old ways of doing business are simply not good enough anymore. Unemployment
compensation must now be both a short-term
lifeline for workers and a long-term link to the
skills that it will take for them to get where
they want to be, back in the work force.
Interestingly enough, Secretary of Labor
Reich just showed me this little chart which
makes the point painfully well. In the last four
recessions, 56 percent of the workers laid off
did not think they would get their jobs back;
44 percent did. In this recession, 86 percent
of the workers don't believe they're going to
get their jobs back, and only 14 percent think
they will. That means that we need a much
stronger plan to create new jobs and an aggressive effort at unemployment compensation that
does more than just pay.
Today I want to announce a two-part initiative. First, I'm directing the Department of


Labor to pursue legislation to extend the emergency unemployment compensation program for
7 months beyond March 6th, the date set for
its expiration. I'm very pleased to also announce
that this package will include reforms to the
unemployment insurance program that will dramatically improve reemployment services available to structurally unemployed workers.
The first step is to provide the critical link
between permanently displaced workers and
services to help them find the jobs. Using the
data that is now routinely collected when an
unemployed worker files a claim, individuals can
be profiled by the 5th week of their unemployment to determine their need for reemployment
assistance, and a referral for appropriate services
can then be made. Recently, a number of demonstration projects, particularly the New Jersey
Re-Employment Project, showed that this kind
of work and referral can significantly reduce the
time that workers spend unemployed, as well
as raise their earnings once they do go back
to work. And of course, that means that that
will reduce State unemployment insurance costs
and costs to the Federal Treasury.
I will say again: I know the economic upturn
looks good in terms of the big statistics, but
the unemployment rate is higher than it was
at the bottom of the recession. There are fewer
jobs than there were 3 years ago this month.
We are 3 million jobs below where we would
be in a normal recovery at this time. So we
need this unemployment extension, and we need
the economic stimulus program that I will propose when the Congress comes back into session.
Stimulus Package
Q. Have you made your decision on that stimulus program, and have you ruled out anything
except the COLA on the Social Security?
The President. I have made the decision on
the general outline of the stimulus program, and
I have made a lot of the specific decisions within
it, but we're going to go back over it all one
more time to refine it. I have worked very hard
on the deficit reduction package, and I'll have
more to say about that on the 17th.
Kimba Wood
Q. Mr. President, a lot of groups feel that
there is a double standard here on the gender
issue, because Kimba Wood was disqualified
even though she had paid Social Security, but


64




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Feb. 8


members of your Cabinet have not paid Social
Security and are now trying to catch up. Are
women being treated unfairly?
The President. Absolutely not. For one thing,
this issue was never an issue, and it never occurred to anyone to make it an issue, until Zoe
Baird voluntarily disclosed it. So, no one knew,
so no one was subjected to a double standard.
Since that time-the Attorney General, which
should be held to a higher standard than other
Cabinet members on matters of this kind-all
of our interviews, for men and women alike,
have been conducted in a totally evenhanded
fashion.
And finally, I think Judge Wood has been
somewhat unfairly treated inasmuch as what
happened to her happened in the ordinary
course of the vetting process. It's happened to
many other people in the months that we have
been working on this. She was singled out only
because it was wrongly reported that she had


been offered a job that she had not been offered
by me or anybody else. I'm sorry that happened,
and some say that a leak inside this administration caused that. If I knew who did it, they
wouldn't be here.
Q. What about the leak about theQ. Playboy bunny girls, andQ.    Playboy Club?
The President. That did not come out of here.
Absolutely!
Q. Where didThe President. It categorically did not come
out of here, and I thought whoever leaked it,
it was outrageous. But it did not come out of
here.
Q. When do you hope to have a decision
on Attorney General, sir?
The President. I have nothing else to say.
NOTE: The President spoke at 3:15 p.m. in the
Roosevelt Room at the White House.


Statement on Signing Legislation Designating the Thurgood Marshall
Federal Judiciary Building
February 8, 1993


Today, I am signing into law, S. 202, which
designates the newly-completed Federal Judiciary Building in Washington, D.C. as the
"Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building."
It is fitting that a building which houses the
work of more than 2000 judicial employees be
named after a man who dedicated more than
six decades of his life to public service in the
judicial arena. Leading the legal arm of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Thurgood Marshall worked tirelessly for more than a quarter century to dismantle racial segregation in all manner of
human endeavor. His twenty-nine victories before the U.S. Supreme Court serve as a reminder to the American people of our individual


potential to have a dramatic impact in our service to others.
Marshall brought the same fervent commitment to social equality to his work as an appeals
court judge, the Solicitor General of the United
States and Associate Justice of the United States
Supreme Court. His insistent vision for America
is a legacy which I hope we will cherish and
strive to fulfill.
WILLIAM J. CLINTON
The White House,
February 8, 1993.
NOTE: S. 202, approved February 8, was assigned
Public Law No. 103-4.


65




Feb. 9 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


Remarks on Reduction and Reorganization of the White House Staff
February 9, 1993


Good morning. Next week I will outline our
new economic plan to create jobs, to raise incomes, to reduce the deficit, and to lay the
foundation for long-term economic growth for
this country. Twelve years of denial and delay
have left a legacy that will take years to overcome. Economic renewal will require tough
choices from every American. But we have to
ask the most of those who got the most and
gave the least during the last decade, those at
the top of the ladder, and those who have the
levers of Government.
We in Government cannot ask the American
people to change if we will not do the same.
Most families in this country have had to adjust
their priorities and tighten their belts in the
last decade. Just about every American business
from the smallest hardware store to the largest
conglomerate has had to change to meet increased competition. And so, too, the Government must do more and make do with less.
During the recent campaign I pledged to reduce the White House staff by 25 percent below
the size left by my predecessor. Today I am
announcing a reorganization of the White House
that keeps that commitment to the American
people. Our White House will be leaner but
more effective, and designed to work both hard
and smart for the changes we seek in America.
These cuts come as part of a quite significant
reorganization of the Office of the President.
The reorganization will reduce the size of the
President's Office including the White House
and the Executive Office of the President by
some 350 people from its staffing at the end
of the Bush administration, not counting, of
course, OMB and the Trade Representative's
Office, nor part of the Cabinet.
This reduction will be implemented in the
next fiscal year-that is, the one that begins
with the new budget-not at some distant date
in the future. And these cuts will come at all
levels of our operations. I should point out that
this is one of the few times in this century
that any President has actually shrunk the size
of the White House staff.


In addition, we'll be cutting back on some
of the perks that can too often delude public
servants into thinking that the people work for
them instead of the other way around. And the
salaries of many top White House staff have
been reduced also.
I take these steps not simply to save the taxpayers' money but also because I believe this
smaller White House will actually work better
and serve the American people better. We have
begun a process of revitalization and reorganization that must consume our entire Government
and not simply its most visible symbol here on
Pennsylvania Avenue.
Over the past decade the best American businesses have had to reorder themselves and revitalize themselves. They've had to reduce layers
of bureaucracy, give people on the front lines
the freedom to innovate, and do more with less
to better serve their customers. Well, the taxpayers of this country are our customers, and
we intend to follow those methods of modernization to increase our services to them and
to do it at an affordable cost so that this money
can be put to more productive purposes.
Millions of dollars will be saved by this reorganization. But we will do more in the other
Cabinet Departments, throughout the Government, and not just in this year but in the years
ahead. Too often in recent years our Government has been on automatic pilot. People do
things today just because that's the way they
were done yesterday. It has grown to satisfy
not only the needs of the people but its own
needs. America has changed, but Washington
hasn't. Now, as have so many businesses before,
our Government must reform itself to regain
the people's trust and to be able to take the
lead in the challenging decisions which lie ahead
of us.
Now Mr. McLarty, my Chief of Staff, will
explain the details of the reorganization.
NOTE: The President spoke at 11:34 a.m. in the
Briefing Room at the White House.


66




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Feb. 10


Exchange With Reporters During a Meeting With Boy Scouts
February 9, 1993
White House Staff Reduction                     The President. I gave up 350 staff members,
Q. Mr. President, are you going to share in  a remarkable accomplishment. And Mr. McLarty
the sacrifice, giving up perks?              answered the other question.
Q. Mr. President, will you raise the corporate
tax rate to 36 percent?                      NOTE: The exchange began at 2:14 p.m. in the
Q. Were you a Boy Scout, Mr. President?    Oval Office at the White House.
Remarks at a Meeting With Cabinet Members
February 10, 1993


The President. Ladies and gentlemen, I'm
going to sign these Executive orders, and then
I will go over to the microphone and make
a statement about each one.
The first order requires by attrition a reduction in Federal positions of 100,000. The second
order is a reduction in the administrative costs
of the present Federal Government by 3 percent
per year on average leading up to 5 percent
in the 4th year of this 4-year term and abolishing several boards and commissions. The third
order deals with the commissions.
These are memoranda to the Department
heads. One deals with perks; one deals with
Government vehicles; one deals with aircraft.
[At this point, the President signed the documents. ]
Members of the Cabinet and staff, tonight
I will be going to Michigan and the Vice President will be going to California to hold town
meetings with American citizens to talk to them
about the economic problems and the budget
mess that we have inherited and the priorities
and principles we intend to bring to our efforts
to change the country and bring about recovery.
The people demand and deserve an active
Government on their side. But they don't want
a Government that wastes money, a Government
that costs more and does less. They voted for
change. They wanted a literal revolution in the
way Government operates, and now you and
I must deliver.
Yesterday I announced the reorganization of
the White House staff that will reduce our staff
by 25 percent and cut costs by $10 million per


year. Today I have called you, the Members
of the Cabinet, together to take the next step,
to begin the overhaul of Government as a whole.
The steps we're taking today will save the American taxpayer $9 billion. They won't be easy,
but they will make a difference. We have an
obligation and an opportunity to change the way
Government works and to show that Government can do more with less.
Our Government needs change. For the last
dozen years I've heard our leaders call loudly
for less Government while giving people more
Government and, perhaps more importantly,
while giving almost no attention to better or
different Government, to new ways in which
partnerships could be made with people in the
private sector and in State and local governments. Too often in the last decade people have
rushed to defend the power of the few at the
top and privileges of the elite, not just in the
private sector but also in Government. Too often
when economic security of ordinary Americans
has been threatened, Government has sat still,
refused to lead; not even follow, just get in
the way. That era has come to an end with
our coming to office.
Today the Cabinet and I are taking several
steps to show that we intend to change the
way that Government works. But I want to make
it clear this is only a beginning, not the end
of the process.
First, I am ordering a reduction of the Federal bureaucracy by at least 100,000 positions
over the next 4 years. At least 10 percent of
these cuts must come from senior management.
The cuts can come from attrition; I see no need


67




Feb. 10 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


for layoffs. These cuts will make our Government more efficient and more effective. The
Government is full of dedicated people whose
hard work is being choked off by our own bureaucracy.
Second, I'm ordering each Federal department and agency to reduce its administrative,
as opposed to its program, costs by 12 percent
over the next 4 years. With better planning and
innovation we can make better use of the money
we already have. In many agencies overhead
is too high, redtape is too thick, and the dayto-day operations of the agencies have not been
reexamined in a very long time. I believe Government can both care about people and be
careful with their money.
Third, I am today ordering the elimination
of hundreds of unproductive and duplicative advisory commissions that have spread across this
Government like kudzu. I'm asking the Office
of Management and Budget to eliminate at least
one-third of the 700 advisory boards and commissions that were not created by Congress.
From now on agencies and departments will
not be allowed to create new commissions without permission from OMB. We simply cannot
allow the Federal bureaucracy to beget more
bureaucracy.
Finally, we have to shrink the gulf between
Government and the average citizen. Too often
success in Washington is measured not by results but by perks. Today I've issued three directives that will begin to limit perks and privileges
that have driven a wedge between Washington
and the public: First, an end to widespread use
of home-to-office limousines by top officials and
a reduction in the limousine fleets overall by
half. Second, I'm tightening the rules for using
Government airplanes and ordering an inventory
of the airplane fleet with an eye toward eliminating unnecessary planes. Many people believe
that there are substantial savings here. Finally,
I'm ordering the elimination of such perks as
below-cost executive dining rooms and free
membership in private health clubs.
However, I do want to say to you, as I just
told the Cabinet before we came in, this administration was also elected to provide a health
care plan for the American people, including
setting a good example. And one of the ways
I want to do that is to keep people healthier.
So, I will also encourage every Government
agency to provide health facilities in any building of any size, as long as they are provided


on equal terms to all employees from the building maintenance people to the Secretary of the
Department.
These Executive orders are just a beginning,
but they're a good beginning. We will now move
on to really try to find ways to reinvent the
way Government works and relates to people:
how we can empower people more and entitle
them less, how we can have more effective partnerships with the private sector and with State
and local government, how we can find some
of the dramatic productivity innovations that
have characterized our finest companies over the
last few years.
I'd like to now call upon a few of our Cabinet
Secretaries to discuss some of the things that
they have been doing in their agencies, beginning with the Labor Secretary, Secretary Reich.
[At this point, Secretary Reich discussed how
eliminating executive perks improves management-labor relations. ]
The President. Secretary O'Leary.
[Secretary O'Leary discussed the example set by
staff reductions in her own office.]
The President. I also appreciate what you've
done to make the building more accessible over
there.
Secretary O'Leary. Thank you.
The President. Secretary Cisneros.
[Secretary Cisneros discussed HUD cost-cutting
measures and management improvement efforts.]
The President. Secretary Babbitt.
[Secretary Babbitt discussed Interior Department management improvement and elimination
of perks. ]
The President. Well, thank you. One of us
has had a big problem to deal with in the last
few days, and my impression is that he's done
quite well. I'd like to ask Secretary Espy just
to give a report about the crisis he's been dealing with and what his recommendation has
been.
[Secretary Espy discussed plans for improvement
of the meat inspection program in response to
reported cases of E. coli bacterial contamination.]
The President. Anybody else like to be heard?
Bosnia
Q. Mr. President, changing the subject, since


68




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Feb. 10


Secretary Christopher is going to talk about
Bosnia this afternoon, could you at least tell
us are U.S. troops a part of the initiative that
will be unveiled this afternoon?
The President. I think I should let Secretary
Christopher give his speech first. We have all
worked very hard on this Bosnia policy ever
since we took office and even before, trying
to find a way to do more but do it with the
support of our allies and through the United
Nations. I think I'll let him give his speech,
and then I'll be glad to answer questions about
Memorandum on Fiscal Responsibility
February 10, 1993
Memorandum for the Heads of Executive
Departments and Agencies and Employees of the
Executive Office of the President
Subject: Government Fiscal Responsibility and
Reducing Perquisites
To promote Government fiscal responsibility
by cutting the perquisites and excesses of Government office, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Executive Dining Facilities
Executive dining facilities in the executive departments and agencies and the White House
Executive Mess will not be permitted hereafter
to provide below-cost meals. The Office of Management and Budget, after consultation with the
agencies as needed, will develop promptly a plan
and issue any directives required to recover the
costs of meals served in these executive dining
rooms.
I strongly support the decision of those Secretaries who have concluded that they do not


the policies after he does.
Q. Do you think the public
The President. I think the public will support
the policy that he will outline today, yes. I think
they will want us to do more and want us to
do it in a prudent way. And I think that they
will support this policy.
NOTE: The President spoke at 10:33 a.m. in the
Cabinet Room at the White House. The Executive
orders are listed in Appendix D at the end of this
volume.


need an executive dining room for the conduct
of their agencies' business and have closed and
converted them to other uses. I therefore am
requesting the other heads of agencies to review
their official needs and close voluntarily executive dining facilities that are not essential for
the regular conduct of Government business.
Section 2. Conferences
The public interest requires that agencies exercise strict fiscal responsibility when selecting
conference sites. Accordingly, agencies are not
to select conference sites without evaluating the
cost differences of prospective locations. When
agency representatives attend conferences sponsored by others, the agency must keep its representation to a minimum consistent with serving the public's interest. The Office of Management and Budget, after consultation with the
agencies, will issue further directives necessary
to implement this requirement.
WILLIAM J. CLINTON


Memorandum on Restriction of Government Aircraft
February 10, 1993
Memorandum for the Heads of Executive         lutely necessary to transport Government offiDepartments and Agencies and Employees of the  cials. The public should only be asked to fund
Executive Office of the President             necessities, not luxuries, for its public servants.
I describe in this memorandum the limited circumstances under which senior executive branch
The taxpayers should pay no more than abso-  officials are authorized to use Government air

69




Feb. 10 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


craft.
In general, Government aircraft (either military or owned and operated by a particular
agency) shall not be used for nongovernmental
purposes. Uses other than those that constitute
the discharge of an agency's official responsibilities are nongovernmental.
The Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense,
Attorney General, Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Director of
Central Intelligence may use Government aircraft for nongovernmental purposes, but only
upon reimbursement at "full coach fare" and
with my authorization (or that of my designated
representative) on the grounds that a threat exists which could endanger lives or when continuous 24-hour secure communication is required.
When travel is necessary for governmental
purposes, Government aircraft shall not be used
if commercial airline or aircraft (including charter) service is reasonably available, i.e., able to
meet the traveler's departure and/or arrival requirements within a 24-hour period, unless highly unusual circumstances present a clear and
present danger, an emergency exists, use of
Government aircraft is more cost-effective than
commercial air, or other compelling operational
considerations make commercial transportation
unacceptable. Such authorization must be in accordance with the May 22, 1992, Office of Management and Budget Circular A-126, "Improving the Management and Use of Government
Aircraft." (The provisions and definitions of this
Circular are to supplement but not replace the
provisions in this memorandum.) In addition,
Government funds shall not be used to pay for


first-class travel, unless no other commercial
service is reasonably available, or such travel
is necessary for reasons of disability or medical
condition.
In order to assist the Administrator of General
Services oversight of agency aircraft, all use of
Government aircraft by senior executive branch
officials shall be documented and such documentation shall be disclosed to the public upon
request unless classified. Each agency and the
Executive Office of the President shall report
semiannually to the General Services Administration and the Office of Management and
Budget data relating to the amount of travel
on Government aircraft by such officials at Government expense and the amount of reimbursements collected for travel for nongovernmental
purposes.
In addition, all agencies are directed to report
to OMB within 60 days of this memorandum
on their continuing need for aircraft configured
for passenger use in their inventories. OMB,
in turn, shall evaluate the sufficiency and effectiveness of current policies. Such review should
include a public comment process.
This memorandum shall apply solely to senior
executive branch officials. For purposes of this
memorandum, senior executive branch officials
are civilian officials appointed by the President
with the advice and consent of the Senate, as
well as civilian employees of the Executive Office of the President.
Thank you for your assistance in implementing these restrictions.
WILLIAM J. CLINTON


Memorandum on Use of Government Vehicles
February 10, 1993


Memorandum for the Heads of Executive
Departments and Agencies
Subject: Use of Government Vehicles
The use of Government vehicles for daily
home-to-work transportation of high-level executive branch officials is a privilege designed to
facilitate the efficient operation of the Government and to provide security to key Government
employees with substantial military and national
security responsibilities. In the past, however,


this privilege has been abused by certain executive branch officials and has come to exemplify
a Government out of touch with the American
people. Using such perquisites of office outside
of the scope of our mission to serve the public
is unacceptable. Accordingly, I believe that there
must be a strong presumption against the general granting of this privilege absent security
concerns or compelling operational necessity.
The law authorizes me to designate up to


70




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Feb. 10


six employees in the Executive Office of the
President to receive daily home-to-work transportation in Government vehicles. In addition,
the law allows me to designate up to 10 additional employees of Federal agencies to receive
this benefit. However, for the reasons stated
above, in my Administration, no officer or employee of the Executive Office of the President
or any other Federal agency is authorized by
me to receive use of a Government vehicle for
daily home-to-work transportation pursuant to
31 U.S.C. 1344(b)(1)(B)&(C). The only exceptions, for compelling national security reasons,
are the Assistant to the President for National
Security Affairs, the Deputy Assistant to the
President for National Security Affairs, and the
Chief of Staff of the White House.
The law also allows Cabinet Secretaries and
other Executive Level I officials to authorize
one principal deputy to use a Government vehicle for daily home-to-work transportation. The
use of Government vehicles for this purpose
is simply not appropriate for Government officials at this level absent security or operational
requirements. Accordingly, by this memorandum
Remarks on Arrival in Detroit, Michig;
February 10, 1993
Thank you very, very much. Thank you for
coming out on this cold day to make me feel
warmly welcome to Michigan. I want to say
how grateful I am to be back here again. This
is my first trip out of the Nation's Capital as
your President. The first time I've ever been
on Air Force One, I flew here to Michigan.
I want to say a word of thanks to Chairman
Dingell and your wonderful Congressman from
this district, David Bonior, and all the Members
of Congress who are here, and Senator Levin
and Senator Riegle. I want to thank my good
friend Governor Blanchard, who flew here with
me from Washington. I want to thank all of
you who are here, and I'd like to say a special
word of thanks to the men and women in uniform who are here in this crowd who serve
our Nation every day. I know you're grateful
to them. I want to thank the people of Michigan, without whom I might well not be here
as President today, for your support in Novem

I am instructing you to refrain from authorizing
the use of Government vehicles for your deputies for daily home-to-work transportation. This
memorandum does not prevent you from authorizing the temporary use of Government vehicles in accordance with the requirements of
the law.
I further direct each executive department or
agency to reduce the number of executive motor
vehicles (except armored vehicles) that it owns
or leases by at least 50 percent by the end
of fiscal year 1993. Each agency will report on
its compliance to the Director of the Office
of Management and Budget at that time. I order
the Director of the Office of Management and
Budget, in consultation with the Administrator
of General Services, to issue any further directives necessary to implement this memorandum
and to monitor compliance.
Finally, I urge the head of each agency to
strictly enforce the Governmentwide regulations
prohibiting the unauthorized use of Government
vehicles, including the use of corrective or disciplinary action where appropriate.
WILLIAM J. CLINTON


ber and your support in March, and, more importantly, maybe, for all the things that I learned
here in Michigan.
When I was a boy, the first thing I ever
knew about Michigan, growing up in Arkansas,
was it was sort of the land of opportunity for
our people who couldn't make a living on the
farm anymore. They came here and became
middle class citizens by working in the auto
plants or by other industries that were successful. When I came here as a candidate for President, I didn't know whether I could do very
well. And after I came home the first time,
I called my wife. I said, "Every other person
I met was from Arkansas; we're going to do
all right up here." [Laughter]
People came here because Michigan was the
American dream. When I came back to Michigan in this Presidential campaign I found a different picture, not all bad by any means but
much more mixed. I saw in Michigan people


71




Feb. 10 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


who were developing new industries and new
technologies and new hope for the future. I
saw people working together across racial lines.
But I also saw industries dying on the vine and
people who had worked all their lives losing
jobs and losing their health care. And I saw
people divided by race, too.
I saw everything about America writ large
here in this State: all that is best, all that is
most troubling. But I saw an awful lot of hope,
too. Today when I left the White House to
come here, we had a crowd of folks come out
on the lawn to say goodbye, and when I knew
that we'd bring in some folks just from the
public who were there and some people who
work in the White House, many of whom had
never met the President before. And I had so
many people who work in correspondence who
were telling me that the letters are coming in
at record rates here, massive numbers of letters
for me, for my wife, for my daughter, people
writing us about their hopes, their dreams, their
new ideas.
I'm going to do a town hall meeting tonight,
a televised meeting connecting four cities, not
just Detroit but three others, too, and all across
the country. You know, between June and November I did nine of those. But I started a
year ago in New Hampshire doing them, because I believe that people like me shouldn't
hide from the people who elected them. I think
we ought to be accountable.
There will be many difficult and challenging
days ahead. But if you'll stay in touch with me,
if you'll let me hear the truth of your feelings
and your ideas, when you agree and when you
disagree, I think we can change this country.
And if you will give courage to your elected
officials and tell them that that's what you voted
for, for a change, that as difficult as it may
be to change, staying where we are is the most
expensive course of all, we can do it.
You know, shortly after you elected me to
President, I was given my first piece of good
news and my first piece of bad news. The good
news was that consumer confidence was up and
people were feeling better and people thought
we could change the economy; that American
companies, in a tough global environment, were
becoming more productive; that interest rates
had come down some and people were financing
their home loans. The bad news was that no
new jobs were being created in our economy
and that incomes were not going up and that


after the election it was announced that the
Government deficit was going to be $50 billion
higher next year and just about that high every
year thereafter during my term of office. And
so I had to go back to the drawing board and
figure out how we were going to put the American people first, take on the special interests,
invest in jobs and incomes and deal with the
health care crisis and still bring the deficit down,
as I promised to do, and to do it in a way
that is fair to the middle class, people who've
worked hard and paid the bills for 12 years.
It isn't easy, I'll tell you that. But I'm doing
my best.
We have spent literally hours and hours and
hours, the administration people and I, and I've
met with large numbers of people in Congress,
many people many times, since I became President just 3 weeks ago, doing almost nothing
but focusing on this economy. And I am telling
you I am confident that if we'll make some
challenging decisions now and put this country
on the right path, we can lift this economy up,
we can create jobs, we can deal with the health
care crisis and have a bright future.
But remember: Everywhere I went in this
election I said, "Do not vote for me if you're
going to quit on election day. Do not come
to the Inaugural and celebrate the victory unless
you're going to help us make the victory good."
I need your help. I didn't see a single soul
all those thousands of miles I traveled on those
buses, stopping on the country roads and going
to the big cities, I never did see a person holding up a sign saying, "Everything's just fine.
Leave well enough alone." Not the first sign.
Even the people who honestly disagreed with
me on a whole range of issues never said they
believed that we didn't have to have the courage
to change.
And so tonight I ask you, watch what we
do closely. If you think I'm wrong, call or write
and tell me. But continue to support me with
your prayers and your voice and your conviction,
and give the Members of Congress the courage
to change. That is what the election was all
about. And we are going to try to make good
on it.
Thank you, and God bless you all.
NOTE: The President spoke at 5:10 p.m. at the
Selfridge Air National Guard Base. In his remarks,
he referred to John D. Dingell, chairman, House
Energy and Commerce Committee.


72




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Feb. 10


Remarks at a Town Meeting in Detroit
February 10, 1993


The President. Thank you, thank you very
much. Let me, first of all, thank all of you
for being here in Michigan, and thank our audiences in Washington and Georgia and Florida
for joining us, and all the people across this
country who are watching this event.
I started doing these televised town meetings
a year ago in New Hampshire. Between June
and November I did nine that were televised
alone, including one here at this station. And
I wanted to come out of the White House 3
weeks to the day after I became President because I can see now, after only 3 weeks, how
easy it is for a President to get out of touch,
to be caught up in the trappings of Washington,
and basically to be told by people that nothing
needs to be changed or you can't change things.
Let me just briefly say, I want to take as
much time as possible for questions, but I want
to say one or two things real quickly. I believe
I got elected on a commitment to change America, to create jobs, try to raise incomes, to face
the health care crisis, to try to liberate the Government from special interests and turn it back
to the people, and to try to reduce the deficit
and put America on a path to long-term health
and recovery, bringing the American people together.
There's been some good news and bad news
since I won the election. The good news is
that productivity of American firms is up. People
are buying houses because interest rates are
down. Consumer confidence is up since the
election. I like that. People think things are
going to be better.
There's been some bad news. With all these
economic improvements, we aren't generating
new jobs. And the deficit of this country is about
$50 billion a year bigger than I was told it
was going to be before the election.
So we have to put together a plan that keeps
my commitments to you, invest in you, in your
jobs, in your education, your health care, and
your future; that brings that debt down; that
deals with the health care crisis; and that does
it in a way that's fair to all Americans.
I've been working almost exclusively on the
economic issues of the country since I became
President. I've got another week to put it to

gether. And I wanted to come up here tonight
and just listen to your questions, answer them
as candidly as I could, and share with you as
much as I can my feelings about where we're
going to go.
But I'll say this: All the hundreds of thousands
and maybe a million miles that I've traveled,
I never saw one person along the highway with
a sign that said, "Things are just fine the way
they are. Don't change anything." So I'm going
to keep trying to change, and I'm going to try
to stay in touch with you this whole 4 years
so that you can honestly tell me what you think.
I'm really proud of the fact that the voter
turnout was not only up, we not only had the
biggest crowd for the Inauguration in history,
but the mail and the phone calls in the White
House are running at record levels, some good,
some critical. But that's good. That's democracy.
And it proves that people really feel, at least
so far, that I'm going to listen and try to move
forward. And that's what we're here to do tonight. So let's begin.
Bill Bonds. Thank you very much, Mr. President. You know, in reality there are several town
meetings tonight besides our audience here at
WXYZ. The President is going to be taking
questions from people in three other major
American cities. From the far northwest, we
welcome the people at station KOMO in Seattle,
Washington. Ken Schramm will be the moderator, bringing us questions from the people of
that Evergreen State; Ann Bishop, our moderator from station WPLG in Miami, Florida; from
our station in Atlanta, Georgia, Bill Nigut taking
questions from the people visiting him at station
WSB.
The response from the people in these American cities has been overwhelming. And we'll
begin right now by taking a question from a
member of the audience here at WXYZ in Detroit and see if this bird's going to fly tonight.
Our first question is from Susan Esser. Susan
Esser was the political coordinator for the Ross
Perot campaign for the Presidency in the State
of Michigan. I suspect this is going to be
about-well, it's "the economy, stupid," as we
heard-the economy.


73




Feb. 10 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


Balancing the Budget
Q. The American people, Mr. President, feel
that Congress does not have the political will
to balance the budget. If this is true, and as
you say, if the economy is your priority, will
you support a strong balanced budget amendment, one that is not watered down, and with
us send a signal to Congress that we need them
to face the issue? And when can we expect
Washington to start to solve this enormous problem of ours?
The President. I think you can-first of all,
I'm not for any version of the balanced budget
amendment that I have seen because I think
it is basically a gimmick and a way of putting
the decision off that would give us 5 years to
deal with it. Secondly, if we balanced the budget
tomorrow, we'd drive unemployment up because
it would require such terrible sacrifices.
I hate to say this again, but if you look at
what the Japanese did, they had a huge deficit
in the 1970's, about as big, even a little bigger
than ours is now. And they brought it down
over about a 10-year period until, in 1990, they
were the only major industrial country with a
balanced budget; one reason, they had low unemployment and high growth.
Let me just tell you what I'm going to do,
and I wouldn't rule out other measures later.
I'm going to try to get the Congress to pass
the modified line-item veto bill that the House
passed the last time and the Senate didn't. I
strongly support it. I'm going to try to pass
a strong campaign finance reform law and a
lobby reform law to free the Congress of undue
influence of special interests. I'm going to ask
them to cut spending, and dramatically, across
a broad range of areas, and to raise some more
money to try to bring this deficit down in a
dramatic way that will send a signal that we're
in control of our own house again. And we're
going to lower interest rates as a result of it
and get this economy going again. I think that's
what we want.
The important thing is not to balance the
budget overnight but to put it on a steady and
decided downward tack. If we don't do itlet me just say, there's no virtue in any of this
unless it helps you.
Let me just answer this. A lot of people say
to me, "Why do you want to balance the budget?" It's no fun cutting spending or raising more
money to balance the budget or reduce the defi

cit. If you reduce the deficit, the United States
doesn't borrow so much money. We have more
of your tax money to spend on the education
of your children or on developing new jobs or
on health care. We keep interest rates down,
and it's easier for you to borrow money in the
private sector. So you create more jobs. If the
deficit gets bigger and bigger and bigger every
year, it weakens the economy.
So we have to do two things at once that
no Government in your country's history has
ever done. We've got to increase investment in
jobs and reduce the deficit, and we're going
to do it. And I think we can start next week.
Look at my plan. See how you like it and see
if the Congress responds. I predict to you that
they will respond in a bipartisan fashion and
reduce the debt for the first time in a long
time.
Mr. Bonds. Mr. President, we've kicked it off
with that first question. Thank you, Susan. We're
going to keep this moving right along. Let me
throw it now and link up with Ann Bishop from
station WPLG in Miami.
Ann Bishop. Thank you very much, Bill. And
with me is Kelly Kaprin, an attorney, and she
has a question for the President. Kelly.
Family Leave and Homosexuals in the Military
Q. Why did you choose to tackle the gays
in the military and the family leave bill first
versus getting right to the economy and the
Federal deficit?
The President. I didn't-I did choose the family leave bill first. Let me answer the question
separately. I chose to deal with the family leave
bill because I knew there was a majority support
in both Houses for it and because I thought
it was a pro-family bill. I thought it was a bill
that would be helpful to strengthen the American family with so many people forcibly in the
work force. It contained an exemption for small
business. It had been passed twice by the Congress before and vetoed. I thought it would help
families and illustrate we had ended gridlock.
I tried to put off the gays in the military
issue for 6 months. Senators in the other party
wanted it dealt with now. They saw it as a
way to delay family leave and to throw the
whole Federal Government into debating that.
I actually spent very little time on the issue
myself. I met with the Joint Chiefs on a number
of issues, including that; met with the Senate
Democrats on the Armed Services Committee.


74




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Feb. 10


But I was, frankly, appalled that we spent so
much time the first week talking about that instead of how to get the economy going again.
It wasn't my idea. My agreement with the Joint
Chiefs was to study the issue for 6 months,
so we could focus immediately on the economy.
Thank goodness that's what we're now doing.
Mr. Bonds. Some people say you probably
would have been better off if you had sat down
with Sam Nunn and maybe somebody like Admiral Crowe, a couple of the heavyweights in
the U.S. Senate and say, "Look, how do I approach this thing with the Joint Chiefs of Staff?"
and not get the mess that we got into.
The President. That's just what we did do.
The Joint Chiefs wanted to meet with me on
that and other issues. I met with them. Senator
Nunn got into this because I asked him to.
I hate that it was written, particularly in Georgia, that there was some conflict between us.
I asked him to help me craft a resolution to
do what the Joint Chiefs asked, which was to
review it for 6 months and to put it off. We
did our best, but there were others in the Senate, mostly Republicans, who just wanted to debate it to death because they thought it was
hurting the other efforts we were making. And
now we're on the economy, and that's where
we ought to stay.
Mr. Bonds. Mr. President, we're going to
switch now to Atlanta, a little bit closer to your
hometown part of the country. Bill Nigut, WSB.
Bill.
Tax Increases
Bill Nigut. Mr. President, we're glad that you
could join us by satellite from Detroit. We're
going to start with Katie Rapkin, who works
here for the Atlanta Symphony and who is a
bit concerned about at least one of the campaign
promises that she believes you made and yet
she feels-you're not quite sure he's going to
follow through on it.
Q. I'm concerned about your campaign promise to not raise the taxes for the middle class,
how you intend to keep that promise.
Mr. Nigut. Did you vote for President Clinton?
Q. Yes, I did.
Mr. Nigut. Was that one reason you did?
Q. Yes, I did.
The President. Well, first of all, I did put
out a plan which didn't contain a middle class
tax increase, but I also repeatedly said, and I


said in the debates in front of 100 million people, I refuse to say "read my lips." That's not
responsible.
Now, what's happened since the election? We
have been told since the election that the Federal debt every year is going to be $50 billion
bigger than we were told it was before the election. I wish I could promise you that I won't
ask you to pay any more. But I can tell you
this: Look what I'm doing. I'm doing my best
to keep my campaign commitments.
I have, first of all, started by cutting the Government. I cut the White House staff by 25
percent yesterday. I bet that's never happened
in the lifetime of anybody in this audience. And
it's real cuts. Today I announce $9 billion in
cuts in the central administration of the Federal
Government, $9 billion. I have also said that
before I ask the middle class to pay, I'm going
to ask the wealthiest Americans and companies
who made money in the eighties and had their
taxes cut to pay their fair share. And I'm going
to cut more Government spending. But I cannot
tell you that I won't ask you to make any contribution to the changes we have to make.
We have got to do two things at the same
time. We've got to bring the debt down for
the reasons that the first questioner so clearly
articulated. And secondly, we've got to invest
more in creating new jobs, in educating people,
and providing health care for all Americans and
controlling cost.
I'm doing my best to do that in a way that
is fairest to middle class America. But I have
to be honest with you: The debt is $50 billion
a year bigger than we were told it was before
the election. I'm doing my best. I have done
nothing almost for 3 weeks but wrestle with
this budget, try to cut costs, and find ways to
finance what we have to do. But we've got to
change what we're doing.
Let me say I do have an alternative. I could
play the same kind of games with you that have
been played for the last 10 or 12 years. And
this is not a partisan comment. This happened
out of Washington. I could give you a bunch
of smoke and mirrors and pretend the deficit
is not there, and then 3 or 4 years from now
we'd be spending 20 cents of every tax dollar
paying off the debt. And it's not right.
So I'm going to do the best I can. Listen
to what I say next week. Decide whether you
think it's fair, and tell me and your Senators
and Congressmen whether you think I'm right


75




Feb. 10 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


or wrong.
Crime and Gun Control
Mr. Bonds. Mr. President, there are a lot
of people who are convinced that the Federal
Government doesn't spend enough money battling crime. I don't have to tell you about the
mean streets of America. This man is John
Marbury. His son was killed in the city of Detroit for a leather jacket. Right, Mr. Marbury?
Q. Yes. I would like to ask Mr. Clinton what
advice would he give to the administrations of
these large urban areas of how to get rid of
these illegal handguns and curbing the violence
with an immediate impact?
The President. I wish I knew how to have
an immediate impact. And I thank you for having the courage to come here tonight, with all
the pain you must feel.
Let me tell you where I think we ought to
begin. We ought to begin by passing the crime
bill that nearly passed last year, which does two
things: It gives the urban areas of this country
more police officers for the streets. I have been
in areas that were dominated by drugs, by weapons, and by murders, which are now virtually
crime-free because they have enough policemen.
They have neighborhood policemen walking the
streets on every block, working with their neighbors. That's the first thing.
The second thing that bill has is the Brady
bill that would require a waiting period before
people could buy handguns.
And the third thing we probably ought to
do is do what Governor Wilder in Virginia is
trying to do. It takes a lot of guts to do that,
but he's trying to pass a law which says that
you can't buy a handgun more than once a
month. Try to stop all these people that go
to legal gun stores and buy guns and then turn
around and just give them to kids like they're
going out of style.
So those are three places that I think we
ought to start. And if you've got any other ideas,
I'd like to have them. I think the problem of
violence among young people, particularly in our
inner cities and not all big cities, is maybe the
biggest problem we've got today in terms of
their future and the future of our cities.
I'm now preparing a jobs package for the
Congress that I want to try to boost the jobcreating capacity of the economy for the next
year or so while we bring the deficit down,
because I don't want unemployment to go up.


And one of the things I want to do is give
extra incentives for companies to invest in inner
cities. But they're not going to do it if they
think it's not safe. You can't have a job in a
place where people can't walk to work safely.
Mr. Bonds. The most powerful lobby perhaps
in the U.S. Congress is the NRA, and they don't
want gun control. How are you going to overcome that?
The President. We're going to fight to change.
All I can tell you is, that's what I hired on
to do. I may not win every battle I fight, but
that's one of the changes we ought to make.
And let me say, I live in a State where more
than half the people have a hunting or fishing
license or both. I believe in the right to keep
and bear arms. I believe in the right to hunt.
I believe in all this. I do not believe that we're
well served by having a bunch of 14- or 15 -year-old kids out there with handguns shooting
each other because of blood battles between
gangs or because they're mad or because they're
high on drugs. It's wrong. We've got to do
something about it.
Mr. Bonds. We've had some difficulty linking
up with our station out in Seattle. We switch
there now to Ken Schramm, KOMO.
Aerospace Industry
Ken Schramm. Thanks, Bill. I'd like to introduce Larry Brown, who is a machinist with the
Boeing Company. I'm going to go out on a
limb here and suggest that perhaps you have
a question concerning the economy.
Q. I certainly do. Good evening, Mr. President.
The President. Good evening, Larry.
Q. Yesterday the Boeing Company announced
that there would be 16,000 layoffs here in Seattle. Recently, Pratt Whitney announced 10,000
layoffs, and over 200,000 aerospace workers have
lost their jobs in southern California. At last
report, the governments in Europe involved with
the airbus consortium have subsidized their industry to a tune of $26 billion. My question
is, how can America meet the challenge of maintaining our leadership in the very important
aerospace industry?
The President. The answer, I think, is twofold:
First, a lot of those aerospace workers who lost
their jobs, lost their jobs because of cutbacks
in defense which had to come at the end of
the cold war. That is, we couldn't keep spending
so much more than all of our competitors in


76




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Feb. 10


these high-wage countries on defense without
paying an economic price for it. But we
shouldn't have cut defense as much as we did
in terms of high-tech, high-wage employment
without a plan to reinvest in other industries,
in other technologies, to put those people to
work. So the first thing we have to do is to
invest more in converting these high-wage jobs
to other technologies.
The second thing we need to do, frankly, is
to take a serious look at the aerospace industry
itself. The Congress passed a bill last year that
was never enacted that we're now trying to get
up and going, where I will appoint someone
and they will appoint some people to a commission to focus on how to rebuild the aviation
industry in our country in two ways: Number
one, people who work for Boeing, McDonnell
Douglas, and other subsidiary companies-how
can we get more jobs in making these planes
and selling them at home and around the world.
And number two, how can we do something
about the commercial airlines themselves to
avoid further bankruptcies and massive layoffs
like-we've got a Florida station here with us
tonight. Miami has been devastated by layoffs
at Eastern and Pan Am.
So we are going to work on that. And I assure
you that I'm going to have a strategy to try
to invest in commercial aviation. And we're also
going to either have to-either the Europeans
are going to have to quit subsidizing airbus and
trying to deny us access to those contracts,
which is something else that's going on now,
or we're going to have to meet the competition.
I am not going to roll over and play dead.
Seven, seven technologies are going to shape
the high-wage jobs of the future. And one of
the biggest is commercial aviation. The United
States has a lead there. We are losing it because
we have not fought to maintain it. And I assure
you, as soon as I get this budget and this investment plan, this jobs program sent up to the
Congress, we're going to start working on defense conversion and aerospace.
Mr. Bonds. We're going to switch now to
Ann Bishop, WPLG, Miami.
Florida Disaster Assistance and Military Base
Closings
Ms. Bishop. Thank you very much, Bill. And
of course, we've not only had the devastation
of the air industry but also Hurricane Andrew.
And I want you to meet now the Reverend


Walter Richardson, who certainly lives in the
area that was hardest hit.
Q. Good evening, Mr. President. On August
24th, many of the things that we had in the
south Florida area were gone. One of the things
that was gone because of Hurricane Andrew
was Homestead Air Force Base. What plans do
you have for the restoration of Homestead Air
Force Base?
The President. Well, first of all, let me talk
generally about the hurricane. There is a lot
of aid left to go to south Florida which has
been approved but not spent, that's tied up in
various Government pipelines. Some of it was
not pushed through under the previous administration. But I have to say, frankly, some of it
was slowed down because of the transition, the
change of governments. That happens. And I'm
going to put someone on that next week because
of something Governor Chiles said to me. I want
to put one person in charge of making sure
that all the assistance that's supposed to go to
south Florida for Hurricane Andrew actually
goes there as quickly as possible. We'll run
through all those Departments and try to push
it out.
On Homestead Air Force Base: In the campaign, President Bush said that he would just
rebuild it while we were closing a lot of other
air force bases. The Congress voted against that
and said Homestead had to be considered along
with all other bases. I agree with that; I think
we have to consider Homestead along with all
other air bases. There's a base commission, and
they will evaluate the needs for it.
But let me say what I believe, based on having spent an enormous amount of time in south
Florida and having talked to your congressional
delegation about it and others. I think that is
an invaluable asset. I think it is important to
rebuild enough support systems so that all the
retired military personnel, around the air base
at least, don't lose the dependence they had
on it and turn around and leave your community, which would be bad for you.
I think it's important to find a mission for
Homestead. And I believe that there are a number of multiple use missions which are potential.
We may even have joint use between military
and commercial uses. I've given a good deal
of thought to it, and it's one of the things that
I want to talk to you folks about. Now, if it
clears the base closing commission, it will just
be rebuilt with its mission. If it doesn't, then


77




Feb. 10 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


I think we need to look at whether there is
a mixed use for it as both a military and commercial mission.
It's an incredible resource for south Florida,
and it has to be used as a part of the rebuilding
process. So if the base is not rebuilt because
the base closing commission doesn't recommend
it, then I'll help you do something else with
it to generate an equal amount of jobs.
Q. Thank you, Mr. President.
Ms. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. President. We'll
throw it back to you, Bill, now in Detroit.
Mr. Bonds. Okay, thank you very much Ann.
We switch now to Bill Nigut, WSB, in Atlanta,
Georgia. Bill.
Homosexuals in the Military
Mr. Nigut. Bill Bonds, as you know, the issue
of lifting the ban on gays in the military has
been a particularly heated one here in the
South. Roger Turner wants to ask you, Mr.
President, why you want to do it. Tell the President why you don't want him to lift the ban
and see if he can respond to that.
Q. Having served in the United States Navy
for 5 years aboard a guided missile destroyer
and also doing isolated duty in Alaska and as
a Christian and having the opportunity to minister to a number of men in the Navy, I believe
it would just add continued undue pressure on
the situation that's already pressure-packed to
begin with. And I want to know, why do you
want to lift the ban, and what impact do you
see the ban having on the military?
Mr. Bonds. Mr. President, does it surprise
you to hear a minister-we also have a minister
standing here who very much wants the ban
lifted. Does it surprise you to hear a minister
say we should keep the ban in place or continue
a discriminatory pattern?
The President. Absolutely not, because a lot
of ministers of the gospel believe that homosexuality is morally wrong and, therefore, that
ground alone is enough to justify the ban.
Let me tell you why I favor lifting it very
briefly. We have now and everyone concedes
we have always had homosexual men and
women in the military service. I received a letter
from a retired officer, a woman, the other day
who told me she left the service because she
could not be honest about her sexual orientation, even though she was a distinguished officer
with a remarkable service record, one of many
such letters I have received. Your Government


spent $500 million to get rid of about 16,300
homosexuals from the service in the 1980's.
Now, here's my position. If there are homosexual men and women in the service anyway,
if we know they have served with distinction
and they have always been there, the issue is
should you be able to say what you are and
not be kicked out. This is not about conduct.
This is about status. I believe there ought to
be the strictest code of behavioral conduct applicable here. I also believe there ought to be
an even stricter code applicable to sexual harassment, whether homosexual or heterosexual. The
biggest sexual problem in the armed services,
according to the men and women who talked
to me, involves heterosexual harassment.
I think there ought to be a tough code of
conduct. If people do wrong, they ought to be
gotten out. But I think people should not be
asked to lie if they're going to be allowed to
serve, because the question is not whether they
should be there or not. They are there. So the
narrow question of this debate is should you
be able to stay and admit it.
The military itself has admitted they should
stop asking people when they join. That's the
position of the Joint Chiefs. So the only question
here is should you be able to say that you're
a homosexual if you do nothing wrong. I say
yes. Others say no. The military is studying the
practical problems about duty assignments and
other things, and we'll revisit this in about 6
months.
Mr. Bonds. I want to advise my stations along
the link-up that it's time for us to take a break
here. They'll be taking a break. Speaking about
the military, we have military forces in the Persian Gulf. We have military forces still in the
Kuwait area. Are we going over to BosniaHerzegovina? And we'll be back with that question for you, Mr. President, in just a moment.
[At this point, the television stations took a commercial break.]
Mr. Bonds. I appreciate your enthusiasm. I
think we'd save a little time if we'd hold the
applause to the end so that you could get more
questions in, the President of the United States
could get more answers in. So you do what
you want to do, but we feel it would be better
that way.
We have troops in the Middle East; we have
troops in Somalia. Are we going to go into Yugoslavia? That's this young lady's question.


78




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Feb. 10


Bosnia
Q. Good evening, Mr. President. Serbian
death camps and rape camps have shocked the
world. And today we have heard Mr. Warren
Christopher stating that he supports negotiated
settlement in Bosnia. How does one negotiate
with war criminals without a clear enforcement
to let them know that they have to stop with
the atrocity? And how does one ensure that
the Serbs will not continue with their atrocities
and that they will negotiate in good faith and
that they will lay down the arms? Will you ask
NATO for their enforcement of the terms of
agreement and give them the authority to use
force in this case? And will you also help Croatia
regain its sovereignty on the territories it's lost
so that 700,000 people can return to their
homes? Thank you.
The President. I'm glad you asked the question in the way you did. I was afraid you were
going to ask me why we agreed to get involved
in this process today.
Just for the benefit of the people who don't
know as much about it as you, let me tell you
what happened today. Today the Secretary of
State announced a new policy by our Government that we would agree to become more involved in what is going on in Bosnia, not in
committing our ground troops now or anything
like that but in trying to get involved in these
negotiations to protect the rights and the integrity of the Bosnians, the Croatians, and others
who have been basically subject to the assaults
of the Serbs; that we would be in a position
to say we're not going to enforce a peace agreement on the Croatians or the Bosnians that they
don't believe in, but that if we could get an
agreement, then the United States would participate, not alone but with the United Nations
and with Europe, in guaranteeing that the
agreement would protect the basic human rights
of the people involved and the terms of the
agreement.
Now, people say, "So we are not committing
today to make war in the former Yugoslavia."
We are committing to try to help get a peace
and then to enforce it. Why is that? Because
if we don't, number one, the terrible principle
of ethnic cleansing will be validated, that one
ethnic group can butcher another if they're
strong enough to do it, at the end of the cold
war; number two, that problem could spread
to other republics and nations near there. Never


forget, it's no accident that World War I started
in this area. There are ancient ethnic hatreds
that have consumed people and led to horrible
abuses. You know about it, the rapes of the
women, the murders of the children, all these
things you have read about. We've got to try
to contain it.
And I think we have to be very much stronger
standing up to aggression. We've got to get the
heavy weapons out of utilization; you implied
that. We've got to toughen the embargo against
the Serbs. We ought to open a United Nations
war crimes inquiry, and we ought to enforce
the no-fly zone against Serbian aircraft, strongly.
Those are the things that I think we should
do.
I do not believe that the military of the United States should get involved unilaterally there
now. We have to work with these other countries. And I might say that that's the position
that General Powell and our foreign policy folks
have taken. But this is a much more aggressive
position than the United States has taken.
But I can tell you, folks: We're not going
to make peace over there in a way that's fair
to the minorities that are being abused unless
we get involved. And if we don't get involved
and the thing spreads all over creation over
there, then we'll be pulled into it in horrible
ways that could be very dangerous to our people. So we ought to do what is right now. It's
also what is safest for the United States.
Mr. Bonds. But isn't it a reality, Mr. President, that if the United States doesn't get involved and doesn't lead, nothing is going to
change?
The President. I think that it is reality that
if we don't get involved, either nothing will
change or the Bosnians will be wrecked and
the Croatians will be hurt badly.
Mr. Bonds. And it could still spread after that.
The President. And it could go into Kosovo,
which is next door; it could go into Macedonia.
You could involve the Turks. You could involve
the Greeks. We could have a serious problem.
Mr. Bonds. Then you've got a major policy
decision to make.
The President. I just did it. [Laughter] We're
going to get involved.
Mr. Bonds. I don't think she thinks you did
make it.
The President. Let me just say, the United
States has learned one thing: When we operate-look at the Gulf War. If we operate with


79




Feb. 10 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


the support of the United Nations and with the
support of Europe and with the support of our
allies, we can do a lot of things at an acceptably
low cost of life, and get something done. If
we go off on our own and everybody else is
over here, we can't get it done.
I have to deal with the fact that Europe believes today that negotiations are possible, that
Russia wants negotiations from a different point
of view. And even though they've been historically sympathetic to the Serbs, they have supported our position that we ought to toughen
the embargo and stand up to aggression.
And if I go in there, the United States now
takes a leadership role, I think there's a real
chance we can stop some of the killing, stop
the ethnic cleansing, and get a peace agreement.
And then we'll have to help enforce it. She's
absolutely right. If we don't have an enforcement mechanism, you won't be able to do it.
But I believe this is the best thing to do for
the Croatians and for the Bosnians and for humanity at large in the former Yugoslavia. I think
it's the right thing to do.
Health Care Reform and Meat Inspection
Mr. Bonds. Thank you, Mr. President. Ken
Schramm, KOMO in Seattle.
Mr. Schramm. Thank you. Mr. President, my
understanding is that while you were en route
to tonight's program, while aboard Air Force
One you called an area hospital because you
were concerned and wanted to speak to some
parents and some children who have been affected by the E. coli bacteria contamination in
this area. I'd like to introduce Vicky and Darrin
Detweiler, whose 16-month-old son remains in
critical condition at Tacoma's Mary Bridge Hospital. And they have a question concerning
health care.
Q. Mr. President, actually our child is at Children's Hospital in Seattle, but he is in intensive
care, in critical condition. And only 2 days prior
to him going in there with E. coli poisoning
from tainted meat, my husband lost his job,
and we were left without medical coverage.
I'm Canadian originally and always took comfort in the medical system there and in knowing
that my children would be taken care of. My
question to you now is: What are you prepared
to do in regards to the tainted meat problem,
and is there any hope in the near future of
seeing universal health care so no one else has
to go through what we've gone through?


The President. Let me, first of all, say I thank
you for being on the program, and I hope your
child will be well. I did call two other sets
of parents who are in the hospital with their
children, on the way out here, just to inquire
about that and to get their ideas about what
we should do.
Let me answer your second question first.
As I'm sure you know, I've asked my wife to
head a task force to come up with a bill within
100 days which will bring a new system of
health care to America which offers us the
chance to provide basic health coverage to everybody, to stop people from losing their health
coverage when they lose a job, to stop people
from their inability to change jobs because
they've had someone in their family sick, and
to bring the cost of health care in line with
inflation. I think we can do that. And if we
don't do it, we'll never balance the budget, and
we'll never restore health to this economy. Fifty
percent of the projected deficit growth between
now and the year 2000 is all in health care
costs. So it is a terrific human issue, but it's
a big economic issue for Americans. And the
answer to your question is: Within 100 days
of my becoming President, we're going to have
a bill to the Congress to do just what you've
said.
Now, the second thing, this E. coli thinghave you all been following it up in Washington?
I asked the Secretary of Agriculture, Mike Espy,
who is responsible for the regulation of the
slaughterhouses and the meat before it comes
to a restaurant, to go up there and look into
the situation. And we think there are two things
that have to be done.
First of all, we've got to make it clear to
people who are providing the fast food that
they've got to do everything they can to comply
with our cooking regulations. Some of these viruses would have clearly died had the heat been
observed. On the other hand, we've got to find
ways to do more inspections and to try to do
them in a more effective way. And so we are
reviewing now the possibility of not only hiring
more inspectors, which I've already agreed to
do, but secondly, seeing if there is some way
we can do a better job of actually inspecting
the meat, empowering the inspectors to do some
more things.
We have got to do that. And I can tell you,
if you have any more ideas, I'd like to have
them. The parents that I talked to today had


80




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Feb. 10


some, actually, some quite good ideas that we're
going to pursue. And I want to invite you and
any others who are listening who have other
ideas to let me know. But you can look forward
to more inspectors, and we're looking for ways
to inspect better as well.
Mr. Bonds. In that case, you're increasing
Government.
The President. We are there. But that's a direct service to people. That's not a waste of
bureaucracy. I think the American people want
us to make sure they're safe if we can.
Job Retraining
Q. Mr. President, I'm a former Pan American
Airline employee, and I'm still unemployed at
this time. And I would like to know if you
have any new provisions for people who suffer
from big industries' traumas.
The President. Let me tell you, we're going
to try to do two things. One is to provide a
much more comprehensive program of retraining and job placement; and secondly is to try
to have a strategy available when we know that
major, major industries are going to shut down,
to try to do conversion, to try to provide investment opportunities for new kinds of economic
activities.
I said earlier something that I probably should
have broadened. This is not just a problem in
defense industries. It's also a problem in other
big employers. As we're in Michigan tonight,
as the people in Michigan know, the biggest
companies in America did nothing but basically
lay off people in the 1980's and the early nineties. Even when they were making more money,
they restructured.
For the last 10 years, until 2 or 3 years ago,
a lot of the jobs that were lost by big companies
were made up by jobs that were created by
small companies. About 2 or 3 years ago, that
process slowed to a halt because of the cost
of health care to small business, because of the
general recession, because of the credit crunch.
So my answer to your question is: We're going
to be much more aggressive than American governments have been in the past in trying to
find ways to deal with these problems when
we know in advance they're coming, and go
in and give people the chance to restructure
their lives, to rebuild them, and try to create
other kinds of economic activities with new partnerships in the private sector.
We're also going to try to change the tax


system to favor investment more. That is, we
want to raise the corporate tax rate some. But
then we want to say, if you want to lower your
taxes, invest more. And you can lower your taxes
if you invest to create jobs. And I think that
will help a lot. We're going to try to do that.
Q. I have a followup on Homestead and some
of that training. We obviously have plenty of
space down here to have it done. But what
kind of training are you going to give someone
who's middle-aged or even older but who still
needs to work?
The President. Well, I think that is both the
burden and the excitement of the time in which
we live. That is, there is nothing I or any public
official can do about the fact that the average
18-year-old American today will change jobs
about eight times in a lifetime. Even if you
keep working for the same company, if you're
lucky enough never to be laid off, in order to
keep a job, an 18-year-old today will have to
be retrained to do eight different jobs. So
whether we like it or not, middle-aged people
will have to keep learning new things, developing new skills.
Now, that will be very exciting and interesting
for people in their middle and later years if
we can spare them of the gnawing insecurity
of thinking they're going to be thrown onto the
scrap heap of history, they're going to lose their
job and never get another one, or they're going
to lose their job and then getting another one
making one-third of what they used to make.
That's our great challenge. And we are working
on it. That is something that I think America
ought to be able to lead the world in, and now
we're behind some of our other countries.
Health Care Reform
Q. Mr. President, is it possible to pay them
and give them benefits as well, like health benefits, while they're learning?
The President. Oh, I think so. What we're
going to try to do with this health care plan
is to make sure that everybody, whether employed or unemployed, has access to a basic
package of comprehensive benefits. Every other
country in the world, advanced country, does
this. Every industrialized country but South Africa does this, everybody. And yet we spend 30
percent more of our income on health care than
anybody else.
Now, if you have access to health care in
America it's the best in the world-and a lot


81




Feb. 10 I Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


of good things about it. But there are ways
to give people a choice of doctors, high quality
care, and do it for lower cost if we're willing
to take on the insurance cost, if we're willing
to take on a lot of the other waste in this system,
the phenomenal waste. The paperwork in the
American health care system alone is enough
to cover virtually everybody without health insurance.
Let me just give you an example. In most
hospitals in America today for the last 5 years
have hired clerical workers at 4 times the rate
of health caregivers like nurses, even though
there's been a national nursing shortage. Why?
Because we're the only country in the world
with 1,500 separate health insurance companies
writing thousands of different policies, covering
small, small groups with a blizzard of rules that
would choke a horse. Plus the Government
makes it worse by the way we run Medicare
and Medicaid.
And we're going to try to fix it. It's the most
complicated problem I've ever messed with. But
if we don't fix it, we can't control the deficit,
we can't restore health to the economy, and
most important, we can't restore security to the
lives of people like those who've asked these
questions tonight.
Child Care
Mr. Bonds. Child care and the terrible dilemma that so many working parents have had
finding competent child care has obviously been
in the news a great deal recently, Mr. President.
Hattie Henry lives in a community just north
of Atlanta. She is a first-time mother with a
6-week-old baby. And you want to go back to
your job as a nurse. You're struggling with that
dilemma. Is there something that you think that
the President can do to help ease this terrible
child care crisis out there?
Q. That's what I want to know. I'm obviously
going to be a working mother, and I'm very
concerned about the child care crisis, which has
finally been thrown into the spotlight with
"Nannygate." And I would like to know what
your first thing is that you're going to do to
address the child care issue, to make it affordable and reasonable.
The President. Let me ask you-can you hear
me?
Q. Yes, go ahead, Mr. President.
The President. Bill, I'd like to ask your questioner a question first. As you contemplate going


back to work, is your biggest concern the cost
of child care or the availability of quality care?
Q. The quality of the care. The quality of
what I can get for the affordability of what I
can get; if it is even worth it to go back to
work with what we have available. And what
about working mothers who don't have any
choice about going back to work? Where can
they take their children and have it be affordable and quality care, where they're sure their
children are safe and getting good care?
The President. Well, I think there are two
or three things we can do that we're working
on now. First is to work in partnerships with
States to help them to develop high standards
for child care but also quality care at affordable
prices. And one of the things that we did in
my State when I was Governor is to spend a
good deal bit of our training money. For example, training people who are on welfare but who
were quite intelligent and capable of-for taking
care of their own children-to work in child
care facilities and moving them from welfare
to work in ways that took maximum advantage
of money the taxpayers are spending already
and lower the cost of child care. And we often
put these child care facilities in and around job
training facilities to help working mothers and
working parents that were going back to school.
Sometimes they were going to school and working at the same time. I think we can do that.
The second thing we can do is to increase
the earned-income tax credit for working Americans, especially middle to lower middle income
working Americans, so that they will have more
disposable income to pay their child care expenses.
The third thing we can do is simply to increase the child care credit itself. We basically
have got to make the economics of this work.
And I think there are lots of other things that
can be done, but they won't affect the population as a whole. The population as a whole
needs to be helped by making sure you've got
a steady stream of trained quality child care
workers and then more income for middle-class
people, either through the child care tax credit
or through the general earned-income tax credit,
which basically says if you work 40 hours a
week and you've got kids in the house, you
shouldn't be put into poverty because of your
other expenses, including child care. The Government ought to reduce your tax burden, if
necessary even give you money back, as long


82




Administration of WilliamJ. Clinton, 1993 / Feb. 10


as you're working hard and playing by the rules
and you need to take care of your kids.
Kimba Wood
Mr. Bonds. Mr. President, as long as we're
on the subject, let me come in the back door
on it and ask you the same question that many
Americans apparently have felt, and that is,
Judge Kimba Wood certainly did everything she
could legally to attain child care. Why was she
penalized, punished by being eliminated as a
candidate for Attorney General if, in fact, she
dealt with this rather difficult problem in a perfectly legal way?
The President. Well, first of all, I never selected her to be Attorney General. There was
a press report that she was, and I regret-I
think she was treated quite unfairly in this whole
thing. I have high regard for her, but she was
one of three or four people I was considering.
Secondly, the facts of her case was that she
did not violate the law, because in 1986 the
law was changed to say if you knowingly hire
an illegal alien, you're violating the law, but
if you did it before the law became into effect,
you're not violating the law. So a few months
before the law was passed, she knowingly hired
an illegal alien.
Now, I think-and she did not do anything
illegal. She knew the person providing child care
was doing something illegal, but she didn't. But
the question there that you can ask or answer,
that I would have had to answer had I decided
to put her up for Attorney General, is whether
the Attorney General, who runs the Immigration
and Naturalization Service, has a special standard to meet in this area that other Cabinet
members might not have to meet. And that's
a question that I would have had to resolve,
had I decided to nominate her.
One of the things that I think has been very
good in this whole business is that we've now
taken a lot of these issues out. They're now
the subject of public debate, and I hope that
we will be able to resolve some of them, including-you would be amazed how many people
who come to my attention as potential candidates for various positions in Government honestly did not know that they had to take out
withholding on anybody who worked for them
if they spent more than $50 on them every
3 months. They just didn't know. And that's
something that I think has really been raised
on the public agenda. I think people are so


much more aware of that than they were. You
know, some people don't think that ought to
be the law, but that's what the law is.
Health Care Reform
Mr. Bonds. Mr. President, a lot of people
wonder if when your wife speaks on health care
reform she is speaking directly for you and if
that is the message that you're sending to the
American people. Here's a young woman by the
name of Marcie Hoffmaster; she's 17. She's
going to be graduating soon. And you've got
a tough future in front of you.
Q. Yes, I do. I suffer from a chronic illness
called systemic lupus, and I've already discovered that it will be almost impossible for me
to get health care. I'd like to know what you're
going to do ensure that people with a preexisting
condition can get health care. And also, if the
Government decides to regulate health insurance and prioritize illnesses, where will longterm, incurable illnesses, such as lupus and cancer and AIDS, stand on that list of priorities?
The President. Let me answer your first question first. The reason so many people with preexisting conditions can't get health insurance is
because people are so often insured in very
small pools. Like, look around here, suppose
there are about 60 people in this room. Suppose
all of us belong to a group health insurance,
and suppose we have the standard array of illnesses and problems. And a couple of us have
cancer, and you have lupus, and maybe one
person has HIV, and all the rest of us are
healthy as can be, right? It only takes one or
two people in a group that small to bankrupt
the pool.
But in most countries, and in a few States
in America, insurance companies are required
to rate people for insurance according to huge
community pools with hundreds of thousands
of people in them, so that the risk of your
care is spread across large numbers of people.
And insurance companies make money the way
grocery stores do, a little bit of money on a
lot of people, instead of a lot of money on
a few people. So the short answer to your question is, the way to keep preexisting conditions
from barring people from getting health insurance is, number one, to make it illegal and,
number two, to make it possible for the insurance pools to be big enough so that they don't
go broke taking people like you.
The second answer is, I believe, if you look


83




Feb. 10 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


at how much money we're spending on health
care, if we can redirect a lot of the money
that would be saved from administrative costs
and from insurance overcharges per person, because of the system we have, if we could do
more preventive and primary health care, if we
can, in short, maximize the money we're now
spending and keep people like you in big pools,
I believe there would be enough money to cover
your care. If that is not true, what the Government will have to do is to develop a Government long-term care program, because you cannot abandon people who have AIDS or who
have prolonged bouts with cancer. In fact, a
lot of cancer survivors, as you know, are living
now for 10, 15, 20 years and during most of
that time, even when there's a recurrence, are
serving quite productively. So I think we have
to do that.
I just approved, by the way, a strategy to
fully fund the Ryan White Act for the care of
AIDS patients over the next couple of years,
because I think that's an important issue. But
we'll never do it, you won't be treated right
until we have a national program that covers
everybody.
Mr. Bonds. Mr. President, we're going to
move into kind of a roundrobin here. We're
going to throw it now to Seattle. Ken Schramm,
KOMO.
Antidrug Program
Mr. Schramm. Thank you. I've got two quick
questions for you here, Mr. President. The first
one is from Rochelle Pinrod, who is 9 years
old, has never spoken to a President before,
but she has written you a letter.
Q. Mr. President, how will you help make
a drug-free America so I can feel safe walking
out on the streets, so that no one's going to
come up and ask me, "Would you like to buy
some drugs?"
The President. Good for you. There's no easy
answer to your question. One thing I can do
is to speak out. Another thing I can do is to
hire a person to be our national drug czar, the
developer of, the leader of our drug policy, who
understands that you have to have a combination
of things. You have to have a strong education
program in the schools. You have to have a
strong program in the communities to keep the
streets safe and to protect the children and to
give them something to do. And you have to
have a strong enforcement program designed


to break those people who are bringing drugs
into our country in large quantities. I went to
college with a person who's done a lot of very
serious prosecution of people involved in and
around drug transactions. And he tells me one
big mistake we've made, for example, over the
years, is not to go after people who make big
money at it by chasing the money instead of
the drugs.
So all I can tell you is that drugs have affected
my family. I hate what they are doing to America and to children's future. And I'm going to
do what I can to fight it through education,
through treatment, through opportunities for
safety on the streets, and through trying to go
after the people who are really causing the problems.
Who's next, Bill?
Mr. Bonds. Well, I have a young man here
in the studio, but I think we're going to throw
it to Miami. Ann Bishop, WPLG.
Ms. Bishop. Thank you very much, Bill. We
have with us Marlene Bashin, who has a question for you. Marlene.
Haiti
Q. President Clinton, during the Presidential
campaign, you severely criticized George Bush's
policy on Haitian refugees, but now you're not
only carrying that same policy, you also place
a naval blockade against Haiti, giving these
frightened people no chance to escape. How
do you explain these actions, especially at a time
when the situation in Haiti is as bad as possible?
The President. Well, for one thing, the situation in Haiti is getting better. But let me tell
you, I explain the action in the following ways:
My policy is not the same as President Bush's
policy because I'm trying to bring democracy
back, because I am committed to putting more
resources there to process people who want to
be political refugees and can meet the standards
and bringing them safely to the United States.
And let me tell you why I did what I did.
I did what I did because of the evidence that
people in Haiti were taking the wood off the
roofs of their houses to make boats that were
of questionable safety, to pour in thousands of
numbers to come to this country, when we knew
for sure hundreds of them would die on the
high seas coming here in a human tragedy of
monumental proportions; and that if they came
here, they would all come to south Florida,
where the unemployment rate is high, the gov

84




Administration of William ]. Clinton, 1993 / Feb. 11


ernment is strapped, they don't have any money.
And the Federal Government has constantly
broken their commitment to the people of south
Florida to help them deal with the immigrant
problem.
I decided that the better course was to launch
an aggressive effort to restore democracy to
Haiti and to launch an aggressive effort to protect people who want to apply to be political
refugees in this country, in Haiti, and to process
their applications all over the island, which is
what we are doing now. And I might say, the
ultimate proof that my policy is different is that
President Aristide himself asked the Haitians to
stay home and work with him to restore democracy. And if you noticed, just in the last day,
the present rump government in Haiti has
agreed to let us send observers there. And I
look forward to fully changing the policy and
in restoring democracy in Haiti. But I could
not, in good conscience, let hundreds of people
die on the high seas and create an enormous
problem simply because the United States has
not used its muscle to restore democracy to
Haiti. That's the problem, and that's the one
I'm trying to tackle.
Mr. Bonds. But Mr. President, if you place
or slap an embargo on Haiti, you don't hurt
the people at the top, you hurt even more severely the people at the bottom.
The President. The embargo was there all
along, and I support it.
Mr. Bonds. Yes, but I mean, it gets worse.
The President. Look, if we lift the embargo,
then what incentive does the government have
to change? That is an unelected government
there. The man who was elected President, ev

erybody down there concedes, if he were on
the ballot again today would win overwhelmingly. And we have got to try to restore democracy there. I want to lift the embargo very badly.
I want to do more than lift the embargo; I
want to help rebuild the economy of Haiti. That
would be good for America. They could be good
partners for us. A lot of the Haitians who are
in south Florida would dearly love to go home.
But I am not going to lift the embargo as long
as there is a government down there oppressing
the people.
Media Relations
Mr. Bonds. You can't do a town meeting every
month, Mr. President, and many people in the
White House press corps are saying, "He's going
to have to come and answer our questions."
You've got about 50 seconds left to answer that
question. How are your relationships with the
White House press corps?
The President. I think they're all right.
Mr. Bonds. They'd like to talk to you.
The President. I answer their questions just
about every day. They come in and ask me
questions, and I answer them. We don't see
the world the same way.
Mr. Bonds. Well, I think the point is, are
there going to be many more of these?
The President. Oh, I hope there will be a
lot of these.
Mr. Bonds. Thanks, Mr. President.
The President. I hope there will be a lot of
these.
NOTE: The town meeting began at 8 p.m. at the
WXYZ-TV studios in Southfield, MI.


Remarks to Business Leaders
February 11, 1993


Thank you very much. I would like to thank
all of you ladies and gentlemen for coming here
to join me today. I would like to say a special
word of thanks to the leaders of various organizations and sectors of our economy who came
in a little earlier for a briefing. And thanks to
the members of the administration who are
here, who have been working so hard for the
last 3 weeks on our economic program, and


to the Vice President who went all the way
to California last night to do a town meeting
and came in about 5 o'clock this morning. He's
the only person here who's had less sleep than
I have. That's what Vice Presidents are for.
[Laughter]
I have asked you to come here today because
we have to meet a challenge together. Many
of you have been my friends for some time,


85




Feb. 11 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


and you have worked with me in this campaign
and in others. Many of you are members of
the other party who love your country and care
very deeply about the health of our economy.
It doesn't matter. If you look at the history
of our country, whenever the chips have been
down, the private sector, the business community has rallied to help America meet its challenges in war and in peace. In two World Wars,
business men and women were among the leaders in our great national mobilizations, putting
aside narrow interests for the national interest.
When our Nation faced challenges from civil
rights to the energy crisis, businesses have taken
the lead in coping with change. Americans are
at their best answering alarm bells in the night.
But I think every one of you know that today
we face a crisis which, while quieter, is every
bit as profound as those we have faced in our
past. We risk losing the standard of living that
we have taken for granted for so many years
as Americans. Too many middle class Americans
have already suffered through a decade or more
of declining real wages and rising basic costs.
Now, even though it is said we are in a recovery
and the overall economic indicators are quite
impressive, the job creation that normally accompanies a recovery is not in evidence. Small
businesses are having trouble creating jobs because of the lack of the availability of credit
or because of the costs of health care. Big businesses are continuing to restructure, not just
manufacturing businesses now but service organizations, too, because of the demands of the
global economy.
Business people have to deal with the realities
they face, and they often make annual plans
and 5-year forecasts, based on the best numbers
they can get. Your Government for the last several years has either not been making annual
plans or 5-year forecasts, or they've been based
on numbers which aren't real and plans which
were never intended to be carried out.
Early in my campaign for President I did
what I had always done when running for Governor: I put out a plan which, as nearly as I
could, set forth what I thought we ought to
do as a country to increase jobs and incomes,
to reduce the national debt, to restore the health
of our economy, and to deal with the longterm problems we face. I wanted to increase
investment, reduce consumption, restore fairness
to the Tax Code and growth to the incomes
of America, deal with the structural problems


of this economy like health care and the credit
crunch, and to do it in a context that would
enable us to have long-term health by reducing
the national debt considerably.
I did it last year based on the numbers that
were then available. I revised the plan again
in late spring. In August the Government said
that the deficit was going to be bigger than
we had anticipated. Then, still, I thought we
could do essentially what we had outlined. But
after the election, the Government revised the
deficit figures upward again, this time by as
much as $50 billion per year in each of the
next 4 years.
Now I have a choice. I can do what has
been done by people in both parties for the
last several years and has certainly been done
by administrations unwilling to give up the rhetoric of low taxes and less Government, even
though costs were exploding: I can sort of deny
the problem and finesse the numbers. Or I can
tell you what I think is the truth. I think I
should follow the latter course.
I believe that given the size of this deficit,
given the burden it will put on today and tomorrow in terms of higher interest rates, given the
fact that we also have a plain investment deficit
in the education and training of our people and
the investment in our infrastructure and those
things that are critical to building high-wage,
high-growth jobs, we have to take even more
dramatic action than I had previously thought
to increase investment for jobs and incomes,
restrain unnecessary Government spending, raise
revenues in a fair way, and reduce the national
debt so we can have long-term growth.
I think if we do not do these things, we
will pay for it. I think the cost of the status
quo is far, far higher than facing our problems
and moving forward. Business people have
known for years that something had to be done
about our deficit. The national debt has quadrupled since 1980. Even more disturbing, unless
present trends are altered, the debt on an annual basis will explode in the years ahead with
50 percent of it coming from increases in health
care costs.
I want to reduce this deficit, not as an end
in itself but because I think it is a critical part
of a strategy to build jobs and growth for America today and over the long run. In order to
do that, I need your support and your contribution. Everyone will have to pay their fair share.
But if you do, we will all be better off, and


86




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Feb. 11


the business community will be stronger in the
years ahead.
Government has an obligation to provide the
proper environment in which business can prosper, but the private sector drives the economy.
If interest rates are too high, if the financial
system is in disarray, if health care costs are
crushing out discretionary income which can be
put into new plant and equipment or hiring
additional workers, the environment in which
we operate will be crippled because the private
sector cannot work. I want to be a better partner than that to you so that you can do your
job.
Productivity has gone up at an astonishing
rate in many sectors of the American economy
in the 1980's and in the early nineties. This
recovery, indeed, that we now see underway
seems to be based on three things: home mortgages going down enough for people to refinance their homes and buy new homes;
consumer confidence coming up since the election-I hope I can keep it up; but most important, dramatic increases in productivity in the
private sector. Those productivity increases are
not yet manifest in more jobs for the American
people or higher incomes, and they won't be
until we do something about health care, about
the deficit, and about doing the things it takes
to make our country as a whole competitive
over the long run. That is what I am trying
to grapple with as your President, and what
I need your support beginning next Wednesday
in the Congress with, so that we can make
progress on these great issues.
If we don't reform our economic policies, I'm
convinced eventually we will fall further and
further behind. Ten years from now we won't
even recognize the country that we all grew
up in. Ten years from now, if we don't change
present policies, the following things will happen: The deficit will be $653 billion in a given
year. The national debt will be 78 percent of
our gross domestic product. Health care costs
will take up almost 20 percent of GDP. They
are at 14 percent today. Only one other advanced nation in the entire world, Canada, is
above 9, and they're just a little bit above 9
today. Medicare and Medicaid costs will triple
for taxpayers and people less able to bear the
burden.
We have got to change. The short-term pain
of making changes now is so much less than
the long-term cost of continuing to do things


the way we're doing them. So next week I will
try to propose an economic package that will
give the American people fundamental change.
A goal is an economy that faces the world without fear and not only meets but beats our rivals
in economic competition around the world; an
economy that is growing, that provides jobs to
everyone willing and able to work, that does
not rest until the great American middle class
that built this country once again feels that people who work hard and play by the rules will
be rewarded and not punished.
The broad outlines of this plan are no secret,
but I'd like to restate them. First, to ensure
that we do not lose the momentum and the
new confidence that we have seen among consumers and in the markets and to finally get
sustainable job growth, I believe strongly that
we need an investment-led jobs package. But
all of us here know that our problems go beyond
the business cycle. More importantly, we need
a long-term plan to increase investment in the
American people and their future. We will put
in place a program of investment in the physical
infrastructure that is a precondition for prosperity and productivity. Finally, we will reduce our
deficit, not as an end in itself, as I said, but
as a means to achieve higher incomes and more
jobs. This will require tough choices from all
Americans. And before I turn to the middle
class for help I have to turn to people who
did well in the last decade.
This past week we began with the Government, where we ought to begin, setting our own
house in order. Too often in recent years our
Government has been on automatic pilot. And
believe me, it's been a very long time since
the kind of searching reexamination of the mission of Government has been undertaken that
you do all the time, that you do just to survive.
And so we are beginning a process of literally
trying to reinvent your National Government so
that we can increase its productivity, its effectiveness, and its ability to be a partner with
you in the great enterprise on which we now
embark.
I believe that Washington has to change before we can ask America to change. On Tuesday
I kept my campaign pledge to cut the White
House staff by 25 percent below the level that
I found it. That was a significant cut, but I
want to emphasize to you I did it the way most
of you would have done it. I didn't just slash
the numbers. We have reorganized the White


87




Feb. 11 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


House staff, and I believe this smaller group
will increase its ability to serve the American
people.
We now have an Economic Security Council
to go with our National Security Council and
our domestic policy operation. We're going to
have a smaller drug policy operation, but it's
finally going to have something to do with the
rest of the Government. It's not going to be
politics and speeches and posturing; it's going
to be affecting the policies of every department
of the National Government. We are going to
have a smaller, but more importantly, far more
productive White House.
And on yesterday, we extended those measures to the entire Government, ordering a reduction in Federal bureaucracy by 100,000 people by attrition over the next 4 years, with at
least 10 percent of those cuts to come from
senior management, and ordering agency and
department costs to be reduced by between 3
and up to 5 percent over the next 4 years,
for savings in excess of $9 billion by administrative actions alone-and again, not cutting for
cuts' sake but to redirect those monies to more
productive purposes and leaving those departments not only leaner but more efficient than
they were before.
This is just the beginning. We are going to
reexamine whether you're getting your money's
worth. One of the people I spoke with already
this morning said, "I can give you some examples of things that work and things that don't
in the National Government." I'll just mention
one publicly because we all know it doesn't
work: The Superfund has been a disaster. All
the money goes to lawyers, and none of the
money goes to clean up the problems that it
was designed to clean up. Those are the kinds
of challenges we expect to do a better job of
meeting, perhaps with fewer people whenever
possible, but with greater productivity.
Now I ask you to do your part. We have
to replace this social contract that somehow
crept into our thinking in the 1980's, that somehow we had to have greater inequality in this
country to get prosperity. That was the idea.
Even in the years in which we created jobs,
income inequality was exacerbated in America.
Now I think we need a new compact. Everybody does his or her part, pays their fair share,
joins our national effort, and garners the rewards
of a growing economy. The plan I will offer
will give a climate in which you can grow, in

vesting in people and the best trained work
force in the world, giving us the kind of flexible
employees that we all need. That is Government's responsibility to work with you to do
and one that we have not done a very good
job of in the past.
We want to lower the cost of capital through
long-term reductions in the deficit. We want
to provide special incentives to new enterprises
with long-term capital gains treatment. We want
to provide some changes in the Tax Code that
will plainly reward investment as opposed to
consumption in the business sector. But we also
have to face the fact that the deficit will not
vanish in a flash. We will cut it, and we will
cut it as much as we reasonably can. And if
our plan is adopted, it will be the first time
since the 1940's that the Government has succeeded in dramatically slashing the debt. And
I might add, it was inevitable then at the end
of World War II, when the debt was running
at about 120 percent of gross national product.
We are going to work as hard as we can,
and we desperately need your support to do
it, to bring health care costs under control. I
have to say this: If you want this deficit brought
down, not for 4 years but for 8 or 10 years
until we can do away with it, it will never,
ever be done until we pass a national health
plan to control costs and provide a basic health
system for all Americans and to stop shifting
costs onto you for people who aren't insured.
It will never happen unless we do that.
Fifty percent-let me reiterate-fifty percent
of the projected growth in this debt between
now and the year 2000 is in health care costs.
And we only pay 33 percent of the national
health care bill. More than two-thirds of it is
being paid by you. And the same thing will
happen to your cost. The best thing the President and the Congress could do for the American economy over the next decade is to bring
health costs in line with inflation. It would free
up hundreds of billions of dollars to reinvest
in new jobs and higher incomes and greater
productivity and growth. And we must not delay
that.
So I implore you not only to feel that you
can be involved in our deliberations on what
should be in the national health strategy but
also to help us pass that, along with this budget,
in Congress this year.
I want to also do something the governments
of our competitors do without apology. I think


88




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Feb. I1


we ought to have pragmatic partnerships with
the private sector to strengthen our technological leadership. Research and development
resources should shift toward technologies that
will translate into commercial successes. And we
must work together to create a national information infrastructure.
One of the things I've been determined to
do in all these budget meetings we've been having for the last 3 weeks is to make sure that
every dollar by which we reduce research and
development in the defense budget finds itself
into an increase in the domestic research and
development budget of this country, and more.
We have got to do that. We also should give
you more incentives to invest, as I said. I want
to reform the corporate tax system to ensure
that it rewards and encourages those who invest
in productivity: in plant, equipment, research
and development, in people who will create the
jobs and the markets of tomorrow.
And in return, we must ask your contribution
to bringing the deficit down. Let me say something I haven't said yet. We did not just cut
the White House staff and the executive administrative costs of this budget. You will see there
are a lot of other very real cuts in Federal
spending-and they will be real, definable and
measurable, not imaginary-that will be laid on
the table before the Congress and the American
people.
Once we do that, we must ask for greater
contributions to close this deficit. And we should
begin with those whose taxes were reduced and
whose incomes went up in the 1980's, the
wealthiest Americans and corporations. I will ask
for an increase, as I said in the campaign, on
the income tax for the wealthiest Americans and
corporations, along with the incentives that I
have recommended to get people-lower their
tax burden if, but only if, they make investments
in this country.
Our situation is worsened, and we may have
to broaden the range of revenues which we
seek. But we should begin by asking those who
can most afford to pay to do so.
I have also been persuaded by my Treasury


Secretary that it is unwise, indeed impossible,
to raise the individual income tax rate unless
there is a corresponding increase in the corporate tax rate to avoid tax shifting. But the
corporations should also have incentives to reinvest as their rates are raised. And so we have
done both things in the plan we will recommend.
I talked a lot in the campaign about an issue
which has relatively small dollar impact but
great significance to the American working people, and that is the enormously increased rate
of executive compensation in the last 12 years
as compared with the compensation of workers.
I want to make a proposal that deals with the
fact that the Tax Code should no longer subsidize excessive pay of chief executives and other
high executives, excessive defined as unrelated
to the productivity of the enterprise.
I believe, finally, that if all of us do what
we're supposed to do, if I can ask every American honestly to look in the mirror and say,
"What do I want this country to look like in
4 years? What do I want this country to look
like in 10 years? What do I want this country
to look like when my children are my age? Do
I really want to let yet another opportunity go
by when we just wander through a year instead
of really investing in our people and our future,
instead of really having a technology policy, instead of really having an economic strategy, instead of really doing something about the credit
crunch, instead of really doing something about
health care, instead of really doing something
about the deficit, just because I wish I didn't
have to change my ways?"-I think almost every
American will look in the mirror and say no,
no, this year we'll pull together and do our
part.
If the business community leads the way,
Congress will follow. I need your help. I hope
you'll be there.
Thank you very much.
NOTE: The President spoke at 11:49 a.m. in the
East Room at the White House.


89




Feb. 11 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


Exchange With Reporters at a Meeting With Arkansas High School
Students
February 11, 1993


The President. This is the Close-Up program,
but they're not close up. [Laughter]
Did you hear what I said today, Helen?
[Helen Thomas, United Press International]
Q. What?
The President. When I went in from the run?
I said you had a great voice. It pierced the
atmosphere.
Q. Yes, but you didn't answer any questions.
The President. I know, all your questionshave any answer
Attorney General
Q. Got a woman for Attorney General?
Q. Mr. President, are you not committed to
an across-the-board business tax increase?
Q. Which one's going to be President someday?
Q. You've got 14 lawyers in the Cabinet.
Which one's going to be Attorney General?
The President. Well, we thought it would be
part of my productivity in Government. We have
so many lawyers in the Cabinet-something I
didn't know, actually, until someone pointed it
out to me-that we could just rotate the job
once a month among the lawyers. [Laughter]
Town Meetings and Media Relations
Q. Mr. President, you had some tough words
for the businessmen today. Will there be similarly tough words for middle class taxpayers
come next week?
The President. I talked to them last night.
I think they got the message. I was really
pleased with that last night. I liked it because
the people who were asking questions, basically,
they talked to me just like they did when I
was a candidate. I was glad there was no dif

ference in theirQ. Why do you think we're different?
The President. - questions to challenge me,
I like it.
Q. Why do you think the press is not with
you?
The President. Why what?
Q. You said the press is not in your world.
The President. Why, what do you mean?
Q. We think differently or something?
Q. You said we think differently.
The President. No, no, I said just on-what
was I talking about? [Laughter]
9. Washington.
Q. Press corps.
The President. No, no, no, there was a specific
question.
Q. Press conferences among the White House
press corps. And you said, I answered that
questionThe President. [Inaudible]-the question was
about. You've got to get-before you lay that
on me, you've got to put it in proper context
now. What was
Q. Okay, you said we see the world differently.
The President. Well, I think sometimes you
do, but that's what you're hired to do. That's
your job.
Attorney General
Q. Is it a man for Attorney General, sir?
The President. It's a lawyer. How's that?
NOTE: The exchange began at 1:50 p.m. in the
Rose Garden at the White House. A tape was not
available for verification of the content of this exchange.


Exchange With Reporters Following Discussions With Foreign Minister
Michio Watanabe of Japan
February 11, 1993
The President. We just had a very serious  people came in and took all the pictures that
trade talk here. We decided that when all the  I was contributing to the Japanese trade surplus


90




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Feb. 11


because of all the film that was being shot.
Q. Are you relieved, sir, that you have finally
settled upon an Attorney General?
The President. I'll discuss that at 4:30 p.m.
Q. Are you asking for greater access for
American goods in Japan?
The President. This is just the beginning of
our relationship. We had a little talk about trade.
And Minister Watanabe said that he thought
that we shouldn't become protectionist in our
relationship. And I agreed, but I said I thought
we had to bring the trade deficit down and
that I would be working with him on it very
firmly.
Q. Did he agree to that?
The President. Yes, he agreed. As a matter
of fact, he discussed some things that he thought
would be done. So we had a good talk. But
it was very preliminary. You shouldn't attach
any burden on him because he came to see
me today.
Q. So you're going to be friends?
The President. Well, I think we'll be friends
and we'll have a few disagreements and a lot
of agreements.
Q. So is this lawyer you mentioned a woman?
The President. At 4:30 p.m.
Q. At each photo op you go a little bit further.
Q. Will we see her on the way out?
The President. I hope not.


[At this point, one group of reporters left the
room, and another group entered.]
Q. Mr. President, will you meet with the Japanese Prime Minister by the end of March? Have
any plans?
The President. I don't think a specific date
has been set yet, but I want very much to meet
with him in the near future. The JapaneseAmerican relationship is very important, not only
to Japan and to America but to the rest of
the world. And I think it's important that we
meet pretty soon, and I'm trying to set it up
now.
Q. Was there a big agenda for this meeting,
today's meeting?
The President. Was there a big agenda? Well,
we talked for a good while, as you probably
know, about a wide range of things, everything
from the AIDS crisis to the situation in Russia,
to the GATT round, to the necessity of resolving
the trade differences between our two countries.
It was a good first meeting. I thought it was
a good first meeting.
Q. [Inaudible]-diplomatic?
The President. It's my job.
NOTE: The exchange began at 2:35 p.m. in the
Oval Office at the White House.


The President's News Conference With Attorney-General-Designate
Janet Reno
February 11, 1992


Nomination of Janet Reno To Be Attorney
General
The President. Good afternoon. One of my
central missions as President is to reconnect the
Government of the American people with the
people who sent us here. Government cannot
be an abstract, distant entity. It must be directly
linked to the real lives of real people. I pledged
when I ran to reach beyond Washington to bring
the best from America's statehouses and courthouses to our Government. And I believe that
my Cabinet and other appointees have fulfilled
that pledge so far.
No agency needs an injection of innovative
spirit more than the Department of Justice.


Americans demand and deserve freedom from
crime in their homes, at their schools, and on
the streets. Talking tough is easy. Actually getting results is much more difficult and much
more rare. Thousands of prosecutors and police
across America have been developing successful
ways to fight crime and, just as important, to
restore the sense of security that makes community possible in our Nation. I expect my Justice
Department to take those lessons and apply
them nationally, to be an innovator for law enforcement.
After years of political controversy and abuse,
the Justice Department also needs an Attorney
General who will bring a sense of pride, integ

91




Feb. 11 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


rity, and new energy to that agency. The Department's dedicated career staff need leadership to help the Department pull together to
focus on the urgent interests and issues of justice and law that brought the employees of the
Justice Department into public service in the
first place. They need an administrator schooled
in the management of tough and complex problems and difficult-to-call legal cases, things that
affect matters in the office and on the streets
of America.
I am proud to announce today that I intend
to nominate Janet Reno, the State attorney from
Miami and Dade County, Florida, to be our
next Attorney General. She is a front-line crime
fighter and a caring public servant. She has devoted her life to making her community safer,
keeping children out of trouble, reducing domestic violence, and helping families. She has
truly put people first.
She grew up as the daughter of two respected
Florida journalists. She worked her way through
Cornell University, graduating in 1960. Three
years later, in 1963, she was one of a handful
of women to graduate from the Harvard Law
School, a year behind her distinguished Senator,
Bob Graham. After a decade in the private practice of law, she was appointed the State attorney
in 1978.
Janet Reno is ready to tackle the Justice Department's problems. Serving successfully as the
chief prosecutor in a complex, diverse urban
community is a really tough job. And she has
done that job and done it well. She supervises
an office of 900, including 230 attorneys. Her
office handles over 120,000 cases per year,
40,000 of them felonies, and has won 80 capital
punishment convictions for first degree murderers since she became prosecutor.
She has pioneered innovative programs to reduce crime, violence, and drug abuse. She
launched a drug court program that has become
nationally acclaimed that gets young first-time
offenders back on track. She's piloted a community policing program, helping to reduce crime
in blighted urban areas, something we want to
do all across America. She began one of the
first and best domestic violence programs combating spousal and child abuse. She runs a tough
child support program that is at the leading edge
of making deadbeat parents pay up.
She has been a fair-minded and effective
prosecutor. Her balanced approach has won
wide praise from across the community, from


law enforcement, the bar, community leaders,
civil rights leaders. People from all walks of
life have hailed her achievements and her remarkable dedication to public service. She has
won election five times and is the single biggest
votegetter in Dade County. The overwhelming
support of the people who know her best is
the most telling testament to her skills that I
know of.
As an experienced law enforcement leader,
she will be an effective voice in our fight against
violent crime, spearheading our efforts to put
100,000 new police officers on the street, to
keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of
criminals, to make greater use of boot camps
and other alternative means of service for young
offenders, to increase aid to local law enforcement, to expand the use of community policing
and to tackle the problems of violence against
women and the need for tougher child support
enforcement.
She will join with local leaders and environmental advocates to make sure that those who
pollute our air and our water pay for their actions and take responsibility for the needed
clean-up. She will work to invigorate our civil
rights laws and to ensure that every person has
an equal chance to contribute to and to participate in all our country has to offer. And she'll
lead the fight against crime in the suites, as
well as crime in the streets, ensuring that every
possible penny is recovered from people who
have bilked the S&L's and other white-collar
criminals.
Finally, I want to say to you that every one
I know who knows and has worked with Janet
Reno agrees that she possesses one quality most
essential to being Attorney General: unquestioned integrity. She's demonstrated throughout
her career a commitment to principles that I
want to see enshrined at the Justice Department. No one is above the law. Our legal system
must protect the innocent and punish the
wrongdoers. That the promise of equal justice
under law must be a reality for every American.
This remarkable public servant still lives in
a house in Florida that her mother built with
her own hands. She has a listed phone number,
and she's told me many times that people who
find that their ex-spouses are delinquent in their
child support call her at home because they
believe that she can go collect their child support. She has lived the kind of life, in real contact with the toughest problems of this country,


92




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Feb. 11


that I think will serve her very well as the Nation's chief law enforcement officer.
Janet Reno.
I want her to give a statement first.
[At this point, Attorney-General-designate Reno
made a statement. ]
FBI Director William Sessions
Q. Does this mean you're going to have a
house-cleaning of the Justice Department, and
that Sessions is on his way out as FBI Director?
The President. Well, first of all, I think it's
important that we put the new Attorney General
in and get our leadership team in at Justice.
And I don't want to speak for her, but I think
the appropriate thing is to wait until the final
report is in on the FBI Director and give the
Attorney-General-designate a chance to review
that before we say anything else about that.
Q. Do you have any ideas on that subject?
Selection Process
Q. Mr. President, how much was your selection guided by a determination to have a woman
as the first Attorney General?
The President. Somewhat, but not entirely. I
also reviewed a large number of men for this
position. And in the last several weeks, actually,
I decided that I would just do it as if I were
doing it all over again. I would go back to
ground one. I reviewed a large number of potential candidates, both men and women.
I have to tell you, if I might be permitted
a little personal moment, I've had a high regard
for Janet Reno for some time because my brother-in-law is the defense attorney in the drug
court about which I spoke so I've known about
her exploits for some time. And I considered
her even in the beginning, even though she
and I never had a conversation. So I think it's
fair to say that in my mind at least she prevailed
in a fleet of very fine candidates, both men
and women.
Q. Mr. President, can you tell us what role
Mrs. Clinton had in this selection because we
know that Janet Reno has a great deal of experience in child issues and that she's come to Mrs.
Clinton's attention last year at least?
The President. None except to say that she
liked her a lot. I mean, that she knew her and
liked her a lot. And of course, Hillary's brother
had been in the drug court. So I knew that
from my own direct knowledge, though she
didn't even talk to me about that.


Q. Did she participate in the interviewing?
The President. No, not at all.
Inslaw Case
Q. Mr. President, will she clean up the Inslaw
case, that case where Meese and others stole
a great system for using computers and didn't
pay for it, and the House Judiciary Committee
has recommended that there be an independent
counsel to clean this up? It's a scandal on the
face of the United States Government.
Attorney-General-Designate Reno. What I will
do is what I do in each of these instances.
I'll make sure that we review it carefully, look
at the evidence, look at what should be done
based on the evidence and the law, and take
appropriate action.
Death Penalty
Q. Ms. Reno, could we get your views on
the death penalty, and is there a difference between your view and the President's view? And
if there is, is that significant, and how will that
affect your policy at the Justice Department?
Attorney-General-Designate Reno. I'm personally opposed to the death penalty, as I've told
the President, but I've probably asked for it
as much as many prosecutors in the country
and have secured it. And when the evidence
and the law justify the death penalty, I will
ask for it as I have consistently. I will advocate
for it as the law of the land in particular situations if we can secure such penalties.
Q. Will you move to reverse the death penalty?
Nominee's Qualifications
Q. Mr. President, can you assure us today,
sir, that of all the candidates you either reviewed
or could have reviewed for this job, that the
one you have chosen is the absolute best qualified person possible?
The President. I can assure you that based
on my criteria I think she's the best. Somebody
else might have other criteria. My criteria were
the ones that I outlined. I wanted to bring
someone to the Justice Department who had
had both management experience and legal experience. I want to bring someone to the Justice
Department who had dealt with a wide range
of real-world problems and who had a keen
eye for excellence and talent, to restore a sense
of movement and energy and vitality. There are
an awful lot of good people at the Justice De

93




Feb. 11 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


partment who want to be part of a Department
on the move and feel good about it.
And the one thing I thought-I can tell you
this-this is ironic since I'm now naming Janet
Reno. I want to be forthright and answer the
question fully.
In the beginning of my deliberations weeks
ago, the one reason that I did not pursue this
more was because Janet Reno had always been
a State prosecutor and not a Federal U.S. attorney or not a higher Justice Department official.
But the more I dug into it and the more I
talked to people about it, the more I realized
that you couldn't be the State's attorney in Dade
County for 15 years without having enormous
exposure to a wide range of issues that the Justice Department deals with and without working
with the United States attorney. You might want
to ask her for some specifics.
So finally, I said, well, why don't I just call
and explore this. And I did, and I was fully
satisfied that she had more than enough familiarity with the Federal system to do the job.
Q. Mr. President, can you outline for us,
when you say "somewhat," that her gender was
somewhat of a factor, can you explain to us
how big a role that played, and why? And I'd
like to ask Ms. Reno how she feels about taking
a position that seems to have been set aside
for a woman.
The President. It was not set aside. I'll tell
you again, I considered a significant number
of men for this position. And as I said beforesomeone asked me about this double standard
issue-there were also a significant number of
men who couldn't go forward in this process
because of some of the same problems that you
all have written about.
I thought it was important not to disqualify
women just because of what happened before.
And I really believe-I'm not sure you could
find anybody around the country that would get
any more favorable and broad-based support
than I have been given in spontaneous comments. I just left a Member of the House of
Representatives who doesn't live within 200
miles of Janet Reno, who heard that I was going
to name her and just went out of his way to
tell me that it was a great appointment, what
a wonderful thing it was that I had done. I
feel very comfortable with this appointment on
the merits.


Law Enforcement
Q. Mr. President, given the tight budget constraints that you have been focusing on over
the past weeks, how do you and this Attorney
General plan to go about fulfilling your campaign promise to hire 100,000 police officers
for this country?
The President. Well, I think there are three
things that I would point you to, and keep in
mind we don't have to do it in the first year.
We have-when you all talk to me about my
campaign commitments, remember I've got a
4-year term-[laughter]-at least that.
I want to do that from three sources. Number
one, I hope we can bring that crime bill back
up that almost passed but didn't last time and
have some funds for local law enforcement to
hire more police officers. Number two, I want
to proceed at a pace with the national service
program, which will give priority in every State
to people who want to pay their college loans
back by working as police officers. Number
three, I want to pursue the idea that Senator
Nunn first raised, at least he was the first one
I ever heard raise it, of helping people who
are going to be mustered out of the military
service to qualify to move quickly into careers
as police officers or teachers.
And so, we believe from those three sources,
with the funding that I have set aside in the
budget I will recommend, and the other things
that we will do over the next 4 years, we will
be able to meet that goal.
Susan [Susan Spencer, CBS News].
Selection Process
Q. Is it safe to assume that Ms. Reno has
(a) never hired an illegal alien, legally or illegally; (b) paid all her Social Secufity taxes? And
finally, as you look back on the soap opera that
has led to this, how do you assess whatever
political damage you may or may not have incurred?
The President. Oh, I don't think there is
much. I think what happened-I just would remind you, though, I nominated one other person
for this, Zoe Baird, and I took responsibility
for that fact that our vetting procedure was inadequate. It was my personal responsibility. Since
then, all the other things that you have written
about are things that you found out about in
ways that I don't know, but our procedure
worked and worked quite well. And I didn't
discuss anybody or anything until I got ready


94




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Feb. 11


to nominate somebody else. So I think they Nominee's Qualifications


did a good job.
If there were any mistakes made in the interim, it was people who worked here, worked
around here, or were talked to by us who said
things to you they shouldn't have. But otherwise,
the system worked pretty well as it was supposed to have worked.
Q. First question: we can assume that all of
these other matters are not a problem?
The President. Well, why don't you ask her?
Attorney-General-Designate Reno. I've never
hired any illegal aliens, and I think I've paid
all my Social Security taxes. Certainly in the
vetting process in the last week we've covered
everything.
The Vice President. She made sure that a
lot of others have, too.
Q. Mr. President, to the extent that you wanted to fulfill these commitments, did you feel
hamstrung by the pledge or the perception of
a pledge that you had set aside this job for
a woman?
The President. No.
Q. And part two, if we can ask Ms. Reno,
we never got an answer to Ruth's question about
how she feels about being appointed to a job
in which there is that perception of a pledge.
The President. No. As I said, I interviewedI even talked to-I don't know how it didn't
get into the paper, but it didn't-both men as
well as women about this job. And I seriously
considered, seriously considered, at least four
men for this job. I really concluded in the end
that Janet Reno would be best. I never felt
hamstrung by any commitment, even though I
did want to name a woman Attorney General.
I thought it would be a good thing. There are
a lot of women lawyers in the country, a lot
of women judges in the country, a lot of women
prosecutors in the country. And I thought it
would be a good and interesting thing to do.
But I never felt hamstrung by the commitment.
Attorey-General-Designate Reno. I think this
is one of the greatest challenges that any lawyer
could have in America. And I want to try my
level-best. I have been so impressed with members of the administration and with the vetting
team and with the approach to Government,
the approach that Government can work to put
people first. And I'm just delighted to be here,
and I'm going to try my level-best.


Q. Are you a feminist?
The President. You want to answer that?
Q. Are you a feminist?
Attorney-General-Designate Reno. The question is whether I'm a feminist. My mother always told me to do my best, to think my best,
and to do right and consider myself a person.
The President. I do think I need to make
one factual disclosure and then I promise to
call on Mr. Lauter [David Lauter, Los Angeles
Times]. There was one factor which affected
me about Janet Reno, which is that Senator
Gore and I, when he was Senator and I was
Governor, we carried Dade County in the Presidential election by 4 percentage points. The last
time Janet Reno had an opponent, she carried
it by 40 percentage points. [Laughter] That had
a lot more to do than gender with convincing
me that she could handle things at the Justice
Department. If you know anything about Dade
County, you know that is a truly astonishing
achievement.
Q. If I could ask Ms. Reno, the President
mentioned that he was attracted to your experience as a State prosecutor which gave you a
lot of experience on the criminal law side. But
you obviously haven't had direct experience with
a number of Federal issues that will come up,
constitutional issues that will come up. Do you
feel that you'll have a substantial learning curve
that you'll have to get over in order to be able
to deal with those Federal law issues that you
haven't been dealing with in your career, certainly for the last 15 years?
Attorney-General-Designate Reno. I think one
of the splendors of the law is that it covers
so many areas and that if you're going to be
Attorney General, it's going to be very difficult
for any one person to be skilled and to be
experienced in every area that the Attorney
General must cover. I think I can do the job,
and I think I can do it by building a team
dedicated to excellence, to professionalism, a
team where the hallmark is integrity. And using
the base of the tremendous career lawyers that
exist in the Department of Justice, I think we're
going to have a great team.
Q. Mr. President, this has been a frustrating
process for you in some ways. If you had it
to do all over again, what would you do differently?
The President. Oh, I would have called Janet


95




Feb. 11 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


Reno on November 5th. [Laughter]
Immigration Law
Q. Ms. Reno lives in an area which is full
of immigrants, legal and illegal, and a lot of
things about the confusing laws of immigration
came out in the past few weeks, as we all know.
What will she do to clear up all these problems?
Attorney-General-Designate Reno. Again, what
I would like to do is work with members of
the administration, members of the Department
of Justice, to look at the problem, to consult
with the President, and to make recommendations based on a thorough study of the matter.
Abortion
Q. Can you tell us your views on freedom
of choice?
Attorney-General-Designate Reno. I am prochoice.
Florida Corruption Investigation
Q. Ms. Reno, could I ask a question? The
county-Dade County-some of the critics have
said that you have passed along questions of
local corruption, government corruption, to the
Federal courts and the Federal system. The
question is why did you choose to do that?
Attorney-General-Designate Reno. Let me
give you a classic example. My office was responsible for investigating and putting together
a case against a significant number of corrupt
officials. Florida has very liberal discovery rules
that give defense attorneys the right to question
all the witnesses, somewhat far more liberal than
Federal court. The Federal authorities also have
the Internal Revenue Service. It seemed to us
as the case progressed that it would be best
handled in Federal court. I didn't ship the case
over there. I shipped the case with my prosecutors, who were cross-designated to the Federal
court.
One of the things that interested me when
I asked the U.S. Attorney to work with us in
this effort is that he said, "Janet, that's political
suicide. People will think you're ducking." And
I said, "Mr. Kellner, I want to do what's right
for the case and right to see that justice is
secured." Our prosecutors participated in that
prosecution. I think it gave me an understanding
of Federal process, Federal procedure, Federal
law. And I think it's an example of what State
and Federal officials can do working together,
without everybody being concerned about turf


and taking credit for something.
Confirmation
Q. Mr. President, how long do you think it's
going to take to get this nominee confirmed?
The President. Well, I talked to Senator Biden
today, and he said that he would proceed in
an expeditious way. So I think that you should
ask Senator Biden about that. I think that the
committee will take it up in an appropriate fashion. I don't expect them to race it through or
anything, but I think they will do it in a prompt
way when they come back.
Q. Can you think of any issues at all that
might complicate the confirmation process? Anything that will have to be explained?
The President. I don't. I think that she may
have to-she just explained one issue here. I
can tell you this: If you've been a prosecutor
for 15 years, it's like if you've been a Governor
for 12 years. Not every call you make is right;
not every case you pursue is won. But I can
just tell you, I have been literally amazed at
the quality of the recommendations that I received for Janet Reno.
Justice Department Staff
Q. Mr. President, have you make any decisions yet on any other top positions at Justice,
and what is Webb Hubbell's role going to be
at Justice?
The President. Well, we'll have to discuss that
with the Attorney General now. But I will say
this for the hometown press: He has done a
magnificent job for the last 3 weeks under rather adverse circumstances, just trying to keep
things together there and to keep the morale
up and help at least to do the things that had
to be done. I hope he will be staying there.
And the answer to your other question is, as
you might imagine, we have done an enormous
amount of work on top-flight candidates for
other positions, and I would expect that if this
nomination goes as I expect it to, we will be
able to fill out the Justice Department with firstclass lawyers very, very quickly. Thank you.
Q. Are you sure you're not troubled by the
fact that her parents were both journalists?
[Laughter]
The President. No, actually, I thought the fact
that her parents were both journalists and she
still was a surviving elected politician made her
doubly qualified to be Attorney General.
[Laughter]


96




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Feb. 12


NOTE: The President's third news conference
began at 4:40 p.m. in the Rose Garden at the


White House. In the news conference, he referred
to Webster Hubbell, Acting Assistant to the Attorney General.


Remarks and an Exchange With Reporters on Child Immunization at the
Fenwick Center in Arlington, Virginia
February 12, 1993


The President. Thank you. We are delighted
to be here today. I want to thank all of you
for hosting us and coming out in such wonderful
numbers, and I want to especially thank the
young people who are here.
I want to begin my introducing the First
Lady, my wife, Hillary. As many of you know,
she is the chair of the President's Task Force
on Health Care and came today to review the
work of this wonderful clinic in anticipation of
our presenting to the Congress a program to
provide affordable health care for all Americans
in the next several weeks.
We've had a wonderful time here today. And
I want to introduce the person to my left who
will speak in a moment, the Secretary of Health
and Human Services, Donna Shalala. I also want
to introduce two United States Senators who
came with us today: first, the chair of the Senate
Committee on Labor and Human Resources,
Senator Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts; and
Senator Don Riegle of Michigan.
I'd like to thank Jim Hunter, the Arlington
County Board chair, for meeting us here. I know
we have members of the Virginia Senate and
House here, and the school board chair, Frank
Wilson. I thank all of them for being here. But
the two people I'd like to thank most today
are the two fine public servants who showed
us around. I'd like to ask them to stand and
be recognized: Dr. Susan Allan, the Arlington
County health director-where is Susan?-and
Sue Adams, the Family Health Bureau chief.
Thank you, Sue.
We've had a wonderful time today. We got
to walk through the process of what it was like
for a parent to have a child immunized here.
We saw the good news, which is that this place
is doing a wonderful job of reaching people.
We also saw some of the bad news, which is
it's still pretty cumbersome to have a child immunized. And we did get to see a young woman


of 20 months, get her a polio vaccine, which
is an oral vaccine. So it was nice to see someone
be vaccinated without pain. [Laughter]
We came here today to make this day a landmark and to fight to protect the health of millions of our children. I can think of no better
place to announce a new immunization policy
than right here on the front lines of the fight
to provide accessible, affordable health care to
every family in this area.
I'm pleased to be joined here by the children's advocates whom I have introduced. And
I do want to say again our thanks to Sue Adams,
the director of this clinic, and all the wonderful
staff that came out and said hello to us and
encouraged us along the way.
This week I was startled to read of the case
of a young boy named Rodney Miller, a 20 -month-old child who lives in Miami, currently
being treated for meningitis in the Jackson Memorial Hospital. He's there because he did not
receive a meningitis vaccine that cost $21.48.
The bill for his stay in the hospital has already
topped $46,500.
In the health care policy that our national
task force is developing, nothing will be more
important than preventive care. Today, American taxpayers are being hit with $10 in avoidable health care costs, avoidable health care
costs, for every $1 we could be spending on
immunizing our young people. The recent resurgence of measles in our country afflicted over
55,000 people, most of whom were children.
The epidemic cost this country $20 million in
avoidable hospital costs alone. Prevention would
have cost $1 million. And those figures don't
begin to take into account the terrible human
cost, the agony of a young man like Rodney
Miller with his joints swollen, with his ankles
so swollen they have to be relieved with needling to get the pus out, that the pain and
problems that he and many others will take


97




Feb. 12 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


throughout their lives simply because we don't
immunize our children.
Lest you think that this is a problem that
every country has, I want you to know in this
beautiful health care building that the United
States has the third worst immunization record
in this hemisphere. Of all the nations in this
hemisphere, only Bolivia and Haiti have lower
immunization rates for their children than the
United States of America.
Over the past 10 years, while immunization
rates have been declining in many important
areas, the price of vaccine has risen at 6 times
the rate of inflation. Immunizing a child cost
about $23 10 years ago; it costs more than $200
today. In a public clinic, the cost of fully immunizing a child has leapt from $7 to more than
$90. Manufacturers of these vaccines cite the
cost of research and development to defend the
rising prices. Well, nobody wants research to
slow down, but let's look at what's really happening.
The pharmaceutical industry is spending $1
billion more each year on advertising and lobbying than it does on developing new and better
drugs. Meanwhile, its profits are rising at 4
times the rate of the average Fortune 500 company. Compared to other countries, our prices
are shocking. Listen to this: The polio vaccine
in the United States currently costs close to
$10. In England, the same drug is available for
$1.80. In Belgium, it costs 77 cents. The problems of having an adequate delivery system, plus
the spiraling costs, are putting America's children and America's future in jeopardy.
To make matters worse, the makers of these
vaccines have refused to make their products
available to States at more affordable cost. I
should tell you, those of you who don't know,
that the Federal Government buys vaccines
from the manufacturer and distributes it through
the States and ultimately the people through
the Center for Disease Control. We buy the
vaccines at a much lower cost than a doctor
can. The States often directly buy vaccines. They
buy the vaccines at a higher cost than the Federal Government, but still at a lower cost than
doctors. States can order large quantities and
therefore should receive lower prices.
But listen to this: While 10 States have succeeded in negotiating agreements with the vaccine manufacturers that allow them to immunize
all the children they can reach, manufacturers
are now balking at starting talks with other


States. In fact, just recently Texas, South Carolina, and Hawaii were all turned away. They
were told that their efforts to get cheaper vaccines for their children were against public policy.
Today we must tell the drug companies to
change those priorities. We cannot have profits
at the expense of our children. These practices
have got to stop.
But I want to make it clear: Dealing with
the cost of vaccines will not be enough. We
also have to improve the delivery of preventive
care. I want to say to the members of the press
and to all the people who are here, we should
be under no illusion that every family and every
child in America has access to a health clinic
as good as this one. We should be under no
illusion that every family and every child in
America has access to a health clinic that opens
at 7 a.m. in the morning and closes at 7 p.m.
at night so that working families can bring their
children.
Even here, where there has been a dramatic
increase in the number of children immunized,
we are still seeing rates of 70 percent immunization when the national goal, and what is necessary to assure that there will be no outbreak
of communicable diseases, is 90 percent. Without an outreach program to go out and reach
people where they are, in the languages they
speak, in the homes and in the neighborhoods
and in the organizations that they frequent, we
will not be able to reach this goal.
So today I am announcing a three-part policy
to protect our children's future and to save the
taxpayers millions of dollars. It will require
changes on the part of all of us. And as I have
in the last 3 weeks, I want to begin with the
Government so that we do our job first before
we ask anyone else to change what they are
doing.
I am pleased to announce that the job stimulus program that I will outline on Wednesday
evening to the Congress will include $300 million to make vaccination services more widely
available to all Americans. These funds will help
public programs buy more vaccines. They will
improve community services and personal outreach efforts. They will mean extended clinic
hours all across America, more staff, and increased education efforts in conjunction with the
Department of Education and the Department
of Health and Human Services, and the resources necessary to create a national tracking


98




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Feb. 12


system so we know what is happening to these
children. These folks here are having a terrible
time getting good and accurate records because
we don't have a national tracking system.
These are the kinds of things that the National Government owes the American people
and owes these fine public health professionals
if we're going to do what we should be doing
to help protect our children. And we will begin
with that.
Second, I'm directing Secretary Shalala to
begin negotiations with our drug manufacturers
to assure that other States who do not have
the arrangements that 10 do can buy the vaccines they need at affordable prices. There is
no reason in the world why a child in Texas
is unable to receive vaccination while a child
in Massachusetts can. We can't stand this kind
of inequality simply because of the economic
priorities of the manufacturers of the vaccine.
It's wrong.
Finally, the administration will prepare an initiative for my review, in cooperation with key
congressional health leaders such as Senator
Kennedy, Senator Riegle, Senator Bumpers,
Senator Pryor, Congressmen Dingell, Waxman,
and others, that will guarantee the immunization
of every child in America.
And I want to challenge the manufacturers
of these vaccines to work with us. We cannot
possibly justify financing research and development in future vaccines based on prices that
will assure that children will not receive the
vaccines that are available today. We can do
better than that, and we have to.
Our Nation is the only industrialized nation
in the entire world that does not guarantee
childhood vaccination for all children. It ought
to be like clean water and clean air; it ought
to be a part of the fabric of our life. Look
at these children. We should not risk losing one
of them, and we should not waste one dollar
on our already over-bloated health care system
that we could do away with vaccinations.
The cruel irony is that we are the Nation
that develops and produces the majority of the
world's vaccines. But we don't have an effective
or an affordable mechanism for distributing
them, and we charge more for vaccines in this
country than are charged in other countries for
the same vaccines that are manufactured here.
That is an irony that we cannot permit to continue.
So the steps we're taking today will go a long


way towards solving that dilemma. We'll make
sure that excessive profits do not stand in the
way of children's health. And I want you to
know that we will not stop until preventable
childhood diseases no longer threaten the families, the children, and the future of the United
States.
[At this point, Secretary of Health and Human
Services Donna E. Shalala made brief remarks.]
The President. Thank you very much. Thank
you very much. We're going to shake hands,
but I promised the press we'd answer a couple
of questions. Does anybody have one? Where
are they? I was listening for a familiar voice.
Go ahead.
Q. Mr. President, can you tell us what you
hope to achieve? What makes you think that
the health costsThe President. Well, for one thing, the drug
companies are used to selling drugs on a bulk
basis at a discount rate to the Federal Government and to some of the States. I think that
the position they have taken, that we should
continue the status quo, is untenable. But if
they have legitimate arguments on research and
development, maybe there's some other ways
we can try to address those.
I think we ought to let Secretary Shalala and
the White House folks meet and deal with them
and see what position they take. I cannot believe
that anyone seriously believes that America
should manufacture vaccines for the world, sell
them cheaper in foreign countries, and immunize fewer kids as a percentage of the population than any nation in this hemisphere but
Bolivia and Haiti. I can't believe that that is
their position. But that is the inevitable consequence of what we have not done.
Yes?
Q. [Inaudible]-Congress is going to go along
with any —
The President. Well, I'm going to present a
program to the Congress to provide for the immunization of all children at a reasonable price.
I hope they will be a part of developing that
program. Whether they are or not is up to them.
But this is unconscionable. We are running the
risk of new epidemics spreading out in this
country. We cannot do it. We were supposed
to have 90 percent of our kids immunized in
1990. That's what Dr. Koop wanted when he
was Surgeon General. We missed the deadline.
They put it off to the year 2000. And unless


99




Feb. 12 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


we do something about the delivery system and
the price, we're not going to get there in the
year 2000. I want to get there sooner, and I
think we can. I believe they'll be a part of
this. I think the public outpouring on this is
going to be so strong that they'll come along
and do it.
I'm still going to try to pass a bill that will
permit us to immunize all the children of the
country.
Q. [Inaudible]
The President. Well, let me say, in my State
the public health department does 85 percent
of the immunizations done. I'm very proud of
that. And there are a lot of Southern States
that, because of our legacy of poverty, have had


to develop very elaborate public health networks. So this is something that we've been
sensitive to for a long time.
I've also been interested in buying the vaccinations. But everything that I've done on public health since-well, ever since we got into
public life, Hillary's been a part of. So she's
been pushing this, but so has Secretary Shalala.
I don't know who to give credit to. But I don't
care who you give credit to, as long as we get
it done.
Thank you very much.
NOTE: The President spoke at 11:07 a.m. at the
Arlington County Career Center.


Exchange With Reporters Prior to a Meeting With Congressional Leaders
February 12, 1993


Q. Mr. President, what kind of feedback have
you been getting, sir? What kind of feedback
you've been getting from the Congressmen
andThe President. Very helpful.
Q. Do you think the Republicans will go along
with you?
The President. Well, I don't know. Right now,
I'm gathering their ideas and opinions, and we'll
see. I hope so.
Q. Are you going to cut spending, sir, on


the space station and the super collider?
The President. Tune in Wednesday.
Q. Have you started writing the speech?
The President. I've started putting the elements of it together. It may not be as much
of a speech as a talk.
NOTE: The exchange began at 3:08 p.m. in the
State Dining Room at the White House. A tape
was not available for verification of the content
of this exchange.


Nomination for Under Secretary and Assistant Secretaries of Commerce
February 12, 1993


The President today announced his choices
for four top leadership positions at the Department of Commerce, expressing his intention to
nominate James Baker to be Under Secretary
for Oceans and Atmosphere, Doug Hall to be
Assistant Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere,
Sheila Anthony to be Assistant Secretary for
Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, and
Larry Irving to be Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information.
Baker and Hall will serve as the Director and
Deputy Director of the National Oceanic and


Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), one of the
Federal Government's key environmental research agencies.
"Secretary Ron Brown is putting together a
superb leadership team at the Department of
Commerce," said President Clinton. "I am looking forward to working with them to turn Commerce into one of our administration's most vital
agencies."
"We have found the perfect balance to lead
NOAA," the President added. 'With Jim Baker
and Doug Hall, we have a team that will bring


100




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Feb. 13


great scientific skills, laboratory management experience, a strong commitment to environmental
protection, and the savvy required to deal effectively with sensitive issues."
As Assistant Secretary for Communications
and Information, Clarence L. (Larry) Irving will
direct the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). "One of the
most important missions that I have charged
the Commerce Department with is nurturing
the key industries of the future, in areas like
telecommunications," said the President. "Larry
Irving has a clear vision for turning telecommunications innovations into high skill, high


wage jobs."
"In addition," said President Clinton, "with
his experience on Capitol Hill, Larry will be
invaluable in moving legislation swiftly through
the Congress.' He will be joined in that effort
by Sheila Anthony, someone with the political
and management experience to strengthen the
lines of communication between Commerce and
Capitol Hill. I am so pleased to have a native
of Hope, Arkansas, working closely with Congress to get our plans enacted."
NOTE: Biographies of the nominees were made
available by the Office of the Press Secretary.


Nomination for Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency
February 12, 1993


The President today announced his intention
to nominate James Lee Witt, the head of Arkansas' State Office of Emergency Management and
a former county judge, as Director of the Nation's Federal Emergency Management Agency.
"The devastation wrought by Hurricane Andrew last year was a sober reminder that we
need to provide strong, organized, and effective


help to American families whose lives are dramatically affected by disaster," President Clinton
said. "James Lee has done an outstanding job
in Arkansas, and I am confident he will do the
same for the country in his new role."
NOTE: A biography of the nominee was made
available by the Office of the Press Secretary.


Exchange With Reporters Prior to a Meeting With the Economic Policy
Group
February 13, 1993


Q. What's on the agenda, Mr. President?
The President. We're working on the budget.
You know what we're doing. [Laughter]
Q. Still?
Q. [Inaudible]-all the decisions, sir?
The President. No, otherwise I wouldn't be
asking them to meet on Saturday.
Q. Mr. President, have you heard anything
from the lawmakers that would cause you to
change your mind on any policies that you intend to propose?
The Vice President. That's kind of a broad
question anyway. [Laughter]
The President. I've gotten a lot of good advice
from them, a lot of good ideas. I've basically
just been asking them for their ideas, not only


in the meetings here but in telephone calls.
And I've gotten some good suggestions, some
of which we've been able to incorporate.
Q. How long do you think you're going to
have to work?
The President. I'm going to work a while
today and a while tomorrow and a whileQ. You playing golf today?
The President. It doesn't look like it. It's
wanner today, though, isn't it?
Q. A little wet.
The President. I knew as soon as I decided
not to play golf it would warm up.
NOTE: The exchange began at 9:35 a.m. in the
Roosevelt Room at the White House.


101




Feb. 13 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


Exchange With Reporters Prior to a Meeting With Democratic
Congressional Leaders
February 13, 1993


Economic Program
Q. Mr. President, what kind of concerns are
you hearing from congressional leaders?
The President. I think they want me to give
them a good, credible program, and one that
will get the economySpace Program
Q. Will you be cutting the space station, Mr.
President?
The President. Tune in Wednesday. Before
I discuss any specifics-I support-I think you
all know I've always been a big supporter of
NASA and the space program and the technologies it can represent. I think that people
who care about that will be pleased by the recommendations we make.
Somalia
Q. Will the troops be coming home from SoThe President's Radio Address
February 13, 1993
Good afternoon, my fellow Americans. On
Wednesday night I will present my plan to generate jobs and increase the incomes of the
American people. This morning I want to talk
with you for a few moments about that program,
its goals, and the thinking that went into it.
As I have traveled our country over the last
year and a half, a single theme has emerged
repeatedly from all of you in every region and
from every walk of life. That theme is the need
for change: bold, comprehensive change to reverse the trickle-down policies of the 1980's and
restore the vitality of the American dream.
Over the last 12 years, while the middle class
saw their tax burdens rise and their incomes
go down, the wealthiest Americans, whose incomes went up, often by paperwork manipulation and moving jobs overseas, saw their taxes
go down. Higher deficits came with lower taxes
on the wealthy. And those deficits forced Government to cut back on essential services to


malia?
The Vice President. Thanks for coming to the
photo op. [Laughter]
Q. Will the troops be coming home from Somalia, sir, by April?
The President. Well, I'm encouraged by what
the Secretary-General said today. This does need
to go from a U.S. mission from a U.N. mission.
I never thought we could do it. Even though
I think President Bush hoped we could, I never
thought we could do it by the end of January.
And I'm hopeful, by the timetable he has suggested today. And I'll do some work on that
Monday.
NOTE: The exchange began at 10:25 a.m. in the
Cabinet Room at the White House. A tape was
not available for verification of the content of this
exchange.


the middle class, the working poor, and the
neediest Americans. Good families in embattled
neighborhoods saw their children getting by with
outdated school books, going to school in neighborhoods that were ever more dangerous, while
the wealthiest Americans in protected communities watched their bankbooks grow. Our economy suffered through two grinding recessions,
and our job-creating engine stalled. The status
quo simply isn't working for working families
anymore.
The experts say we're in a robust economic
recovery. And to be fair, there are some good
signs: our best companies doing better, people
being able to refinance their homes, and
consumer confidence on the upswing since the
election.
But the jobs just aren't there yet. The unemployment rate has been over 7 percent for 14
months now, and we're 3 million jobs behind
where we ordinarily would be in a real economic


102




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Feb. 13


recovery. That's why change is so important.
And the risk of doing the same old thing is
far higher than the cost of change. If we don't
change,, the American economy and the living
standards of our broad middle class will continue to decline, and many of us and most of
our children will not enjoy the standard of living
that past Americans have.
Change is never easy. It requires us to forsake
the old order and to embrace a new one.
Change means asking everyone to pull his or
her own weight for the common good. But
change is our only choice.
Under my economic program, we will build
an America where even the most privileged pay
their fair share, not because we want to soak
the rich but because we want to stop soaking
the middle class and ask everybody to bear a
fair share of the load; an America where the
most impoverished move off welfare and go
back to work; an America where middle class
families who work hard and play by the rules
are rewarded in their own lives and can pass
on to their children a more prosperous future
than they inherited from their parents; and yes,
an America where Government is not immune
from the sacrifices it asks of our people.
just this week I cut the White House staff
by 25 percent and saved $10 million compared
to the budgets of my predecessors. I've ordered
further administrative cuts in Federal departments and agencies of $9 billion over the next
4 years, with more to follow from tough and
smart management.
I'm also ordering an investigation into the
enormous cash bonuses paid to officials of the
departing administration. In some cases it was
done just minutes before I was sworn into office. While I deeply admire the dedicated members of our Federal services, we simply cannot
have extravagant payments made to departing
bureaucrats and political cronies at a time when
most people are tightening their belts.
If Government is going to ask the American
people to contribute, it must lead by example
and learn to do more while spending less. That
is a challenge I have embraced and one I will
present to the Congress on Wednesday.
Next, we will take the battle to the special
interests. We will demand that those who see


the Tax Code as a table game to be won rather
than a social compact to be respected pay their
fair share of taxes. I will keep my pledge to
restore fairness to the Tax Code. We will raise
taxes on the wealthiest individuals and companies in our society. That will be one of their
contributions to create the high-skill, high-wage
economy that we seek. And I will say to the
drug companies, the insurance companies, and
the others who profit from the status quo, they
must join our cause to make comprehensive reforms in our medical care system. The time
has come for all Americans to have affordable
health care, a real chance at a healthy life.
In return for these contributions, we are determined to create long-term, good-paying private sector jobs. We will encourage the development of new technologies and find markets for
them all across America and around the world.
We will provide special incentives to new businesses and small businesses to create the jobs
of the future. We will lower their costs of capital
so they can expand and succeed. We will upgrade the skills of the long-term unemployed
and the rest of our work force. And when military cutbacks hurt our enterprises, we'll help
defense workers to find new careers and to continue productive lives.
That's what my plan is all about: a leaner,
more efficient, more responsive Government; a
ladder of contribution that demands the most
from those who have the most; investment incentives to help businesses build for the future
and create jobs for all Americans; education and
training to prepare workers and students for new
jobs in a new economy; a reformed medical
system that restores peace of mind to family
life; an America where every citizen has a right
to a prosperous economy and a shared patriotic
stake in the work to make it grow.
That is a program for economic change you
have justly demanded. Now it's time for all
Americans to join the cause and embrace the
change. It is time to restore the American
dream.
Thank you, and God bless you.
NOTE: The President spoke at 12:06 p.m. from
the Oval Office at the White House.


103




Feb. 15 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


Exchange With Reporters Prior to a Meeting With Democratic
Congressional Leaders
February 15, 1993


Economic Program Presentation
Q. Are you going to appear before Congress,
Mr. President, in parliamentary-style Q&A?
The President. That hasn't been resolved yet.
I'm interested in it, but we haven't finally resolved that.
Q. What would determine it?
The President. We just haven't resolved it yet.
We'll probably know by the end of the day.
Q. Is Wednesday night's speech shaping up
as the most important of your life?
The President. Well, I don't-[inaudible]. In
the sense that every one-the ones that are
ahead are more important than the ones that
are behind.


I think tonight is important. I think Wednesday night is important. But you know, we're
trying to change a direction of 12 years and
take a new course. I'm going to offer a program
that will create half a million or more jobs in
the short run, that is highly progressive, that
is very well-balanced, that is faithful to the great
middle class of this country and good for the
things that we care about, jobs and education
and health care. But I think it's going to be
very important that I sell it to the Congress
and to the American people and that we have
a partnership here. So yes, it'll be big.
NOTE: The exchange began at 11:22 a.m. in the
Roosevelt Room at the White House.


Exchange With Reporters Prior to a Meeting With Democratic
Congressional Leaders
February 15, 1993


Energy Tax
Q. Mr. President, if I could ask a specific
question. What is
The President. I may not give you a specific
answer. [Laughter]
Q. You don't have to get into too much detail,
but from your perspective what's more progressive, a broad-based energy tax based on Btu's
or an ad valorem type of energy tax? What
would be more progressive for the middle class?
The President. Well, I think, first of all, you
can't evaluate one of these things without seeing
the whole package. But I think a Btu tax is,


because an ad valorem tax reinforces price
changes. In other words, if you have an ad valorem tax and the price of one fuel goes up,
then the tax rate goes up. So, it would aggravate
whatever price changes are out there in the
market, and that would hurt the consumers
more.
Q. Have you settled on a Btu tax?
The President. I answered a very specific
question in a photo op. [Laughter]
NOTE: The exchange began at 1:45 p.m. in the
Roosevelt Room at the White House.


Address to the Nation on the Economic Program
February 15, 1993


Good evening. I have chosen this day on
which we honor two great Presidents to talk
with you about the serious problems and the


great promise of our country and the absolute
necessity for change if we're to secure a better
future for ourselves and for our children. On


104




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Feb. 15


Wednesday evening I'll address the Congress
about the specifics of my plan, but first I turn
to you for your strength and support, to enlist
you in the cause of changing our course.
This is a momentous time for our Nation.
We stand at the end of the cold war and on
the edge of the 21st century. For two decades
we've moved steadily toward a global economy
in which we must compete with people around
the world, a world which requires us to work
hard and smart, a world in which putting people
first is more than a political slogan, it's a philosophy of governing and the only path to prosperity.
For 12 years we've followed a very different
philosophy. It declared that Government is the
problem, that fairness to the middle class is
less important than keeping taxes low on the
wealthy, that Government can do nothing about
our deepest problems: lost jobs, declining wages,
increasing inequality, inadequate educational opportunity, and a health care system that costs
a fortune but does too little.
During those 12 years as Governor of Arkansas, I followed a very different course, more
like what you've done at home and at work.
I invested in the future of our people and balanced a State budget with honesty and fairness
and without gimmicks. It's just common sense.
But in the 26 days I've been your President,
I've already learned that here in Washington,
common sense isn't too common. And you've
paid a lot for that loss of common sense.
The typical middle class family is working
harder for less. Despite the talk of a recovery,
more than 9 million of our fellow citizens are
still out of work. And as this chart indicates,
if this were a real, normal recovery, 3 million
more Americans would already be back at work
by now. In fact, there are more jobless people
now than there were at what the experts call
the bottom of this recession.
All during this last 12 years the Federal deficit
has roared out of control. Look at this: The
big tax cuts for the wealthy, the growth in Government spending, and soaring health care costs
all caused the Federal deficit to explode. Our
debt is now 4 times as big as it was in 1980.
That's right. In the last 12 years we piled up
4 times as much debt as in the previous 200.
Now, if all that debt had been invested in
strengthening our economy, we'd at least have
something to show for our money: more jobs,
better educated people, a health care system


that works. But as you can see, while the deficit
went up, investments in the things that make
us stronger and smarter, richer and safer, were
neglected: less invested in education, less in our
children's future, less in transportation, less in
local law enforcement. An awful lot of that
money was just wasted.
This matters. When you don't invest in jobs
and education and economic opportunity, unemployment goes up and our incomes go down.
And when the deficit gets bigger and bigger
and bigger, the Government takes more of your
money just for interest payments. And then it's
harder for you to borrow money for your own
business or to afford a new home or to send
a child to college.
That's exactly what's been happening. Once
our living standards doubled every 25 years. But
at the rate we're going today our living standard
won't double for another 100 years, until our
grandchildren's grandchildren are born. That's
too long. We must act now to restore the American dream.
Despite the enormity of this crisis, believe
it or not, the status quo still has its defenders,
people who point to hopeful statistics like the
recent increase in productivity and consumer
confidence and say we should do nothing. Well,
American business has been forced to become
more competitive in this global economy. And
I'm glad that consumers' confidence is up since
the election. But we're not generating jobs or
making headway on these other long-term problems.
My message to you is clear: The price of
doing the same old thing is far higher than
the price of change. After all, that's why you
sent me here: not to keep this seat warm but
to work for fundamental change, to make Washington work for all Americans, not just the special interests, and to chart a course that will
enable us to compete and win in this new world.
Here's the challenge I will offer the Congress
and the country on Wednesday. We'll invest in
our future by nurturing our children and supporting their education, by rewarding work and
family, by creating the jobs of the future and
training our people to fill them. Our every effort
will reflect what President Franklin Roosevelt
called bold, persistent experimentation, a willingness to stay with things that work and stop
things that don't.
Change must begin at the top. That's why
I cut the White House staff by 25 percent and


105




Feb. 15 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


ordered Federal agencies to cut billions of dollars in administrative costs and to trim 100,000
Federal positions by attrition. And in my budget
there will be more than 150 specific cuts in
Government spending programs. Then I'll ask
the wealthiest Americans to pay their fair share.
That brings us to those of you who gave the
most in the 1980's. I had hoped to invest in
your future by creating jobs, expanding education, reforming health care, and reducing the
debt [deficit] 1 without asking more of you. And
I've worked harder than I've ever worked in
my life to meet that goal. But I can't because
the deficit has increased so much beyond my
earlier estimates and beyond even the worst official Government estimates from last year. We
just have to face the fact that to make the
changes our country needs, more Americans
must contribute today so that all Americans can
do better tomorrow. But I can assure you of
this: You're not going alone anymore. You're
not going first. And you're no longer going to
pay more and get less. Seventy percent of the
new taxes I'll propose, 70 percent, will be paid
by those who make more than $100,000 a year.
And for the first time in more than a decade,
we're all in this together.
More important, here's the payoff: Our
comprehensive plan for economic growth will
create millions of long-term, good-paying jobs,
including a program to jumpstart our economy
with another 500,000 jobs in 1993 and 1994.
And as we make deep cuts in existing Government programs, we'll make new investments
where they'll do the most good: incentives to
business to create new jobs; investments in education and training; special efforts for displaced
defense workers; a fairer tax system to ensure
that parents who work full-time will no longer
raise their children in poverty; welfare reform
to move people from welfare to work; vaccinations and Head Start opportunities for all children who need them; and a system of affordable
quality health care for all Americans. Our na

tional service plan will throw open the doors
of college opportunity to the daughters and sons
of the middle class. Then we'll challenge them
to give something back to our country as teachers, police officers, community service workers,
taking care of our own right here at home. And
we'll do it all while reducing our debt [deficit].l
Change this fundamental will not be easy, nor
will it be quick. But at stake is the control
of our economic destiny. Within minutes of the
time I conclude my address to Congress
Wednesday night, the special interests will be
out in force. Those who profited from the status
quo will oppose the changes we seek, the budget
cuts, the revenue increases, the new investment
priorities. Every step of the way they'll oppose
it. Many have already lined the corridors of
power with high-priced lobbyists. They are the
defenders of decline. And we must be the architects of the future.
I'm confident in our cause because I believe
in America, and I know we have learned the
hard lessons of the 1980's. This is your country.
You demonstrated the power of the people in
the last election. I urge you to stay informed
and to stay involved. If you're vigilant and vocal,
we can do what we have to do.
On this Presidents' Day, we recall the many
times in our history when past Presidents have
challenged this Nation from this office in times
of crisis. If you will join with me, we can create
an economy in which all Americans work hard
and prosper. This is nothing less than a call
to arms to restore the vitality of the American
dream.
When I was a boy, we had a name for the
belief that we should all pull together to build
a better, stronger nation. We called it patriotism.
And we still do.
Good night, and God bless America.
NOTE: The President spoke at 9 p.m. from the
Oval Office at the White House.


1 White House correction.


106




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Feb. 16


Exchange With Reporters Prior to a Meeting With Democratic
Congressional Leaders
February 16, 1993


Economic Program
Q. Mr. President, are you going to expand
the millionaires surtax and apply it to everyone
earning more than $250,000 -The President. Stay tuned.
Q.     as has been reported?
Q. Mr. President, Senator Gramm says this
isn't contributions from everybody, it's just raw
pain.
Q. Which Gramm? [Laughter]
The President. I think when you see the whole
program, it won't be raw pain. I think most
middle class Americans, when you look at the
costs plus the benefits, are going to be much,
much better off. It's a very progressive program.
And a lot of the wealthiest American business
leaders I've talked to believe that their businesses will be much better off with stable longterm low interest rates and the availability to
invest and grow. And they think that the price
is a small one compared to the long-term economic health of their own businesses as well
as the economy.
Q. Are you going to have a second round


of tax increases to pay for health care, as a
memo advising your task force
The President. Tune in.
Q. But will that be necessaryThe President. Depends on how you do it.
Q. Is it harder to cut spending than you
thought it would be? Is it more difficult?
The President. We've cut quite a bit of spending. I think it is difficult to justify cutting big
health care spending unless it is in the context
of providing affordable health care to everybody,
because you don't want to do it in a way that's
really burdensome on the consumers with health
care. The people we help now with Government
money in health care are elderly and the poor.
So we can control that spending in the years
ahead but only in the context of an overall
health care program. So if you take health care
off the books and you take interest on the debt
off the books, it's more difficult to get big
spending cuts. But I think we've done a pretty
good job, and tomorrow night we'll outline it.
NOTE: The exchange began at 9:50 a.m. in the
Cabinet Room at the White House.


Exchange With Reporters Prior to a Meeting With Democratic
Congressional Leaders
February 16, 1993


Economic Program
Q. Mr. President, do you think you can get
Ross Perot to at least not criticize this economic
plan?
The President. I don't know
Q. Have you been in touch with him or anybody on your staff been in touch with him to
try to get him on board?
Q. Do they treat you like this all the time?
The President. Tomorrow night, all the time.
[Laughter] All the time.
Q. What a job. [Laughter]
Q. Mr. President, whatThe  President.     budget practices-it's


truth in budgeting, truth in budgeting. We're
using objective numbers, the most conservative
revenue estimates. It'll be the most candid
budget Congress has received in a long time.
And I think there will be a lot of people who
understand it and will respond very positively
to it.
Q. Well, the markets are down sharply this
morning. Do you think that's an immediate reaction to yourThe President. No. Look, the bond market's
a better indicator, because they-and that response has been very positive. And I think when
the business community, those people who come


107




Feb. 16 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


in here from the business community who actually know pretty well what's in this program,
have responded very positively to it. So I
wouldn't say that.


NOTE: The exchange began at 11:25 a.m. in the
Roosevelt Room at the White House. A tape was
not available for verification of the content of this
exchange.


Teleconference Remarks to the California Economic Conference
February 16, 1993


Thank you very much, Willie Brown. And
thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for letting me
join you by high-tech communications for just
a few minutes.
First of all, let me say how very impressed
I was by the comment of the previous speaker.
He may not have been in California very long,
but I think his prescription for how to solve
our Nation's problems, concentrating on investment and achieving consensus, is what we all
have to focus on.
I wish I could be with you in person today.
You know, I have spent a great deal of time
in California in the last 16 months talking to
people about the problems and the promise of
your State. I don't believe for a moment that
America's economy can recover until California
recovers, and I applaud what you are doing in
this economic summit.
I understand the economic summit that I
sponsored down in Little Rock for our Nation
may have been part of the inspiration for this
meeting, and if so, I'm very grateful. I applaud
Willie Brown and Senator Roberti and Governor
Wilson for cosponsoring this, and all the rest
of you who are part of it.
Let me get to the point very quickly because
I think that these summits work so much better
when there is interaction, so I don't want to
intrude on what I think is going very well. First,
I want to reaffirm my commitment to the economic revitalization of California. Californians
played a major role in my election as President
and play a very major role in my Presidency
now, people who are important to your future.
Our Trade Ambassador, Mickey Kantor, has already spoken this morning; you know he's from
California. The Secretary of State, Warren
Christopher, is from California, and we're increasingly involving the State Department in the
revitalization of the American economy. Our
Budget Director, the Director of the Office of


Management and Budget, Leon Panetta, was a
Congressman from northern California and is
here with me; I'm in his building as we speak
today. And of course, the Chair of the Council
of Economic Advisers, Laura Tyson, is from
northern California. All of these people are in
a position to bring their experience and knowledge to bear on what we in the National Government can do.
In addition to that, I've already had an extensive visit with Senator Feinstein. I've talked with
Senator Boxer. I've talked with many members
of your congressional delegation about the issues
that they have brought to my attention. And
as I said, the time I spent there taught me
a lot about the problems in California that are
caused by reducing employment in the defense
industry, by the collapse of real estate, by the
problems in the financial institutions, by the
general manufacturing difficulties, and by the
increased costs brought on by immigration as
well as the population increase generally in California.
Let me say first that I'm convinced we're
going to have to solve this problem by partnership. I am offering the American people a program which will reverse three big trends in our
country which have affected California. We built
an American dream, especially after World War
II, based on increasing economic prosperity in
a high-wage, high-growth economy, increasing
equality among our working people, and making
more and more strength out of our diversity.
The economic and social difficulties we have
faced in the last few years threaten to reverse
all those trends. Wages are stagnant. Inequality
has increased over the last decade, and our diversity has often been a source of great tension
and division in California and elsewhere
throughout the country.
I'm convinced that in order to change this,
the National Government has to take the lead,


108




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Feb. 16


first of all in investing in our people, their jobs,
their technology, and their future; secondly, in
dealing with the health care crisis; thirdly, in
reducing the enormous Federal debt to stabilize
long-term interest rates and free up more
money for investment in the private sector; and
finally, by developing economic policies in partnership with the private sector which encourage
more investment in the private sector and which
enable us to work together to create that highwage, high-growth economy again.
As that applies to California, it means we
will be doing the following things: First of all,
in my economic program there's a plan to
jumpstart the economy, to create another halfmillion jobs in the near future. California will
receive a significant number of those jobs.
Secondly, I intend to follow through on the
technology policy I announced in California in
the last campaign. That means we'll be providing
more incentives to start new enterprises and
to expand existing enterprises and to build on
the job-generating capacity of the technologyleading companies that are in your State.
Thirdly, I want to invest in our children and
their future and our educational system. I want
to do what I can at the national level to alleviate
some of the problems caused by the financial
conditions you have there.
Fourthly, I'll ask the Congress to change some
of the tax rules involving passive losses in hope
of alleviating some of the real estate problems
in California, as well as giving industry more
incentive to invest in the next couple of years.
Next, Mr. Panetta and I have worked hard
on trying to figure out how we can redesign
some of these Federal programs so that the
Federal Government can keep its commitment
to the States that have been overwhelmed by
immigration problems, California most of all, but
also Texas and Florida and some other States
who should have been helped more by the National Government because of the burdens they
bear due to a national policy on immigration.
Finally, let me just say, if I might harken
back again to the last person who spoke before
I did, California has some challenges that will


have to be met by Californians. You will have
to take the lead in improving your education
system. I'm going to give you a good Department of Education that will help to reform the
practices in education and to make education
work again. But some of the premier reformers
in America are right there in California now.
You have to find a way to make their exceptions
the rule in California education.
And next, you will have to take the lead in
making sure your manufacturing and production
environment is at least competitive with other
States in the United States, not by driving down
wages but by changing the environment so that
you can be competitive. I'll do whatever I can
to support you. The best thing we could do
here to help you with that is to solve the health
care crisis: to bring health care costs in line
with inflation; to make basic, affordable health
care available to all; and therefore, to stop whatever incentives there are for people to move
across State lines or to move their plants because they've got high embedded health care
costs. But a lot of these productivity issues are
going to have to be faced, and faced squarely,
by the people of California and every other
State.
We're prepared to do our part. I'll say again:
This country cannot rise again to its full potential until California is on the move again. I'm
going to do what I can to help. I ask you for
your support in my aggressive plan to reduce
the debt and to increase investment in education
and training, in new technologies, in new jobs,
and in dealing with the health care crisis. I'll
do what I can to support you. Together, we
can turn this country around. We can lift California up, and California can once again be the
beacon of hope for America and for the world.
Thank you very much.
NOTE: The President spoke at 2:38 p.m. via satellite from Room 459 of the Old Executive Office
Building to the conference in Los Angeles. In his
remarks, he referred to Willie L. Brown, Jr., California State Assembly speaker, and David Roberti,
California State Senate president pro tempore.


109




Feb. 16 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


Exchange With Reporters Prior to a Meeting With Democratic
Congressional Leaders
February 16, 1993


Economic Program
Q. Mr. President, your spokesman says there
would be no negative effects on the economy
from the tax portion of your stimulus plan and
your economic plan, and that the stock market's
reaction today is just a simple stock market cycle
that has nothing to do with your program. Do
you agree?
The President. I do. I mean, the people in
the stock market know, have known in general
all along what was going to be in the program,
and the stock market has gone up markedly
since the election. The stock market's been
going up since the election.


Q. Do you agree there will be no negative
effects on the economy from taxes?
The President. Absolutely, I do. I believe if
we reduce the deficit it will stabilize long-term
interest rates, free up money for growth and
increase jobsQ. Your spokesman also said that the middle
class tax increase could also touch those making
$30,000 and more. Is that breaking the faith
with the middle class, Mr. President?
The President. Tune in tomorrow night.
NOTE: The exchange began at 3:08 p.m. in the
State Dining Room at the White House.


Message to the Congress Reporting on the National Emergency With
Respect to Iraq
February 16, 1993


To the Congress of the United States:
I hereby report to the Congress on the developments since the last report of August 3, 1992,
concerning the national emergency with respect
to Iraq that was declared in Executive Order
No. 12722 of August 2, 1990. This report is
submitted pursuant to sections 401(c) of the National Emergencies Act ("NEA"), 50 U.S.C.
1641(c), and section 204(c) of the International
Emergency Economic Powers Act ("IEEPA"),
50 U.S.C. 1703(c).
Executive Order No. 12722 ordered the immediate blocking of all property and interests
in property of the Government of Iraq (including the Central Bank of Iraq) then or thereafter
located in the United States or within the possession or control of a U.S. person. That order
also prohibited the importation into the United
States of goods and services of Iraqi origin, as
well as the exportation of goods, services, and
technology from the United States to Iraq. The
order prohibited travel-related transactions to or
from Iraq and the performance of any contract
in support of any industrial, commercial, or governmental project in Iraq. U.S. persons were


also prohibited from granting or extending credit
or loans to the Government of Iraq.
The foregoing prohibitions (as well as the
blocking of Government of Iraq property) were
continued and augmented on August 9, 1990,
by Executive Order No. 12724, which was issued
in order to align the sanctions imposed by the
United States with United Nations Security
Council Resolution 661 of August 6, 1990.
This report discusses only matters concerning
the national emergency with respect to Iraq that
was declared in Executive Order No. 12722 and
matters relating to Executive Orders Nos. 12724
and 12817 (the "Executive Orders"). The report
covers events from August 2, 1992, through
February 1, 1993.
1. On October 21, 1992, President Bush issued Executive Order No. 12817, implementing
in the United States measures adopted in United   Nations  Security  Council  Resolution
("UNSCR") No. 778 of October 2, 1992.
UNSCR No. 778 requires U.N. member states
temporarily to transfer to a U.N. escrow account
up to $200 million apiece in Iraqi oil proceeds
paid by the purchaser after the imposition of


110




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Feb. 16


U.N. sanctions on Iraq. These funds finance
Iraq's obligations for U.N. activities with respect
to Iraq, including expenses to verify Iraqi weapons destruction and to provide humanitarian assistance in Iraq on a nonpartisan basis. A portion
of the escrowed funds will also fund the activities of the U.N. Compensation Commission in
Geneva, which will handle claims from victims
of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. The funds
placed in the escrow account are to be returned,
with interest, to the member states that transferred them to the U.N., as funds are received
from future sales of Iraqi oil authorized by the
United Nations Security Council. No member
state is required to fund more than half of the
total contributions to the escrow account.
Executive Order No. 12817 authorized the
Secretary of the Treasury (the "Secretary") to
identify the proceeds of the sale of Iraqi petroleum or petroleum products paid for by or on
behalf of the purchaser on or after August 6,
1990, and directed United States financial institutions holding such funds to transfer them to
the Federal Reserve Bank of New York
("FRBNY") in the manner required by the Secretary. Executive Order No. 12817 further directs the FRBNY to receive, hold, and transfer
funds in which the Government of Iraq has an
interest at the direction of the Secretary to fulfill
U.S. rights and obligations pursuant to UNSCR
No. 778.
2. The economic sanctions imposed on Iraq
by the Executive orders are administered by the
Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets
Control ("FAC") pursuant to the Iraqi Sanctions
Regulations, 31 CFR Part 575 ("ISR"). The ISR
were amended on September 1, 1992, to revoke
section 575.603, which had required U.S. financial institutions to file monthly reports regarding
certain bank accounts in which the Government
of Iraq has an interest. While this information
was needed during the early implementation of
the regulations and for a period thereafter, it
is no longer required on a monthly basis and
can be obtained by FAC on a case-by-case basis
as required. The amendment is in harmony with
President Bush's Regulatory Initiative.
3. Investigations of possible violations of the
Iraqi sanctions continue to be pursued and appropriate enforcement actions taken. These are
intended to deter future activities in violation
of the sanctions. Additional civil penalty notices
were prepared during the reporting period for
violations of the IEEPA and ISR with respect


to transactions involving Iraq. Penalties were
collected, principally from financial institutions
which engaged in unauthorized, albeit apparently inadvertent, transactions with respect to
Iraq.
4. Investigation also continues into the roles
played by various individuals and firms outside
Iraq in Saddam Hussein's procurement network.
These investigations may lead to additions to
the FAC listing of individuals and organizations
determined to be Specially Designated Nationals
("SDNs") of the Government of Iraq.
5. Pursuant to Executive Order No. 12817
implementing UNSCR No. 778, on October 26,
1992, FAC directed the FRBNY to establish
a blocked account for receipt of certain postAugust 6, 1990, Iraqi oil sales proceeds, and
to hold, invest, and transfer these funds as required by the order. On the same date, FAC
directed the eight United States financial institutions holding the affected oil proceeds, on an
allocated, pro rata basis, to transfer a total of
$200 million of these blocked Iraqi assets to
the FRBNY account. On December 15, 1992,
following the payment of $20 million by the
Government of Kuwait and $30 million by the
Government of Saudi Arabia to a special United
Nations-controlled account, entitled UNSCR
No. 778 Escrow Account, the FRBNY was directed to transfer a corresponding amount of
$50 million from the blocked account it holds
to the United Nations-controlled account. Future transfers from the blocked FRBNY account
will be made on a matching basis up to the
$200 million for which the United States is potentially obligated pursuant to UNSCR No. 778.
6. Since the last report, one case filed against
the Government of Iraq has gone to judgment.
Consarc Corporation v. Iraqi Ministry of Industry and Minerals et al., No. 90-2269 (D.D.C.,
filed December 29, 1992), arose out of a contract for the sale of furnaces by plaintiff to the
Iraqi Ministry of Industry and Minerals
("MIM"), an Iraqi governmental entity. In connection with the contract, the Iraqi defendants
opened an irrevocable letter of credit with an
Iraqi bank in favor of Consarc, which was advised by Pittsburgh National Bank ("PNB"), with
the Bank of New York ("BoNY") entering into
a confirmed reimbursement agreement with the
advising bank. Funds were set aside at BoNY,
in an account of the Iraqi bank, for reimbursement of BoNY if PNB made a payment to
Consarc on the letter of credit and sought reim

111




Feb. 16 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


bursement from BoNY. Consarc received a
down payment from the Iraqi MIM and manufactured the furnaces. No goods were shipped
prior to imposition of sanctions on August 2,
1990, and the United States claimed that the
funds on deposit in the Iraqi bank account at
BoNY were blocked, as well as the furnaces
manufactured for the Iraqi Government or the
proceeds of the sale of the furnaces to third
parties. The district court ruled that the furnaces
or their sales proceeds were properly blocked
pursuant to the declaration of the national emergency and blocking of Iraqi Government property interests, but that, due to fraud on MIM's
part in concluding the sales contract, the funds
on deposit in an Iraqi bank account at BoNY
were not the property of the Government of
Iraq, and ordered FAC to unblock these funds.
FAC has noted its appeal of this ruling.
7. FAC has issued a total of 337 specific licenses regarding transactions pertaining to Iraq
or Iraqi assets since August 1990. Since the last
report, 49 specific licenses have been issued.
Licenses were issued for transactions such as
the filing of legal actions involving Iraqi interests, for legal representation of Iraq, and the
exportation to Iraq of donated medicine, medical
supplies, and food intended for humanitarian relief purposes.
To ensure compliance with the terms of the
licenses which have been issued, stringent reporting requirements have been imposed that
are closely monitored. Licensed accounts are
regularly audited by FAC compliance personnel
and deputized auditors from other regulatory
agencies. FAC compliance personnel continue
to work closely with both State and Federal
bank regulatory and law enforcement agencies
in conducting special audits of Iraqi accounts
subject to the ISR.
8. The expenses incurred by the Federal Government in the 6-month period from August
2, 1992, through February 1, 1993, that are directly attributable to the exercise of powers and
authorities conferred by the declaration of a national emergency with respect to Iraq are estimated at about $2 million, most of which represents wage and salary costs for Federal personnel. Personnel costs were largely centered
in the Department of the Treasury (particularly
in FAG, the U.S. Customs Service, the Office
of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement, the
Office of the Assistant Secretary for International Affairs, and the Office of the General


Counsel), the Department of State (particularly
the Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs,
the Bureau of Near East and South Asian Affairs, the Bureau of International Organizations,
and the Office of the Legal Adviser), the Department of Transportation (particularly the U.S.
Coast Guard), and the Department of Commerce (particularly in the Bureau of Export Administration and the Office of the General
Counsel).
9. The United States imposed economic sanctions on Iraq in response to Iraq's invasion and
illegal occupation of Kuwait, a clear act of brutal
aggression. The United States, together with the
international community, is maintaining economic sanctions against Iraq because the Iraqi
regime has failed to comply fully with United
Nations Security Council resolutions, including
those calling for the elimination of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, the inviolability of the
Iraq-Kuwait boundary, the release of Kuwaiti
and other third country nationals, compensation
for victims of Iraqi aggression, long-term monitoring of weapons of mass destruction (WMD)
capabilities, and the return of Kuwaiti assets stolen during its illegal occupation of Kuwait. The
U.N. sanctions remain in place; the United
States will continue to enforce those sanctions.
The Saddam Hussein regime continued to
violate basic human rights by repressing the
Iraqi civilian population and depriving it of humanitarian assistance. The United Nations Security Council passed resolutions that permit Iraq
to sell $1.6 billion of oil under U.N. auspices
to fund the provision of food, medicine, and
other humanitarian supplies to the people of
Iraq. Under the U.N. resolutions, the equitable
distribution within Iraq of this assistance would
be supervised and monitored by the United Nations. The Iraqi regime continued to refuse to
accept these resolutions and has thereby chosen
to perpetuate the suffering of its civilian population.
The regime of Saddam Hussein continues to
pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the
national security and foreign policy of the United States, as well as to regional peace and security. Because of Iraq's failure to comply fully
with United Nations Security Council resolutions, the United States will therefore continue
to apply economic sanctions to deter Iraq from
threatening peace and stability in the region,
and I will continue to report periodically to the
Congress on significant developments, pursuant


112




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Feb. 17


to 50 U.S.C. 1703(c).


The White House,
February 16, 1993.


WILLIAM J. CLINTON


Exchange With Reporters Prior to a Meeting With Congressional Leaders
February 17, 1993


Economic Program
Q. Mr. President, if you count Social Security
as a tax increase, you don't have a one-to-one
ratio. Are you going to have enough cuts in
this program to be able to sell this thing?
The President. I think so. There are 150 specific ones, and I'll be glad to entertain some
more if anybody's got any specific ideas.
The Vice President. At this pointQ. Can you honestly say, as Senator Dole
has asked, that you have made all the cuts you
could possibly make in this program?
The President. I can honestly say I've made
more specific cuts that affect me personally than
I can think that any of my predecessors have
made and that I intend to find more as I go
along. I've just been here 4 weeks, and I'll continue to work on it. But I've made an awful
lot of cuts; I'm going to make some more.
Q. Have you convinced Senator Dole and
Michel and all of the other Republican leaders?
And did you call Ross Perot?
The President. My duty is to try to convince
them that I will.
The Vice President. In the words of the old


hymn, they're "almost persuaded."
The President. I thought that was a country
and western song. [Laughter]
Q. They don't look it.
Q. How about Ross Perot, Mr. President?
White House Jogging Track
Q. Why build a jogging track when you're
making cuts across the board in Government?
The President. I thought the thing was going
to be paid for with contributions; that's what
I was told. I think it would be a good thing
to have, but I think if we can pay for it with
contributions; otherwise, I don't think we ought
to spend any tax money on it.
Q. You don't have an alternative way to pay
for it?
The President. I was told that the stuff 'had
been donated already. I told them if it was
all going to be donated, it was fine with me
if it was built. That's what I was told from
the very beginning, so that's all I know about
it.
NOTE: The exchange began at 2:22 p.m. in the
Cabinet Room at the White House.


Address Before a Joint Session of Congress on Administration Goals
February 17, 1993


Mr. President, Mr. Speaker, Members of the
House and the Senate, distinguished Americans
here as visitors in this Chamber, as am I. It
is nice to have a fresh excuse for giving a long
speech. [Laughter]
When Presidents speak to Congress and the
Nation from this podium, typically they comment on the full range in challenges and opportunities that face the United States. But this


is not an ordinary time, and for all the many
tasks that require our attention, I believe tonight
one calls on us to focus, to unite, and to act.
And that is our economy. For more than anything else, our task tonight as Americans is to
make our economy thrive again.
Let me begin by saying that it has been too
long, at least three decades, since a President
has come and challenged Americans to join him


113




Feb. 17 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


on a great national journey, not merely to
consume the bounty of today but to invest for
a much greater one tomorrow.
Like individuals, nations must ultimately decide how they wish to conduct themselves, how
they wish to be thought of by those with whom
they live, and later, how they wish to be judged
by history. Like every individual man and
woman, nations must decide whether they are
prepared to rise to the occasions history presents
them.
We have always been a people of youthful
energy and daring spirit. And at this historic
moment, as communism has fallen, as freedom
is spreading around the world, as a global economy is taking shape before our eyes, Americans
have called for change. And now it is up to
those of us in this room to deliver for them.
Our Nation needs a new direction. Tonight
I present to you a comprehensive plan to set
our Nation on that new course. I believe we
will find our new direction in the basic old
values that brought us here over the last two
centuries: a commitment to opportunity, to individual responsibility, to community, to work, to
family, and to faith. We must now break the
habits of both political parties and say there
can be no more something for nothing and
admit frankly that we are all in this together.
The conditions which brought us as a nation
to this point are well-known: two decades of
low productivity, growth, and stagnant wages;
persistent unemployment and underemployment; years of huge Government deficits and
declining investment in our future; exploding
health care costs and lack of coverage for millions of Americans; legions of poor children;
education and job training opportunities inadequate to the demands of this tough, global
economy. For too long we have drifted without
a strong sense of purpose or responsibility or
community.
And our political system so often has seemed
paralyzed by special interest groups, by partisan
bickering, and by the sheer complexity of our
problems. I believe we can do better because
we remain the greatest nation on Earth, the
world's strongest economy, the world's only military superpower. If we have the vision, the will,
and the heart to make the changes we must,
we can still enter the 21st century with possibilities our parents could not even have imagined
and enter it having secured the American dream
for ourselves and for future generations.


I well remember 12 years ago President
Reagan stood at this very podium and told you
and the American people that if our national
debt were stacked in thousand-dollar bills, the
stack would reach 67 miles into space. Well,
today that stack would reach 267 miles. I tell
you this not to assign blame for this problem.
There is plenty of blame to go around in both
branches of the Government and both parties.
The time has come for the blame to end. I
did not seek this office to place blame. I come
here tonight to accept responsibility, and I want
you to accept responsibility with me. And if
we do right by this country, I do not care who
gets the credit for it.
The plan I offer you has four fundamental
components. First, it shifts our emphasis in public and private spending from consumption to
investment, initially by jumpstarting the economy in the short term and investing in our people, their jobs, and their incomes over the long
run. Second, it changes the rhetoric of the past
into the actions of the present by honoring work
and families in every part of our public decisionmaking. Third, it substantially reduces the Federal deficit honestly and credibly by using in
the beginning the most conservative estimates
of Government revenues, not, as the executive
branch has done so often in the past, using
the most optimistic ones. And finally, it seeks
to earn the trust of the American people by
paying for these plans first with cuts in Government waste and efficiency; second, with cuts,
not gimmicks, in Government spending; and by
fairness, for a change, in the way additional burdens are borne.
Tonight I want to talk with you about what
Government car do because I believe Government must do more. But let me say first that
the real engine of economic growth in this country is the private sector, and second, that each
of us must be an engine of growth and change.
The truth is that as Government creates more
opportunity in this new and different time, we
must also demand more responsibility in turn.
Our immediate priority must be to create
jobs, create jobs now. Some people say, "Well,
we're in a recovery, and we don't have to do
that." Well, we all hope we're in a recovery,
but we're sure not creating new jobs. And
there's no recovery worth its salt that doesn't
put the American people back to work.
To create jobs and guarantee a strong recovery, I call on Congress to enact an immediate


114




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Feb. 17


package of jobs investments of over $30 billion
to put people to work now, to create a half
a million jobs: jobs to rebuild our highways and
airports, to renovate housing, to bring new life
to rural communities, and spread hope and opportunity among our Nation's youth. Especially
I want to emphasize, after the events of last
year in Los Angeles and the countless stories
of despair in our cities and in our poor rural
communities, this proposal will create almost
700,000 new summer jobs for displaced, unemployed young people alone this summer. And
tonight I invite America's business leaders to
join us in this effort so that together we can
provide over one million summer jobs in cities
and poor rural areas for our young people.
Second, our plan looks beyond today's business cycle because our aspirations extend into
the next century. The heart of this plan deals
with the long term. It is an investment program
designed to increase public and private investment in areas critical to our economic future.
And it has a deficit reduction program that will
increase the savings available for the private sector to invest, will lower interest rates, will decrease the percentage of the Federal budget
claimed by interest payments, and decrease the
risk of financial market disruptions that could
adversely affect our economy.
Over the long run, all this will bring us a
higher rate of economic growth, improved productivity, more high-quality jobs, and an improved economic competitive position in the
world. In order to accomplish both increased
investment and deficit reduction, something no
American Government has ever been called
upon to do at the same time before, spending
must be cut and taxes must be raised.
The spending cuts I recommend were carefully thought through in a way to minimize any
adverse economic impact, to capture the peace
dividend for investment purposes, and to switch
the balance in the budget from consumption
to more investment. The tax increases and the
spending cuts were both designed to assure that
the cost of this historic program to face and
deal with our problems will be borne by those
who could readily afford it the most. Our plan
is designed, furthermore, and perhaps in some
ways most importantly, to improve the health
of American business through lower interest
rates, more incentives to invest, and better
trained workers.
Because small business has created such a


high percentage of all the new jobs in our Nation over the last 10 or 15 years, our plan includes the boldest targeted incentives for small
business in history. We propose a permanent
investment tax credit for the smallest firms in
this country, with revenues of under $5 million.
That's about 90 percent of the firms in America,
employing about 40 percent of the work force
but creating a big majority of the net new jobs
for more than a decade. And we propose new
rewards for entrepreneurs who take new risks.
We propose to give small business access to
all the new technologies of our time. And we
propose to attack this credit crunch which has
denied small business the credit they need to
flourish and prosper.
With a new network of community development banks and $1 billion to make the dream
of enterprise zones real, we propose to bring
new hope and new jobs to storefronts and factories from south Boston to south Texas to south
central Los Angeles. This plan invests in our
roads, our bridges, our transit systems, in highspeed railways and high-tech information systems. And it provides the most ambitious environmental cleanup in partnership with State and
local government of our time, to put people
to work and to preserve the environment for
our future.
Standing as we are on the edge of a new
century, we know that economic growth depends as never before on opening up new markets overseas and expanding the volume of
world trade. And so, we will insist on fair trade
rules in international markets as a part of a
national economic strategy to expand trade, including the successful completion of the latest
round of world trade talks and the successful
completion of a North American Free Trade
Agreement with appropriate safeguards for our
workers and for the environment.
At the same time-and I say this to you in
both parties and across America tonight, all the
people who are listening-it is not enough to
pass a budget or even to have a trade agreement. This world is changing so fast that we
must have aggressive, targeted attempts to create the high-wage jobs of the future. That's what
all our competitors are doing. We must give
special attention to those critical industries that
are going to explode in the 21st century but
that are in trouble in America today, like aerospace. We must provide special assistance to
areas and to workers displaced by cuts in the


115




Feb. 17 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


defense budget and by other unavoidable economic dislocations.
And again I will say we must do this together.
I pledge to you that I will do my best to see
that business and labor and Government work
together for a change.
But all of our efforts to strengthen the economy will fail-let me say this again; I feel so
strongly about this-all of our efforts to
strengthen the economy will fail unless we also
take this year, not next year, not 5 years from
now but this year, bold steps to reform our
health care system.
In 1992, we spent 14 percent of our income
on health care, more than 30 percent more than
any other country in the world, and yet we
were the only advanced nation that did not provide a basic package of health care benefits to
all of its citizens. Unless we change the present
pattern, 50 percent of the growth in the deficit
between now and the year 2000 will be in health
care costs. By the year 2000 almost 20 percent
of our income will be in health care. Our families will never be secure, our businesses will
never be strong, and our Government will never
again be fully solvent until we tackle the health
care crisis. We must do it this year.
The combination of the rising cost of care
and the lack of care and the fear of losing care
are endangering the security and the very lives
of millions of our people. And they are weakening our economy every day. Reducing health
care costs can liberate literally hundreds of billions of dollars for new investment in growth
and jobs. Bringing health costs in line with inflation would do more for the private sector in
this country than any tax cut we could give
and any spending program we could promote.
Reforming health care over the long run is critically essential to reducing not only our deficit
but to expanding investment in America.
Later this spring, after the First Lady and
the many good people who are helping her all
across the country complete their work, I will
deliver to Congress a comprehensive plan for
health care reform that finally will bring costs
under control and provide security to all of our
families, so that no one will be denied the coverage they need but so that our economic future
will not be compromised either. We'll have to
root out fraud and overcharges and make sure
that paperwork no longer chokes your doctor.
We'll have to maintain the highest American
standards and the right to choose in a system


that is the world's finest for all those who can
access it. But first we must make choices. We
must choose to give the American people the
quality they demand and deserve with a system
that will not bankrupt the country or further
drive more Americans into agony.
Let me further say that I want to work with
all of you on this. I realize this is a complicated
issue. But we must address it. And I believe
if there is any chance that Republicans and
Democrats who disagree on taxes and spending
or anything else could agree on one thing, surely
we can all look at these numbers and go home
and tell our people the truth. We cannot continue these spending patterns in public or private dollars for health care for less and less
and less every year. We can do better. And
I will work to do better.
Perhaps the most fundamental change the
new direction I propose offers is its focus on
the future and its investment which I seek in
our children. Each day we delay really making
a commitment to our children carries a dear
cost. Half of the 2-year-olds in this country
today don't receive the immunizations they need
against deadly diseases. Our plan will provide
them for every eligible child. And we know now
that we will save $10 later for every $1 we
spend by eliminating preventable childhood diseases. That's a good investment no matter how
you measure it.
I recommend that the women, infants, and
children's nutrition program be expanded so that
every expectant mother who needs the help gets
it. We all know that Head Start, a program
that prepares children for school, is a success
story. We all know that it saves money. But
today it just reaches barely over one-third of
all the eligible children. Under this plan, every
eligible child will be able to get a head start.
This is not just the right thing to do; it is the
smart thing to do. For every dollar we invest
today, we'll save $3 tomorrow. We have to start
thinking about tomorrow. I've heard that somewhere before. [Laughter]
We have to ask more in our schools of our
students, our teachers, our principals, our parents. Yes, we must give them the resources they
need to meet high standards, but we must also
use the authority and the influence and the
funding of the Education Department to promote strategies that really work in learning.
Money alone is not enough. We have to do
what really works to increase learning in our


116




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Feb. 17


schools.
We have to recognize that all of our high
school graduates need some further education
in order to be competitive in this global economy. So we have to establish a partnership between businesses and education and the Government for apprenticeship programs in every State
in this country to give our people the skills
they need. Lifelong learning must benefit not
just young high school graduates but workers,
too, throughout their career. The average 18 -year-old today will change jobs seven times in
a lifetime. We have done a lot in this country
on worker training in the last few years, but
the system is too fractured. We must develop
a unified, simplified, sensible, streamlined worker-training program so that workers receive the
training they need regardless of why they lost
their jobs or whether they simply need to learn
something new to keep them. We have got to
do better on this.
And finally, I propose a program that got a
great response from the American people all
across this country last year: a program of national service to make college loans available
to all Americans and to challenge them at the
same time to give something back to their country as teachers or police officers or community
service workers; to give them the option to pay
the loans back, but at tax time so they can't
beat the bill, but to encourage them instead
to pay it back by making their country stronger
and making their country better and giving us
the benefit of their knowledge.
A generation ago when President Kennedy
proposed and the United States Congress embraced the Peace Corps, it defined the character
of a whole generation of Americans committed
to serving people around the world. In this national service program, we will provide more
than twice as many slots for people before they
go to college to be in national service than ever
served in the Peace Corps. This program could
do for this generation of Members of Congress
what the land grant college act did and what
the GI bill did for former Congressmen. In the
future, historians who got their education
through the national service loan will look back
on you and thank you for giving America a new
lease on life, if you meet this challenge.
If we believe in jobs and we believe in learning, we must believe in rewarding work. If we
believe in restoring the values that make America special, we must believe that there is dignity


in all work, and there must be dignity for all
workers. To those who care for our sick, who
tend our children, who do our most difficult
and tiring jobs, the new direction I propose
will make this solemn, simple commitment: By
expanding the refundable earned-income tax
credit, we will make history. We will reward
the work of millions of working poor Americans
by realizing the principle that if you work 40
hours a week and you've got a child in the
house, you will no longer be in poverty.
Later this year, we will offer a plan to end
welfare as we know it. I have worked on this
issue for the better part of a decade. And I
know from personal conversations with many
people that no one, no one wants to change
the welfare system as badly as those who are
trapped in it. I want to offer the people on
welfare the education, the training, the child
care, the health care they need to get back
on their feet, but say after 2 years they must
get back to work, too, in private business if
possible, in public service if necessary. We have
to end welfare as a way of life and make it
a path to independence and dignity.
Our next great goal should be to strengthen
our families. I compliment the Congress for
passing the Family and Medical Leave Act as
a good first step, but it is time to do more.
This plan will give this country the toughest
child support enforcement system it has ever
had. It is time to demand that people take responsibility for the children they bring in this
world.
And I ask you to help to protect our families
against the violent crime which terrorizes our
people and which tears our communities apart.
We must pass a tough crime bill. I support
not only the bill which didn't quite make it
to the President's desk last year but also an
initiative to put 100,000 more police officers
on the street, to provide boot camps for firsttime nonviolent offenders for more space for
the hardened criminals in jail. And I support
an initiative to do what we can to keep guns
out of the hands of criminals. Let me say this.
I will make you this bargain: If you will pass
the Brady bill, I'll sure sign it.
Let me say now, we should move to the harder parts.
I think it is clear to every American, including
every Member of Congress of both parties, that
the confidence of the people who pay our bills
in our institutions in Washington is not high.


117




Feb. 17 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


We must restore it. We must begin again to
make Government work for ordinary taxpayers,
not simply for organized interest groups. And
that beginning must start with real political reform. I am asking the United States Congress
to pass a real campaign finance reform bill this
year. I ask you to increase the participation of
the American people by passing the motor voter
bill promptly. I ask you to deal with the undue
influence of special interests by passing a bill
to end the tax deduction for lobbying and to
act quickly to require all the people who lobby
you to register as lobbyists by passing the lobbying registration bill.
Believe me, they were cheering that last section at home. I believe lobby reform and campaign finance reform are a sure path to increased popularity for Republicans and Democrats alike because it says to the voters back
home, "This is your House. This is your Senate.
We're your hired hands, and every penny we
draw is your money."
Next, to revolutionize Government we have
to ensure that we live within our means, and
that should start at the top and with the White
House. In the last few days I have announced
a cut in the White House staff of 25 percent,
saving approximately $10 million. I have ordered
administrative cuts in budgets of agencies and
departments. I have cut the Federal bureaucracy, or will over the next 4 years, by approximately 100,000 positions, for a combined savings
of $9 billion. It is time for Government to demonstrate, in the condition we're in, that we can
be as frugal as any household in America.
And that's why I also want to congratulate
the Congress. I noticed the announcement of
the leadership today that Congress is taking
similar steps to cut its costs. I think that is
important. I think it will send a very clear signal
to the American people.
But if we really want to cut spending, we're
going to have to do more, and some of it will
be difficult. Tonight I call for an across-theboard freeze in Federal Government salaries for
one year. And thereafter, during this 4-year period, I recommend that salaries rise at one point
lower than the cost of living allowance normally
involved in Federal pay increases.
Next, I recommend that we make 150 specific
budget cuts, as you know, and that all those
who say we should cut more be as specific as
I have been.
Finally, let me say to my friends on both


sides of the aisle, it is not enough simply to
cut Government; we have to rethink the whole
way it works. When I became President I was
amazed at just the way the White House
worked, in ways that added lots of money to
what taxpayers had to pay, outmoded ways that
didn't take maximum advantage of technology
and didn't do things that any business would
have done years ago to save taxpayers' money.
So I want to bring a new spirit of innovation
into every Government Department. I want to
push education reform, as I said, not just to
spend more money but to really improve learning. Some things work, and some things don't.
We ought to be subsidizing the things that work
and discouraging the things that don't. I'd like
to use that Superfund to clean up pollution for
a change and not just pay lawyers.
In the aftermath of all the difficulties with
the savings and loans, we must use Federal bank
regulators to protect the security and safety of
our financial institutions, but they should not
be used to continue the credit crunch and to
stop people from making sensible loans.
I'd like for us to not only have welfare reform
but to reexamine the whole focus of all of our
programs that help people, to shift them from
entitlement programs to empowerment programs. In the end we want people not to need
us anymore. I think that's important.
But in the end we have to get back to the
deficit. For years there's been a lot of talk about
it but very few credible efforts to deal with
it. And now I understand why, having dealt with
the real numbers for 4 weeks. But I believe
this plan does; it tackles the budget deficit seriously and over the long term. It puts in place
one of the biggest deficit reductions and one
of the biggest changes in Federal priorities, from
consumption to investment, in the history of this
country at the same time over the next 4 years.
Let me say to all the people watching us
tonight who will ask me these questions beginning tomorrow as I go around the country and
who've asked it in the past: We're not cutting
the deficit just because experts say it's the thing
to do or because it has some intrinsic merit.
We have to cut the deficit because the more
we spend paying off the debt, the less tax dollars
we have to invest in jobs and education and
the future of this country. And the more money
we take out of the pool of available savings,
the harder it is for people in the private sector
to borrow money at affordable interest rates for


118




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Feb. 17


a college loan for their children, for a home
mortgage, or to start a new business.
That's why we've got to reduce the debt, because it is crowding out other activities that we
ought to be engaged in and that the American
people ought to be engaged in. We cut the
deficit so that our children will be able to buy
a home, so that our companies can invest in
the future and in retraining their workers, so
that our Government can make the kinds of
investments we need to be a stronger and smarter and safer nation.
If we don't act now, you and I might not
even recognize this Government 10 years from
now. If we just stay with the same trends of
the last 4 years, by the end of the decade the
deficit will be $635 billion a year, almost 80
percent of our gross domestic product. And paying interest on that debt will be the costliest
Government program of all. We'll still be the
world's largest debtor. And when Members of
Congress come here, they'll be devoting over
20 cents on the dollar to interest payments,
more than half of the budget to health care
and to other entitlements. And you'll come here
and deliberate and argue over 6 or 7 cents on
the dollar, no matter what America's problems
are. We will not be able to have the independence we need to chart the future that we must.
And we'll be terribly dependent on foreign
funds for a large portion of our investment.
This budget plan, by contrast, will by 1997
cut $140 billion in that year alone from the
deficit, a real spending cut, a real revenue increase, a real deficit reduction, using the independent numbers of the Congressional Budget
Office. [Laughter] Well, you can laugh, my fellow Republicans, but I'll point out that the Congressional Budget Office was normally more
conservative in what was going to happen and
closer to right than previous Presidents have
been.
I did this so that we could argue about priorities with the same set of numbers. I did this
so that no one could say I was estimating my
way out of this difficulty. I did this because
if we can agree together on the most prudent
revenues we're likely to get if the recovery stays
and we do right things economically, then it
will turn out better for the American people
than we say. In the last 12 years, because there
were differences over the revenue estimates, you
and I know that both parties were given greater
elbow room for irresponsibility. This is tighten

ing the rein on the Democrats as well as the
Republicans. Let's at least argue about the same
set of numbers so the American people will
think we're shooting straight with them.
As I said earlier, my recommendation makes
more than 150 difficult reductions to cut the
Federal spending by a total of $246 billion. We
are eliminating programs that are no longer
needed, such as nuclear power research and development. We're slashing subsidies and canceling wasteful projects. But many of these programs were justified in their time, and a lot
of them are difficult for me to recommend reductions in, some really tough ones for me personally. I recommend that we reduce interest
subsidies to the Rural Electric Administration.
That's a difficult thing for me to recommend.
But I think that I cannot exempt the things
that exist in my State or in my experience, if
I ask you to deal with things that are difficult
for you to deal with. We're going to have to
have no sacred cows except the fundamental
abiding interest of the American people.
I have to say that we all know our Government has been just great at building programs.
The time has come to show the American people that we can limit them too; that we can
not only start things, that we can actually stop
things.
About the defense budget, I raise a hope and
a caution. As we restructure our military forces
to meet the new threats of the post-cold-war
world, it is true that we can responsibly reduce
our defense budget. And we may all doubt what
that range of reductions is, but let me say that
as long as I am President, I will do everything
I can to make sure that the men and women
who serve under the American flag will remain
the best trained, the best prepared, the best
equipped fighting force in the world. And every
one of you should make that solemn pledge.
We still have responsibilities around the world.
We are the world's only superpower. This is
still a dangerous and uncertain time, and we
owe it to the people in uniform to make sure
that we adequately provide for the national defense and for their interests and needs. Backed
by an effective national defense and a stronger
economy, our Nation will be prepared to lead
a world challenged as it is everywhere by ethnic
conflict, by the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction, by the global democratic revolution,
and by challenges to the health of our global
environment.


119




Feb. 17 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


I know this economic plan is ambitious, but
I honestly believe it is necessary for the continued greatness of the United States. And I think
it is paid for fairly, first by cutting Government,
then by asking the most of those who benefited
the most in the past, and by asking more Americans to contribute today so that all of us can
prosper tomorrow.
For the wealthiest, those earning more than
$180,000 per year, I ask you all who are listening tonight to support a raise in the top rate
for Federal income taxes from 31 to 36 percent.
We recommend a 10 percent surtax on incomes
over $250,000 a year, and we recommend closing some loopholes that let some people get
away without paying any tax at all.
For businesses with taxable incomes in excess
of $10 million, we recommend a raise in the
corporate tax rate, also to 36 percent, as well
as a cut in the deduction for business entertainment expenses. Our plan seeks to attack tax
subsidies that actually reward companies more
for shutting their operations down here and
moving them overseas than for staying here and
reinvesting in America. I say that as someone
who believes that American companies should
be free to invest around the world and as a
former Governor who actively sought investment
of foreign companies in my State. But the Tax
Code should not express a preference to American companies for moving somewhere else, and
it does in particular cases today.
We will seek to ensure that, through effective
tax enforcement, foreign corporations who do
make money in America simply pay the same
taxes that American companies make on the
same income.
To middle class Americans who have paid a
great deal for the last 12 years and from whom
I ask a contribution tonight, I will say again
as I did on Monday night: You're not going
alone any more, you're certainly not going first,
and you're not going to pay more for less as
you have too often in the past. I want to emphasize the facts about this plan: 98.8 percent of
America's families will have no increase in their
income tax rates, only 1.2 percent at the top.
Let me be clear: There will also be no new
cuts in benefits for Medicare. As we move toward the 4th year, with the explosion in health
care costs, as I said, projected to account for
50 percent of the growth of the deficit between
now and the year 2000, there must be planned
cuts in payments to providers, to doctors, to


hospitals, to labs, as a way of controlling health
care costs. But I see these only as a stopgap
until we can reform the entire health care system. If you'll help me do that, we can be fair
to the providers and to the consumers of health
care. Let me repeat this, because I know it
matters to a lot of you on both sides of the
aisle. This plan does not make a recommendation for new cuts in Medicare benefits for any
beneficiary.
Secondly, the only change we are making in
Social Security is one that has already been publicized. The plan does ask older Americans with
higher incomes, who do not rely solely on Social
Security to get by, to contribute more. This plan
will not affect the 80 percent of Social Security
recipients who do not pay taxes on Social Security now. Those who do not pay tax on Social
Security now will not be affected by this plan.
Our plan does include a broad-based tax on
energy, and I want to tell you why I selected
this and why I think it's a good idea. I recommend that we adopt a Btu tax on the heat
content of energy as the best way to provide
us with revenue to lower the deficit because
it also combats pollution, promotes energy efficiency, promotes the independence, economically, of this country as well as helping to reduce
the debt, and because it does not discriminate
against any area. Unlike a carbon tax, that's not
too hard on the coal States; unlike a gas tax,
that's not too tough on people who drive a long
way to work; unlike an ad valorem tax, it doesn't
increase just when the price of an energy source
goes up. And it is environmentally responsible.
It will help us in the future as well as in the
present with the deficit.
Taken together, these measures will cost an
American family with an income of about
$40,000 a year less than $17 a month. It will
cost American families with incomes under
$30,000 nothing because of other programs we
propose, principally those raising the earned-income tax credit.
Because of our publicly stated determination
to reduce the deficit, if we do these things,
we will see the continuation of what's happened
just since the election. Just since the election,
since the Secretary of the Treasury, the Director
of the Office of Management and Budget, and
others who have begun to speak out publicly
in favor of a tough deficit reduction plan, interest rates have continued to fall long-term. That
means that for the middle class who will pay


120




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Feb. 17


something more each month, if they had any
credit needs or demands, their increased energy
costs will be more than offset by lower interest
costs for mortgages, consumer loans, credit
cards. This can be a wise investment for them
and their country now.
I would also point out what the American
people already know, and that is, because we're
a big, vast country where we drive long distances, we have maintained far lower burdens
on energy than any other advanced country. We
will still have far lower burdens on energy than
any other advanced country. And these will be
spread fairly, with real attempts to make sure
that no cost is imposed on families with incomes
under $30,000 and that the costs are very modest until you get into the higher income groups
where the income taxes trigger in.
Now, I ask all of you to consider this: Whatever you think of the tax program, whatever
you think of the spending cuts, consider the
cost of not changing. Remember the numbers
that you all know. If we just keep on doing
what we're doing, by the end of the decade
we'll have a $650-billion-a-year deficit. If we
just keep on doing what we're doing, by the
end of the decade 20 percent of our national
income will go to health care every year, twice
as much as any other country on the face of
the globe. If we just keep on doing what we're
doing, over 20 cents on the dollar will have
to go to service the debt.
Unless we have the courage now to start
building our future and stop borrowing from
it, we're condemning ourselves to years of stagnation interrupted by occasional recessions, to
slow growth in jobs, to no more growth in income, to more debt, to more disappointment.
Worse, unless we change, unless we increase
investment and reduce the debt to raise productivity so that we can generate both jobs and
incomes, we will be condemning our children
and our children's children to a lesser life than
we enjoyed. Once Americans looked forward to
doubling their living standards every 25 years.
At present productivity rates, it will take 100
years to double living standards, until our grandchildren's grandchildren are born. I say that is
too long to wait.
Tonight the American people know we have
to change. But they're also likely to ask me
tomorrow and all of you for the weeks and
months ahead whether we have the fortitude


to make the changes happen in the right way.
They know that as soon as I leave this Chamber
and you go home, various interest groups will
be out in force lobbying against this or that
piece of this plan, and that the forces of conventional wisdom will offer a thousand reasons why
we well ought to do this but we just can't do
it.
Our people will be watching and wondering,
not to see whether you disagree with me on
a particular issue but just to see whether this
is going to be business as usual or a real new
day, whether we're all going to conduct ourselves as if we know we're working for them.
We must scale the walls of the people's skepticisms, not with our words but with our deeds.
After so many years of gridlock and indecision,
after so many hopeful beginnings and so few
promising results, the American people are
going to be harsh in their judgments of all of
us if we fail to seize this moment.
This economic plan can't please everybody.
If the package is picked apart, there will be
something that will anger each of us, won't
please anybody. But if it is taken as a whole,
it will help all of us. So I ask you all to begin
by resisting the temptation to focus only on a
particular spending cut you don't like or some
particular investment that wasn't made. And nobody likes the tax increases, but let's just face
facts. For 20 years, through administrations of
both parties, incomes have stalled and debt has
exploded and productivity has not grown as it
should. We cannot deny the reality of our condition. We have got to play the hand we were
dealt and play it as best we can.
My fellow Americans, the test of this plan
cannot be "what is in it for me." It has got
to be "what is in it for us." If we work hard
and if we work together, if we rededicate ourselves to creating jobs, to rewarding work, to
strengthening our families, to reinventing our
Government, we can lift our country's fortunes
again.
Tonight I ask everyone in this Chamber and
every American to look simply into your heart,
to spark your own hopes, to fire your own imagination. There is so much good, so much possibility, so much excitement in this country now
that if we act boldly and honestly, as leaders
should, our legacy will be one of prosperity and
progress. This must be America's new direction.


121




Feb. 17 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


Let us summon the courage to seize it.
Thank you. God bless America.


NOTE: The President spoke at 9:10 p.m. in the
House Chamber of the Capitol.


Remarks on the Economic Program in St. Louis, Missouri
February 18, 1993


Thank you. I love these signs: "Our children's
future starts today." "Health care for all." "No
guts, no glory: Stop gridlock." "The Devil's in
the details." That's right, too. [Laughter] "Divided we'll go down the tubes." "We want real
recovery." I love these signs, and I thank you
all for being here today.
Let me begin by saying how much I enjoyed
flying down here with Congressman Clay and
Congressman Gephardt and with Congressman
Volkmer and Congresswoman Danner; they're
here, too. They are part of the engine for
change that you're going to see move through
our Congress. I thank Bill Clay for hosting us
in his district, and I want to congratulate him
on the passage and this time the signing, not
the veto, of the Family and Medical Leave Act.
I want to say how glad I am to be back
in St. Louis with your Governor, my longtime
friend and early supporter. And I know that
he will be a great success, and I'm going to
do what I can to be his partner in Washington.
I know from clear experience that we don't have
all the answers, and I'll do what I can to see
that we make as many decisions as possible out
here in the Governor's offices where the rubber
meets the road. And I thank him for being
here.
I want to recognize two of the groups that
performed, the Fox High School Band and Harris-Stowe College Choir.
Let me say a word if I might about our majority leader, Dick Gephardt. There is no way that
I can convey to the people of St. Louis and
Missouri how important he is to the Nation.
But I can tell you this: I'm not sure we could
do any of the things we have to do if it were
not for his leadership. If you knew all the times
that he had brought together the other Members of the House of Representatives on the
Democratic side and told them they were going
to have to cut spending as well as raise money,
told them we were going to have to change
our priorities, told them we were going to have


to stick together to turn this country around,
and been a force for moral leadership within
the United States Congress, the heart of every
person not just in his district but this whole
State would swell with pride to know that you're
represented by somebody like that.
If you knew all the times that I heard him
stick up in private for the men and women
who build the cars and build the airplanes and
brew the beer and provide the backbone of
America, you would know that he doesn't just
say things in public and then behave differently
in private. He is the same everywhere. And I
am very glad that he is my full partner in this
crusade to change our country.
You know, St. Louis is a special place for
me. It's here where we ended the first of our
wonderful bus trips across America and where
we had a rally of about 40,000 people. It was
the biggest crowd we'd had at that time in the
campaign. And we started our second bus trip
over in east St. Louis. And then we had the
first Presidential debate here. So I think it's
only fitting that I would come to my neighboring
State in the heartland of America to start day
one of America's new direction.
I was in Missouri on the other side of the
State on Labor Day, and I went to Harry Truman's home town. I guess in some ways the
talk I gave to Congress last night was like one
of President Truman's talks. Some of it was just
off the top of my head and from the bottom
of my heart. It was sort of plain spoken, and
I couldn't figure out how else to say what I
think is the plain truth about where we are.
This is a country of enormous promise, of
unlimited potential, of a great future burdened
by big problems. I think everybody knows that.
And we also know, I think, that some mistakes
have been made in the course we have taken.
The fundamental problems we have are because
of big, sweeping changes in history: America
being pushed into a global economy, all of us
being subject to changes at a far more rapid


122




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Feb. 18


rate than ever before.
But we know that the responses we have
taken have not worked. There are too many
people who are unemployed. There are too
many people who are underemployed. There are
too many people who have lost good jobs, that
cannot get jobs at that income left. There are
too many people with no health insurance and
too many others terrified of losing it. There
are too many people who don't have access to
the education over a lifetime that they need
to continually be retrained. There are too many
places where we are not investing in the future.
There are too many industries, like the aerospace industry in Missouri and throughout the
country, that we know will produce a huge portion of the high-wage jobs of the future all over
the world, and yet, they're dying on the vine
here in America. These things don't make sense.
What we have been doing has not worked.
We need to take a new direction that will build
a high-wage, high-growth, secure future where
people can be educated, where there is affordable health care for all, and where Americans
have a fair chance to compete and win. That's
what this is all about.
I want to repeat to you what I said to the
Congress last night. I remember in 1981 when
President Reagan said if you stacked 1,000-dollar bills on top of each other, our national debt
would go 67 miles into the sky. If you did it
today, it would go 267 miles into the sky. I
say that not to blame him, not to blame my
predecessor, not to blame anybody. Goodness
knows, there's enough blame to go around, both
parties and the Presidency and the Congress,
but what good is it going to do us? Let us
forget about blame and take responsibility for
our future. Let's do it together. I don't care
who gets the credit, I just want us to go forward.
There are already people who are saying that
we really can't make fundamental changes.
There are people who are saying, "Well, you
can't bring the deficit down," or "Well, nobody
will hang in there and make these tough budget
cuts the President's proposing," or "Well, you
can't really reform the health care system," even
though we're paying more and getting less for
ours than any country on the face of the Earth.
I'm tired of all the nay-sayers. I think we can
make some changes. But we need your help.
We need your help in two ways: Number
one, we need you to show up like this, and
we need you to tell your Members of Congress


that we will support you if you make the honest,
tough, hard decisions. We know we didn't get
into this mess overnight. We're not going to
get out of it overnight. But we cannot keep
doing the same old thing. The price of doing
the same thing is higher than the price of
change.
The second thing you can do is to support
your Members of Congress by demanding real
political reform that will protect them in making
courageous changes. Tell them you want a campaign finance reform bill that will limit the cost
of congressional campaigns, limit the influence
of special interests, and open this process to
all people.
Tell them you want something done to make
sure all of the lobbyists in Washington have
to register and report on their activities; twothirds of them don't. Tell them you support
our bill to remove the tax deduction for lobbying
activities. You are subsidizing interests that together undermine your future. Individually
they've all got a good story to tell, but collectively they help to paralyze the political process.
And you, at least, should not subsidize it with
your tax dollars because you don't have comparable deductions.
My fellow Americans, last night I tried to
lay out to the Congress and to the American
people a plan that will change the direction of
this country and give us a genuine economic
strategy, a plan to produce more jobs, higher
income, deal with the health care crisis, provide
a lifetime system of education, and reduce the
national debt. We have to begin with the Government, and at the top with the President.
So I have tried to set an example. I have
cut the White House staff by 25 percent. That
will be in my budget for the White House.
I have cut the administrative costs of the executive branch in my budget 14 percent over the
next 4 years, over and above the cuts in the
White House, and we'll reduce employment, not
by firing people but by attrition, by 100,000
over the next 4 years. That will save $9 billion.
And yesterday the leaders of the House and
the Senate announced that the Congress would
follow our lead and cut their budgets by that
much, which I think is good.
There are 150 other specific cuts in this budget, including some that were very tough for me
to recommend, some in programs that don't
make any sense anymore. For example, do you
remember when we had the Bicentennial cele

123




Feb. 18 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


bration in 1976? There is still a Bicentennial
Commission. Our Government's great at starting
things and not very good at stopping things.
So we eliminated a lot of things that ought
to be stopped.
The second thing we did was to reduce our
investment in programs that have done a lot
of good, but where the amount you're spending
can't be justified anymore, including one that
was really close to my heart. We recommended
a reduction in the Federal subsidy to the Rural
Electric Administration, something that serves
a lot of people in my State and yours. But
America is 100 percent electrified now, and we
ought not to have the full subsidy continued
from all of the rest of the people who get their
electricity from someplace else.
We recommended some unwarranted subsidies be eliminated because the need for the
work is much less or nonexistent anymore. For
example, we recommended a big cutback in a
lot of programs related to the nuclear industry
and the elimination of a nuclear research program that is inconsistent with our new energy
future.
We recommended some big changes in the
environmental Superfund program: one, to make
the polluters pay more and the taxpayers pay
less and the second, to get the money freed
up so that we can use the money to clean up
pollution. It's all going to lawyer fees now, because people don't want anything to happen.
We're going to try to make it work.
Finally, I recommended-and this was difficult for me because I can't do anything as
your President in the end without the support
of the fine people in the Federal work forcebut we recommended a freeze on Federal pay
raises for a year and modest pay raises for the
next 3, because that saves billions of dollars that
we don't have to take out of the rest of the
people in taxes to reduce the deficit.
So there are 150 tough cuts. Now, let me
say I've already heard some people on the other
side of the aisle say, "Well, he should have
cut more." And my answer is: Show me where,
but be specific. No hot air. Show me where,
and be specific.
And since I am here in Missouri, I think
I will repeat that. Show me. And I say that
not in the spirit of partisanship but in the spirit
of genuine challenge. I know there is more that
we can eliminate. I am honestly looking. I've
just been there 4 weeks and a day, and I'm


nowhere near through. And I want you to help
me, and I want them to help me.
Let me say also, the burdens in terms of
taxes I think are imposed in a fair way. The
rates of 98.9 percent of Americans will not be
raised. Late in the last election, the New York
Times carried a front-page story showing that
70 percent of the gains of the 1980's had been
reaped by the top one percent of the people.
This plan asked the top 1.2 percent of the people to have an income tax increase. This plan
asked companies with incomes of over $10 million to match that income tax increase.
This plan raises over 70 percent of the funds
from people with incomes above $100,000. This
plan raises no money from people with incomes
below $30,000. And indeed, because we increased the refundable income tax credit, this
plan, if it passes, will enable us to do something
I would think every American would be proud
of. For the first time ever, if this plan passes,
we can say to the people of this country: Look,
we are rewarding work and family. If you work
full-time and you've got a kid in your house,
you won't live in poverty because of the changes
we're going to have in the tax system.
People making $40,000, $50,000, in that
range, will pay about $17 a month under this
plan. But let me tell you, a lot of those people,
many of whom are in this station today, may
wind up not being out any more money for
this reason: Just since the election, since I said
we're going to have a tough plan to reduce
this debt, long-term interest rates have gone
down. If you take only the reduction in interest
rates which have occurred from the election day
until this day, for everybody who gets the benefit of those lower interest rates in a home mortgage, a car payment, consumer credit, you will
make more in lower interest rates than you'll
pay in the energy tax if we can show that we're
serious about cutting spending and cutting this
deficit. We've got to do it.
One final thing which you'll also hear about
from people who oppose this plan: I do propose
to spend some more money, but not in the
old way. Look at what we spend it for. We
have reduced Government consumption. We
have reduced inessential programs. But we increase spending on jobs: a jobs program to create a half a million jobs starting right now in
building roads, repairing streets, fixing airports,
cleaning up the environment with water systems
and sewer systems; a million summer jobs for


124




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Feb. 19


young people, if I could get the private sector
to contribute to the 700,000 we're going to create in the Government.
This program invests in opening the doors
of college education to all people and giving
them a chance to pay the loan back on favorable
terms or to pay it back with service to our
country. This plan will put 100,000 police officers on the streets of America over the next
4 years. This plan will give us a chance to invest
in the new technologies that will create jobs
for the people who have lost their jobs in the
defense industries and in other big industries
that have been downscaling.
We have got to create some new jobs in this
country, for goodness sakes. You can have all
the other programs in the world, and unless
we do it, we're going to be in trouble.
And this plan will reduce the deficit by hundreds of billions of dollars over the next 5 years.
And I ask you, I ask you to support it not
just for you but for us, not just for narrow
interest but for the national interest. I believe
it will be good for virtually every American.
Remarks and a Question-and-Answer
Chillicothe, Ohio
February 19, 1993
The President. Thank you very much. Let me
say, first of all, what a wonderful time I have
had in your community since I arrived last night.
I have seen a lot of your fellow citizens who
did not win the lottery. [Laughter] They were
out by the Comfort Inn where we stayed last
night, and they were around the city park
where-the Mayor and I went jogging this
morning around the city park. It was 3 degrees,
which I suppose means I don't have enough
sense to be President. [Laughter] But we had
a wonderful time. We ran around the park three
times and saw some students from the school,
and we saw some city employees and others.
I flew in here with Congressman Strickland last
night, and we had a great visit on the way in.
I'm glad to see him over here.
And so between the two of them I know
a lot about this congressional district and a good
deal about this community. I know it has a
lot of beautiful old buildings-I saw them this


Today as we speak, a lot of big corporate
executives are endorsing this plan, even though
their income tax bills will go up, their companies' bills will go up, because they want a
healthy, strong, well-educated, vibrant America
with an investment climate that's good, with stable interest rates, with a declining deficit, with
a health care issue addressed, and with a country that can grow into the 21st century. So a
lot of the people who are paying this bill are
going to support it because they trust us.
And let me say this: We need you to hold
our feet to the fire. No raising taxes unless we
cut spending.
We've got to do this in a package, and we've
got to do it together. I need your help. I'm
delighted to see you here today. With your help
we can make the spirit of St. Louis the spirit
of America.
Thank you, and God bless you all.
NOTE: The President spoke at 2:59 p.m. at Union
Station. In his remarks, he referred to Gov. Mel
Carnahan of Missouri.
Session on the Economic Program in
morning-and was the first capital of Ohio. I
also know it has a nice new McDonald's[laughter]-because I went there this morning.
Good to see you. [Applause] How embarrassing.
Let me say, too, I want to thank your school
officials, Superintendent Cline and your principal, Rod Jenkins. And Melissa Hagen did a
good job, don't you think? I thought she did
a really good job. Maybe she'll be coming back
here someday to hold a town meeting like this;
you can't tell.
I also want to say-I just have a couple of
notes. Normally I don't use them, and I want
to put them down, but I asked for some notes
about some people in the crowd because they
illustrate what to me this effort that I have undertaken as your President is all about.
Is John Cochran here? Is he here anywhere?
John, are you here? Stand up there. Now, my
notes say that he has 16 children-and you're
one of them-[laughter]-that he has the largest


125




Feb. 19 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


family-owned farm in town. And important to
me, he owns the bowling alley. [Laughter] And
I want to thank him. He was unable to come
to the Inauguration.
I want to say-is 8-year-old Tiffany Sexton
here? Stand up here, Tiffany. Now, these are
her parents, Sgt. Anthony and Jerry Sexton; is
that right? All of you stand up. I want you
to see them. Now, she invited me to dinner
and promised to cook-Tiffany-so I had to
take a raincheck, and I asked them to come
today.
Is Cindy Baker here? Stand up. Cindy Baker
has three children, one of whom is a student
in this school. She wrote me a half a dozen
times in the election, pleading with me to come
to Chillicothe. So I thought since she was the
first person who invited me, she should be here
at this meeting.
I also want you to know, you know, we had
those famous bus tours, you remember, Hillary
and I and Al and Tipper Gore. What you may
not know is the people who owned the bus
company that we used all during the bus tours
all across America are from Ohio. They're from
Columbus, and they are here: Barbara and Tom
Sabatino and Kerwin and Regina Elmers. Would
they stand? They're here somewhere, I think.
Yes, in the back. There's Tom, my bus driver.
Give him a hand. [Applause] Thanks. If it hadn't
been for them, we might not have won the
election. [Laughter]
Now, let me just make a couple of introductory remarks, and then we'll get right to the
questions, because I want to just restate very
briefly how I came to the plan that I announced
to the Congress a couple of nights ago.
First, let me say that I was Governor for
12 years of a State with a lot of towns like
this one, a lot of counties like Ross County,
a lot of manufacturing facilities like the Mead
Paper facility here that worked our people and
a lot of people who worked on the farm. And
we had a pretty tough time in the eighties. We
lost a lot of manufacturing jobs, a lot of farm
jobs. A lot of our small towns got in trouble.
And I was forced to spend a lot of time trying
to figure out how we could change things to
make a better future for the hard-working good
people of my State. So a lot of what I believe
about all this goes directly to the experience
that I've had for many years working with people like you.
If I might, let me just mention one or two


things. A lot of our problems stem from all
the pressures we're having now in a global economy and stem from the fact that we've got some
problems here at home which make it difficult
for us to compete in that economy. We have
a higher percentage of poor children. We have
much more diversity than many of the countries
with which we compete. And historically, we
have never had the kind of partnership between
Government and business and working people
that some other countries have. So, for example,
if you read yesterday Boeing is laying off a lot
of employees in the airline manufacturing business-not affecting Ohio, but it's a big thing
for America, in part because of defense cuts
but in part because Europe put $26 billion into
the airbus project, a direct taxpayer investment,
to make sure they could make airplanes that
would compete with Boeing, something that we
haven't historically done.
So we have a new global economy in which
there are great opportunities but new challenges. We have some problems here at home
that make it hard for us to compete. We have
to educate a higher percentage of our people
at a higher level. We have to provide basic
health care to everybody but control health care
costs. All of our major manufacturers are spending 30 percent more for health care than all
their competitors around the world, and that
puts them in a real bind. And we have many
other challenges of this kind that we have to
face.
Now, for the last 12 years we have followed
a certain approach there. We have said as a
nation our policy is to keep taxes low on the
wealthiest Americans in the hope that they will
invest in our economy and make it grow. And
that worked. In the last 12 years, the tax burden
basically went up on the middle class, went
down on the wealthiest Americans, and according to a study released last year, about 70 percent of the economic gains of the last decade
went to the top 1 or 2 percent of the people
in the country. That was a deliberate decision
that was made to try to free up that money
in the hope that it would be invested to create
new jobs for everybody else.
Also, our theory was that the Government
should not be too active. So we didn't deal with
a lot of the issues that other Governments
around the world were dealing with, in Japan,
in Germany and other countries, for example.
And we actually reduced our investment of your


126




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Feb. 19


money in a lot of things that make jobs, like
the Community Development Block Grant program, which cities in Ohio like because they
provide funds not only to do things like repair
your parks but also to build roads and rail networks and other support systems for new industry if you're trying to get them into a community. We sort of held the lid on that on the
theory that we should just put a big bind on
the Government, and all Government spending
was bad, and all Government activity should be
discouraged, and we'll just see what happens.
Well, there have been some not-too-bad years
in the last 12. But overall, we've still got a
lot of problems. Unemployment's too high. Most
people are working harder for lower wages.
Health care costs are exploding, but fewer people have health care coverage in this country
than any other major country in the world. And
the insecurity of losing health insurance is one
of the major problems for many, many American
families. And we are not educating a high
enough percentage of our people at very high
levels to compete in this global economy. And
because we lowered taxes a lot on the wealthy
but could not control the health care costs the
Government was spending, we starting running
bigger deficits. So that even though we reduced
our investment in things like aid for small cities
to create jobs, the cost of health care and the
cost of interest on our debt exploded, so we've
got a huge Government deficit. Our national
debt is now 4 times as big as it was in 1980.
So when I got elected President, I did it
with a conviction that we needed to do the
following things: We needed to emphasize investment for jobs and for incomes-that means
investments in new technologies, investments in
things like highways and bridges and airports
and water systems and sewer systems, investments in the areas that will create jobs for the
future, and investments in education of our children all the way from Head Start to college
loans, to investments for adults to become retrained if they lose their jobs; second, that we
needed to provide affordable health care for all
Americans and bring the cost in line with inflation before it bankrupts the country with nothing to show for it; third, that we had to bring
down the national debt; and fourth, that we
needed a national economic strategy where the
American people could work in partnership
again to try to grow this economy.
Now, we have a lot of tough decisions to


make to try to pursue all these objectives at
once. The plan I announced to the Congress
relies on the following things.
Number one, we cut spending, 150 different
specific spending cuts, putting a lid on Federal
pay increases, cutting the White House staff by
25 percent, cutting the administrative costs of
the Federal Government by 14 percent over
4 years, saving billions and billions of dollars.
Number two, we raise funds in taxes in a
way that I think is fair, with 70 percent of
the money coming from people whose incomes
are above $100,000 and with a broad-based energy tax that would affect a little bit on oil,
a little bit on natural gas, a little bit on coal,
so we wouldn't hit any region of the country
too much.
Thirdly, we increase dramatically something
that a lot of you may not know about that's
one of the best things in the Tax Code-it's
called the refundable earned-income tax credit-so that no one with an income of $30,000
a year or less would pay any new money under
this plan, and so that people who work 40 hours
a week and have children in their home would
be lifted above poverty for the first time for
working, not for welfare but for working.
The other thing that you will hear from some
of my critics, and so I want to tell you it's
true, is that we did actually increase some funds:
in the short run, with a plan to jumpstart the
economy by creating a half million new jobs;
and over the long run, with increases in education programs from Head Start to worker retraining, to apprenticeship programs for high
school grads who don't go on to college, to
increased access to college loans, to retraining
for workers who lose their jobs when there are
defense cuts or other cuts in our industry. We
have to do that because that's what determines
what people's incomes are and whether you can
keep people working. We also did increase funds
in direct aid to things that create jobs: new
technologies and investments to put people to
work.
So it's a balanced program: deep spending
cuts, tax increases fairly applied, and new investments in the areas that create jobs. That's what
I'm trying to do. The Congress will decide to
vote for it in part based on whether people
in towns like Chillicothe all over America think
it's a good deal.
I can tell you this: The price of doing the
same thing is higher than the price of my pro

127




Feb. 19 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


gram. And I'll just give you one example and
open the floor to questions. Just since the election, since we made it absolutely clear that we
were determined to bring down the deficit, interest rates, long term, have begun to drop.
If you look at the difference in long-term interest rates on election day and where they were
after I made my speech to Congress, a lot of
the people who might have spent $10 or $12
or $15 more per month in energy costs, directly
and indirectly, will save much more than that
if they're paying a home mortgage, a note on
a car, they've got consumer credit, or they otherwise have to borrow money.
That's because if you bring the deficit down,
you not only free up tax dollars to spend on
education and other things, you free up money
in the private sector to borrow at lower interest
rates. So an awful lot of people are going to
save a lot of money on this program immediately. It will create jobs immediately. And the
price of it, I am confident, is lower than the
price of doing the same old thing.
So I thank you for being here. I want to
say a special word of thanks to all these Ohio
elected officials who are here. I presume they've
all been introduced, but I saw Senator Glenn
and Senator Metzenbaum and Speaker Riffe, a
lot of others here. I thank them for being here.
And we're here for you. So thank you very
much, and I'll take questions.
Social Security
Q. I get Social Security disability, a little over
$6,000 a year. And if that is willing to help
bring the economy up to shape, I am willing
to let some of my Social Security go for that
economy. And I was wondering if that will affect
my Social Security disability any.
The President. The short answer to that is
it depends on whether you pay any tax now
on your income. Let me explain what that
means.
The only people on Social Security who will
pay any more tax are those who pay some tax
on it now. That is, in America today, if you
drew a Social Security check, and in addition
to the Social Security check you have an income
of $25,000 a year or more, or if you're a married
couple, $32,000 a year or more, one-half of that
income is subject to income tax at whatever
rate your total income is.
We propose to go from half of that to 85
percent, because that is about the amount that


the average Social Security recipient should pay
taxes on if they get the rest of it for a lifetime.
The rest of it, that is, that 15 percent, will
equal about what they paid in plus interest. So
they get back what they paid in plus interest
without taxation on average, and the rest of it
would be subject to tax.
So the answer is, if you draw Social Security
and you pay some tax now, you would pay some
more. If you don't pay any tax now, you won't
pay any more because your income is too low
to be subject to it.
Student Loans
Q. Hi. My name is Greg Gilmore, and I'm
a senior here at Chillicothe High School. How
will the new program for college loans and community service be handled? And, to clarify, what
process will students have to go through to receive the college loans?
The President. Well, we're working out the
details now. But let me tell you how I want
it to work, okay? And it will be pretty close
to this, I think. First of all, let me tell you
how it works today. You know, there is a student
loan program today, and the more you borrow,
the more you have to pay back in short order.
And you get the money through your bank, and
there's a Government guarantee.
Today, that program costs the taxpayers about
$4 billion a year: $3 billion in busted loans
where people don't pay back the money they
owe and $1 billion in transaction fees to the
bank. What I hope to be able to do is to have
people borrow the money directly from the Government and pay it back at tax time so they
can't beat the bill. That will save a huge amount
of money. And I want to take the savings and
do two things:
One is to say to young people, you must pay
the money back, but you can pay the money
back as a percentage of your income. So that
if you make less money, you pay less, and we'll
string it out over longer periods of time. So
we'll never discourage anybody from being a
teacher or working in some other kind of public
work just because the salary is low.
The second thing we want to do is give people the option either to earn credits against this
loan before they go to college, or to do community service after they get out, as teachers or
police officers or in other public service. And
the way I'm trying to set it up, if you borrowed
the maximum amount of money we'd make


128




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Feb. 19


available and then you worked for 2 years at
roughly half pay as a teacher or police officer,
that would wipe off your obligation. And you'd
pay your loan back by giving something back
to your country. And so that's how it's supposed
to work.
Now, that's more Government spending all
right, but see, that's a direct investment in you.
That's not expanding some Government program. That's putting the money direct into you.
That's cutting the cost of a program and increasing investment in your future.
Youth Apprenticeship Program
Q. Mr. President, I'm a student member from
Pickley Ross Vocational Center. Since there is
a critical need in this country for skilled workers,
I'm excited about your youth apprenticeship
program. My question is what role will public
vocational education play in your youth apprenticeship program?
The President. The short answer is, a big one.
The longer answer is, here's how I want to
set it up. What we're trying to do at the national
level is to come up with enough funds to match
with local funds and to encourage private sector
people to get into an apprenticeship program
which will be an American version of what the
Europeans have done for years.
I've asked the Labor Secretary, Bob Reich,
to work with the Education Department, the
vocational people in the private sector to try
to set up a framework within which every State
in America would be able to design a program
that a person, a young man or woman, could
enter in high school if they wanted, and they
would continue for at least 2 years after high
school.
Let me tell you why we have to do that very
quickly. If you look at the income charts on
American earnings from, oh, let's say for the
last 20 years, for the last 20 years you see a
bigger and bigger and bigger gap every year
between the earnings of young people with college degrees and young people who drop out
of high school or young people who had only
a high school diploma. However, if you look
at the earnings of young people who get at
least 2 years of training after high school in
a vocational institution, the community colleges,
in the service, or on the job, if it is high-quality
training, a great deal of that job gap is closed,
and the young person moreover acquires the
ability to continue to learn new things through

out a lifetime.
The best programs are those which start in
the high schools and run with some continuity
for 2 years thereafter. And so there is no magic
answer. We're going to have to design these
sector by sector in the economy, and the National Government can't do it. We can just set
up a framework and standards and provide some
of the funds, but we're going to have to do
it on a State-by-State and sector-by-sector basis.
But that's what we have to do. We need to
get-first of all, my dream would be no high
school dropouts, and then for 100 percent of
the high school graduates to have at least 2
years of some kind of very high-quality training
that is approved by both education and the private sector. Some would be delivered in schools;
some would be delivered in the job place.
Health Care
Q. My name is Karen Ritinger. Mr. President,
once reimbursement for Medicare is reduced,
what actions will be implemented to prevent
health care providers from shifting costs to the
private sector?
The President. Well, first of all, that is a bigger problem with Medicaid than Medicare, as
you know, I'm sure. The budget that I introduced to do that, to cut down on Medicare
reimbursement, is a budget that assumes we're
not going to do anything else about health care.
Within 100 days of my taking office, we're going
to present a plan to the Congress to try to
deal with the cost shifting problem.
The question she asked indicates a real understanding of the problem. If all you do is to
cut what the Government pays to doctors and
hospitals, if you cut it below their real costs,
then the medical providers will find a way to
recover their real costs from people who pay
directly or through private insurance, and the
insurance premiums will go up more.
So what we have to do is to do what every
other country in the world but America has
done and develop some sort of all-payer system
where the reimbursement levels are pretty much
the same and where you have real efforts to
eliminate unnecessary duplication and waste and
paperwork that benefit the private sector along
with the public sector, and that's what we're
going to do.
In other words, I just presented the best
budget I could with the system we've got, but
what we need is a comprehensive system which


129




Feb. 19 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


eliminates the cost shifting from the Medicare
and Medicaid to the private sector and has some
cost reduction mechanisms that benefit everybody.
Let me say-I don't know, there must be
some people that work at the factories in town
or work in other manufacturing facilities. Our
program has some significant tax incentives over
the next 5 years for businesses big and small
to reinvest, to create jobs, and to become more
productive. But the best thing we could do,
better than an investment tax credit, better than
the tax changes for big manufacturers, the best
thing we could do is to find a way to get health
costs in line with inflation and still take care
of everybody in America. If you did that, you'd
free up hundreds of billions of dollars to make
America compete again. And so that's a very
good question.
Yes, let's take one over here. We haven't
taken any over here.
NAFTA
Q. Mr. President, as a member of the UAW
and local union president, I'm concerned about
the loss of American jobs to foreign countries.
What impact will the North American Free
Trade Act have on the economy and the budget
deficit?
The President. The North American Free
Trade Agreement, in my opinion, will help the
economy and reduce the budget deficit if, but
only if, it is implemented in a way that protects
us from unfair practices.
What I want to do is to get the North American Free Trade Agreement ratified, if we can
also get an agreement that requires the Mexican
Government and private sector to invest in environmental investments to get their environmental cost up to ours, so we don't have people
just running down there so they can evade all
the Clean Air Act and all those other acts in
America. And I want to have some labor standards agreements that will reassure us that the
Mexican Government will enforce even their
own labor laws.
One of the things that-I don't know if you
all remember one of the television ads I ran
in the last campaign about an American program
where we were actually subsidizing companies
that would move their plants overseas, and some
of them went to Central America and lowered
wages. They didn't raise wages down there; they
went down there and lowered wages. So what


we have to know is that we are actually strengthening the Mexican economy so they will buy
more.
Now, let me say this in defense of President
Salinas. In the last 5 years, our trade deficit
with Mexico has gone from a huge deficit to
a slight surplus, and our volume has gone way
up. So they bought a lot more from us than
we sold to them relative to where we were
5 or 6 years ago.
But this agreement, I'm convinced, needs
some strengthening in order to avoid hurting
the American work force. I do think, if you
look at it over the long run, a country like
ours can only get wealthier by selling more to
other countries. And it's easier to sell to your
neighbors than it is to people far away. And
so far, Mexico has not been wealthy enough
to buy a significant volume of our goods.
Let me give you an example. Our biggest
trading partner by far is Canada, even though
it's a tiny country; it's a big country geographically, but in terms of population they only have
about 30 million people. But they buy a huge
amount of our stuff, by far our biggest trading
partner.
So we would be better off-one of the reasons the Japanese and the Germans have gotten
so much richer so much quicker in the last
10 years is that they've been selling more stuff
overseas. So I've got to try to make that a market. It's good for us over the long run, but
I'm going to try to do it in a way that builds
up the American manufacturing base, not tears
it down.
Abortion
Q. I know the discussion so far has been
centered around the economy, but personally
I feel I must address a different issue. The
Senate Report, 97th Congress, S. 158, concludes
that, "Physicians, biologists and other scientists
agree that conception marks the beginning of
the life of the human being." And it goes on
to say, "There's overwhelming agreement on this
point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings." The Constitution of the United
States guarantees life, liberty, and the pursuit
of happiness. My question for you, Mr. President, is deep down inside do you believe that
life begins at conception? And if so, why are
we denying the right to life for the 4,400 human
beings a day and 1.6 million human beings a
year in the murder of an abortion?


130




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Feb. 19


The President. Wait a minute. Okay. My question for you is do you believe that women who
have abortions should be tried for first degree
murder?
Q. Yes, I do.
The President. Good. At least you have a consistent position. He said yes. That was his answer. His answer was yes.
Then that brings me to the question-there
are two different issues here, not one. One is
the biological question: Is a cell a living thing?
Answer? If two cells join in the process that
begins to make a human being, are they living?
Answer? No one disputes that. That's not the
issue.
The issue is a much deeper one, and one
over which people have argued for a long time,
one over which Christians have argued for a
long time: When does the soul enter the body
so that to terminate the living organism. amounts
to killing a person? That is the question. It
is a deep, moral question over which serious
Christians disagree.
I have heard-you may smile with all your
self-assurance, young man, but there are many
Christian ministers who disagree with you. And
the question is-and let me say, I honor your
convictions. I worked very hard in my State
to reduce the number of abortions. I don't like
abortion. The question for policymakers on the
issue of whether Roe v. Wade should be repealed is the question of whether we really are
prepared to go all the way and make women
and their doctors criminals because we believe
we know that.
Now, you are. But here's the problem. In
a great democratic society, you have to be very
careful what you apply the criminal law to. For
example, we make drugs criminal, right? And
we throw a lot of people in jail, and our jails
are full and they're just doubling all the time
because they're so full. And 90 percent of us
agree that drug use should be criminal, and
we've still got the jails full. You have to be
very careful when you know that there is a difference that splits the American people right
down the middle.
Very few Americans believe that all abortions
all the time are all right. Almost all Americans
believe that abortion should be illegal when the
children can live without the mother's assistance,
when the children can live outside the mother's
womb. There is about a 50 50 split in our country of honest conviction about whether terminat

ing a baby in the mother's womb before the
baby can live outside the mother's womb
amounts to what you say it does, which is first
degree murder.
So the reason I support Roe v. Wade and
the reason I signed a bill to make abortion illegal in the third trimester is because I think
that the Government of this country should not
make criminal activities over which even
theologians are in serious disagreement. That's
how I feel.
Employmtent
Q?. My name is Melissa Zangree. Mr. President, I'm a sophomore here at Chillicothe High
School. Will there be jobs for me when I graduate college?
The President. There will be if my economic
program has a chance to be put in, I think.
But let me say this: The most maddening thing
in the world for me as a public servant is to
see people who want to work, who don't have
jobs.
A year ago yesterday we celebrated the first
anniversary of the first primary in our Presidential campaign in New Hampshire. And so
I made a few calls there, and I was reminiscing
yesterday about going into New Hampshire, a
State that tripled the unemployment rate in 3
years, and listening to young people like you
tell me that the worst thing about their lives
was going home at night when their parents,
who had lost their jobs through no fault of their
own, and they couldn't even bear to talk at
the dinner table anymore.
But it is the big challenge. What is happening
is all these big companies are restructuring.
They're trying to be more competitive in a global economy, and they're laying people off. And
small companies have to make up the difference,
and a lot them can't borrow money from the
bank, and there aren't markets there.
All I can tell you is I'm doing the very best
I can to make sure that there will be jobs available for you. That is the issue. If we cannot
maintain America's position and the American
dream unless we are able to create a higher
number of jobs every year. This is amazing.
We're supposed to be coming out of this recession we've been in, and unemployment's higher
now than it was at the bottom of the recession.
So the answer to your question is, I honestly
believe that if my program is given a chance
to work, it will create jobs for young people


131




Feb. 19 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


like you. That's what I honestly believe. I believe that.
Taxes
Q. Welcome, Mr. President. My name is Barbara Smith, and I'm a concerned citizen. And
my question is, instead of imposing an energy
tax which would unequally affect consumers,
why not develop a national sales tax which
would be equal to all consumers, or even a
national lottery, to help with the deficit?
The President. A lottery is a different issue.
I doubt it would raise a great deal of money,
and I've always been opposed to them, because
lotteries tend to have an unequal effect, taking
a disproportionate amount of money from lower
income people. So I've always been opposed
to that.
But let's talk about the national sales tax. Almost every country that I know of that we compete with, advanced countries, all the European
countries and Japan and Canada, have a national
sales tax. They call it a value-added tax. Most
of them-if you go to Canada you see it on
your bill-you know, they separate it out, just
like the sales tax.
But most countries just put the value-added
tax into the wholesale price, and you don't even
see it on your bill. And a lot of those countries
like that because what they do is they tax things
sold in their country. Now, what's good about
that? That means that-let's take, again, your
plant here-if Mead Paper makes, let's say, stationery and sells 15 percent of its products overseas, those products would not be subject to
the VAT tax. Or, you're in the UAW, if you
make an automobile, and any automobile you
sold in another country would be subject to
no tax at all. Then, when another country's car
came in here, it would be subject to the tax.
So a lot a people in manufacturing like this
national sales tax because it helps your exports,
and it puts a burden on imports coming in,
supports the job base of the country. It's perfectly legal; all our other competitors do it.
Now, here's why I didn't propose it right now.
That is a radical change in the tax system of
the United States. It is something I think we
may well have to look at in the years ahead.
But I did not want to confuse two different
things: One is the imperative of getting the deficit down, with the need to maybe change our
tax system. I mean, there's only so much change
a country can accommodate at the same time.


Also, the energy tax equals about 1.5 percent
of total Federal revenues, or 1.6 percent. And
it will have a very modest impact on energy,
and it is pretty equal throughout the regions
of the country, actually.
If you take a farmer, you might argue that
a farmer might pay a little more directly or
indirectly because if you buy fuel it's about 2
cents a gallon, but then if you buy fertilizer,
that's got a lot of fuel in it. So the only people
who will be unevenly affected are people who
buy things that have a lot of fuel component.
But I thought, and by the way, we still have
the lowest energy cost by far of any of our
competitors, and our energy taxes are very low.
If it were to put us out of compliance, I might
have thought of that. But I do believe that
America, at another time, and maybe not too
long in the future, will debate whether we want
to shift the nature of our tax system because
we're in a global economy.
But let me say one other thing. If you do
a value-added tax, if you do a national sales
tax, you have to be really careful to be fair
to people. You have to exempt food; you have
to exempt maybe clothing or a certain amount
of allowance. You've got to be careful how you
do it so you don't make it a regressive tax.
But they can be designed that way, and we're
the only major nation without one.
Prescription Drug Costs
Q. Mr. President, my name is Cathy Dunn.
My mother's monthly prescription drug cost exceeds her monthly income on retirement. What,
if anything, can be done about the rising cost
of drugs in this country?
The President. Well, one problem is that older
people who are eligible for Medicare, but not
poor enough to be on Medicaid, don't have their
prescription drugs covered. So you have this
ironic development that older people who have
serious medical problems and require expensive
medicine who are on Medicare might actually
have lower incomes-real incomes-than some
people on Medicaid. And it's a big gap in our
health care system, and it's one that I'm going
to try to see that we address now.
Let me say, you may have seen on the other
end of the age spectrum, I've been in somewhat
of a dispute with some of the drug companies
because I want to immunize all the children
in our country. But only about half of our 2 -year-olds are immunized against serious diseases.


132




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Feb. 19


That's a very serious thing. And I'm coming
back to the drug problem. Let me bring you
back around to this, because it's very important
that you understand this. And we save $10 later
for every $1 we invest now in immunizations
of children for preventable diseases. And yet,
a lot of vaccines made in America sell for lower
prices overseas than they sell in America.
Now, if you look at the price of vaccinesfor a lot of these vaccines, the most expensive
price goes to the family doctor who buys them.
That's why the cost of getting your shots has
gone from about, oh, $10 to over $200 if you
just go to a family doctor and get all the baby's
shots. Right?
Next cheapest is, State government can buy
vaccines in bulk. The next cheapest is, the Federal Government can buy even bigger-vaccines-and we buy through a Federal agency
about 40 percent of the vaccines in the country,
and then we give them out to the States. And
then the States that have good public health
networks, they give them out, and those shots
are the cheapest of all. But even cheaper than
that are some of these same vaccines made by
American companies sold in foreign countries.
Now, that all sounds terrible. Let me say one
or two things, since I've been fighting with the
drug companies, in defense of them. They're
a very important part of our economy. They
do a wonderful job in finding new drugs to
solve problems. They have to spend a fortune
to do all the research and development. The
problem is that to sell those vaccines in other
countries, these other countries are tougher on
them, and because they want everybody immunized, they drive down the cost of the vaccines.
So Americans are paying the whole research and
development costs for people who benefit from
these drugs all over the world, because the companies can't collect other places.
Another problem is that we have more lawsuits in this country, so we add about $4 a
vial to the vaccines to put into a fund against
the possibility that some child might have a reaction. So they would always be somewhat more
expensive.
But we have got to find a way to work with
the drug companies. They do very well, I want
to emphasize. They are some of our best companies. But we've got to find a way to deal with
these two huge problems. One is older people,
particularly, paying huge prices for drugs that
have been developed for some time, that are


not experimental drugs. I think we'd all admit
we should pay more for experimental drugs;
that's got all the research cost in it. And the
second is children in America paying more for
vaccines than children in other countries, even
though they were made here. And we're trying
to work through that, and I think we're going
to make some progress on it.
Health Care Reform
Q. Mr. President, I am one of those family
doctors who you were speaking about, and I
have a couple of questions. One is, in your address to the joint session of Congress, nothing
was mentioned about tort reform. And I'm very
concerned about that because of the malpractice
crisis and the liability costs in malpractice insurance. The second thing is, our local medical
society has reviewed at least four plans put forward by organized medicine, the American
Academy of Family Physicians and so on. Are
you going to look at those programs and incorporate physicians' ideas as you're formulating the
policies?
The President. Absolutely. And we will also
bring doctors into the process. But let me answer the second question first. Last year there
were two major suggestions made for health
care reform by physicians groups, the American
College of Physicians and the American Academy of Family Practice. A more modest but
still significant program was offered by the
American Medical Association. And the American Nurses Association put out a very interesting plan. And I think all of those things should
have a big influence on what we do, because
in the end it's the doctors and the other health
care providers that have to live with whatever
system we put out. So the answer to your question is yes, those suggestions, and in particular
the two you mentioned, are being taken very
seriously.
Second, on cutting the cost of malpractice,
that's a big issue with me. I'm proud of the
fact that my State had the second lowest malpractice rates in the country. And one of the
things we did was to pass a law enabling the
court to fine anyone who brought a frivolous
tort suit, if it was judged to be frivolous, that
the lawyer himself or herself could actually be
fined. Not a big fine, but it had a real impact.
The other thing I think that has real promise
is an experiment that I believe is now being
tried in Maine and one or two other places


133




Feb. 19 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


which really relates to family practitioners, because we cannot get medical reform in this
country unless family practitioners, family doctors, feel freer to set simple fractures, to get
back into the business of delivering babies, to
do that whole range of things. The thing that
a lot of people are working on now is being
able to say to doctors in small towns and rural
areas, for example, here are a set of accepted
practice guidelines for this procedure or that
procedure. If you can show that you have followed these guidelines, that will raise a presumption against malpractice for you. I think
that has real promise.
The third thing in really expensive areas is,
we might all look at what's been done in the
vaccine area. That really worked, where people
just pay a fee into a fund and a big national
fund is set up. And if there's a problem, you
go against that fund; you don't have to go
through a whole prolonged lawsuit with an insurance company, a lawyer, a doctor, and all
the lawyers and all that. That's something else
that I think we need to look at to see if that
might have more general application.
Economic Program
Q. During the campaign, Ross Perot spoiled
me with flip charts, pointers, and poster board.
I'm a simple woman. What I need to hear from
you is, over the next 4 years, how much spending cuts, dollar-wise, will we see? How much
total revenue will be brought through our taxes,
through the increase in our taxes? And what
percentage of that is going towards new programs? In other words, we're hearing "tax and
spend," the old Republican motto about the
Democrats. I want you to show me in a simple
manner exactly the dollar figures that we'll look
at over the next 4 years.
The President. I don't know if I can do the
math in my head right now for 4 years, but
I will tell you, basically, the tax bill goes from
about $20 billion to about $75 billion over the
next 4 years; the spending cuts go up to more
than that in the fourth year. In the early years
there are more tax increases than spending cuts;
in the later years there are far more spending
cuts than tax increases. At the end, they're about
the same. The net aggregate reduction in the
deficit over 4 years is about $320 billion, over
5 years is at $475 billion less debt than we
would otherwise have.
In the fourth year of the budget, which is


the one that we all target on under the Federal
system, the deficit will go down $140 billion
a year in that year. Essentially, there will be
a net increase in that fourth year in spending
of about $26 billion a year. That is, there's about
$40 billion more in spending, net new spending,
all targeted toward things like the college loan
program, Head Start, new technologies, and jobs
and about $15 billion in additional tax incentives
to businesses to reinvest in new jobs. So that's
what the net new spending is. But if you look
at it total in the first 4 years, the spending
cuts and the revenue increases are about equal.
If you string it out for 4 more years, if we
really change the spending habits of the country,
the spending cuts are far greater than the tax
increases. And I've got a little chart. I'll send
it to you, and you can see exactly how much
year by year in each of the three categories.
Let me just make this point on the spending
cuts. I have spent a month during which we
have worked almost around the clock trying to
get a handle on this budget. The Federal budget
is put together in a way that I don't think is
very good, and it doesn't resemble any business
budget or any State or local budget you have
ever seen.
Let me give you an example. I wrote a letter
to the Agency that is supposed to be helping
me put together the budget-a memo-and I
said, here are about 30 questions I want answered. One question was, how much more
money are we collecting a day than we were
5 years ago in tax money, and how much of
revenue has grown in each of the last 5 years?
You know what the answer was that I got back
from the Agency? "Federal revenues as a percentage of our gross national product are slightly
smaller than they were 5 years ago." So help
me, that was the answer I got back, I promise.
In other words, just to your point, we were
taking more money in, and tax revenues had
grown less fast than the economy, but what difference did that make; we had more money.
They didn't even answer the questions.
I'll send you the exact chart. But it's basically
50-50 spending cuts, revenue increases for the
first 4 years. Spending cuts swamped revenue
increases in the second 4 years and will go much
more if we adopt a new health care control
plan. And the investment increases are significant but modest. They reflect a big change in
the spending priorities.
One of the things I'm trying to do is change;


134




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Feb. 19


Government is great at starting things and bad
at stopping things. So we're still, believe it or
not, you're still paying for a bicentennial commission. That was over in 1976. And there are
lots of things. It's a little bit of money, but
you can't justify it. It's just terrible. And there's
a lot of stuff in there like that. So what I'm
trying to do is to flush that out, reduce consumption, and increase investment so that we
can put some people to work. That's what I'm
trying to do. And I'll send you the chart.
When I spoke on Thursday night I tried to
give the exact numbers in the last, but I will
be glad to-I mean, that chart was in the book
that we presented to the Congress. And I was
hoping that it would be run in all the newspapers in the country, because there is a chart
in the book we released to the press on Thursday morning. Anybody who wants that chart,
I'll be glad to give it to you.
Let me make one final point about that: I
have no interest in raising a penny in taxes if
we're not going to do the cuts. I don't want
to get a deal where we're going to raise the
money and not do the cuts. Not a penny.
The second point is, I don't have any pride
of authorship in this. I've been working on this
like crazy for 4 weeks. There must be people
who know more about some of these things
than I do. And I have invited all the people
in the Congress, Republicans as well as Democrats, and all the people in the country to help
us find more. I'm more than open to it.
But I have to say, too, there are some tough
decisions involved in the cuts. As you know,
there is a uranium enrichment facility in this
congressional district not far from here. And
one of the things we've concluded is that there
are only two in the country, and both are running at about half capacity-with the projected
need going down-is that we will have to close
one of those. So there are tough decisions involved in this. There are a lot of tough decisions
that have to be made in this cut area. But if
anybody's got any more ideas about how we
can cut more, I'd like to have them.
Health Care Reform
Q. Mr. President, I'm Mayor of a small town.
We have two employees. About the last 8 years,
health insurance went from $400 a month to
$1,500 a month for two employees. If you can
have Hillary get this health insurance in line,
it will help our little village. Plus, I'm on eco

nomic development in our county, and our biggest employer makes television sets. And if that
health care comes down, it will sure help those
stay in business, too. So tell Hillary to keep
on it. And if you get that down, we'll send
her a big thanks.
The President. Thank you. Let me say, this
is a subject, probably a whole subject for another town meeting. But let me say that one
of my biggest problems with a lot of you in
dealing with health care is this: If you ask the
American people a question about health care,
are we spending too much or too little, a lot
of people will say we're spending too little.
Why? Because they feel insecure about losing
their health insurance. Or because, like your
mother, they're spending too much out of pocket. So if you ask the American people, are we
spending too much or too little, a lot of people
say too little. That's wrong. We're spending too
much and on the wrong things.
That young doctor that stood up here, I'll
bet you anything more than 30 percent of his
gross income goes to paperwork. Right? We are
the only country in the world where you have
1,500 separate health insurance companies writing thousands of policies with every doctor's office and every hospital in America having to
keep up with them.
Just for example, the average country we complete with, of every dollar people spend on
health care, 95 cents on the dollar goes to health
care, a nickel to run the administrative programs. In America, it's more like 86 cents. You
figure out what 9 cents on the dollar is-or
11 cents on the dollar-for an $840 billion
health bill, or if you take the Government out
of it, about $600 billion. You just figure it out.
It's lots of money.
Tuition Tax Credits
Q. Yes, Mr. President. I'm John Cooper, and
I go to a private school. And in years past we
have not had any support from the Government
with funds. And I was just wondering if you
had a plan that will help pay for some of the
taxes that we have. And I was wondering, if
you don't have one, why not?
The President. I'll tell you why not. I don't,
and I'll tell you why not. When I was a boy,
I went 2 years to a private school, to a wonderful Catholic school. And we paid tuition. And
my folks were not wealthy. They were working
people when we did it. And I was living way


135




Feb. 19 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


out in the country, and we moved to a new
community, and we just didn't know anything
about the school. And I've always treasured that
experience. But I don't believe, particularly right
now, that we can afford to give tuition tax credits or other breaks to fund private schools, even
though I support the competition private schools
give to public schools. And I'll tell you why.
Q. Mr. PresidentThe President. Let me tell you why. Even
though I'll bet you anything you've raised more
money in this State to put into this school system we're in right now, the United States today
is behind at least eight of its major competitors
in the percentage of our income we spend on
kindergarten through 12th grade education. And
we have more problems in our schools than
most of our competitors because we have more
income diversity and more racial and ethnic diversity, and a lot of our schools are located
in places where there are a lot of tough economic problems. So I don't think we can afford
to do that now. I wish I could tell you what
you want to hear, but I just don't agree with
it.
Mayor Joe Sulzer. Mr. President, I'm sorry,
but we have time for only one more question
over here, and then we'll have a special presentation. And then we would ask everyone to remain seated as the President leaves. Thank you.
Participation in Government
The President. May I ask a question? May
I ask you something before we get off, Mayor?
These things always work like this. We could
stay here till the cows come home to do this.
And I love this. And you've been great. But
I want to-[applause]-I want to say-wait a
minute. I want to make two points, and then
I'll answer the last question, whichever, whoever
the Mayor designates to be the last question.
The first is that one of the things I've been
really proud of in the last month-it proved
the election worked, it proved all the town
meetings worked, it proved the Ross Perot
charts worked, it proved the whole thing
worked-is that the volume of our mail and
telephone calls is running at historic highs in
the White House. That means the American
people-a lot of its people who disagree with
me, a lot of its people who agree, a lot of
its people who are just asking honest questions-but my point is, it means people believe
maybe their Government can be made to work


for them again and maybe we can be accountable again.
So a lot of you have questions you haven't
gotten answered today. I would encourage you
to write to us. I have reorganized the White
House Correspondence Office. I've tried to put
a number of people there who really understand
the issues that I believe in and the things that
we care about. We're trying to minimize the
number of just formal responses we give-unless
people send us a form letter; that's differentbut I mean people that really write us. So I
would encourage you to do that.
The second thing I want to do is to say that
I want to encourage you to continue to hold
me and everybody else accountable and ask the
tough questions. I don't think it was all that
easy for that young man to stand up there and
ask the question he asked on abortion because
he knew he had a different position than I did.
And I was proud of him for doing that, and
I think you should be, too.
And believe me, none of us have all of the
answers. This is a new and uncharted time. And
I want to encourage you to continue to believe
in your country and to participate in this. Hold
our feet to the fire, but try to make it a constructive thing. This is an exciting time for this
country and it's sort of a make-or-break time,
I think, and I'm doing the best I can and I
think you are, too. And if we keep doing that,
I think the chances are we're going to come
out okay.
I think I can say for the other elected officials
here, I'll bet you they're pretty proud of their
constituents in Ohio after this town meeting.
Who is last, Mayor? Who did you select,
Mayor?
Mayor Sulzer. Right over there, Mr. President.
Education Reform
Q. Mr. President, I'm a sixth grader at Smith
Middle School, and I'm wondering, do any parts
of your education plan deal with children my
age?
The President. Good for you. Okay. The answer is yes, but most of them don't. And let
me tell you why-the answer is yes, they do.
We emphasize more funds and more efforts in
math and science education, for example. And
I have asked the Congress to give the Education
Department some funds that will enable us to
target learning strategies in elementary and jun

136




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Feb. 19


ior high and high school that work, and try
to get schools to repeat them.
Do you know that every problem in American
education has been solved by somebody, somewhere? I mean, this is not like looking for a
cure for some disease we haven't found a cure
for yet. What we are not good at in American
education is taking what works in one place
and putting it in place another. So the two
major things are, we're trying to repeat education strategies that have given young people
in the sixth grade great performance in some
places; we want to try to put them in all the
schools in the country. And secondly, we're
going to make a special effort on math and
science education.
Now, let me answer the other question. Most
of the funds that I have recommended in education, most of the effort will be going to try
to make sure kids get off to an equal start in
school: fully funding the Head Start program,
supporting schools and their preschool programs, trying to make sure that child nutrition
and child health care is good, and then when


children leave school, trying to make sure that
they have a vocational program, a job training
program, a college program to go to.
Why? Because over 90 percent of the cost
of the public schools, kindergarten through 12th
grade, comes from the State and local level.
I can have an impact on your education only
if we focus on a few issues where we can really
help, like how do you get more computers in
schools, how do you do better with math and
science. But most of the money comes from
the State and local level. Whereas, a lot of what
we have to do for children before they start
school and after they graduate from high school
has to come from the national level, and that's
why we do it that way.
Thank you very much. You were great.
NOTE: The President spoke at 9 a.m. at Chillicothe High School. In his remarks, he referred
to Mayor Joe Sulzer; Richard Cline, superintendent of schools; Vernal G. Riffe, speaker, Ohio
House of Representatives; and Melissa Hagen,
high school student council president.


Remarks on the Economic Program in Hyde Park, New York
February 19, 1993


Thank you very much, my good friend James
Roosevelt, who has likewise been an inspiration
to me over the years, and who knows and cares
a great deal about a subject that we must all
come to grips with this year, the crisis in health
care; to Senator Pat Moynihan, one of the most
productive people in public life in the 20th century in America.
And Mrs. Cuomo, I'm delighted to see you
here, and we wish Governor Cuomo good
health. He might have thought to himself, on
deciding whether to do the responsible thing
and take to his sick bed today, that he's probably
heard this speech before and he's probably given
it before. [Laughter] I can't tell you how grateful I am to your Governor for his support and
his wise counseling. We had a delightful time
in the White House, Hillary and I and Governor
and Mrs. Cuomo, not very long ago. It's something I will treasure for a long time.
I'm glad to see Lieutenant Governor Lundine
and Attorney General Abrams and Members of


the Congress, and members of both parties from
the New York Assembly and State Senate, and
people here who are here because you are
Americans. You're Republicans, Democrats,
independents. I am glad to see you all here
in this monument to America's possibility.
I wanted to come here for a thousand reasons,
some of which are obvious. During the New
York primary, which was successful in its conclusion but rather rough in its prelude on me[laughter]-I was absolutely enthralled by a
book about President Roosevelt called "The
First Class Temperament" written by a man
named Jeffrey Ward. And I read a lot about
Hyde Park. And the thing that moved me most
was the way President Roosevelt came to grips
with the fact of his polio and learned to live
with it and learned to triumph over it and
learned to use it to make himself stronger inside
and not to be defeated by it. And ever since,
I have been transformed from someone who
had a mild interest in coming here to someone


137




Feb. 19 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


who had a burning passion to see this place.
And I am honored to be here today.
I want to say one more word, if I might,
about Senator Moynihan because we've worked
together over the years on a lot of things. I
helped him to rewrite the welfare laws of our
Nation in the late eighties and what he said
was the most significant social welfare reform
in 30 years, if only we could implement it. And
one of the reasons I ran for President is to
try to change the welfare system as we know
it. I have watched him over more than two
decades personally warn us about the decline
of America's families, the development of a new
and possibly permanent underclass in America,
the importance of restoring the value of work
to our social programs, a decade ago warning
about the breakup of what was then the Soviet
Union when most people thought that he was
speaking a foreign language. And I can tell you
that with leadership like his we can solve the
problems this country faces today.
I think of that because-[applause]-yes, you
can give him a hand. That's good. We were
about 45 or 50 minutes away from here when
we landed in the airplane, and all along the
way there were people, school children, hundreds of them, lining the way with their signs,
and the young people at Marist College having
even printed signs. Many people were young;
some were older. A lot of them were terribly
young. Most of them were, I'd say, between
20 and 50, anyway. [Laughter] That's young to
me, you know. I find myself redefining that
word every year. And there are all kinds of
incredible things: "Get the U.S. fit," one sign
said. "I want to give something to my country,"
another said. One I might have to give a trip
to the doctor. It said, "I want to pay more
taxes." I couldn't believe that. [Laughter] One
sign said, "Shake 'em up, Bill." One sign said,
"Give Bill a chance." One said, "Turn my country around." Another said, "I've got a B.A. and
no job; I'm ready to change." Another said, "Just
do something."
Then, of course, there were a few that weren't
so favorable, but that's all right. That's what
this country's all about, too. But I couldn't believe the number of people who were there.
And I say that because as much as anything
else, I think our country now is infused with
a new sense of possibility.
One of the things that really used to depress
me as I crossed America last year was the look


I saw in so many people's eyes of skepticism,
almost a painful unwillingness to believe that
we can make things better, that we could
change, that we could come to grips with the
challenges of our time and overcome them and
move forward.
One of the things that I think-perhaps the
most important thing that was achieved in the
last election year was we had a huge increase
in turnout, an even bigger increase among
younger people. And now every day the White
House switchboard and the mailroom are fuller
than they have been in decades and decades
because people believe that it matters again.
This country has been kept going through two
centuries now because of the peculiar mix of
the energy of its people at the grassroots level
and the vision of its leaders. But if you have
one without the other, the country can't go forward. There have been times in the past when
leaders have foreseen the future and known
what needed to be done, but there was no connection with the people and so nothing could
happen. There have been many times, I'm convinced, when the people have been ahead of
their leaders. But if they had no visionary leaders, nobody to put all that energy together with
the levers of public authority, nothing happened.
We all hope, I think, from whatever perspective
we come, that we now have a moment in our
history where we have the energy of the people
and a direction we can take.
I ran for President because I believe this was
a critical moment in our country's history. And
there have been many over the last two centuries. I think of the Founding Fathers, who
actually welded a nation out of 13 independent
colonies when many people-maybe if you'd
even taken a poll, a majority of the people
would have said, "Who wants one army? Who
wants one currency? Who wants to really give
up all this independence we have in New York
or South Carolina? What do we have in common
with those people down there?"
I think of Thomas Jefferson. Some people
thought he was crazy when he ponied up $15
million to buy something then called the Louisiana Purchase, which most Americans could not
even imagine and hardly anyone had ever seen.
And if he hadn't done it, since I live on the
edge of the Louisiana Purchase, you'd be listening to somebody from somewhere else give this
speech today.
I think of Abraham Lincoln. We now take


138




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Feb. 19


it for granted that the Union would be preserved, that the slaves would be freed, that all
this would happen. The truth is that a great
many people thought there was no way to hold
this Nation together. And a great deal of what
did it was his vision and his sheer will.
I think of President Roosevelt in the depths
of the Depression, having gone through his personal journey to cope with his personal problems, summoning interior strength and reserve
to lift the Nation's vision and to make people
believe again that by taking one step at a time,
by coming and building a beautiful school like
this with the WPA-that if you did enough
things like this and you just kept trying long
enough, sooner or later we would go forward,
we would work our way out of it by what he
called then bold, persistent experimentation.
Today, I think we need that kind of experimentation based on the plain evidence that we
are in a rut. What we have been doing is not
working to deal with the problems we face.
For about two decades, through administrations of both parties' Presidents, we've been
steadily moving into a global economy which
is much more competitive, where other countries have been growing more rapidly than we
and moving toward our standard of living, where
we have to compete in all forms of economic
life in ways that can force us to endure real
pain, as you folks in this part of the country
have seen recently with the difficulties that a
magnificent company, IBM, has been forced to
come to grips with. This is not an isolated event.
This is part of the passage of time and the
economic realities in which we live.
That global economy abroad has presented
us with a lot of challenges and a lot of opportunities here. But our ability to deal with it has
been limited by a lot of the educational and
training and social problems we have here at
home, our racial and ethnic and income diversity, the high rates of violence and the whole
pockets of poverty we have in this country, and
lack of investment. We have seen that there
are a lot of things that are just not quite fitting
very well.
And now we've had two decades in which
the wages of most Americans have been stagnant
compared to inflation. And when you look at
the rising cost of education, health care, housing, the tax burden, most Americans are working
harder today than they were 10 years ago for
real, disposable income that is less, because of


these sweeping trends.
For 12 years, we have tried a clear approach
to our country's problems. When President
Reagan was elected in 1980, he ran with a clear
sense of what he wished to do. He said, "The
Government is the problem here. It causes inflation. It causes middle-class people to have trouble. What we need is a very restricted role for
Government. And we will also lower taxes on
everybody, but most of all on the wealthiest
Americans. Because if we give them their money
back, they will invest it in America, create jobs,
drive up incomes, increase jobs, and we will
be the most prosperous country in the world."
Well, I believe that free enterprise is the engine of growth in America. We are fundamentally a conservative, private, capitalist free enterprise country. But every other nation with which
we compete decided to take a slightly different
course. They said to themselves in Germany and
Japan: Well, we're in a global economy in which
the government and the people in the private
sector have to work together. We've got to work
together to train and educate our people as well
as possible. We've got to work together to have
economic policies that encourage investment
over consumption so we can always be competitive. We've got to have a good trade policy,
and we've got to do things that make it possible
to create high-wage, high-growth jobs so that
all the students who go to school here will have
a future, and so that America will be strong.
That's what I think we have to do.
In other words, that is my vision. That is
not what we have done. What we have done
is to try for 12 years to cramp the role of Government. Now, look what's happened in practice. In practice, we have lowered taxes on the
wealthiest Americans. Taxes on the middle class
have actually gone up in the last 12 years. We
have run a horrendous Government deficit. The
deficit is now 4 times as big as it was in 1980.
We have seen spending go up in areas that
the Government would have to move to control,
mostly health care and then interest on the debt,
because when the deficit gets bigger and bigger
and bigger, you spend more money on the debt.
So we have reduced investment, increased the
debt, moved money upward so that there's been
much more inequality of income distribution,
but we have not seen the kind of investment
that creates high-wage, high-growth jobs in the
emerging technologies that guarantee a future
for all the young people that live here and


139




Feb. 19 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


throughout our land.
So I ran for President because I really believe
we ought to try a different course. Not to blame
past Presidents; if you look at what's happened
in Washington, none of it could have happened
if there hadn't been bipartisan support for the
course and support in Congress as well as in
the White House. This is not about blame.
I want to simply take responsibility. And as
I told the Congress the other night, if we turn
this country around, I don't care who gets the
credit for it, either. I just think the time has
come to make a change. We have tried one
thing 12 years. It obviously has problems. It
is time to change.
Now, what does that mean? Change for
change sake is not good. What does it mean?
It means to me that we should do the following
things. First of all, the Government should pursue a policy of increasing investment in those
things which contribute to a growing economy.
What are those things? We should invest more
than we are now and more toward what our
competitors do, in the infrastructure of the
country, in transportation and communications,
in environmental cleanup, in those things which
increase productivity and put people to work.
It means we should do whatever it takes to
educate people for a lifetime at very high levels,
because the skill level of the work force is the
single most important determinant of income
and the capacity to grow new jobs rapidly as
new areas of opportunity open up. It means
that we should invest in partnership with the
private sector in new technologies which will
determine the future of the country. And it
means we should not give up on those areas
where we have a lead. And let me just give
you two examples:
One is in computer technology and information technology. That's why what's happening
to some of our big companies is very disturbing
and why I'm going to California this weekend
to announce a new technology policy to try to
revitalize this whole sector of our economy.
I'll give you another example which doesn't
affect New York much, but it affects our country
desperately, and that is aerospace. Boeing just
announced 23,000 layoffs when we know that
aerospace jobs are growing in number worldwide, high-wage jobs. And we sat here for 10
years and let Europe put $26 billion into an
airbus program, direct government subsidies, to
throw Boeing workers, McDonnell-Douglas


workers, and other aerospace workers in America out of work because we said, "well, we
don't practice those kind of partnerships." So
we have got to face the fact that we've taken
a new direction.
And finally, it means that we must reduce
the Government's debt. Why? Because if the
debt gets bigger and bigger and bigger, two
bad things happen: Bad thing number one is
the Congress spends more of your tax money
every year paying interest on the debt rather
than investing in your future. It's now up to
15 cents on the dollar. If we do not change
present spending patterns-when you hear people oppose the program I outline, ask them what
the cost of the status quo is.
If we behave for 4 more years like we have
for the last 12, here's what will happen: By
the end of the decade, the deficit will be $650
billion a year, and we'll be spending about 22
cents of every one of your tax dollars just paying
interest on the debt. We'll be spending by then,
because of the growth of health care costs, about
65 cents of your tax dollars on entitlements,
and being in Congress will be a matter of how
you spend 5 or 6 cents on every dollar. The
rest of this will be just be rubber stamped. You
can just have a computer instead of Congress.
I know what you're thinking. Please don't say
that. [Laughter] So, forgive me, Senator Moynihan, I had to say that. [Laughter] But you
get it. I mean, it's squeezing the life out of
the money you're giving up in taxes.
The second reason, even more important, is
the more money the Government borrows every
year, the less money there is for people to borrow in the private sector and the higher the
cost of the money is. Just since the election,
since we made it clear that there was going
to be a determined effort to lower the deficit,
interest rates long-term have dropped considerably. I'll come back to this in a moment.
But if you think about it, this year if we
pass this budget, everybody in America who borrows long-term to finance a business, to finance
a car, to finance a home, to finance credit card
purchases, everybody that has access to variable
interest rates will have those interest rates go
down. And in my judgment, virtually everybody
who has credit will save more money in lower
interest costs than they will pay in higher taxes.
Now, that's very, very important.
Now, how are we going to do this? The first
thing we have to do, and I mean the first, is


140




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Feb. 19


to cut inessential Government spending. I've
been President 4 weeks, and I've found things
that I wouldn't have believed. The White House,
when I became President, was running on
Jimmy Carter's telephone system and Lyndon
Johnson's switchboard in this-true-high-wage,
this high-technology era, with a procurement
system that would have broken Einstein's brain.
[Laughter]
There were a lot of things that needed to
be changed in the Federal Government, and
there still are. But in 4 weeks, we have cut
the White House staff by 25 percent, starting
at the beginning of the next fiscal year, and
reorganized the White House so it will work
more efficiently; not just cut but serve better.
We have authorized in this budget administrative cuts in every Government Department, totaling 14 percent over the next 4 years for a
savings of $9 billion. And there have been 150
specific cuts in Government programs, including
programs that help a lot of good people but
that I don't think we can afford at the present
level anymore, programs like the two uranium
enrichment facilities we have when we now
know we only need one. And I was in one
congressional district where one of those two
facilities are this morning.
You can say these cuts are not difficult, but
when you look into the eyes of people who
may be personally affected by them, they are,
including reductions in the interest subsidies to
the Rural Electrification Authority, something
that brought electricity to my relatives in my
State and which is still a very major force.
Things that have some good in them, but we
simply can't afford them.
We've cut things out that have no good purpose anymore as far as I can tell, including
a whole slew of commissions. Do you remember
when we had the tall ships come into New
York Harbor for the Bicentennial? That was a
long time ago. Remember that? There's still a
bicentennial commission. [Laughter] That's just
one example. It's the funniest, but not the most
costly. There are a lot of others.
We have cut back on programs that involve
subsidizing activities more than we should. The
Superfund, for example, has, in my judgment,
too much contribution from the taxpayer, too
little from those who are responsible for the
problem, and none of the money is being spent
right. So far it's all going to lawyers. It's all
going to lawyers.


There is a program that I think helps a lot
of wonderful people. It's a subsidy to sheep
growers. You laugh. I asked Senator Moynihan
if anybody in New York still raised sheep. We
had sheep on the farm when I was a boy, so
I'm more sensitive to this than some are.
But when I got to studying this, we started
to subsidize the sheep growers in World War
I because we needed plenty of wool for uniforms. But the program is still on the books
exactly as it was, not designed to help the small
farmers stay in business, necessarily, but an
across-the-board subsidy of that kind. So I recommended cutting it back. All these things have
constituencies. But I can tell you, we are going
to have to prove that we can cut things.
When Roosevelt talked about bold, persistent
experimentation, you know what an experiment
is in science. It is trying out a new thesis. If
it works, you incorporate it. You build on it.
You go on to the next experiment. If it doesn't
work, you quit. Government has a one-way experiment. We're very good at starting things and
absolutely terrible at stopping them.
So what we're going to try to do is start
some new things. I want to fully fund Head
Start. I want a big, new technology initiative.
I want a big, new technology issue. I want to
make it possible for every student in this country
to borrow the money to go to college and then
pay it back on favorable terms or work it off
in national service, as teachers or police officers
or working with kids in trouble.
But we can't do that if we keep on doing
everything we used to do. We have to stop
doing some things we used to do to free up
some money for things we should do. And we
have to cut more in the past than we're going
to spend in the future, because we have to use
some of that money to reduce the deficit, too.
So I ask you to support that.
Now, in 4 weeks we found 150 specific cuts.
As I said to the Congress the other night, in
all good conscience to both the Republicans and
the Democrats, I've just been there 4 weeks.
Some of them have been there a lot longer
than I have, and if anybody's got any other
ideas, I'd like to have them. I just got started.
You can look forward to more.
I also think as I said in the campaign that
we have to raise some more money. I now believe what I said might be true in the campaign,
but I didn't think it was, that we have to raise
it from a broader base than just people that


141




Feb. 19 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


make over $100,000, and I want to deal with
that.
After the election in December, the Government increased its estimates of our deficit by
about $50 billion a year over the next 4 years.
Now, if I had stayed with exactly the same plan
that I recommended in the campaign, the first
thing my critics who now attack me for raising
taxes would say is, "Oh, he's going to increase
the deficit. Oh, he's being too optimistic."
I decided that when they revised deficit figures up one more time $50 billion a year, that
somebody had to take this thing and shake it
up and say, "We are definitely going to have
a plan of spending cuts, new investments, and
revenue increases that will bring this debt
down." And I plead guilty to doing that.
And I think almost any of you, if you had
been in my circumstance, would have done the
same thing if you were thinking about what was
in the long-term best interest of the country.
And you can see it by how much interest rates
have come down just since the election. People
who control these things desperately want to
believe that our Government can exercise some
discipline again, that we can have some focus,
that we can show some restraint as well as some
activity.
Now, the taxes that I propose to raise-let
me just basically go through them-are essentially three. There are more minor ones, but
the big-ticket items are as follows:
Number one, an increase in the income tax
on the top 1.2 percent of income earners; an
increase in the corporate income tax on corporations that have income in excess of $10 million
a year.
Number two, an increase in the income subject to taxation of people who draw Social Security but also have other income in excess of
$32,000 a year if they're couples, or individuals
in excess of $25,000 a year. In other words,
anyone who is not paying tax on Social Security
now will not pay tax under my plan. That's 80
percent of the Social Security recipients. The
upper 20 percent will be asked to pay taxes
on a higher percentage of their income, but
we will still leave enough of that income free
so that almost all of them will get back what
they put into the Social Security system plus
interest without taxation. The rest will be subject
to the income tax. I think that is fair.
Since 1985-I'm very proud of this-since
1985-as an American, you should be proud


of it-the people of this country over 65 have
had a lower poverty rate than people under 65.
That's the good news. The bad news is that
one in five American kids is living in poverty.
So it seems to me that this is a fair thing to
do under these circumstances.
And then the third thing I recommended was
an energy tax that will raise $20 billion a year
and will help us to clean up the environment,
promote conservation, and make us more independent of foreign oil. It is a broad-based tax
to try to be fair to every part of the country.
And I want to deal with this because I'm
in New York now. There were some who said
tax carbon, that's a fancy way of saying tax coal,
which is very tough on West Virginia, Virginia,
Ohio, Pennsylvania, coal States that have been
very hard hit. So I said no. There were others
who said put a huge tax on gasoline, which
is good for city dwellers but tough on people
that live in the country and that live in those
big western States where they have to drive
very long distances and a carpool is not an option. So we said no. And some said tax the
value of energy, which sounds great, except
whenever one source of energy goes up the
taxes go up. So you reinforce price increases.
So we decided the most environmentally responsible and regionally fair way to do it was to
tax the heat content of energy, oil, gas, coal
in a very modest way, and then to have an
offset over the next 4 years where any disproportionate impact in the Northeast for home
heating oil, and real incentives for conversion.
Now finally, let me say this program exacts
no new taxes for the 40-plus percent of our
income tax payers whose taxable income is
under $30,000; about $20 a year for people at
$30,000; goes up to something between $10 and
$15 a month, depending on what your purchasing habits are, for people at $40,000. Seventy
percent of it comes from people whose incomes
exceed $100,000.
There are also some other things here I want
you to know about. This program has some tax
incentives, which is a fancy way for saying tax
cuts for people who invest their money: for the
next 2 years, an investment tax credit for all
businesses in America large and small who increase their rate of investment; then after that,
some tax changes asked for by the manufacturing community for bigger businesses that will
always encourage investment; and, for the first
time, I think, ever, a small business investment


142




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Feb. 19


tax credit that is a permanent 7-percent investment tax credit for the 90-plus percent of our
businesses that operate on $5 million or less
in revenues but create most of our new jobs.
This is a very significant thing that will encourage the private sector to invest in job-generating activities and very important, because in
every year of the 1980's, big business lost employment and small business overcame it with
more new jobs; but for the last 21/2 years small
business has not been creating enough jobs to
offset the losses in big business. So we've got
to reverse that.
There's one final point I want to make as
strongly as I can about this. Our plan will bring
the deficit down dramatically over the next 4
years. In the 4th year, it will be $140 billion
a year lower than it would otherwise be. But
unless we also tackle the health care crisis this
year, the deficits will start going up after that
no matter what we do, because the cost of
health care is going to overtake every other
thing in the budget and swallow it whole, and
not for new health care. We will be paying
more for the same health care. So there is no
more urgent item on our national agenda than
getting all the people involved in health care
together and trying to hammer it out.
I asked the First Lady, as all of you know,
to head a task force on this. She is increasingly
less grateful to me for having asked her to do
that. [Laughter] But she's very good at bringing
people together on a complex matter and bringing them to conclusions and coming to a clear
plan. And we have got to do that, or we can't
turn this country's economic health around.
You talk to any major manufacturer and ask
them what their biggest problem is. Nine out
of ten of them will tell you, "my health care
costs." You talk to the steel people and the
auto people and ask them, and a lot of them
will tell you, "just paying the health care costs
of our retirees." So we have to face that.
Now, that's all of the bad news. Now, what's
the good news? What are you going to get out
of this? A half a million new jobs in the next
year and a half in a job stimulus program, and
a long-term program to raise our levels of investment and our quality of education and training,
to be fairer to the lower income working people
and create an environment that moves people
from welfare to work, to have policies that really
support families who are working and trying to
raise children, and to have an investment pro

gram that breaks the barriers of new technologies and actually tries to create more new
jobs than we are losing every year.
No one can promise you, nobody, to stop
anything bad from happening in this world. The
world you're living in is so dynamic; there's
going to be so many changes; no one can repeal
the law of change. But change has been too
many enemies for too many people. I seek to
make change the friend of the American people.
That's what this program does. It will make
change our friend instead of our enemy. But
we first have the courage. We must have the
courage to seize control of our own destiny.
So I want to say to you, just as I said to
Congress the other night, I need your help.
I can't do this alone. If you think there's something wrong with my program, fine. Come up
with an alternative. But I promise you, the cost
of the status quo is the most expensive course
of all. Staying with what we've been doing is
plainly unacceptable. Every American ought to
be able to see that. The price is entirely too
high. The price of my program is far lower
with far higher results.
I ask people of good will all across this country, just as I asked the Congress: If you can
think of more things we can cut in spending
that are really good for this economy and the
American people over the long run, have at
it. Let's go. I'm just getting started. I will not,
I will not support any tax increase without the
spending cuts. I'm not for that. I think we would
also be very foolish to say that we don't need
to invest more in our children and in our technology and in our economic future in putting
the American people back to work. After all,
the bottom line of all this is the chance that
Americans need to have a dignified life.
We are here in this beautiful school building
today. It still looks fabulous after all these years
because President Roosevelt knew it was wrong
to let all those energetic, hard-working, familyoriented, God-fearing craftsmen and people who
could work, sit idle month after month, year
after year, when they had a contribution to make
that would be good for themselves and good
for the country.
I ask you now to give me your support so
that we can mobilize the energies of a whole
generation of Americans. It will be good for
you, but more important, it will be good for
the country.
Thank you very much.


143




Feb. 19 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


NOTE: The President spoke at 3:46 p.m. in the
auditorium of Haviland Middle School. In his re

marks, he referred to Lt. Gov. Stan Lundine and
attorney general Robert Abrams of New York.


Nomination for Deputy Director for Management at the Office of
Management and Budget
February 19, 1993


The President today appointed Phil Lader, a
South Carolina businessman and educator, to
be the Office of Management and Budget's
Deputy Director for Management. As the senior
administration official directly responsible for
cutting waste and inefficiency in Government
operations, Lader will play a key role in the
President's efforts to reinvent Government.
"We must streamline the operations of the
Federal Government," said President Clinton.
Nomination for Deputy Secretary of L
February 19, 1993
The President announced today his intention
to nominate Thomas Glynn of Belmont, Massachusetts for the post of Deputy Secretary of
Labor. Glynn is currently Brown University's
senior vice president for finance and administration.
"One of the most important things we need
to do in this administration is learn how to man

"We must squeeze every penny that we have
out of the Government before we ask ordinary
Americans to contribute to deficit reduction.
Phil Lader has my complete confidence. I trust
his ability to find every way possible to carry
out my mandate of slashing the executive costs
of Government."
NOTE: A biography of the nominee was made
available by the Office of the Press Secretary.


age the Government better," said President
Clinton. "I've pledged to save $9 billion by controlling administrative costs. Thomas Glynn has
the kind of experience managing large institutions, both public and private, that is needed
to make that happen."
NOTE: A biography of the nominee was made
available by the Office of the Press Secretary.


Nomination for an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury
February 19, 1993


The President announced today that he in-  of Leslie Samuels' caliber will be watching over
tends to nominate Leslie Samuels, a highly re-  tax policy at Treasury. He will do an excellent
spected tax attorney, as Assistant Secretary for  job at keeping my commitment to a tax system
Tax Policy at the Department of Treasury.   that is fair to all Americans."
"As I take the case for my economic plan
to the people of this country," said the Presi-  NOTE: A biography of the nominee was made
dent, "I am very pleased to know that someone  available by the Office of the Press Secretary.


144




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Feb. 20


The President's Radio Address
February 20, 1993
This is Bill Clinton. As you know, this week
I sent Congress my economic plan to create
new jobs and to lift the living standards of
Americans and their children. This morning I
want to talk with you directly about it.
Let's begin with the children. If you're on
your way to soccer practice or to take your
children to a grocery store, if you can see from
the window of your apartment children riding
bikes or tossing a snowball, you know why we
care so much about our schools and our neighborhoods and why we feel so strongly about
being able to give our children what they need
in life. We've always been a strong and caring
nation where families worked hard to pass on
something better to their children, and where
government accepted the responsibility to support the efforts of families and the futures of
our kids. But for too many years, our families
have struggled without the help they need.
Our Federal Government in Washington has
spent more than it had, run up huge deficits,
and yet done nothing during difficult economic
times to help families and their children. We
neglected our economy and those very efforts
like education, health care, training, and nutrition where national investments today pay big
dividends in the future. Gridlock here in our
Capital between the parties and among all the
special interests has simply blocked progress,
leading us to the politics of least resistance. A
lot of people talked about change, but it never
caine. I hope those days of business as usual
are over.
This year can be different with your help.
I've presented a plan to grow this economy,
a plan that takes America in historic new directions to improve the lives of our workers, our
businesses, and our families. We can cut the
deficit and increase investment if we have the
courage to make changes.
Let's begin with investment. My proposal invests in infants and young children in programs
that guarantee big returns for every dollar spent.
For example, I've asked Congress to approve
an immunization program to reach all children
under the age of 2 with the shots they need
to fight preventable diseases like polio, measles,
tetanus, and the mumps. Every $1 invested


today saves $10 in the future in preventable
childhood diseases. But today, of all the countries in our hemisphere, only Haiti and Bolivia
have lower immunization rates than the United
States. We can do better.
I've also recommended a maximum effort for
nutrition programs to help pregnant mothers
have healthy babies, and full funding for the
Head Start program, the most successful early
education program our country has ever seen.
Again, we know now that $1 invested today will
save $3 in avoidable health and education problems for these children in the future.
I believe our families must also again enjoy
the rewards that come with productive work.
Under our new direction, the working poor will
rise out of poverty. Welfare recipients will be
trained for work, not welfare. And because families must also take responsibility for their own
children, there will be tougher requirements for
parents to pay their own child support, including
stiffening our collection procedures and identifying parents when the child is born.
And to restart America's economic engine, our
primary and principal goal, we'll take several
historic steps. We'll reward investments in small
business with a permanent tax credit and fund
new research and development. We'll create
new incentives for bigger business to always be
investing in high quality equipment and the best
training and jobs for their workers. We'll create
a better environment for all of the private sector, both business and agriculture and self-employed people, through deficit reduction, lower
interest rates, and better trained workers. W~e'll
build enterprise zones and community development banks across the country so that investment capital can flow to people and to forgotten
neighborhoods desperate for the chance to grow.
And I'd like to put hundreds of thousands of
idle people back to work right now, repairing
our public works and building the new infrastructure of tomorrow. As our plan restores the
economy to health, millions more jobs will be
created. These are the values and goals our plan
is designed to accomplish. They reflect an economy that puts people first.
But you must all be wondering how we'll provide the means to reach our goals. First, we'll


145




Feb. 20 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


cut wasteful or inessential Government spending. I've cut the White House staff by 25 percent and told the Federal agencies they must
cut $9 billion in administrative waste and to
reduce personnel slots by 100,000. I've asked
Congress to freeze the salaries paid by Federal
Government workers next year and to match
the administrative cuts that I've proposed for
the Government agencies. They've agreed to
match those administrative cuts, and I hope
they'll agree to the other budget cuts, too. I
don't like asking for these contributions, but I
have to deliver to you a leaner Government
and a more vibrant economy in return.
I do propose to raise income tax rates, but
only for the top 1.2 percent of taxpayers, those
taxpayers whose taxes went down in the 1980's
while their incomes went way up. And our overall tax proposal will cost a family of four with
an income of $40,000 less than $17 a month.
Finally, I will cut almost $250 billion from
more than 150 domestic programs, many of
them with some merit, and from the defense
budget.
Now a lot of interests will argue that these
cuts are too steep. Still others will say they're
not enough or demand that we protect their
Remarks at the Children's Town Meet
February 20, 1993
The White House
Peter Jennings. Mr. President, one of my first
impressions here is that this is an awful lot bigger than what you were used to living in Arkansas.
The President. It's bigger than almost anybody
in America lives in, but it's a beautiful house.
You know it was started in 1792. President
Washington authorized it to be built, and then
before it was finished, actually, President Adams
and his wife moved in here. So it's been here
a long time.
Mr. Jennings. Right behind us here, of course,
we can't go in this morning, but it's really one
of the most beautiful rooms, the Blue Room,
looking out onto the Jefferson Memorial.
The President. It's very beautiful. And upstairs, just above it, there's another big oval
room which President Franklin Roosevelt used


pet projects while cutting someone else. To all,
I say the same thing: Give me real cuts; don't
waste the people's time anymore. I'm committed
to cutting every bit of spending we can from
programs we don't need or can't afford. And
I won't raise taxes without cutting spending. But
tell us exactly where you want to cut, and I'll
gladly listen.
It's time to put politics aside and put America
first. It's been years since our Government
fought for working families and gave them a
system where they could thrive and pass the
American dream on to their children. It's time
to include all Americans again, to build a new
prosperity, not because we want new wealth for
the Government but because we want to renew
the dreams of our children, all of them.
I'm determined to take us in a new direction,
and I ask you to join me in this fight for the
future. Support your elected Representatives
who are demonstrating the courage to change.
If you do, we can write the next great chapter
in the history of the greatest country the world
has ever known. Thank you, and good morning.
NOTE: The President spoke at 10:06 a.m. from
the Oval Office at the White House.


as his office during World War II. And now
we use it for formal receiving of foreign dignitaries. And it also looks directly out on the
Jefferson Memorial. And there's a porch there
that President Harry Truman put on, so I can
go out at night now and look at the lights shining down on Thomas Jefferson's head. It's a
wonderful sight.
Mr. Jennings. You know the White House
staff is very discreet. When I asked them if
you sneaked around, sticking your heads in various rooms at night, they said, "Ask him." Do
you wander around at night?
The President. I do a little, not so much down
here but up on the second and third floor. And
I spent a lot of time working, in this last month,
over around the Oval Office, so I'm in the Cabinet Room a lot and in the Roosevelt Room,
which is the President's big staff room. And


146




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Feb. 20


I'm just trying to learn what all the pictures
are and where all the things are and learn the
history of the place. I'm very interested in it.
The Presidency
Mr. Jennings. I just have one question before
we go and actually meet the children. There's
the President's seal up there, the President of
the United States, just above the door of the
Blue Room. And it reminds me of Teddy White,
the political writer, who said there is a moment
when the man stops being the man and becomes
the President. Was there such a moment for
you, do you remember?
The President. I think there was a moment
when I realized I was going to be President,
and it was different after that. And it was not
at the election. It was a couple of weeks after
the election when I was planning the Inaugural
and they asked me what I wanted to do. And
we decided that I would start at Thomas Jefferson's home at Monticello and then go to the
Lincoln Memorial, and then the next morning
I would go to the graves of President Kennedy
and his brother, Senator Robert Kennedy. And
I realized, in describing that that's what I would
do, that I was becoming a part of our history.
Mr. Jennings. Well, you indeed-and these
young boys and girls, between about 8 and 15,
from Washington and other parts around the
country, are very interested in you and history.
Good morning, everybody. You welcome the
President? Nice to have him, isn't it? Well, I
think they have a lot of questions. Who wants
to ask the first question?
School Integration in Little Rock
Q. I would like to ask you a question that
goes back to about 30, 40 years ago, back in
Little Rock, Arkansas. If you were in the same
position that you are now, and during the time
of the occurrence of the Little Rock Nine, how
would you take forth the matters about them
going into the school? Would you go with the
community, or would you go with your heart?
The President. I would have gone with my
heart and with the law of the United States,
which was that the children had a right to go
to the school without regard to their race. I
would have done what President Eisenhower
did. I would have sent troops there and done
whatever it took to give the children the right
to go to school.
One of the people who was part of the Little


Rock Nine, Earnest Green, is now a business
executive here in Washington and a good friend
of mine. And I'm glad he had a chance to do
that.
Mr. Jennings. Mr. President, excuse me, I
don't think everybody knows who the Little
Rock Nine were.
The President. Oh, what he's asking aboutabout 40 years ago, a lot of the schools, public
schools, in our country were still segregated by
race. Virtually all the schools in the southern
part of the United States were segregated by
race. Young black and white children went to
different schools. Forty years ago, the courts
ruled that we could no longer segregate schools
by race. In my hometown of Little Rock, in
the capital city, the Governor and the local
school board tried to keep them separate. President Eisenhower then ordered troops there to
open the schools so that the schools could be
integrated. He was asking me if I would do
the same thing, and I said I would.
Good for you. Great question.
Mr. Jennings. There's a stool behind you, Mr.
President, if you feel like sitting on it. Who
else had got a-we kind of broke it down into
fun questions and serious questions. Who had
a fun question they wanted to start with?
Chelsea Clinton
Q. Do you help Chelsea with her homework?
The President. I do. I do math with her quite
often. I took a lot of algebra and advanced
mathematics in high school, and then I didn't
take any more after I went to college. So when
Chelsea got into algebra, she started asking me
to help. And so I've used it sort of to learn
algebra again. It's been a lot of fun for me.
I enjoy it a lot. We do it quite often at night
or early in the morning.
Mr. Jennings. Now, Mr. President, people all
over the country who I know want to ask you
questions, we have an 800 number which we'll
put on the screen. It's been up for a while,
and people have been trying to call in. So take
a look, 1-800-648-8094. And I know we have
a call from Kim in Minnesota. Go ahead, Kim.
Women in Political Office
Q. My question is, why can't women be President? Why is it just men?
The President. Women can be President, Kim.
No woman has been elected President yet, but
we now have a significant number of women


147




Feb. 20 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


in the United States Senate. We've had a good
number of women Governors. We have a large
number of women in the House of Representatives. And I think that there will be a woman
elected President in the not too distant future.
I think that the American people used to be
prejudiced against women in public life, and
women didn't even have the right to vote guaranteed until, well, less than a hundred years
ago. But it's been done now in every other political office in the country. And I think you'll
see a woman President before long. Maybe it
will be you, if you work hard and do what you
can to get involved in public affairs.
Mr. Jennings. I wonder if we can test the
confidence level on that statement in here. How
many of you girls, or young women, think a
woman will be President in your lifetime? Oh,
confidence level is very high.
Who's got the next question? How about you,
Shannon?
Los Angeles Civil Disturbances
Q. Since the L.A. riots, we have a lot of
empty buildings, and a lot of people in our
neighborhood want to open businesses. I want
to know how can we have low-interest loans
to help minorities build shops and buildings?
Mr. Jennings. Mr. President, before you answer that question of Shannon's-I forgot for
a second-would you like to see a little bit of
where she comes from?
The President. Sure, I would.
Mr. Jennings. Shannon has come here to us
from Los Angeles today. How many kids have
come from different parts of the country? Just
give the President some indications. We have
a large contingent from other parts of the country. And Shannon comes from Los Angeles, and
here's a little bit about the way she lives. You
can look at the monitors.
[At this point, a short film was shown in which
Shannon described life in Los Angeles after the
civil disturbances.]
Mr. Jennings. Sir, her question about lowinterest loans for minorities makes a lot of sense.
The President. Good for you; it does. Let me
tell you the two or three things we're working
on here. First of all, I'm trying to set up, in
all the big cities throughout the country, a financial institution that will make low-interest loans
to people who live in those communities. There
is such a bank in Chicago that's done a very


good job of rebuilding some of the poor communities through setting up businesses.
The second thing that I want to do is to
get the Congress to pass a bill which will give
people special incentives to invest funds in communities like south central Los Angeles, that
you put money in places where there's a lot
of unemployment, a lot of empty buildings, you
get a special tax break for doing it.
And the third thing I have asked Congress
to do is to pass a bill to benefit small business
people so that as long as they keep investing
money to create jobs, they'll have their taxes
lowered for doing that. And I think these things
are very important, and I'm glad you asked.
Let me just mention one other thing. One
of the provisions of the economic plan I sent
to Congress would also permit us to create
about 700,000 summer jobs this summer for
young people, which would get them active. And
then they could be used to clean up the area
and to help people make the parks more attractive and to do things to make those areas better
and make people want to invest in them more.
We've got a lot of work to do, and I'm glad
you asked the question.
Health Care Reform
Mr. Jennings. We have a question down here
in the front row.
Q. I would like to ask, if we start health
care programs, when we start them, who is
going to pay for them? Who is going to fund
them?
The President. First of all, we're already paying a lot of money on health care. Your country,
believe it or not, has the most expensive health
care system in the world. We spend much more
for health care than any other country, but a
lot of Americans don't have health insurance.
You know that, don't you? A lot of Americans
don't have health care.
So what I think will happen is that we will
have a health care system which will be paid
for partly by the Government and partly by people who are employers and partly by the people
who work for them. And we'll pay for it in
three ways. But what we've got to do is to
find a way to provide basic health care to all
Americans, including people who have serious
health problems-I know there are some people
in this audience today who have members of
your family with serious health problems-and
to keep the cost down, more like what it costs


148




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Feb. 20


in other countries. Because otherwise, we're
going to be hurt very bad economically.
One of the reasons we're having trouble generating a lot of new jobs in this country is that
our businesses are spending so much more
money for health care than any other businesses
anywhere in the world, that they have less
money to invest to put people to work. So my
job is to do two things that are hard to do:
get health care for everybody, and then to bring
the costs down.
The Presidency
Mr. Jennings. We have a phone call from
Connecticut. Go ahead, Connecticut.
Q. I was wondering what made you have the
burden to become the President?
The President. You mean, why did I want
to become President?
Q. Yes.
The President. That's a good question, Andrea.
I decided to run for President in 1991 because
I was concerned that there were too many people in America who were out of work; there
were too many people who were losing their
jobs; there were too many people who had problems with health care; there was too much of
an indication that we weren't building a future
so that young people like you would be able
to grow up and have a better life than your
parents did. And I was afraid that the American
dream was in danger. I thought I had some
good ideas about how to turn it around and
how to make life better for the American people, and that's why I ran. I asked the American
people to listen to my ideas, and they were
good enough to vote for me and give me a
chance to serve.
The White House
Mr. Jennings. Now, I know a lot of you have
questions about exactly how the President
spends his day. Who's got a question about what
the President does in the White House?
Q. I just wanted to know-I mean, you were
just coming down the hall in the Oval Office
showing us how nice, you know, everything
around here is, just look around the room andI don't know, personally if I lived here I would
feel constrained to actually live, you know? I
mean, it's just so nice, everything is so perfect,
I would not-I mean, I don't know. So how
do you feel about
The President. I feel a little that way, too,


sometimes. But let me say that upstairs, on the
second floor, there are some nice formal guestrooms but there also is-Chelsea has a bedroom
and a little room where she can study and do
her work. And Hillary and I have a bedroom
and a little family room, and they're not quite
so formal. So the rooms that we have are much
more like regular rooms in a house, and you
don't have to worry so much about breaking
an expensive piece of china or something like
that.
Mr. Jennings. But it wasn't always so formal
here, was it, Mr. President? The East Room,
they used to hang laundry in the East Room.
The President. Oh, absolutely. It wasn't always
so formal at all. It's probably as formal now
as it's ever been, but there are some more informal rooms. And then there's a third floor, a
floor two floors up from here, which has some
other rooms and a little hallway where we have
our rocking chairs and our family books and
all kind of stuff like that, which is really much
more homey. So we spend a lot of our time
in places where we don't have to go on tiptoes
all around.
Mr. Jennings. We said we were going to test
you on some of the questions here. Do you
know the children of which President rollerskated in here, in the East Room? Who remembers that?
Q. Roosevelt.
Mr. Jennings. Which Roosevelt?
Q. Teddy.
Mr. Jennings. Exactly. President Theodore
Roosevelt's children used to roller-skate here in
the East Room. And of course, maybe you'd
like to point out to the kids the famous painting.
The President. Yes. That's a picture of who?
Who is that?
The Children. George Washington.
The President. That's right. That's President
Washington, painted by Gilbert Stuart. And it
is an absolutely invaluable piece of art. Gilbert
Stuart was a very famous artist. I think it was
offered to the United States first for about $500.
He painted it in 1797. That was a lot of money
back then. It's worth millions of dollars today.
It's a priceless picture.
Mr. Jennings. And who saved it?
The President. Excuse me?
Mr. Jennings. Who saved it?
The President. Who saved it?
Mr. Jennings. Dolley Madison, right?
The President. Yes, Dolley Madison saved it.


149




Feb. 20 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


Mr. Jennings. When there was
The President. -from the fire.
Mr. Jennings. She wouldn't leave the White
House until theThe President. Yes, during the War of 1812
the British marched on Washington and tried
to burn the city, and the White House caught
fire. There's still some char marks actually out
on the front of the White House. And Dolley
Madison would not leave the White House until
the precious treasures were preserved, including
that.
There's also a picture back there of President
Theodore Roosevelt, painted when he was a year
younger than I am now. Theodore Roosevelt
was the youngest person ever to become President. He was elected President at the agewell, he became President when President
McKinley died; he was 42. And President Kennedy was elected when he was 43, and I was
elected when I had just turned 46. So I'm the
third youngest person to be President.
Mr. Jennings. But not-[inaudible]. You probably need a bit of rest for the moment, though,
sir, as you're the third youngest, so we'll go
away for a commercial and be right back.
The President. I feel like the oldest some
days. [Laughter]
[The television stations took a commercial
break. ]
President's Pastimes
Mr. Jennings. Welcome back to the East
Room of the White House. Let's go straight
to you, Jared, you have a question.
Q. What do you do for fun around here?
[Laughter]
The President. I like to play golf. I've only
gotten to do it one time since I've been President, but I like to do that. And I like to play
cards and games with Hillary and Chelsea. We
play pinochle; we play a game that Chelsea
taught me called Hungarian rummy. I like to
play Trivial Pursuit. That's pretty much what
I do.
Q. Are you a good Trivial Pursuit player?
The President. Sometimes. I'm better on some
subjects than others, but I like it a lot.
Somalia
Mr. Jennings. Way over there in the corner.
Q. About Somalia and the United States, are
we going to help the United States or Somalia
first? Because Somalia has been in trouble for


years, but we haven't done anything. We've
done something, but not that much. So are you
going to start helping Somalia first or getting
the United States their jobs back first?
The President. Well, my most important job
is to try to help people in the United States
get their jobs back, because I was elected first
and most importantly to help the people here
with jobs and education and health care.
But I think the United States has a responsibility in Somalia. And I supported it when
we sent our troops over there to try to stop
the fighting and to try to bring some safety
and food and medicine and education back to
the children there. And I think that what we
will be doing in Somalia is trying to work with
other countries to always keep enough soldiers
there to try to keep the peace, but there won't
be so many Americans there. And then we can
support others and try to make sure that we
restore peace on a long-term basis and try to
make sure that the people always had enough
food and medicine and shelter to do well. I
think we do have a responsibility there, but as
President my first responsibility is to all of you.
The Presidency
Mr. Jennings. Behind you here, Mr. President.
Jeannie has a question. Jeannie Lee.
Q. Hi. How do you feel, like, now that you're
the President of the United States?
The President. It's an incredible honor. And
every day I still get up and I feel a lot of
gratitude just for having the chance to serve.
I also feel a big sense of responsibility. I don't
want to let you down, all of you and all the
people all over the country, the people who
voted for me and those who didn't. I hope I
can do a good job to help solve our problems
and move us forward.
Mr. Jennings. Jeannie, what do you think is
probably the best thing about being President?
If you were him, what would you guess?
Q. I think I would have a lot of responsibility,
too, because I've got to take care of the whole
United States and I've got to help others. And
you've got to help the people of the United
States fight their enemies and crime and riots
and gangs.
President's Education
Mr. Jennings. Right behind you, Willie.
Q. When you were in, like, our grade, what
was your hardest subject in school?


150




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Feb. 20


The President. When I was in your-when
I was your age? How old are you?
Q. Nine.
The President. Nine. You're in the fourth
grade? I made my lowest grades in conduct[laughter]-because I talked too much in school
and the teachers were always telling me to stop
talking. I did best in math. I did well in reading.
I had some trouble spelling, interestingly
enough, when I was young, because I'd get excited and I would go too fast. And sometimes
I wouldn't spell so well.
Q. What are you going to do about the environment?
Violence in Schools
Mr. Jennings. Well, let me hold the President
on the environment for just a second, if that's
okay with you, because I think touching on education is really interesting.
Mr. President, I'd like you to meet Michael
Cruz here. We met Michael out in the country,
and we did a little film about him which I'd
like you to see, because I know he has a question. And it's something I know that he cares
a lot about and he'd like to ask you about.
So let's, first of all, look at where Michael goes
to school.
[A short film was shown in which Michael described the effect of the violence in his school
on his education.]
Mr. Jennings. Well, Michael goes to the Roberto Clemente High School in Chicago, Illinois.
Have you got a question for the President, Michael?
Q. How are you going to make my school
safer to get a better education?
The President. I have an answer to that, but
let me ask you first so I won't prejudice your
answer: If you were in my position, what would
you do to make the school safer?
Q. I would try to get as much teachers and,
mainly, security guards in there to keep the
violence, because now there's not so many security guards and there's too many students. I
would just try to control the school first. And
then once they control the school, then I'll
throw the education on their lap.
The President. Let me tell you what we're
going to try to do. First of all, as part of the
economic program I sent to Congress there is
a safe schools initiative which, if it passes, would
enable us to help schools with more security


guards and with more, like metal detectors and
things like that, to try to make sure kids don't
come to school with weapons.
Secondly, I have offered a program that would
permit us to put another 100,000 police officers
on the street in America in the next couple
of years, including people who could be stationed in around schools. The third thing I think
we ought to do is to pass a bill which says
that nobody can buy a handgun unless there's
a waiting period, during which time you can
check their criminal history and see if they've
been in any trouble before, because you don't
have to sell them guns if they have been in
trouble before. But if you don't check, you don't
know. I think that's a good place to start.
But let me also say, you're from Chicago,
right? I was in a junior high school in Chicago
not very long ago called the Beasley Academic
Center. It's a public school in Chicago. Do you
know where it is? It's in a neighborhood with
a very high crime rate. And they have police
outside the school. Now, I know it's not a high
school, it's a junior high school. There are police
outside the school, but not in the school, because the teacher has to deal with-she's got
75 fathers a week coming to the school, 150
mothers a week coming to the school, and the
kids have a whole strict code of conduct. They
ask to go there, but there's no academic requirement. You know, if everybody asks to go and
if there are too many who ask, then they do
it by lottery. But the kids that go there really
help to keep the peace in their own school,
supporting the principal. And with the parents
involved, I think that's real important, too.
I can provide extra help for law enforcement,
but we've got to get more grassroots community
people involved. I loved seeing you in that class.
And I just hope that a year or two from now,
all those other desks will be full, too. And don't
you give up on your education, because-don't
let anybody else, no matter what their problems
are, take your future away from you. Only you
can do that.
Mr. Jennings. You know, there's something
else about Michael, which I'm not sure I'm right
about. Michael, did I hear that some of the
kids in your school teased you badly about coming to see the President?
Q. Yes.
The President. Why? Why did they do that?
Q. Because people don't believe that. People
don't want to believe it.


151




Feb. 20 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


The President. They don't believe that I care
anything about them?
Q. Yes, in a way, you can say like that.
Mr. Jennings. Do you think the President's
answer to you is-did it give you some satisfaction?
Q. Yes, it gave me a lot.
The President. Look, you know, when I was
your age it was a lot easier to be young than
it is now. We worried about liquor and cigarettes. Nobody worried about drugs and guns.
And I know it's hard to be young now. But
I also know that if you get a good education,
nobody can take that away from you. You can
still have a good life. And there are people there
who care about your education. And I'm going
to do what I can to support them.
Home Schooling
Q. I'm home schooled; I don't go to school.
And I was wondering what you thought about
home schooling and what you were going to
do about it, or if there was anything you were
going to do?
Mr. Jennings. Can you explain what home
schooling is?
Q. Yes, my parents teach me at home, so
I don't go to school. They don't really believe
some of the stuff that's being taught and done
in the schools.
The President. I can tell you what I have
done about it. Let me tell all of you this, just
by way of background. The public schools of
our country are largely run at the local level
by school boards and school administrators. And
the money for them and the rules by which
they are run are largely set at the State level,
by the State governments throughout the country. So you're from Virginia, right?
Q. Yes.
The President. So the State government in
Richmond largely makes the rules for the public
schools. I was a Governor before I became
President. And while I was Governor, I supported and passed a law through our legislature
which made home schooling legal and which
supported home schooling and parents and children making the decision to be educated at
home, as long as the children were willing to
take examinations every year and prove that they
were learning what they should be learning for
people their age. And that's the way I feel.
I think that your parents and you, as a family,
should have the right to do this as long as you're


learning. And if you can demonstrate that you're
learning, I think you should have the right to
do it.
Mr. Jennings. Can I interrupt, sir, because
I don't think people really understand why many
parents want to teach or insist on teaching their
children at home. A lot of it has to do with
sex education, doesn't it?
The President. It's different for different people. I think there-and Katie, you can interrupt
me or say what you think-but I have talked
to a lot of parents and children who have been
in the home schooling movement, and normally
they fall into two groups. There is one group,
perhaps the smaller one, who believe that they
just give their kids a better education, that their
kids learn more and more quickly. Then there's
a second set of concerns which revolve around
values. A lot of parents are really upset by what
Michael just said, that kids go to school, they
have to worry about being exposed to violence,
to premature sex, to drugs, to things that they
may not agree with. So there are what you
might call the values objections, to things that
children are exposed to, and then the academic
objections.
Is that a fair statement?
Q. Yes.
White House Meals
Mr. Jennings. Who has got-somebody's got
some questions about the White House. I want
to make sure that I don't lose who has got
questions about the White House.
Q. Does Hillary ever cook for you?
The President. Does Hillary ever cook for me?
Sometimes.
Mr. Jennings. Do you ever cook?
The President. Believe it or not, sometimes
we cook for each other. But we've been so busy
lately we haven't had a chance to do it since
we've been here. But Hillary's actually a pretty
good cook. And I like to cook, but what I like
to do is to make things like omelets. I love
to make omelets. And sometimes on Sunday
nights, Hillary and Chelsea and I will go into
the kitchen, and I'll make everybody omelets
and we'll sit around and talk.
So both of us like to cook, but we've beenyou know, I asked Hillary to take charge of
the health care problem and try to come up
with a solution to it. And I've been working
real hard on the economic problems, so neither
of us has had much time to cook. And they


152




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Feb. 20


have wonderful cooks here. As a matter of fact,
Chelsea can tell you there is a whole little kitchen where they don't do anything but make pastry and sweet things and desserts.
Mr. Jennings. They'd all hate that here, sir.
The President. Oh. [Laughter] So I've been
mostly relying on those folks. But, yes, she does
cook for me sometimes.
Mr. Jennings. What about Ellie, way at the
back.
Q. My question is sort of serious.
Mr. Jennings. Well, if it's serious, let's hold
it for one second, and we'll go to a commercial
and come right back.
The President. Okay.
Mr. Jennings. Okay? My apologies.
[The television stations took a commercial
break. ]
Mr. Jennings. But you have to work on Omar
here, because he told me he's a Republican.
[Laughter]
When we were away for a commercial, some
of these kids said you look a lot better in person
than you do on television.
The President. Well, that's good news.
Mr. Jennings. You want to deal with that?
The President. Well, sometimes I have these
big bags under my eyes when I don't get any
sleep the night before if I work late, or when
my allergies are bad. So I'm glad you think
I look better. I feel better today.
Mr. Jennings. Carlos, what did you want to
know? You want to know where Socks was?
Q. Yes.
The President. Socks is just around the corner
and downstairs. He's here all the time.
DC School Closings
Q. Well, I also want to know something else.
What are you going to do about what the school
board is doing about closing 10 schools in every
ward?
The President. Here?
Q. In DC.
The President. That's a different question because the Washington, DC, government does
get some money directly from the Congress and
the President. I can't answer that question today
because I don't know whether they're closing
down the schools because they don't have
enough money to run them or because they
have too many schools for the kids that are
there now. That is, a lot of school districts in


America are losing school populations.
But I'll tell you what I'll do, I'll look into
it. And I've got your address, and I'll write you
a letter about it. Okay?
Q. There's a little more I need to tell you.
Can you at least talk to them to not close the
good ones? Because they might close my school,
and my school is the only elementary school
that's bilingual in all DC.
The President. You don't want them to do
that, do you? Because we have a lot of bilingual
kids in DC, don't we, now? Thank you. I'll
look into that, and I'll get back in touch with
you.
Proposed Handgun Legislation
Mr. Jennings. Okay. We have a phone call,
Mr. President, and I think from Texas. Go
ahead, Allison.
Q. What is the Brady bill?
Mr. Jennings. What is the Brady bill?
The President. Oh, what is the Brady bill?
The Brady bill is the bill I was just actually
talking about. It's a bill that would require people who want to buy handguns to wait for a
few days while the people who sell the handguns
check to see if they have committed a crime
or if they have a mental health history or some
other problem which would make it dangerous
for them to get the handgun. And the Brady
bill would require people to wait just a few
days until that check is done.
I strongly support the Brady bill. Some people
are against it. But I think it's a good idea just
to wait a couple of days. I don't think it's much
of an inconvenience for people who want to
buy guns to ask them to wait so we can check
their criminal history.
Homosexuals in the Military
Mr. Jennings. I almost forgot you, Ellie. I'm
sorry.
Q. The opposition to your recent attempt to
lift the ban on the homosexuals in the military
shows that as a society we're still very biased
towards homosexuals. What are you going to
do to help America as a nation accept them?
The President. Well, I think what's important
about that issue to me is not that Americans
agree with the lifestyle but that they accept the
fact that there are citizens in the United States
who are homosexual, who work hard, who don't
break laws, who pay their taxes, don't bother
other people, who ought to have a chance to


153




Feb. 20 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


serve. And I just say that at every chance I
get. And I have also been involved in giving
some people the chance to serve who are homosexual, and I think that's important. I think that
there are a lot of people whose religious beliefs
dictate that the homosexual lifestyle is wrong.
I don't ask them to give up their religious beliefs
but simply to accept other people as people
and give them a chance to be citizens as long
as they're not doing anything wrong. That's my
position on it.
Special Education
Mr. Jennings. Anastasia, you've had your hand
up a lot. Maybe, Mr. President, you'd like to
come and sit down for a second.
The President. Hi, Anastasia.
Mr. Jennings. Excuse me for one second for
reaching over you. Come and sit here. Sara,
you come and sit here if you would and let
the President sit down.
The President. Okay.
Q. I have a twin sister and we go to the
same school. But she can't speak. So because
she can't speak, they've put her in a special
class. But she uses computers to speak. And
I would like her to be in a regular class just
like me.
The President. Wow. And you think your sister could do just as well as you in a regular
class?
Q. Yes.
The President. As long as she can use her
computer. And her computer is on a little top
just like this, isn't it?
Q. Yes. WVell, you can put it on here and
you can put it on regular tables also if-because
you can carry it around. It's a little computer.
The President. And she talks to you by using
it?
Q. Yes.
The President. Why do you think they put
her in the special education class?
Q. I think it's because she couldn't talk. And
they thought-the principal thinks that she can't
do it because she can't use her hands and she
can't speak.
The President. But you think that she could
learn just as quickly if she were in a regular
class?
Q. Yes.
The President. Have your parents asked the
principal to put her in a regular class?
Q. Yes.


The President. And they said no?
Q. The principal said no.
The President. Well, you know, as President
I can't do anything about that except to speak
about it. But I'll tell you this, I have a friend
named Hamp Rasco whose mother works for
me here. And he's now 18 years old. He has
cerebral palsy. And he doesn't speak quite as
well as you, but he can probably speak a little
more than your sister. And I watched him go
all the way through high school and graduate
from high school and get his graduation degree.
And he lives out on his own now. And I'm
going to do what I can to help people let all
Americans go as far as they can. And I think
young people who are working hard to prove
they can do this kind of work ought to be given
a chance to do it. And I think your sister should
be given a chance to show whether she can
work in the class or not.
That's what you think then? You just want
her to have a chance to prove whether she can
do it or not, right?
Q. Yes.
The President. And if she tried and she
couldn't do it, then would you support her being
in another class?
Q. Yes.
The President. So you just want your sister
to have a chance.
Q. Yes.
The President. Good for you. Maybe she'll
get it because we were here talking about this.
Mr. Jennings. I have a feeling. Thanks very
much.
Q. You're welcome.
The President. Give her a hand. Wasn't that
great? Thanks for sticking up for your sister.
That's wonderful.
The Environment
Mr. Jennings. WVe have a phone call from
Ian. Go ahead.
Q. President Clinton, how will you stop pollution in the United States?
Mr. Jennings. Just like that. [Laughter]
The President. Well, it's not quite that simple
because you know we make pollution every day,
Ian. When we drive our cars, we make pollution;
when we run our factories, we make pollution.
But there are two or three things we can do.
Let me just mention them.
Number one, we have a Clean Air Act in
the United States, designed to reduce the


154




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Feb. 20


amount of pollution that goes into the air in
the first place. I want to enforce that. Number
two, I want to support clean water. We put
a lot of stuff in our water. I want to reduce
that. Number three, I want to try to do things
that will help preserve the quality of the environment in the first place, like planting more
trees and reforesting the land and building up
the soil of the United States. I think we want
to clean up the things that are being polluted,
but we want to stop things from being polluted
as much as possible. And then, finally, I'm trying
to promote more energy conservation and cleaner energy. Like natural gas, for example, is the
cleanest form of energy that we can burn. So
I'm trying to promote the use of natural gas.
Those are the things that I think we should
do in the beginning.
Mr. Jennings. I don't think anybody in the
East Room, Mr. President, feels as strongly
about that as Pernell does. And I know he has
a question to ask you, but before you ask your
question, let's show the President a little bit
about where you live.
[A short film was shown in which Pernell described the effect of environmental pollution on
his family's health.]
Mr. Jennings. Pernell comes from Garyville,
Louisiana, and it's about a hundred miles' trip
between New Orleans and Baton Rouge, right,
Pernell?
Q. Yes.
Mr. Jennings. Where there are about a hundred petrochemical plants.
Q. Yes, Garyville, the small town that I live
in, is right between the chemical corridor, which
is the area between Baton Rouge and New Orleans. And Mr. President, I'd like to ask if restrictions can be put on the amount of carelessly
handled hazardous waste and air pollution, such
as smoke, and if the health care system can
get into this somewhat and help the cancer victims, which this cancer may have resulted from
this environmental contamination.
The President. Why don't you tell these folks
how many relatives in your family have had cancer.
Q. Well, I'm not exactly sure, but I know
my 10-year-old brother died of something that
even the experts-experts across the country
came over to Children's Hospital in New Orleans to look at this. They could not-they were
just stumped. My brother, Charlie, was either


the 10th or the 11th person in recorded history
ever to catch this. Through all the other patients
that caught this, the experts could never figure
it out. And they checked into just about every
condition that could have caused it, with the
exception of the environment.
The President. Let me say that this young
man lives in Louisiana, which is just to the south
of my home State of Arkansas, so I know quite
a bit about where you live and I've been in
that alley between Baton Rouge and New Orleans many, many times. The cancer rate there
is way above the national average.
I think there are two things we should be
doing. One is, we should be doing a lot more
medical research to try to find out what causes
these cancers. And the second thing we ought
to be doing is to invest more money there to
do environmental cleanup.
In the election campaign that I went through
to be elected President, I said many times that
I thought we ought to take some of the money
that we're reducing the defense budget by and
putting it into cleaning up the environment here
at home. Because I think there are now all
kinds of health hazards that we never knew
about before that we're now learning about in
some of the things we've done. And we need
to do a lot of environmental cleanup in that
part of Louisiana where you live and throughout
the country. And I'm going to do my best to
do it.
Mr. Jennings. It's interesting, sir, that a lot
of people were playing the budget game earlier,
helping how to spend your money for you. And
an awful lot of kids, both last night and tonight,
all of them putting their money into cleaning
up the environment.
The President. How many of you think we
should spend more money on the environment,
cleaning it up?
Q. We've only got one planet. If we don't
preserve it, you know, there's no other place
we can go to. And everyone from my area and
the surrounding areas, most of them voted for
you, you know. We all believe very strongly that
you, as an individual, do have the know-how
and the courage to go about and tackle this
problem and many others, and we do have faith
in you.
The President. We'll do it for your brother,
okay?
Q. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Jennings. We'll be back in just a moment.


155




Feb. 20 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


[The television stations took a commercial
break. ]
Economic Legislation
Mr. Jennings. Well, I haven't had a chance
to ask you kids this question yet, but howyou've all heard President Clinton-put down
your hands for just a second-you all have heard
President Clinton say many things he'd like to
do. Now, he's a very powerful individual, as
I think we all agree, but he can't do it all
by himself. You have to get bill through Congress.
The President. That's right.
Mr. Jennings. Your budget bill's up there now.
You're going to have a real tough time
The President. A real tough time.
Mr. Jennings. Right. How many of you would
like to know how to get a bill through Congress?
Do you think that would be useful in order
to find out how you get it done?
The President. I'd like to know that. [Laughter]
Mr. Jennings. Well, we've enlisted the help
of Steven Urkel, who's a great, great pal, I
guess, of all yours, to tell us how you actually
get a bill through the Congress. Let's watch.
[A short film was shown on the legislative process. ]
Mr. Jennings. Isn't that great?
The President. That was great.
Mr. Jennings. I have a present for you, Mr.
President, the Urkel clean air act of 1993, like
all Government bills today, on recycled paper.
The President. That's good. That's right. We
use a lot of recycled paper.
Mr. Jennings. So you have a chance now to
sign that bill or you can veto that bill, right?
The President. That's right. I have to act within 10 days of getting it, and I can sign it or
veto it. I think I'd better sign, don't you?
Mr. Jennings. I think you'd better. Do you
think he should sign it? Okay.
Let's go back to questions. Venus, you have
a question.
Homelessness
Q. As a new President, how are you going
to end homelessness, or what are you going
to do to end homelessness in the world?
The President. Do you want to say anything
about Venus before I answer the question?
Mr. Jennings. Yes, I do. I do. It's a tough


question for Venus, and we told the President
before that Venus had come to us from the
west coast, and I think it would help if the
rest of you kids here and the audience at home
saw a little bit about the circumstances in which
she lives.
[A short film was shown in which Venus described the difficulties of living in a homeless
shelter. ]
The President. Good for you.
Mr. Jennings. What's your question then,
Venus? Again, would you repeat it.
Q. As the new President, what are you going
to try to do or how are you going to dowhat are you going to do to end homelessness
in our world?
The President. May I ask you a question?
How did you become homeless?
Q. I came from New York around 5 months
ago, and we didn't have an exact place to go
to. So we went to social services and from there
on, it was homeless until we can get an apartment.
The President. I think there are two or three
things we should do. And I asked her this question because over one-third of the homeless
people in America now are families with children. And a lot of them are people who moved
from one town to another, and they have no
savings; they have no money in the bank.
I met a homeless couple in my hometown
about a year ago. It was kind of like you. They
had come down from Chicago. And they actually
had jobs, but they hadn't drawn a paycheck yet
and they had no place to live.
So here are the things that we're going to
try to do. First of all, we're going to try to
build more housing for low-income working people. We haven't had much of a housing program
for a long time. Secondly, I'm going to have
an inventory done-an inventory means a list
done-of all the housing in America which exists
today that belongs to the Government which
is boarded up or closed down, and see whether
or not we can't give a lot of that housing back
to churches or community groups or other
groups and let people work on repairing it. And
if they do work on repairing it, they should
be able to live in it. I met a woman and her
children in Philadelphia who were doing a lot
of their own work on a home, an old home
that had been boarded up. And they were going
to get to move in it and live there because


156




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Feb. 20


of the work they had done to do it.
The third thing we have to do is to create
more jobs because a lot of the homeless people
wouldn't be homeless if they had jobs.
Mr. Jennings. One of the things about all your
answers, Mr. President-and I don't want to
take time away from them-is that they all seem
to be long-term. And Venus has a short-term
problem, and Pernell has a short-term problem,
and Shannon has a short-term problem.
The President. Well, I think to be fair, though,
if you look at Venus' problem, it wouldn't necessarily be a long-term problem if we increase
the capacities of cities throughout this country
to move people directly into more stable environments. I know in San Francisco there was
a real detailed homeless program that I saw
there that the administration wanted to put in
that they just didn't have the money to put
in because there was no partnership with the
National Government. And my feeling on the
homeless issue is that a lot of Americans who
have money and homes really want us to do
something about it and would really support our
doing more about it. I don't think Americans
like the fact that children like you, your mother
are in homeless shelters just because you happen to move from one town to the other.
Now, on your problemMr. Jennings. Pernell.
The Environment
The President. On Pernell's problem, it's a
little different because you have to do a lot
of medical research to find out exactly what's
causing this. But I think you will see this year,
greater efforts in environmental cleanup all over
the country if our program passes this year. It's
not too late.
But as Pernell probably knows, since you
studied your brother's problem, a lot of times
these cancers develop over 2 or 5 or 10 and
sometimes even over 20 years. So they are longterm problems. And we did a lot of things to
our environment in the past because we didn't
know what it was doing. And I think now we
just have to turn it around; we just have to
start cleaning up more. And I think most Americans want to do that.
Mr. Jennings. We have an awful lot of questions, obviously. We're going to go away for
just a minute.
[The television stations took a commercial


break. ]
Chelsea Clinton and Socks the Cat
Mr. Jennings. Well, Mr. President, I must tell
you, as impressed as we all are to have you
here, and as good as they think you've been
so far, there's somebody else they'd like to meet
more, and you know that. So we do have a
bit of a surprise for you. Chelsea, would you
come and join us for a second?
These are the two people that you've all been
asking about. Do you want to sit on the stool?
Chelsea Clinton. Sure.
Mr. Jennings. Two people that the boys and
girls have all been asking about this morning,
Chelsea and Socks. You all had questions about
Socks. Who wants to go?
Q. Why did you call your cat "Socks"?
The President. Who knows-guess? Why did
we call him "Socks"? Hold him up, Chelsea.
Why did we call him "Socks"? Because he has
white paws. He's a black cat with white paws,
that's right. Good for you.
Mr. Jennings. And he's very restless, right?
Chelsea Clinton. Yes, I had to wake him up.
Mr. Jennings. Does he really have the run
of the White House?
Chelsea Clinton. Yes, basically, he can go
wherever he wants.
Mr. Jennings. Who else has a question? Jamie
in St. Louis has a question for Chelsea. Go
ahead, Jamie.
Q. I wanted to know, does Chelsea have to
take Secret Service guards to school with her?
Chelsea Clinton. Yes, I do.
Mr. Jennings. What's that like?
Chelsea Clinton. It's okay. They stay out of
the way. They do. They have an office up on
the third floor of my school, and they sit there
most of the day. Or when I'm in gym, they
come outside and just sit on the bleachers or
just watch my soccer practice.
Q. What kind of cat food do you feed Socks?
Chelsea Clinton. What kind of cat food? Dry
cat food. I don't know the brand.
Mr. Jennings. Nor should you, probably.
[Laughter]
Q. How old is Socks?
Chelsea Clinton. Socks is almost 3 years old.
He'll be 3 years old in July.
Q. Does Socks-who trains him? Is he
trained?
Chelsea Clinton. Yes.
Q. Like, do you guys play? Also, do you ever


157




Feb. 20 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


have to talk to her about playing with her when
she's supposed to do her homework?
The President. Never. She's very good about
that. She does her homework pretty well.
Mr. Jennings. Christine in Fulton, Mississippi,
has a question for you.
Q. Mr. President, how do you and Mrs. Clinton punish Chelsea when she doesn't listen?
Chelsea Clinton. I didn't hear that.
Mr. Jennings. How do they punish you?
The President. How do I punish you when
you don't listen?
Chelsea Clinton. I always listen.
The President. Chelsea's a pretty good girl.
We don't have much of that. Sometimes we
have to-the number one thing we have to do
is to make her go to bed earlier. She has a
fault that her father has, which is that she would
stay up too late at night if I let her do that.
So the number one thing we have to do is
to make her go to bed earlier.
Mr. Jennings. And one more question for
Chelsea.
Q. Is Chelsea single? [Laughter]
The President. She better be. [Laughter]
Chelsea Clinton. Do you want to keep Socks?
The President. No, you take him.
Mr. Jennings. You're really nice to come by,
Chelsea. Thanks very much.
Chelsea Clinton. Thank you very much.
Mr. Jennings. Isn't that nice to have her come
by?
All right, now let's get back to you, sir. You
got off the hook there for a few minutes.
The President. I loved it.
Health Care Reform
Q. I have a question about health insurance.
Mr. Jennings. Would you speak a little closer
to your microphone, Kevin?
Q. I have a big brother named Jason, and
he's 17 now and will be graduating high school
soon. Will you have a health insurance program
in place so that people like my brother and
my twin sister can buy health insurance? If so,
how will it work? Will we be able to afford
it?
The President. Good for you. Is there anything
you want to say about Kevin, Peter, before
Mr. Jennings. Not just yet.
The President. Okay. The answer to your
question is we're going to present a program
to the Congress. And if they adopt it, then every
American will be able to get health insurance,


either from the Government or from their place
of employment. And they will be able to afford
it because, for people with lower incomes, the
premiums will be less. But everybody, pretty
much, will have to pay something for it. And
I think that's important. But we want to make
it possible for people all over the country to
have some health insurance. There are over 35
million people in America today that don't have
any health insurance and many others who can't
change their jobs because if they change jobs
they would lose it.
Mr. Jennings. On Monday night, when you
were speaking-or Wednesday night when you
were speaking to the Congress, you ad-libbed;
you took off talking about health care as if you
think there's no more complicated problem in
the country.
The President. It's the most complicated problem I've ever dealt with, but also the most important. I mean, American families, millions of
them, are so insecure about their health care.
And yet I say again, we're spending 30 percent
more than any other country on Earth, and we
have less to show for it. WVe can do better.
We have to.
Homelessness
Mr. Jennings. Bernice. You had your hand
up there, like, for a week. [Laughter]
The President. She wore her arm out, she's
been up there so long.
Q. This is a question that refers to what
Venus said. You said that instead of-the best
way to end homelessness is to-you said to build
houses. Well, you don't really need to build
any houses, referring to DC and over the U.S.,
because there are more than 3,000 houses and
apartments that are boarded up with no use.
Do you plan to fix any of them up?
The President. Yes. I'm sorry, that's the second point I made: that in the places where
we have a lot of boarded-up and vacant buildings, I think what we should do is to try to
provide some funds to local communities to fix
those up first because that's cheaper and
quicker.
But we just don't invest as much money as
we did 12 years ago. Twelve years ago we were
investing more money on building homes for
the homeless than we are now. And as I said,
I think most Americans are really concerned
that so many people-there are people who
sleep on the sidewalk within two blocks of the


158




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Feb. 20


White House every night. And I'd like to see
us do something about it, and I think most
Americans would. And I agree with you, we
should start with the structures that are already
there.
Antidrug Program
Q. Governor Clinton, I was just wonderingI come from a drug rehab over in Fort Pierce,
Florida, and I was wondering how-why is it
that we always spend all this money on the
supply of drugs coming in, like trying to cut
it down, you know? Like down in Miami, there's
a $50 million operation down there that doesn't
even work, trying to-like planes that fly in
where the cocaine
The President. Trying to stop the planes from
flying in.
Q. Right. What are you going to do about
the, like, the demand? How are you going to
cut that down? You know, you can never cut
down the supply, but you can always cut down
the demand. How are you going to do that?
The President. You know that from your own
personal experience, don't you?
Mr. Jennings. She does, yes.
The President. I appreciate-you're a brave
girl, and I'm glad you're here. And the reason
I said that is because my brother is also a recovering drug user. And I believe that's right. And
I have a brother-in-law who is a defense lawyer
in the drug court in Miami that keeps people
out of jail if they'll go into rehab. And I thinkI can tell you what we're going to try to do.
We're going to try to shift some of the money
that used to be spent on excessive expenditures
in some kinds of enforcement and do more to
do rehab and education and treatment for people because I believe that rehabilitation works.
I think that if we have drug treatment on
demand, that is without delay for people who
want it, we could cut down on the costs of
the courts, we could cut down on a lot of our
criminal problems, and we could rescue a lot
of young people's lives. We don't invest enough
money in that now. So we're trying to change
the priorities a little bit to put some more
money into rehab.
Health Insurance and Defense Conversion
Mr. Jennings. In just a moment, Mr. President, I'd like you to meet Shana because we've
done a little bit of filming out where she lives.
But before that, I'd like to tell our stations all


over the country that President Clinton has
agreed to stay on for half an hour more and
answer more questions, so we're going to go
a half an hour longer. We thank you for that,
sir.
Now, let's take a look at how Shana lives.
Because I think you probably have as representative a problem in your family as almost anybody
here today. Let's look.
[A short film was shown in which Shana described her parents' medical problems and concerns about employment.]
Mr. Jennings. So Shana, what's your question?
Q. As you know, my mom was laid off, and
my dad presently works for the same aerospace
company. And they've both been treated for
cancer, but now they're in remission, thank God.
And I was just wondering, because due to her
history with the cancer, she's having a hard time
with finding a job. And I was wondering what
your administration can do in regard to paying
health coverage with their preexisting illnesses.
Mr. Jennings. One of the things you're
doing-excuse me, sir, before you answer-is,
you're cutting back on, you want to cut back
on jobs in the defense industry, right-or, you'll
have to cut back. Which is it?
The President. Can I ask you a question first?
Does your mother-is she covered by your father's insurance policy at Rockwell?
Q. No, her own, I think. I'm pretty sure.
I'm not sure.
The President. They paid individually, they
were covered individually? Let me talk about
the health insurance, and then I'd like to talk
about your parents' jobs.
One of the changes we want to make in the
health insurance system of America is to say
that all Americans will be insured in huge, big
pools of people, so that there are a large number of people insured. And if one or two of
them get cancer, like your mother, that their
cost of care will then be spread over a very
large number of other people who don't have
that problem. That will lower the risk of any
insurance policy causing the company to go
broke. And it will mean that we can pass a
law which says that you can't refuse to hire
somebody just because they've been sick before.
In other words, I want to pass a law saying
that you can't refuse to hire somebody because
they've been sick before, but first I have to
make sure that the companies themselves won't


159




Feb. 20 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


go broke if they do it. So we're going to do
that.
Now, let me make a comment about your
parents' jobs. Your father still works for Rockwell, and your mother used to. We had to reduce the defense budget at the end of the cold
war when the Soviet Union broke up because
we were spending so much more money on
the military than any other country. We had
to invest it in other things here at home.
But we need people working in aerospace.
There are about-I don't know what kind of
lives you all want to have now, but there are
about seven or eight major areas of technology
which will produce a lot of the high-wage jobs
of the future, and aerospace is one of them.
The United States has not done a very good
job of trying to build up aerospace jobs in
nondefense areas. And next week we're going
to start on a major effort, working with the
Congress, to do that. I'm going out to California
and to Washington State where Boeing is
headquartered, and they just announced 23,000
layoffs, to talk about this. So we're going to
start trying to figure out what we can do to
save the jobs in the aerospace industry and
maybe to start building them up again.
Spotted Owl Habitat Protection
Mr. Jennings. Oh, my goodness. Go ahead,
Elizabeth.
Q. I live in northern California in a town
called Hayfork. And we live in the forests. And
my Dad, he had a logging business. And he
had to shut it down because they're setting aside
the forest for the spotted owl. And this is my
school yearbook, and I've highlighted the names
of the people-of the kids like me whose parents will lose their job because of the spotted
owl. And I just wanted to know what you're
going to do to try to help people get their jobs
back.
The President. Can you all see this?
Mr. Jennings. It was not a set-up, I wish to
assure you, Mr. President.
The President. No. Did you all see this, all
the yellow names here highlighted? Does anybody else here know what she's talking about,
the spotted owl controversy? David, do you understand it?
Q. Yes.
The President. What is it? What's the issue?
Q. Well, the spotted owl's natural habitat in
the wildlife is being threatened by loggers who


cut down the trees. It's like in the northwest
of the United States. It's like-that's a lot of
people's living. And they take the trees and
produce timber that all of us use every day.
And now since the owl's habitat was being
threatened, environmental groups got the forest
to be set aside as a preserve for the owl. But
then when that happened, it hurt a lot of loggers
who make their living off of that. So it's kind
of a tough situation.
The President. Do you think that's a good
description, Elizabeth, of what happened?
Yes? Let me say that in northern California
and in Washington and in Oregon in the Pacific
Northwest of the United States where Elizabeth
lives and where her father works, a lot of people
make their living in the forests. Part of the forests are called old-growth forests. They're very,
very old trees. And most of the old-growth forest
has all been cut down, but a little of it is left.
And there's some logging in that. And then,
as Elizabeth can tell you, there are forests sort
of rimming the old-growth forest where the
trees are newer where some of the land is being
ordered to be set aside for the spotted owl.
We have a law in the United States called
the Endangered Species Law which says that
if an animal is placed on that list, then it has
to be protected, even if it costs some jobs to
protect it. So there's been a big fight going
on for the last few years about how much land
should be set aside to preserve the spotted owl
and how much land should be left alone to
log in the forest.
I want to make two points to you. First of
all-and let me say, I live in-my State, Arkansas, has-over half the land is covered with timber, so I have a lot of personal friends who
make their living the same way your father did.
First of all, the problem has been made worse
because the United States Government has not
come up with a solution. So that as you may
know, the courts have stopped logging all over
northern California and Washington and Oregon, including some places where people
should be allowed to log. So I have committed
myself to organize, along with Vice President
Gore, a forest summit. And the Secretary of
the Interior, Bruce Babbitt, in particular, is
doing a lot of work on that now. We're trying
to set up a forest summit out there to bring
all the people together to try to come up with
the best compromise that will permit us to save
not just the spotted owl but this other point


160




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Feb. 20


I wanted to make is the old-growth forest that
remains, and still let people log.
Let me say it to you in another way: We
could remove all the restrictions on logging tomorrow and even put more people to work;
not only secure your father's business, but we
could put more people to work. But then in
a few years we'd have no trees at all to log.
So the issue is, how can we have a stable logging
environment and keep a significant number of
people working and still preserve the old-growth
forest, and by the way, the spotted owl.
I think we can do a much better job if we
can just get this out of the courts and startthere is a lot of land available, that should be
available for logging that's been tied up in the
courts that our Government does not want to
tie up anymore. So what I'm going to try to
do is put a group of people together to come
out to Washington, Oregon, and northern California and sit down and go through all this and
see if we can't resolve it so we can keep the
largest number of people working and still preserve the forests.
Q. But the land that they set aside, like
there's lots of lightning up where we live, and
there's lots of dead trees. And if we don't go
in there and cut the dead trees down, it will
start a fire and burn it all down.
The President. That's right, there are a lot
of problems. I agree with you, there are a lot
of practical problems with what has been done.
And that's why I want to try to bring, now
that there's been a change in the administration,
I want to try to bring our people out there
and sit down with all the parties involved and
try to hammer this out and resolve it. Unfortunately, it's been all tied up in the courts. And
a lot of things have been done which should
not have been done.
I believe-all I can tell you, is I'm going
to do the best I can to preserve the diversity
of the forests, the old forests up there, because
most of it's already gone, and we can't afford
to let it all go and still provide a stable logging
environment. As I said, we could build it up,
but if we built it up too much, we'd cut all
the trees down; and if we shut it down too
much, we'll throw everybody out of work. So
the question is, we have to find some way to
find the right balance, and we're going to try
to do it.
Mr. Jennings. We'll stay on the President's
case and make sure that you know particularly


when the forest summit comes —
The President. Yes, I'd like for you-will you
come and bring your parents when we do it?
AIDS
Mr. Jennings. Mr. President, I know you feel
the weight of problems in the country in this
room, and there's one other person here I'd
like to introduce you to and tell you a little
bit about his life, because I know he's been
wanting very much to ask you a question. His
name is Joey. Meet Joey.
[A short film was shown in which Joey described
how he contracted AIDS and how his illness
affected his family. ]
Mr. Jennings. So what's your question, Joey?
Q. That President Bush, he took $350 million
away from AIDS research. I want to know if
you're going to put that back.
Mr. President. Oh yes, and then some. Right
now we're working on a bill for the National
Institutes of Health that will increase funding
for cancer research, for AIDS research, for
health research generally. And I think you'll be
pleased with that. In addition to that, in this
budget that I have presented to Congress, I've
asked them to fully fund the Ryan White Health
Care Act so that we can deal with the health
care costs of people with AIDS and the burdens
that it puts on families.
Meanwhile, you hang in there. We'll keep
working until we find a cure.
Mr. Jennings. Is that a good answer, Joey?
Q. Yes.
Mr. Jennings. Something else, Mr. President.
Joey, do you ever feel discriminated against because you have AIDS?
Q. Not a lot anymore.
Mr. President. You think people are kind of
over their fears, irrational fears of it now?
Q. They don't care about it anymore. No,
I mean, they care about it, but it's like they're
not afraid of people. I hope not.
Mr. Jennings. Okay, thanks, Joey. Thanks for
coming.
Foreign Assistance
Q. A lot of people across the world are fighting and killing each other. I want to know if
there's anything America can do to stop it?
Mr. President. The answer is, there are some
things we can do and some things we can't.
Let's just take some specific examples, and then


161




Feb. 20 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


maybe you can ask me some specific examples.
Somalia: a lot of people were fighting and
killing each other. Our country led a group of
forces, but most of them were Americans, into
Somalia. And because the armies weren't big
and the weapons weren't great and because a
lot of the people wanted us to come there,
we were able to stop a lot of the fighting and
provide for safety for people.
Bosnia: you saw the young girl in Bosnia. A
much tougher problem, because there were
more weapons involved, the land is more difficult, the people have been fighting each other
there for centuries, except when they have been
stopped by government authority there. And
we're trying to find ways to increase humanitarian aid to Bosnia and to push for a peace
settlement which, if the parties down there will
agree, the people who are doing all the killing,
we could then come in and help to enforce.
Haiti: a country in our own hemisphere where
the elected president was kicked out after he
had threatened some of the people in the army
and the government in Haiti. We're doing our
best to try to stop any repression there and
then to restore the elected government there.
That might not be as hard for us because it's
a smaller population, a smaller anny, and because it's right here next to us, and we can
do things with and for them.
So it's different in different places. But I think
the United States has a responsibility to try to
stop that. There are some places a long-I don't
know if you saw the religious fighting in India
recently-that's a long way from us, and it's
very hard for us to have any influence there.
So we're doing the best we can. Let me just
say, it works better when the United Nations
will do it, when other nations will go along with
us. And it works better if there is some support
for a solution short of war. So I'm going to
do what I can to stop the fighting and killing.
Mr. Jennings. I read in the paper this morning, I think, Mr. President, that you are considering making air drops of food to people in
Bosnia who can't get it. Do you think you'll
go ahead with that?
The President. Actually, after I leave you
today I'm going to go discuss it with our aides
and consider that as one option. There are a
lot of children in Bosnia who now can't get
food and medicine because, I don't know if
you've been seeing it on the news, but the
trucks which have been delivering those supplies


have been stopped. So we have an agreement
tentatively to try to start the trucks up again,
but we may have to go in and drop some aid
into them.
Fast Food and Advertisements
Mr. Jennings. We have a question from Georgia.
Q. Hello. Mr. President, when you go to
McDonald's, do you have to pay? Do they accept, or do they say you're the President so
you don't have to pay?
The President. Usually I pay. I have-in my
neighborhood McDonald's at home when I
would go running every morning, they would
often give me a cup of coffee. But if I *go
into McDonald's and buy food, I try to pay.
I try not to have anybody give me food when
I go in a place.
Mr. Jennings. We had a-is Basil here?
Where's Basil? Basil, you wanted to say something to the President about junk food, you told
me earlier.
Q. I'm Basil Jeheen. I'm vice president of
Kids Against Junk Food. President Clinton, I
know that you have received some bad press
from an occasional trip to a fast food restaurant.
My question is, how are you going to protect
kids from being bombarded with junk food advertisements during their TV shows?
Mr. Jennings. WVhoo! [Laughter]
The President. I'm going to ask Mr.
JenningsMr. Jennings. I'm leaving.
The President. I'm going to ask Mr. Jennings
not to take any more advertisement from junk
food manufacturers.
Let me say, if you look at what the fast food
chains-this is not McDonald's-if you look at
Burger King, if you look at Wendy's, if you
look at Taco Bell-look at a lot of these fast
food places, in the last few years, a lot of them
have made a real effort to reduce the junk food
content of the food they sell. They're offering
more lean chicken; they're offering more fish;
they're offering more salads and vegetables. I
think a lot of the fast food places are trying
to increase the nutritional content of what they
sell.
Let me just say this: About 40 percent of
American food dollars are now spent in fast
food places, because so many mothers and fathers work-parents work. And it's very important that you keep the pressure up, through


162




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Feb. 20


Kids Against Junk Food, to keep the pressure
up to say, "Okay, a lot of people work. They're
busy. They have to buy food at fast food places.
But increase the nutritional content of the
food." I think that's what you ought to do, and
I think that's the position I ought to take.
Mr. Jennings. Go ahead.
Q. What I mean is, all right, say you're watching a cartoon and something-they interrupt and
then they have an advertisement for junk food.
I mean, they interrupt what you want to do,
like
The President. Let me tell you what the Government does and can do. The Government can
require the people who sell this food to publish
on a fairly large sign like the cereals do now
what the real nutritional content of the food
is and how much stuff that's not so good for
you is in it. But right now we don't have the
authority to stop it from being advertised at
all. Do you think there should be a law saying
you can't even advertise junk food?
Q. No. What I mean is there should be a
limit. Like so many advertisements per hour,
because they just throw in advertisements. And
you pay for it, and throw in advertisements.
The President. What you need to do is to
write the networks, ABC and CBS and NBC,
and maybe all the other smaller networks that
advertise, and tell them to reduce advertisements of junk food-limit to a certain number
of hours on Saturday morning, especially.
Mr. Jennings. Basil, one of the things-I'll
tell you two things. First of all, when you write
to a network like that, if enough of you write
they listen to you. And the other thing I'll tell
you about the President which I think you'll
find encouraging, though I hope it wasn't just
a political statement, sir-the President very
kindly had a number of reporters in the other
day to have lunch with him, and he served us
broccoli. [Laughter]
At any rate, we're going to go to a commercial
now, which makes me just little nervous.
[Laughter] We'll be right back.
[The television stations took a commercial
break.]
Support for the President's Program
Mr. Jennings. We have a question from California on the telephone. Go ahead.
Q. I'd like to know, as children, how we can
help you achieve your goals you have set?


The President. Oh, thank you, Byron.
Mr. Jennings. Paid political announcement.
The President. Thank you very much. Isn't
that nice?
Mr. Jennings. Yes.
The President. Well, I'll tell you what you
can do. You can, as a student you can write
to your Congressman and to your two Senators
and ask them to support the program that I've
talked about today. You can try to get your
fellow classmates and your schools, your teachers, and others to get in touch with the people
in Congress and ask them to vote for this program. And then at home, in your communities,
if we pass the program you can try to make
sure that we do it right; that we actually spend
some of this money, for example, to recover
houses for homeless people, or that we put more
young people to work in the summertime-that
we do these things. But the first thing we've
got to do is pass the program. So I would ask
you, starting Monday, try to get your classmates
to write your Member of Congress and your
Senators and ask them to vote for the program.
Mr. Jennings. On the other hand, they could
also write you in the White House and tell you
that they think you're wrong so far.
The President. Sure, they could. If you think
I'm wrong, write me and tell me that.
Mr. Jennings. Now, a couple of kids who
aren't here today but asked me before, which
I think is on these kids' mind, are you going
to keep your promises?
The President. I'm sure doing my best. The
most important thing I can do, I think, is to
try to give these young people a future by creating these jobs and dealing with their educational
issues, and try to do all the things that I talked
about  in  the  campaign.  Sometimes   circumstances change and you can't do everything
you want. I'm not investing as much money
as I wanted to in jobs and I'm raising a little
more than I wanted to in taxes because the
deficit of our country is bigger than I thought
it was. But, in general, I'm right on track to
try to do what I wanted to do when I ran
for President.
Endangered Species
Q. Well, I would like to know what are you
going to do to help endangered species?
The President. Well, we were talking about
that before, you know, with the spotted owl.
There is a law which requires us to protect


163




Feb. 20 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


endangered species and I support the law. I
don't want to see it repealed, but I want to
see it administered in a way that doesn't throw
a large number of Americans out of work. And
I think most people feel that way. They feel
we ought to have an Endangered Species Act,
but there ought to be a procedure to try to
have a balance between preserving those species
and not hurting families too much. But I support the Endangered Species Act.
Hillary Clinton's Role
Mr. Jennings. Another telephone call. Go
ahead.
Q. Do you feel uneasy about Mrs. Clinton
taking such an active role in the Government
because if something goes wrong both of you
would be blamed?
The President. No, I don't feel uneasy about
it at all. I think it's a good thing. She is a
very able person. This is the first time since
we've been married that she hasn't had a fulltime job in addition to everything else, that she's
got a lot of time. And she wants to be part
of my administration. She's the most talented
person that I've ever worked with on a lot of
the issues that I care about. And I think she'll
be great on this health care thing, and if it
doesn't work, I'm going to be blamed anyway.
Native Americans
Q. Mr. President, I'm here today as a Lumbee
Indian of North Carolina. Yet under the law,
I'm not an Indian. What are you going to do
to resolve this problem?
The President. WVhy is that? I don't understand it. You mean you're not a recognized Native American under the law?
Q. Exactly.
The President. Why?
Q. Because the rules and regulations say that
if a tribe is not recognized, you're not an Indian.
The President. And why is your tribe not recognized?
Q. They're still trying to prove that we are
Indian with the Department of Interior and the
BIA process.
Mr. Jennings. Bureau of Indian Affairs.
The President. Yes.
Q. Yes.
The President. You've asked me a question
I don't know the answer to. But I'll tell you
what I'll do. If you make sure-I guess Peter's
got your address-I will put somebody to work


on it the first of the week and I'll try to figure
out if there is anything we can do. I wish I
could answer your question, but I didn't know
that there were Native American tribes that
hadn't been formally recognized.
Q. Yes, there are lots.
Mr. Jennings. Nor did I. We'll find out for
you. Right next to you, Isaac.
The President. Thank you very much.
Teacher Furloughs
Q. President Clinton, what are you going to
do about furloughs?
The President. About what?
Q. Furloughs.
The President. You mean from prisons?
Q. No, I mean from teachers getting out of
work.
The President. Oh. You mean, teachers being
laid ofP
Q. Yes.
The President. Well, where do you live?
Q. I live in WVashington.
The President. In Washington. This is a problem around the country because a lot of State
and local governments haven't had enough
money to fund their school budgets. I think
you asked me about that, too, earlier.
There is nothing I can do about it directly,
because the United States Government, the
President and the Congress don't hire teachers;
they're all hired at local school district level.
But there are two things that I can do to help
indirectly. One is to try to get the economy
going again, because if people are working,
they'll be paying taxes, and the school districts
will have more money. That's the most important thing I could do.
The second thing is to try to have the National Government help our schools a little more
than they have for the last 12 years, and the
budget that I gave to the Congress does ask
us to put more money into education. And that
should help some of the school districts around
the country.
The most important thing I can do is give
them a healthy economy, because most of the
money to run the school district comes from
the local level. It doesn't come here to Washington.
Child Support Enforcement and Tax Reform
Q. Yes. I was just wondering: How can you
help the families where there's a mom and she's


164




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Feb. 21


taking care of a kid or kids, and the father
isn't willing or isn't able to pay child support.
Mr. Jennings. And you have about 30 seconds,
Mr. President.
The President. If he's not willing, we can have
much tougher child support enforcement. I feel
very strongly about it, and I've got a good program to strengthen it. If he's not able and the
mother is working and taking care of the kids,
I think the tax system should actually give the
mother money back, if necessary. I think any
parent that's working 40 hours a week with children in the home should not live in poverty.
I think we should change the tax system so
that people who work with children should be
lifted out of poverty.
Mr. Jennings. That's a good question, Jordan.
In fact, you know where you can watch for
something on that? In the confirmation hearings
for your new Attorney General.
The President. That's right.
Mr. Jennings. -  because she has quite a
reputation in Florida on that particular subject.
We could go on. You've been very gracious
to stay the extra half-hour.
Did you enjoy yourselves this morning? Was


he good? Yes? He was okay?
The President. I loved it.
Mr. Jennings. Satisfied with all the answers?
The President. No. [Laughter] Thank you.
Mr. Jennings. Well, Mr. President, you know
as well as I do it's a rare treat for any of us
to be able to come in here and to see you.
Thank you very much for having us. Thank you
all.
The President. You're terrific; our country's
in good hands, all of you. I feel good about
our future just listening to you.
Mr. Jennings. Have a good weekend, everybody. Thank you very much, and goodbye from
the East Room at the White House.
The President. Thank you.
NOTE: The town meeting began at 11:30 a.m. in
the East Room at the White House. Peter Jennings, ABC News, was the moderator for the program. During the meeting, Mr. Jennings referred
to Stephen Urkel, the character on ABC's television program "Family Matters" played by actor
Jalleel White. Prior to the town meeting, the
President conducted a brief tour of the White
House.


Remarks on the Economic Program in Santa Monica, California
February 21, 1993


The President. Thank you very much, President Moore, and ladies and gentlemen. This
is a wonderful welcome on a Sunday afternoon,
and I'm very grateful to you.
I was honored to fly out here today with
two of your Members of Congress: Congressman
Waxman and his wife, I know we're in Henry's
district, he's here; Senator Barbara Boxer and
her husband down there. And I think we have
four or five other Members of Congress here.
Where are they all? Here they are, Maxine Waters, Jane Harman, Howard Berman.
We have a lot of your State officials here
and mayors. Mayor Bradley I think is here. He
met me at the airport. I resent Mayor Bradley.
He looks 10 years younger than me. [Laughter]
I see a lot of my old friends here, a lot of
members of your legislature. If I start introducing people I will never quit. But I do want
to say a special word of appreciation to Speaker


Willie Brown and Senator Roberti and those
who invited me. They sponsored, along with
Governor Wilson, that economic summit for
California, and they invited me to call in, and
I appreciate that. And I am glad to see-I have
to say a few things-I see your Lieutenant Governor, Leo McCarthy; and March Fong Yu here,
secretary of state; and Gray Davies, your comptroller; Tom Hayden and Diane Watson; and
Yvonne Burke. I'm pretty good at this, don't
you think? I mean, just for a guy who walked
in. And I still think John Garamendi's health
care plan may wind up being the model for
what we do in the country. It's got a lot to
recommend it. Is the Mayor of Santa Monica
here? Judy Abdo, stand up here. How are you?
And we're in Terry Friedman's district. Is he
here? There he is. Marguerite Archie Hudson,
is she here? That's right. And we've got a lot
of L.A. council members here. I see several


165




Feb. 21 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


here, Zev and others. Now we have-Santa
Monica council.
Now, I'm leading up to something here which
is that I want to introduce two other people.
One is a good friend of mine, someone who
helped me with higher education issues in the
transition, and one of America's most distinguished educators: Dr. Johnetta Cole, the president of Spelmnan College, is over here. Then
I want to introduce someone who sort of played
a hobo in my Inaugural gala and who makes
me the second most famous person in the room,
Mr. Bill Cosby, who just came in over here.
Ladies and gentlemen, I wanted to come out
to California, which was so good to me and
to Al Gore, a State that did so much to give
us a chance to serve and to try to turn our
country around, to talk about the economic plan
that I have presented to the Congress, the challenge that it presents to the country, and the
help that all of us need from you to have any
hope of its passage.
I have embraced as my cause the idea that
every person in this country ought to be able
to live up to the fullest of their God-given potential. If it can happen anywhere, it must happen in California. Unless California is revived,
the Nation cannot recover economically. And
unless the people who live here in this State,
indeed in this county, with all of its multiracial
and multiethinic and multireligious implications,
unless you can draw strength out of your diversity, the Nation cannot bring strength out of
its diversity and out of the challenges we face
today.
The problems you have here are familiar to
you and, I guess, to the rest of the country.
But since we are here in an event that is not
only in Santa Monica but that will beam out
to the Nation, I think it is worth reaffirming
that for so many years California led the country
in economic growth and now is having difficulties for some reasons that affect every American.
First of all, for two decades through the administrations of Democratic and Republican
Presidents alike, the productivity rate of our
country, the output per worker, has been slowing down. And that has led to diminished wages
and more and more families being forced to
have extra earners just to make ends meet. And
some good things have happened. The enrollment at community colleges has exploded, simply because people recognize that they need
more skills and they have to keep learning things


over and over again. The average age here is
now 27. Fifteen years from now I predict to
you the average age here will be about 35, just
because people will have to keep learning for
a lifetime, in a global economy in which what
we earned is a function of what we can learn.
But in addition to that, California has been
especially hard hit by some other things: by
reducing the defense budget, something we all
celebrate as a move toward world peace at the
end of cold war but something which has led
to big dislocations, especially among high-wage
factory workers, because our country began a
few years ago to reduce defense with no plan
to convert our massive human capital from producing instruments of war to using the technologies of peace to clean up the environment
and to improve the quality of our lives and
to go forward. And so we have to do that. But
because we haven't, California suffers today.
California suffers because all big operations
in this country, and indeed to some extent
throughout the world, are undergoing a massive
reorganization. But for the last couple of years,
as big companies lay off people, small companies
are not hiring because of the credit crunch,
the cost of health care, the lack of a market,
things that we have to face everywhere but that
have been particularly painful here.
Finally, we find that a lot of the areas that
are critical to our future, the high technologies
of the future, are not being seized by this country because we don't have the partnership we
need between the Government, business, and
labor to break the barriers of the future. And
other countries are doing better.
After I leave this State tomorrow, I'm flying
on to Washington State to meet with representatives of Boeing. Boeing just announced laying
off 23,000 workers. Now, part of that is defense
cuts, but after all, Boeing makes a lot of other
kinds of planes, too. And for the last several
years, we have stood by while Europe invested
$26 billion in taxpayer money to build the airbus
to push American people out of work, not because they won any sort of free market competition but because Europe had a theory about
how to get high-wage jobs going into the 21st
century in aerospace. And we were in the grip
of a theory that said, oh, that's industrial policy;
we don't do that.
So this whole part of our country, which has
been the beacon of hope for decades for Americans, is now under great stress. And the eco

166




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Feb. 21


nomic problems aggravate the underlying social
difficulties that you find in every big city in
America: more and more poor people, more and
more single parent households, more and more
children forgotten and left behind-things that
we have to do.
Overhanging all of this is the idea which has
dominated our Government for the last 12 years,
which is that if we just kept taxes low on the
wealthiest Americans and got out of the way,
the economy would flourish. Well, what has happened is that because we had a theory of Government nonintervention, the deficit has exploded as taxes were lowered on the wealthiest
Americans, but health care costs exploded; interest on the debt exploded; the cost of Government continued to increase, and now I find myself being elected President, knowing we have
to invest more in the new technologies of the
future, knowing we have to invest more in helping people to convert from a defense base to
a domestic economy, knowing we have to invest
more in early childhood health problems and
early childhood education and the education of
our people, and knowing that we have a huge
deficit that is going to be next year $50 billion
bigger than we were told during the election.
In December, the deficit numbers were revised
upward $50 billion a year roughly for every year
of my term.
So here is the dilemma: We have to do something no Americans have had to do before. We
have to increase investment in our people and
our future and reduce our debt at the same
time. And to do it, we have to make some
difficult choices, some that are more difficult
even than I thought during the campaign because the debt has gotten bigger. And yes, those
choices carry a pricetag. But if I have one message to you today it is this: The price of doing
the same old thing is far higher than the price
of change. And that is why we have to have
the courage to change.
If we do not change, then the good things
that are happening today will not translate into
jobs and opportunity for America. Here's something good that is going on today. The productivity of American firms is rising at a rapid rate.
All this global competition has forced many millions of our businesses to produce more with
less and to generate more wealth. That's good.
But it will only really be good if that money
is then taken and invested in this country to
put people to work or to raise people's wages.


And if we don't do something about the cost
of health care, if we don't do something about
the productivity of the work force, if we don't
do something to make America a better place
to invest money to generate jobs, if we don't
have incentives that say reinvest your money
here and put our people to work, if we don't
help people control their health care costs, then
all that increased productivity may result in opportunities elsewhere, but it won't result in
bringing America back to where it ought to be.
If we don't change, if we just keep on doing
what we've been doing for the last 8 or 12
years, by the end of the decade our Government's deficit will be over $650 billion a year.
Over 20 cents of every dollar you pay in taxes
will go to interest on the debt. About 65 cents
of all the money you pay will go to entitlements
in health care. The rest will go to defense. And
every Member of Congress, all these people that
I recognize, they'll be going to Washington to
figure out how to spend 3 or 4 cents on the
dollar. Because they will be paralyzed because
we refused at this moment to face up to our
responsibilities to change this country. And I
don't think you want that.
If we keep on going like we've been going,
by the end of the decade we'll be spending
20 percent of our income on health care, and
yet, we'll have over 40 million of our people
without any health insurance. We'll be spending
twice as much by then as any country on Earth
and have so much less to show for it because
our Government refused to work with the people of this country to find a solution to the
health care crisis. And so I say again, the price
of doing the same old thing is a whole lot higher
than the price of change.
What I have challenged the Congress, Republicans as well as Democrats, to do, is to join
me in this crusade for change. And I said I
will set an example. We have to cut spending,
raise taxes, and then increase investment, the
things that will make people better able to live
and grow this economy. We've got to do both:
cut spending, raise taxes. And then we have
to increase our investment in the things that
will grow the economy.
We should begin with the cuts. I set an example. I cut the staff of the White House by 25
percent below what my predecessor had. You
know, it's one thing to talk like a conservative,
and another thing altogether to live like one.
And I'll tell you something, and I believe the


167




Feb. 21 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


White House staff will work better. I believe
it will be more efficient. I believe we will serve
more people. And I believe we'll be able to
do what needs to be done.
We're going to cut $9 billion out of the administrative costs of the Federal Government.
We're going to cut subsidies to programs, including some that I like that help people where
I came from. I have recommended reducing
the interest subsidies, for example, to the rural
electric association. And that's something that's
tough for me. I grew up in the South where
a lot of my folks wouldn't have any electricity
if it weren't for the REA. But most everybody's
got electricity now, and I think it's fair to say
we're going to cut spending across the board,
they should bear a share of that cut.
We're going to eliminate things that don't
need to exist anymore, including a third of the
Government commissions you're paying for. WVe
celebrated the Bicentennial-listen to this-we
celebrate the Bicentennial of the Constitution
in 1987, right? Guess what? There's still a Constitutional Bicentennial Commission you're paying for-[laughter]-not to mention the Tea
Tasters Board. Now, I say that not because
there's a lot of money here, but when you add
them all up, it's a whole lot of money. Not
any one is a lot of money.
We're going to cut some subsidies that I think
ought to be cut. For example, the Superfund
was held up as the salvation of the American
people for environmental cleanup. But if you
look at what's happened to it, it's operated as
a big tax subsidy to people who have polluted,
and yet most of the money in the Superfund
is going to lawyers for lawsuits and legal fees
instead of to clean up pollution. We're going
to make people pay their fair share and use
it to clean up pollution.
I'll tell you something else that wasn't easy
to meet or ask for. I know it's popular, and
it's also the right thing to do under these circumstances, but I've asked all the Federal employees to take a freeze in pay for a year, and
then for the next 3 years to have their pay
increased by less than the cost of the living
allowance they would otherwise get. And that
will save billions of dollars.
I have offered 150 specific spending cuts, 150.
And these aren't gimmicks. These aren't the
kind of things that we used to have where the
President will say, "Well, I just want to cap
expenditures, and I'll let the Congress figure


out how to distribute the pain." These are 150
specific cuts. Now, that's not bad for 4 weeks
on the job. I think we can do better. I think
we can do better. But I think that what we
ought to do is to do better and not talk about
doing better. So I have challenged everybody
who wants to say to me-every time I go someplace they say, "Cut more, tax less." I say, "Tell
me where." Starting in the Congress, tell me
where. I'll be glad to listen.
Audience nember. Star Wars.
The President. Everything-everything. We
did cut Star Wars quite a lot, as a matter of
fact, a whole lot.
I want you to know something else: I will
not support a tax increase, even a tax increase,
even a tax increase on the wealthiest 1.2 percent
of the American people, who are the only people whose rates are being raised, I won't support
that until I know we have the spending cuts,
too. I don't think anybody should pay more until
we cut more.
And I did ask a broad base of the American
people to pay a modest energy tax, and I want
to talk about that. I did it because the deficit
was bigger than I thought and because I knew
we had to bring down interest rates, and if we
did, it would save money for the American people. And let me just tell you what's happened.
Since the election, just since the election,
since it was clear we were going to finally tackle
this debt, interest rates have dropped seventenths of one percent. If every one of youI want you to think about it-every one of you
who has a variable interest rate on a home mortgage, a car payment, a credit card payment,
you're going to make more money in the next
year than you'll pay in this energy tax if we
can keep the interest rates down. So it's good
in the short run but it will also be good in
the long run for America.
But I want to talk a little about the energy
tax, because that's what most of you will pay.
People have been arguing for years that America
ought to have a big increase in the gas tax,
because we have the lowest gas tax in the world.
Then they argue we ought to have a big increase
in the carbon tax because we use a lot of coal,
and that's polluting.
I concluded that we shouldn't do either one
of those because it wouldn't be fair to the American people. A carbon tax would hit those States
with high unemployment in the East, like Ohio
and West Virginia, where people earn their


168




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Feb. 21


livings in the coal mines that are around them.
We've already got a tough Clean Air Act that's
going to require them to pay more, and I didn't
think that was fair. And I didn't want a big
increase in the gas tax because I didn't think
that was fair to people who lived in rural areas
or people who had long commuting times and
no options for mass transit. It's great if you
live in the city and get on the subway every
day, but if you have to drive to and from work
and you drive long distances, it can be very
burdensome.
So we decided-and I might say I want to
compliment him; the Vice President had a lot
to do with this decision-that we ought to go
with a Btu tax based on the health-excuse me,
the heat component, the energy component of
natural gas, of oil, and of coal, to spread it
broadly across energy sources so that the whole
thing would encourage conservation, would encourage renewable resources, would encourage
less reliance on foreign oil, and would help us
to bring down the debt. I think it is the fairest
way to go, and it's a balanced thing to do.
Let me say, having done that, I also believe
there are some things we must spend more on,
because the only reason for reducing the deficit
is not just to prove you can bring it down but
because it's better for the people of this country.
And if we reduce the deficit, it means we spend
more of your money on education and jobs and
less paying interest on the debt. And if we reduce the debt, it means that you'll be able to
borrow more money privately and at lower interest rates. But we still have to spend some more
money, and let me tell you where. The first
thing we need to do is to adopt a jumpstart
program that I have recommended that will create a half a million jobs in this country to try
to take advantage of this economic recovery with
new jobs over the next year.
The second thing we need to do is to focus
closely on the cities and the problems they have
with some specific efforts. And let me just mention a few. Our program will invest more money
in the cities, in street projects, park projects,
water projects, sewer projects, environmental
cleaning projects. It will provide for the young
people of this country who live in depressed
areas, not just big cities but poor rural areas,
680,000 new summer jobs this summer, something that is needed here.
I am going to challenge the business community to join with me to create more than a


million new summer jobs this summer so we
won't have to worry about what the kids are
doing. If we give them something to say yes
to, we won't have to spend so much time telling
them to say no to things.
We're also going to do some other things that
we know work. There's been a lot of people
talking about it. This budget, for the first time,
fully funds the Head Start program that gives
every child a chance to go to Head Start. It
fully funds the nutrition program for women
and infant children. It will give us the mechanism to immunize every child in this country
against preventable childhood diseases.
Now, there will be those who say, "Well, just
don't spend any new money." But let me say,
we have been closing the barn door after the
cow's out, as we say in my home State, for
decades on these problems. You spend $1 on
Head Start and WIC, you save $3 down the
road in problems kids are going to have. If you
spend $1 on childhood immunizations, you save
$10 down the road in preventable childhood
diseases. You tell me how we can defend having
the finest pharmaceutical companies in the
world in this country, still the richest on Earth,
and yet, only Haiti and Bolivia have lower childhood immunization rates in this hemisphere
than the United States. It's inexcusable, and
we're going to change it. We can do better.
Education works. And I intend to follow
through on my pledge to make college loans
available to all Americans based on their ability
to repay when they take a job and giving a
huge number of Americans the right to earn
their way out of their college loan, either before
or after they go to college, with national service
as police officers or teachers or in community
youth programs. These are the kinds of things
that can turn this country around.
Let me just mention two other things. The
people of our country have elected politicians
for years who have always talked tough about
crime. It's sort of like being for motherhood
and apple pie; you've got to be against crime.
And I don't mean to trivialize this; no one is
for crime. But there are some things, you know,
that work. Drug treatment works. Jobs work.
And there are law enforcement strategies that
work. And unfortunately, most cities don't have
enough money to implement them, because they
require you to put police back in the same communities working with their neighbors. One part
of our plan will put another 100,000 police offi

169




Feb. 21 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


cers on the street in this country over the next
3 to 4 years, and that will make a difference.
There are some things in this plan that will
be especially good for this State, one of which
is full funding of the Ryan White Act to care
for people with AIDS. Another is that we will
spend almost $5 billion over the next 4 years
retraining workers and reinvesting in communities who have been hurt by defense closings.
It's time to stop talking about conversion and
start doing something about it.
Last year the Congress-I have to say something to take up for your congressional delegation here-the United States Congress appropriated $1.7 billion for defense conversion, to
go into communities that have been hurt, to
educate people again who'd lost their jobs, to
give communities incentives to find new kinds
of peacetime investments to build for a better
future. And the administration which preceded
me released zero dollars of that $1.7 billion.
I just talked to my Budget Director, Leon Panetta, who's up in northern California today,
and confirmed that we will shortly release $500
million of that fund, a lot of which will go to
the State of California to put people back to
work.
Today when I leave you, I'm going to northern California, and tomorrow morning there I
will announce a new technology policy. And I
don't want to go through all of it now, but
just let me say this: One of the things that
I'm proudest of about this budget is that we
reinvest more money than we cut in defense
research in domestic research. WVe are trying
to find answers to the profound environmental
difficulties we face today. WVe believe we can
create jobs in saving America's environment and
the global environment. We believe they can
be created in the most sophisticated research
and our most advanced labs that used to worry
about how to find new ways to destroy massive
populations. And we believe we can create them
in the national forests of our country and
throughout the land with reforestation projects
to clean up the air and put people back to
work, and in all manner of ways in between.
I need your support for this program. The
Members of Congress can only be expected to
do what they think the people back home will
stick by them in doing. We've got to cut spending. We've got to increase some taxes. We've
got to invest some in America. We need an
economic program that really recognizes that we


live in a world where the capacity of our people
and their ability to work together, their ability
to learn new things, their ability to have access
to investment capital, and their ability to live
together so that they draw strength from one
another is the critical element in our future.
We cannot continue to go on with the kind
of paralysis and division and just ignoring our
problems that has ripped us for too long.
Nobody wants to talk about half the things
that I tried to deal with in this budget because
they're too painful. But if only you worry about
what's happening today and tomorrow, you
never really look beyond that. And I tell you,
this is a historic moment for us. We have an
inordinately great opportunity to fashion a whole
new future for America if we have the courage
to seize it. But let me say to all of you, I
want to make two points to every one of you
here. And since so many of you here are students here, at least one of these will be preaching to the choir:
Point number one, the President and the
Congress, working with the people of this country, can create a framework of opportunity, but
that is all. Seizing the opportunity depends upon
the individual initiative of people in every community in this country. And making it really
work depends upon decisions made by people
at the grassroots level. You have to make these
things work by taking advantage of them. If
we pass these programs, for goodness sakes,
seize them; make them work. Rededicate yourselves to the proposition that you'll do your part
to solve the problems of your community and
your country.
The second point I plead with you to communicate to the Members of the House and the
Senate is that you understand you can't just
have the sweet parts of this program; you've
got to have the tough parts too. You know, if
you, for example, are feeling pretty good and
you're in a business that's doing pretty well,
it's easy for you to say, "Well, the only thing
I care about is the budget cuts. Just let them
cut the budgets." Or if you're not doing very
well, you might say, "The only thing I care
about is the spending increases and taxing those
rich folks, because I don't have that kind of
money." Or if you're sort of in the middle, you
might say, "I like the budget cuts and the taxes,
but I don't want the spending. I'd just as soon
have the deficit down, and then I wouldn't have
to pay the energy taxes." In other words, every


170




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Feb. 22


one of you, if you look just at your own interests, could find one part of this program that
is not in your interest today.
So we have to ask ourselves the question I
put to the Congress and to you, the American
people, on Wednesday night. You can't just say,
"What's in it for me?" You have to ask, 'What's
in it for us?"
Let me close with just this story. I left my
wife and my daughter at the White House this
morning, and I walked across the lawn to get
on the helicopter to come to the plane to come
out here, and it was snowing and cold. And
I said, boy, am I glad to be in California, when
I got off the plane. But at least it was 20 degrees or 30 or whatever it was this morning.
But a couple of days ago, I got up in the morning in Chillicothe, Ohio, the first capital of the
State of Ohio, and I went running in the city
park with the Mayor. It was 3 degrees, 3. But
all along the road coming in there, there were
hundreds and hundreds of people standing out
there in the dark when I'd come in the night
before in 3-degree temperature, saying, "We
want our country back. We want our country
to work again."
And then I flew to New York and I had
a 50-minute drive to Franklin Roosevelt's home
in Hyde Park, New York, where we went to
a school that was built during the WPA which
is still a functioning school, a beautiful school,
proving that work is better than idleness when
Remarks and a Question-and-Answer
Employees in Mountain View, Califor
February 22, 1993
The President. First of all, I want to thank
you all for the introduction to your wonderful
company. I want to thank Ed and Ken. We
saw them last night with a number of other
of the executives from Silicon Valley, people,
many of them with whom I've worked for a
good length of time, many of whom the Vice
President's known for a long time in connection
with his work on supercomputing and other issues.
We came here today for two reasons, and
since mostly we just want to listen to you, I'll
try to state this briefly. One reason was to pick


you can put people to work. And all along the
way it was 8 degrees, and all along the way
hundreds and hundreds of people along the way
with their signs up. They weren't all friendly,
but-[laughter]-and by the way, that's good,
too. That's another thing we've done: People
are debating these issues now and at least participating. But 9 out of 10, 9 out of 10 of them
were favorable. And there was this incredible
sign standing there in the cold. I mean, 8 degrees; we were in single digits and out there
on the highway. Nobody was going to stopthese people-and in the middle, there was this
one guy on this sign that says, "Do something.
Just do something." [Laughter] Let's do something, and we'll all win.
God bless you, and thank you.
NOTE: The President spoke at 1:25 p.m. at Santa
Monica College. In his remarks, he referred to
Richard Moore, president of the college; David
Roberti, president pro tempore, California State
Senate; Willie Brown, speaker, California State
Assembly; Lt. Gov. Leo McCarthy of California;
March Fong Yu, California secretary of state; Tom
Hayden and Diane Watson, California State senators; Yvonne Burke, former U.S. Representative;
John Garamendi, California insurance commissioner; Terry B. Friedman and Marguerite Archie
Hudson, California State Assembly representatives; and Zev Yaroslavsky, Los Angeles city councilman.
Session With Silicon Graphics
-nia
this setting to announce the implementation of
the technology policy we talked about in the
campaign, as an expression of what we think
the National Government's role is in creating
a partnership with the private sector to generate
more of these kinds of companies, more technological advances to keep the United States always on the cutting edge of change and to try
to make sure we'll be able to create a lot of
good new jobs for the future.
The second reason-can I put that down?
We're not ready yet for this. The second reason
I wanted to come here is, I think the Govern

171




Feb. 22 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


ment ought to work like you do. And before
that can ever happen we have to be able to
get the people, the Congress, and the press,
who have to interpret all this to the people,
to imagine what we're talking about.
I have, for example, the first State government in the country that started a total quality
management program in all the departments of
government, trying to figure out how we could
reinvent the government. And I basically believe
my job as President is to try to adjust America
in good ways so that we can win in the 21st
century, so that we can make change our friend
and not our enemy.
Ed said that you plan your new products
knowing they'll be obsolete within 12 to 18
months, and you want to be able to replace
them. We live in an era of constant change.
And America's biggest problem, if you look at
it through that lens, is that for too many people
change is an enemy, not a friend. I mean, one
reason you're all so happy is you found a way
to make change your friend, right? Diversity
is a strength, not a source of division, right?
Change is a way to make money, not throw
people out of work, right?
If you decentralize and push decisions made
down to the lowest possible level, you enable
every employee to live up to the fullest of their
ability. By giving them a 6-week break every
4 years, you don't force them to make these
sharp divisions between your work life and your
private life. It's sort of a seamless web. These
are things we need to learn in America and
we need to incorporate even into more traditional workplaces.
So I'd like to start-we'll talk about the technology policy later, and the Vice President, who
had done so much work, will talk a lot about
the details at the end of this meeting. But I
just want to start by telling you that one of
our missions-in order to make this whole thing
work we're going to have to make the Government work differently.
Example: We cut the White House staff by
25 percent to set a standard for cutting inessential spending in the Government. But the work
load of the White House is way up. We're getting all-time record telephone calls and letters
coming in, and we have to serve our customers,
too. Our customers are the people that put us
there, and if they have to wait 3 months for
an answer to a letter, that's not service.
But when we took office, I walked into the


Oval Office-it's supposed to be the nerve center of the United States-and we found Jimmy
Carter's telephone system. [Laughter] All right.
No speaker phone, no conference calls, but anybody in the office could punch the lighted button and listen to the President talk, so that
I could have the conference call I didn't want
but not the one I did. [Laughter]
Then we went down into the basement where
we found Lyndon Johnson's switchboard[laughter]-true story-where there were four
operators working from early morning till late
at night. Literally, when a phone would come
and they'd say, "I want to talk to the Vice President's office," they would pick up a little cord
and push it into a little hole. [Laughter] That's
today, right?
We found procedures that were so bureaucratic and cumbersome for procurement that
Einstein couldn't figure them out. And all the
offices were organized in little closed boxes, just
the opposite of what you see.
In our campaign, however, we ran an organization in the Presidential campaign that was very
much like this. Most decisions were made in
a great big room in morning meetings that we
had our senior staff in, but any 20-year-old volunteer who had a good idea could walk right
in and say, "Here's my idea." Some of them
were very good, and we incorporated them.
And we had a man named Ellis Mottur who
helped us to put together our technology policy.
He was one of our senior citizens; he was in
his fifties. And he said, "I've been writing about
high-performance work organizations all my life.
And this is the first one I've ever worked in,
and it has no organizational chart. I can't figure
out what it looks like on paper, but it works."
The Vice President was making fun of me
when we were getting ready for the speech I
gave Wednesday night to the Congress; it was
like making sausage. People were running in
and out saying, "Put this in, and take this out."
[Laughter] But it worked. You know, it worked.
So I want to hear from you, but I want you
to know that we have hired a person at the
Office of Management and Budget who has
done a lot of work in creating new businesses
and turning businesses around, to run the management part of that. We're trying to review
all these indictments that have been issued over
the last several years about the way the Federal
Government is run. But I want you to know
that I think a major part of my mission is to


172




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Feb. 22


literally change the way the National Government works, spends your tax dollars, so that
we can invest more and consume less and look
toward the future. And that literally will require
rethinking everything about the way the Government operates.
The Government operates so much to keep
bad things from happening that there's very little energy left in some places to make good
things happen. If you spend all your time trying
to make sure nothing bad happens, there's very
little time and money and human energy left
to make good things happen. We're going to
try to pare away a lot of that bureaucracy and
speed up the decisionmaking process and modernize it. And I know a lot of you can help.
Technology is a part of that, but so is organization and empowerment, which is something
you've taught us again today. And I thank you
very much.
We want to do a question and answer now,
and then the Vice President is going to talk
in more detail about our technology policy later.
But that's what we and Ed agreed to do. He's
my boss today; I'm doing what he -[laughter].
So I wonder if any of you have a question you
want to ask us or a comment you want to make.
Yes, go ahead.
Export Control Policy
Q. Now that Silicon Graphics has entered the
supercomputer arena, supercomputers are subject to very stringent and costly export controls.
Is part of your agenda to review the export
control system, and can industry count on export
regulations that will keep pace with technology
advances in our changing world?
The Vice President. Let me start off on that.
As you may know, the President appointed as
the Deputy Secretary of Commerce John
Rollwagen, who was the CEO at Cray. And he
and Ron Brown, the Secretary of Commerce,
have been reviewing a lot of procedures for
stimulating U.S. exports around the world. And
we're going to be a very export-oriented administration. However, we are also going to keep
a close eye on the legitimate concerns that have
in the past limited the free export of some technologies that can make a dramatic difference
in the ability of a Qadhafi or a Saddam Hussein
to develop nuclear weapons or ICBM's.
Now, in some cases in the past, these legitimate concerns have been interpreted and implemented in a way that has frustrated American


business unnecessarily. There are, for example,
some software packages that are available off
the shelf in stores here that are nevertheless
prohibited from being exported. And sometimes
that's a little bit unrealistic. On the other hand,
there are some in business who are understandably so anxious to find new customers that they
will not necessarily pay as much attention as
they should to what the customer might use
this new capacity for. And that's a legitimate
role for Government, to say, hold on, the world
will be a much more dangerous place if we
have 15 or 20 nuclear powers instead of 5 or
6, and if they have ICBM's and so forth.
So it's a balance that has to be struck very
carefully. And we're going to have a tough nonproliferation strategy while we promote more
exports.
The President. If I might just add to that,
the short answer to your question, of course,
is yes, we're going to review this. And let me
give you one example: Ken told me last night
at dinner, he said, "If we export substantially
the same product to the same person, if we
have to get one permit to do it, we'll have
to get a permit every time we want to do the
same thing, over and over again. They always
give it to us, but we have to wait 6 months,
and it puts us behind the competitive arc." Now,
that's something that ought to be changed, and
we'll try to change that.
We also know that some of our export controls, rules and regulations, are a function of
the realities of the cold war which aren't there
anymore. But what the Vice President was trying
to say, and he said so well-I just want to reemphasize-our biggest security problem in the future may well be the proliferation of nuclear
and nonnuclear, like biological and chemical,
weapons of mass destruction to small, by our
standards, countries with militant governments
who may not care what the damage to their
own people could be. So that's something we
have to watch very closely.
But apart from that, we want to move this
much more quickly, and we'll try to slash a
lot of the time delays where we ought to be
doing these things.
Scientific Visualization
Q. Mr. President, Mr. Vice President, you've
seen scientific visualization in practice here. As
a company we're also very interested in ongoing
research in high-performance computing and


173




Feb. 22 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


scientific visualization. Can we expect to see a
change in the national scientific agenda that includes scientific visualization? Right now I don't
see the scientific visualization as being represented, for example, on the FCCSET committee.
The Vice President. It is a good question. One
of the people who flew out here with us for
this event and for the release of the technology
policy in just a few minutes is Dr. Jack Gibbons,
who is in the back of the room, the President's
science adviser and head of the Office of
Science and Technology Policy. And he will be
in charge of the FCCSET process. That's an
acronym that-what does it stand for, Jackthe Federal Coordinating Council on Science
and Engin-what is it?
Jack Gibbons. Federal Coordinating Council
for Science, Engineering, and Technology.
The Vice President. Right. And visualization
will play a key role in the deliberations of the
FCCSET.
We were actually, believe it or not, talking
about this a little bit with Dr. Gibbons on the
way over here. I had hearings one time where
a scientist used sort of technical terms that he
then explained. It made an impression on me.
He said, "If you tried to describe the human
mind in terms applicable to a computer, you'd
say we have a low bit rate but high resolution."
Meaning-this is one of the few audiences I
can use that line with. [Laughter]
But he went on to explain what that means.
When we try to absorb information bit by bit,
we don't have a huge capacity to do it. That's
why the telephone company, after extensive
studies, decided that seven numbers were the
most that we could keep in short-term memory.
And then they added three more. [Laughter]
But if we can see lots of information portrayed
visually in a pattern or mosaic, where each bit
of data relates to all of the others, we can instantly absorb a lot of information. We can all
recognize the Milky Way, for example, even
though there are trillions of points of light, stars,
and so forth.
And so the idea of incorporating visualization
as a key component of this strategy is one that
we recognize as very important, and we're going
to pursue it.
The President. Let me just add one thing to
that. First of all, I told the crowd last night
that the Vice President was the only person
ever to hold national office in America who


knew what the gestalt of the gigabit is. [Laughter] But anyway-and now we're going to get
some very funny articles out of this. They're
going to make fun of us for being policy wonks.
[Laughter]
Let me say something to sort of take this
one step further. This whole visualization movement that you have been a part of in your
line of work is going to merge in a very short
time with the whole business in traditional education theory called applied academics. We're
now finding, with just sort of basic computer
work in the elementary schools of our country,
dramatic differences in learning curves among
people who can see the work they're doing as
opposed to people who are supposed to read
it. And we're now finding that the IQ's of young
people who might take a vocational track in
school may not be all that different from kids
that would stay in a traditional academic track
and wind up at Stanford, but their learning patterns are dramatically different. And there are
some people-this is a huge new discovery, basically, that's coming into the whole business of
traditional educational theory.
So someday what you're doing here will revolutionize the basic teaching in our schools, starting at kindergarten and going forward, so that
the world of work and the world of education
will begin to be merged backwards all the way
to the beginning. And it's going to be, I think,
the most important thing we've ever done and
very important for proving that in a diverse population all people can reach very high levels
of achievement.
Ed McCracken. The President and Vice President have also come here today to present a
new national technology policy for the country.
Do you want toThe President. We'll answer some more questions. I'm going to forego my time and just
let him announce the policy, so we can hear
some more questions. Got to give the man equal
time, I know. [Laughter]
Economic Program
Q. I'd just like to say, I didn't vote for you;
I wish I had. [Laughter]
The President. I hope you feel that way 4
years from now. [Laughter]
9. Well, that's actually why I'm standing up.
I really see a possibility in what you stand for,
and I really think this is why you were elected,
that you say you stand for change. You said


174




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Feb. 22


that during your campaign. I think the company
believed that. They're counting on you-I'm
nervous-and I just want to say we're really,
as a country, behind you. I think that's why
the statistics are saying that we're willing to have
our taxes increased; we're willing to have cuts,
because you say you're really going to do it
this time and decrease the deficit. I hope to
God that you do. We need it not just for this
present time, but by your actually fulfilling on
this it will make a major change in how we
feel about Government; that when Government
says they're going to make a difference and they
really come through, it will make a huge impact
for the future. And I'm really personally behind
you all the way. I wish I'd voted for you.
The President. Thank you. I really appreciate
that. Let me make one comment in response,
if I might. I think it's important, and you can
help others understand this, to understand why
we have to reduce the deficit, which is something that is normally not done when unemployment is high. And unemployment is still too
high. Even though we're in an economic recovery, most of our recovery is due to higher productivity from firms that, in turn, this time are
not hiring new people for all kinds of reasons.
And we have to reduce the deficit for two
reasons: Number one, we're already spending
15 percent of your tax money just to pay interest
on past debt. If we don't change present patterns, we'll be over 20 cents by the year 2000.
That's money we should be spending on education and technology in the future.
Number two, the more money we take out
of the pool of funds for borrowing, the more
expensive it is for companies like this and other
companies that have to go into the markets and
borrow to borrow. Just since the election, since
we made it clear we were going to try to bring
the deficit down, long-term interest rates have
dropped seven-tenths of one percent. That is
a huge savings for everybody that is going to
borrow money or that has a variable interest
rate on a loan, whether it's a home mortgage
or a business loan or a car loan or whatever.
That's important.
The second thing we're trying to do that I
know you will also appreciate is to shift the
balance of the money we do spend more away
from consumption toward investment, investments in education, technology, environmental
cleanup, and converting from a defense to a
domestic economy. One of the bizarre things


that happened to us in the eighties is that we
increased the deficit first through defense expenses and then through exploding health care
costs and increasing interest payments. But we
reduced our investments in the future and the
things that make us richer.
So those are the changes we're trying to effect. Let me just make one other point. I will
not support raising anybody's taxes unless budget cuts also pass.
Foreign Trade
Q. One of the things that Silicon Graphics
has been really successful in is selling into the
international markets. Approximately 50 percent
of our revenues come internationally, including
a substantial market in Japan. What types of
programs does your administration plan to help
the high-growth companies of the nineties sell
to the international markets?
The President. Two things. First of all, we
intend to try to open new markets and new
markets in our region. That is, to keep America
growing, I believe high-growth companies are
going to have to sell south of the border more.
And to do that we have to negotiate trade agreements that will help to raise incomes in those
countries even as we are growing. That's why
I support, with some extra agreements, the
NAFTA agreement and why I hope we can have
an agreement with Chile and hope we can have
an agreement with other countries like Argentina that are making a serious effort to build
market economies: because we want to build
new markets for all of you.
With Japan, I think what we have to do is
to try to continue to help more companies figure
out how to do business there and keep pushing
them to open their markets. I don't want to
close American markets to Japanese products,
but it is the only nation with which we have
a persistent and unchanging structural deficit.
The product deficit with Japan is not $43 billion,
which is our overall trade deficit, it is actually
about $60 billion in product, in manufactured
production. So we've got a lot of problems we
have to work out there.
With Europe, we sometimes are in surplus;
we're sometimes in deficit. But it's a floating
thing, so it's more or less in balance. With developing nations like Taiwan and Korea, those
countries had big surpluses with us, but as they
became richer they brought them down, so that
we're more or less in balance. We have our


175




Feb. 22 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


biggest trade relationship with Canada, and
we're more or less in balance.
So we have to work on this Japanese issue
while trying to help more of you get involved.
Let me make one final comment on that. I
think we should devote more Government resources to helping small and medium-size companies figure out how to trade, because that's
what the Germans do with such great success
and why they're one of the great exporters of
the world. They don't waste a lot of money
on the real big companies that have already
figured it out, but they have extra efforts for
small and medium-size companies to get them
to think global from the beginning of their endeavors. And I think we're going to have to
do more of that.
The Environment
Q. In addition to concerns about the economy, Silicon Graphics employees are also concerned about the environment. Your economic
plan does a great job of promoting R&D investment. Are there any elements that are specifically targeted to promote the application of Silicon Graphics technology to environmentalfriendly initiatives such as the electric car or
the mag-lev train?
The President. I think I should let the Vice
President answer that since it's his consuming
passion. And if I do it, his book sales will go
up again. [Laughter]
We devoted a lot of time and attention to
that for two reasons. One is the environment
needs it. Secondly, we think it's wonderful economics, because I believe that all these environmental opportunities that are out there for us
represent a major chunk of what people who
used to be involved in defense technologies
could be doing in the future if we're going to
maintain a high wage base in America.
So I'd like for the Vice President to talk a
little about the specifics that we're working on.
The Vice President. That goal is integrated
into the technology plan as one of our key objectives. The Japanese and the Germans are now
openly saying that the biggest new market in
the history of world business is the market for
the new products, technologies, and processes
that foster economic progress without environmental destruction.
Some have compared the drive for environmental efficiency to the movement for quality
control and the quality revolution in the sixties


and seventies. At that time, you know, many
companies in the United States felt that the
existing level of product quality was more or
less ordained by the forces of supply and demand and it couldn't be improved without taking it out of the bottom line. But the Japanese,
taking U.S. innovations from Dr. Deming and
others, began to introduce a new theory of product quality and simultaneously improved quality,
profits, wages, and productivity.
The environmental challenge now presents us
with the same opportunity. By introducing new
attention to environmental efficiency at every
step along the way, we can simultaneously reduce the impact of all our processes on the
environment, improve environmental efficiency,
and improve productivity at the same time. We
need to set clear, specific goals in the technology policy, in the economic plan.
And you know, both the stimulus package and
the investment package focus a great deal on
environmental cleanup and environmental innovation. And whereas we've talked a lot about
roads and bridges in the past, and they're a
big part of this plan also, we're putting relatively
more emphasis as well on water lines and sewer
lines and water treatment plants and renovating
the facilities in the national parks and cleaning
up trails, taking kids from inner cities and putting them to work cleaning up trails in national
parks, for example, as part of the summer jobs
program.
So you'll find when you look at both the technology plan and the economic plan an enormous
emphasis on the environment.
The President. Go ahead, sir. They say we
have to quit in a minute. I'll take one more
question after this.
The Economy
Q. Mr. President, Mr. Vice President, the
news stories and articles that the public has
access to regarding the budget and the economy
are very often confusing and contradictory. I
might explain it in the same terms that you
used: The information is delivered low bit rate,
but the problem is huge and requires the highres view. So my question is: I wonder if you're
using Lyndon Johnson's computer to analyze the
budget and the economy, or whether or not
you might be open to using some of the things
you've seen here to get the bigger picture and
also communicate that to us?
The President. Thank you. There are two


176




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Feb. 22


things I'd like to respond to on that, and I'd
like to invite you to help. [Laughter] I'd like
to invite you to help, and I'd like to invite you
to help on two grounds: One is the simple
ground of helping to decide which visual images
best capture the reality of where we are and
where we're going.
Senator Moynihan and I went to Franklin
Roosevelt's home in Hyde Park, New York, just
a couple of days ago. You may have seen the
press on it. And on the way back he said to
me that the challenges that we face are different
from those that Roosevelt faced but just as profound. Unemployment was higher and America
was more devastated when he took office, he
said, but everybody knew what the problem was.
Therefore, he had a lot of leeway working with
the Congress in the beginning to work toward
a solution. Now, he said, we are facing severe
challenges to a century of economic leadership,
and it's not clear to every American exactly what
the dimensions of the problem are. The capacity
you have to help me help the American people
conceptualize this is quite significant: showing
the trends in the deficit, showing the trends
in the investment, showing how the money is
spent now and how we propose to spend it.
The second big problem we have you can
see if you look at the front page of USA Today
today, which shows a traditional analysis, yesterday's analysis-of the business section-of the
economic program. It basically says, "Oh, it will
bring unemployment down a little and it will
increase economic growth a little if we do this,
but not all that much." Now, why is that? That's
because traditional economic analysis says that
the only way the Government can ever help
the economy grow is by spending more money
and taxing less. In other words, traditional
Keynesian economics: Run a bigger deficit. But
we can't do that. The deficit's already so big,
I can't run the risk to the long-term stability
of this country by going in and doing that.
This analysis doesn't really make a distinction
between investment and consumption, doesn't
take any account of what we might do with
a technology policy or a trade policy to make
the economy grow faster, has no way of factoring in what other good things could happen
in the private market if you brought long-term
interest rates down through the deficit. So you
could also help us to reconceptualize this. A
lot of the models that dominate policymaking
are yesterday's models, too.


I'll give you just one example. The Japanese
had a deficit about as big as ours, and they
were increasing spending at 19 percent a year,
government spending, back in the early seventies when the oil prices went way up and they
were more energy-dependent than we were on
foreign oil. And they just decided they had to
change it, but they couldn't stop investing. So
they had a budget which drew a big distinction,
a literal distinction, legal distinction, between
investment and consumption, and they embarked on a 10 or 11 year effort to bring the
budget into balance. And during that time they
increased investment and lowered unemployment and increased growth through the right
kind of spending and investment.
And I want to lead in, if I might, and ask
the Vice President before we go to give you
some of the specifics of this technology policy,
by making one more pitch to you about this
whole economic plan. This plan has 150 specific
budget cuts. And I'm welcome to more. I told
the Republican leadership if they had more
budget cuts that didn't compromise our economy, if they helped us, I would be glad to
embrace them. I'm not hung up about that.
But I did pretty good in 4 weeks to find 150,
and I'll try to find some more on my own.
It also has the revenue increases that you
know about. It also has some spending increases,
and there will be debate about that. There will
be people who say, "'Well, just don't spend this
new money. Don't immunize all the kids. Don't
fully fund Head Start. Don't pay for this technology policy. Don't invest in all these environmental cleanup things, and that way you won't
have to raise taxes so much."
The problem is, if you look at the historic
spending trends, we are too low on investment
and too high on the deficit, and both are problems. And secondly, we've got to have some
of these economic cooperations in order to move
the economy forward.
So I want you to listen to what the Vice
President says in that context. Because what you
will hear is, we don't need to do what we think
we should do in this area. If we don't, I think
we'll be out of competition. People like you
will do fine because you've got a good company
here, but the country as a whole will fall behind.
And you can help on both those points.
So would you proceed?


177




Feb. 22 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


NOTE: The President spoke at 10 a.m. at Silicon
Graphics. In his remarks, he referred to company
officers Ed McCracken, founder and president,
and Ken Coleman, senior vice president.
At the conclusion of the question-and-answer
session, the Vice President made the following
statement on the new technology policy:
I want to give you just a few of the details of
this technology policy. There will be a printed
copy available, and you will be able to see for
yourself all of the goals and all of the elements
of it.
But I want to start by describing how it fits
into the President's economic plan. You know,
some of the special interests who oppose the
President's plan are saying to the American people, "Don't pass this plan because everything's
fine just the way it is." Well, anybody who says
everything's fine with our economy hasn't been
to California lately. We need some change. WVe
can't stand the status quo.
California has to participate in the recovery in
order for America to have a recovery that is worth
the name "recovery," so that we can start creating
new jobs. And many of the high-skill, high-wage
jobs of the future are in technology areas. And
that's why a key component of the President's economic plan is the technology policy that we're announcing here today.
It starts with an appreciation of the importance
of continuing basic R&D because that's the foundation for all of the exciting products that this
company and others like this company come up
with. It continues with an emphasis on improving
education because in order for companies like this
one to survive and prosper in the world economy,
we as a nation have to have highly educated, welltrained young men and women coming out of colleges on to campuses like this. You call it a campus, right? That's the term that's very common
now.
We also have to pay attention to the financial
environment in which companies like this have
to exist. In order for this company to attract investors for the kind of products that you are building
here, you have got to be able to tell them that
the interest rates are not going to be too high
if they're borrowing money to invest; you've got
to be able to tell them, look, President Clinton
is making permanent the R&E tax credit, for example, and there are going to be specific new provisions in the law to encourage investment in high

risk ventures that are very common in the hightechnology area.
And then this plan makes specific investments
in something called the national information infrastructure. Now, infrastructure is a five-dollar word
that used to describe roads, bridges, water lines,
and sewer lines. But if we're going to compete
in the 21st century, we have to invest in a new
kind of infrastructure.
During the Industrial Revolution, the nations
that competed most successfully were often ones
that did the best job of building deep-water ports,
those that did the best job of putting in good railway systems to carry the coal and the products
to the major centers where they were going to
be sold and consumed. But now we are seeing
a change in the definition of commerce. Technology plays a much more important role. Information plays a much more important role. And
one of the things that this plan calls for is the
rapid completion of a nationwide network of information super-highways so that the kind of demonstrations that we saw upstairs will be accessible
in everybody's home. We want to make it possible
for a school child to come home after class and,
instead of just playing Nintendo, to plug into a
digital library that has color moving graphics that
respond interactively to that child's curiosity.
Now, that's not the only reason to have such
a network or a national information infrastructure.
Think about the importance of software. If we
could make it possible for talented young software
writers here in Silicon Valley and elsewhere in
the United States to sell their latest product by
downloading it from their desk into a nationwide
network that represented a marketplace with an
outlet right there in that person's home or business, we would make it possible for the men and
women who are interested in technology jobs here
in the United States to really thrive and prosper.
In keeping with one of the questions that was
asked earlier about how we can export more into
the world marketplace and how we can be more
successful in world competition, one way is by
making our own domestic market the most challenging, most exciting, with the most exacting
standards and levels of quality of any nation in
the world. And then we will naturally roll out of
our domestic marketplace into the world marketplace and compete successfully with our counterparts everywhere in the world.
Now, there are some other specific elements
of this package which you can read for yourself
when you see the formal package. Let me just


178




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Feb. 22


list them very briefly: A permanent extension of
the research and experimentation tax credit; completion of the national information infrastructure;
specific investments in advanced manufacturing
technology. And in response to one of the questions that was asked over here, there is a specific
program on high-speed rail to do the work necessary to lay the foundation for a nationwide network of high-speed rail transportation, and a specific project to work cooperatively with the automobile companies in the United States of America
to facilitate the more rapid development of a new
generation of automobiles that will beat all the
world standards and position our automobile industry to dominate the automobile industry of the
future in the world.
We also have a specific goal to apply technology
to education and training. Dr. Gibbons and others
have given a tremendous amount of thought to
this because, after all of the dashed hopes and
false expectations for computers in schools, ironically, we now have a new generation of educational hardware and software that really can
make a revolutionary difference in the classroom,
and it's time to use it.
And we are going to save billions of dollars each
year part way through this decade with the full
implementation of environmental technologies
and energy efficiency technologies, starting with
Federal buildings. We're going to save a billion
dollars a year in 1997 just in the energy costs of


Federal buildings around the United States by
using off-the-shelf technology that has a 4-year
payback on the investment. And then we're going
to encourage the use of those technologies around
the country, and we're going to invest in the more
rapid creation of new generations of that technology.
Now, the other details of this technology program will be available in the handout that's going
to be passed out here. And any of you who have
ideas on how we can improve it and make better
use of technology, we invite you to contact us and
let us know how we can improve this program
as we go along.
But one final word: The President's economic
program is based, as he said, on cutting spending;
reducing the deficit over time, including with
some revenue increases that are progressive and
fair; and also investing in those things which we
know will create good, high-wage, high-skill jobs
here in the United States. You all are pioneers
in a sense, showing how that can be accomplished.
We want to make it easier for working men and
women throughout this country and other companies to follow your example and to create more
jobs in high technology. And that is the focus of
this technology policy, which is part of the overall
plan to create more jobs for the American people
and get our economy moving again.
The Office of the Press Secretary also released
a summary of the technology initiative.


Remarks in a Telephone Conversation With Larry Villella
February 22, 1993


The President. Larry, it's President Clinton.
How are you?
Larry. Great. Nice to talk to you.
The President. It's nice to hear your voice.
I just heard about you sending me this $1,000
check on CBS Radio. We just heard it over
the radio this morning, and I really appreciate
it.
Larry. Okay. I hope that you can use it towards the economy.
The President. Well, I think we can. One of
the things that I've asked our staff to do, since
citizens are not in the habit of sending money
like this, is to see whether we can legally receive
it and spend it just the way you want. And


I'm going to also see whether or not your suggestion can be carried out in terms of involving
other people doing the same thing you did.
But I think it's a remarkable thing for a 14 -year-old young American to do. And it's very
impressive that you have a business that's so
successful that you can afford to do this.
How long have you been doing that?
Larry. I've been doing it for 3 years now.
The President. And do you do it year-round?
Larry. It's pretty much year-round, except
during the wintertime we have a few less sales
of the sprinkler.
The President. And what's your annualwhat's your sales, your volume of sales? How


179




Feb. 22 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


much do you sell every year?
Larry. Well, so far we've sold 3,000, and it's
been divided between the 3 years since I'm
just starting out.
The President. I think that's pretty good.
Larry. Thank you.
The President. Pretty impressive. What do you
want to do when you get out of high school?
Larry. I want to go to college and then medical school.
The President. Do you want to be a doctor?
Larry. I'm hoping to be a cardiologist.
The President. That's great. Well, by the time
you can get out of medical school and be a
cardiologist the American people will be living
much longer, but they'll all be worried about
their hearts. There will be a big demand for
what you do.
Larry. I hope so.
The President. Well, I certainly hope that I


get to meet you sometime. And I'm really, really
impressed that you did this. I think you're really
a symbol of what's best in this country, and
I'm proud of you, and I thank you for doing
this. And I'm going to be back in touch with
you about exactly what we can do with your
money and whether we can adopt your suggestion.
Larry. Okay. Thank you. I'd really like to
meet you, too.
The President. That's great. Tell your family
hello, and you have a good day, okay?
Larry. Okay. Thank you.
The President. Bye-bye.
Larry. Bye.
NOTE: The President spoke at 12:52 p.m. aboard
Air Force One while he was en route to Everett,
WA.


Remarks to Boeing Employees in Everett, Washington
February 22, 1993


Thank you very much, Chairman Shrontz,
Speaker Foley, Senator Murray, Governor Lowrey, and Member of the congressional delegation, and most of all to the men and women
of Boeing. I have looked forward to coming
here for a long time. And I guess what I ought
to begin by saying is, thank you for Air Force
One.
You know, everywhere I go in that airplane,
I am the second most important celebrity. People really just want to see the plane. [Laughter]
And I know I can make all my friends and
supporters happy, even my mother, just by taking them on the plane and letting them look
at your magnificent work.
You should also know that it enables me on
these flights across the country and going across
the world to continue to work with a full staff
almost as if I had never left the office. And
it is a real tribute to all of you, and a magnificent set of planes-you know, there are two
of them. I know a lot of you made them both,
so you know that. But I'm grateful to you for
that.
I also think you may know, but I should say
that after this meeting with you, I'm going to
go to another room and meet with a lot of


folks who have come here to meet with me
and with our national leaders about the health
of the airline industry, about the commercial
airline companies themselves, and about the airline manufacturers, the chief of which obviously
is Boeing, but including other companies as
well. So when I leave you, I'm going to go
and meet with them for about an hour to talk
about where we're going from here.
I want to begin by saying that there's an interesting book, which has been written by a very
famous economics writer named Lester Thurow
called "Head to Head." And Thurow's argument
in this book is-it affects your lives, so I'm going
to tell you about it-his argument is that there
may be a limited number of highway jobs available over the next 20 years, and that seven
major technologies will provide most of the
growth in those jobs, a lot of them are, as you
might suspect, in the computer and electronics
field.
I was just down in Silicon Valley before I
came here at a magnificent little company
named Silicon Graphics that does some work
for you, to talk about a technology policy to
accelerate the growth in areas where we're
doing well. But one of those seven areas is aero

180




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Feb. 22


nautics and the manufacturer of airplanes and
in the provision of airline services to commercial
travelers.
It is indeed ironic that the United States
which, for so long has led the world in the
production of airplanes and in the development
of sophisticated consumer-oriented services
through commercial carriers, has had 3 years
in which more money has been lost than was
made in the previous history of the airline industry. And I can tell you from my study, very
little of that is your fault. A lot of it has to
do with the fact that other nations follow targeted strategies of partnerships to pierce markets which you had dominated under a free
market system but with which you could not
compete in Europe's subsidized airbus to the
tune of $26 billion, for example.
I want to talk to you today about the whole
economic plan, the tough parts as well as the
good parts. But I want you to know that one
big part of my economic strategy is to try to
identify all those areas that can really provide
high-wage, high-growth futures for Americans
and their families and make sure that we are
there, competing and winning, that people have
a chance to work and make a living. And we
can't begin by giving up on the production of
aircraft, which is what we have come dangerously close to doing by sitting by and letting
our competitors do things that we did not do
to meet the competition. And I believe we can
do better. I hope this meeting today is the first
step in that regard.
I also want to say a special word of appreciation to the Speaker and to the leaders of Congress. In the next few days, the Congress will
produce a bill establishing a national commission
on the condition of the airlines industries in
America; one that will require the House and
the Senate to appoint five members each and
the President to appoint five members; and unlike a lot of commissions, will require them to
report back within 90 days with a tight time
table with a specific set of recommendations
to take to the country to preserve and promote
the economic health of the industry that you've
done so much to make the world's best.
The second thing I want to say is that my
trade ambassador, Mickey Kantor, will be closely
monitoring the agreement which was made finally last year with regard to limiting European
subsidies to airbus to allow a level playing field.
We'll be seeking tough new discipline on those


subsidies, both in our attempts to get an agreement on the general agreement on trade, as
well as the specific aircraft code.
You know, I've seen these agreements made
for years. I've seen people promise us they'd
do this, that, and the other thing, and then
nothing ever happens. And I think you and I
know deep in our heart that most of these layoffs-maybe not all, because the airline industry
itself has problems which are bleeding back on
to you, the commercial carriers-but a lot of
these layoffs would not have been announced
had it not been for the $26 billion that the
United States sat by and let Europe plow into
airbus over the last several years. So we're going
to try to change the rules of the game.
I can't promise you overnight miracles. We
didn't get into this fix overnight. But I can say
that we have to turn the direction of this country around, and we need a commitment, not
to shield ourselves from competition but to reward ourselves when we fairly compete and win.
We need a commitment to meet the competition around the world in a global economy in
which the things that really pay off are high
levels of education and skills, high levels of investment in appropriate technologies, a very
close amount of cooperation within each workplace among workers and between workers and
management, and in the national sense between
Government and business and labor. The countries which do that win; those which don't are
punished. And we can no longer afford to wait
for 10 years while someone does something to
us that we do not respond to. And I want to
turn that around, not with overnight miracles
but with a disciplined approach to put the
American people and their economic future first
in the policymaking of the United States Government. It's your country, and I'm doing my
best to give it back to you.
I ask each of you to express to your Congressmen and your Senators support for the national
economic plan which I announced to the Congress on last Wednesday. It is a plan which
seeks to do two things that we've never done
in the history of America before at the same
time. It seeks to reduce this awful Government
debt and to increase investment in our future
at the same time. And it's hard to cut your
debts and increase your investment at the same
time. It's hard if you're Boeing. It's hard if
you're the United States Government.
But we have no choice, because in the last


181




Feb. 22 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


12 years, we have quadrupled the debt of the
Government, which means we're spending 15
cents of every dollar you give us in taxes right
now just paying interest on yesterday's debt, 15
cents of every dollar you pay in taxes that we
can't put into an investment incentive for an
airline company, for an education for your children, for better health care for America.
It also means we're taking so much money
out of the pool of money available that if Boeing
or a small business or somebody wanting to buy
a car or a home has to borrow money, their
interest rates are higher than they otherwise
would be. So we've got to bring the debt down,
but we also have to look over the last 12 years.
Your country has reduced its investment while
our competitors have increased their investments
in critical areas of education and training and
new technologies and in building the kinds of
things that put people to work and make a country rich. So to do it, we have to cut spending,
raise some more tax money, and target some
new investments, not in consuming things but
in things that will build jobs and incomes in
the years ahead.
I have offered the Congress in good faith
an honest spending cut program with 150 specific reductions in spending cuts, including a
25 percent cut in my own staff, the biggest,
as far as I can tell, in the history of the Republic, certainly in the 20th century, and a $9 billion
cut in the administrative costs to the Federal
Government, and asking the Federal employees
who work for you to have a pay freeze this
year and to have their pay go up at less than
the rate of inflation for the next 3 years, which
will save that much again. We are cutting spending where we can.
I have also made it clear that I don't want
to raise one penny of tax dollars until I know
those cuts are in effect. We shouldn't raise
money until we cut spending. We should do
them together.
Seventy percent of the burden of this tax program will fall on people whose taxable income,
not net income, taxable income is above
$100,000. But some of it will fall on people
with incomes of between $30,000 and $100,000,
and I want to level with you about that. For
years there have been those who say we ought
to reduce the deficit by raising the gas tax a
whole lot. That's fine if you live in the city
and ride mass transit to work. It's not so good
if you live in the country and drive yourself


to work. There are a lot of working people in
America today that have no access to mass transit and can't carpool; so I rejected a big gas
tax.
Then there were people who said, "Well, the
best thing to do environmentally is to tax carbon." That's a funny way of saying coal. The
problem with that is, there's a lot of people
just like you in Pennsylvania and West Virginia
and places like that who make their livings in
and around the coal mines. And it didn't seem
fair to me to put such a burden on them that
they would be in trouble.
So we decided to pick what seems to be the
environmentally best thing that doesn't hurt so
many people, and that is a tax on the energy
capacity of all forms of fuel, of gas and oil
and coal, called a BTU tax, which amounts to
about 2 cents on a gallon of gasoline, and will
cost the average family with an income of
$50,000 about 15 bucks a month at the outside
if they have a family of four and drive a lot.
And I think that is a fair way to go.
I didn't want to even do that, but after the
election I was told that the Government deficit
was going to be about $50 billion a year bigger
than we had been told before the election. And
so my choice was not to ask for an additional
contribution from the middle class, let the deficit get out of hand, and have your interest rates
go up, or try to deal with this debt and try
to face the fact that we need to invest some
more money too. I hope you'll support that.
But I also hope you will support spending
some more money in the areas that will create
jobs. And let me just mention two or three.
This plan contains tax incentives to business and
direct investments in things like roads and environmental cleanup and airport construction that
will create a half a million jobs in the next
year and a half. This plan contains $8 billion
in new investments in aeronautics, in technology, in research and development, the development of new products over the next 5 years.
It contains a major new general technology initiative that the Vice President and I announced
today in Silicon Valley to create high-wage jobs.
It contains $9 billion in new investments in
high-tech products all across the Government,
including the attempt to develop an environmentally clean car and new high speed rail technology that could dramatically alter the economics of living on the Pacific Rim of our country.
It contains new incentives to businesses to cre

182




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Feb. 22


ate jobs and especially to small business.
Let me tell you that all the big companies
in the country together reduced jobs all during
the 1980's, but little companies created more
jobs than big companies lost until about 2 years
ago when the cost of health care, the unavailability of credit, and the decline of the economy
stopped small business in its tracks. So we have
to not only help big manufacturing operations;
we've got to have a climate where people can
start small businesses and keep them going. Because we know that even if we do very well
in the aerospace industry, for example, there
will be other very big companies that will have
to downsize and restructure. And we've got to
do something for small business to try to help
them to go and to grow.
These things are very important. And let me
say one other thing that affects Boeing, at least
a little bit, and that is we propose to put a
lot more money into the space program, but
to restructure it so that we not only have a
space station but we also have a lot of new
investments in other kinds of aeronautics research that will generate even more jobs in
America in the years ahead. And we've proposed
to spend more money on domestic research and
development than we reduce in defense research and development.
These are the things that made your company
great, and these are the kinds of things that
will make America great again. And so I ask
you to support not just the spending cuts, the
revenue increases, and the deficit reduction but
also these very targeted investments in our future.
I also ask you to support immunizing every
child before the age of 2 in America, for a
change, Head Start for the kids that need it,
and making college loans available to all middle
class, as well as low-income people, and letting
them pay those loans off as a percentage of
their income.
Now, a lot of people will say-there's a lot
of ways you can debate this-a lot of people
will say, I didn't cut spending enough. To them,
I say give me more spending cuts. I've just
been there 4 weeks, and I'm sure there are
more, and I'll find more. Then there will be
those that say we cut too much. Some will say
we didn't raise enough money. Some will say
we've raised too much. And then some will say
you shouldn't spend any new money.


But remember what I said: A country now
is like a big company in the global economy.
If you don't invest in the right things, you don't
grow. So we not only have to reduce this deficit;
we've got to turn our spending priorities on
their head. We've got to invest more and
consume less so the country can grow, just like
you want this company to grow.
I believe with all my heart that the years
ahead can still be the best years this country
ever had. But you know what you're going
through now. Just look at it. We are living in
a world where change is the law of life, where
the average 18-year-old will change work eight
times in a lifetime. And we will be judged harshly by our children if we permit the kinds of
things to go on that are happening today, which
make change our enemy and not our friend.
My whole goal in this economic program is
to try to change the priorities of this country
so people can pursue what the Founding Fathers wanted, life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, by making change our friend. I can't promise you and no politician can, to repeal the laws
of global competition. I can't promise you that
you won't have to work not only harder but
smarter than ever before. Nobody can do that.
But I think you know that your Government
has been inadequate to the task of preparing
you to win if you play by the rules, if you
do your part, if you're highly productive. That's
my job. That's what this plan's designed to do.
I hope you will support it. I think it will secure
the American dream for you and your children.
Thank you very much, and God bless you
all.
[At this point, the President was presented with
a gift.]
Thank you.
I want to say two things. First of all, it was
very diplomatic of you not to give me a bigger
shirt than you gave Vice President Gore.
[Laughter] And secondly, I don't think anyone
who sees me running in this will really believe
I'm about to fly. [Laughter] But I will wear
it and enjoy it every day.
Thank you very much.
NOTE: The President spoke at 2:02 p.m. in Hangar
40-23 at Boeing. In his remarks, he referred to
Frank Shrontz, company president and chief executive officer.


183




Feb. 22 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


Remarks Following a Meeting With Airline Industry Leaders and an
Exchange With Reporters in Everett
February 22, 1993


The President. I would like to thank Frank
Shrontz and the good people at Boeing for
hosting representatives of the major airline companies in the United States, as well as manufacturers of airplanes and airplane engines, along
with the Secretary of Transportation, the Speaker of the House, and the distinguished Members
of the Washington congressional delegation
along with the Governor of this State.
We have had a very good meeting about the
problems of the manufacturers of airlines and
the airline companies themselves, airplanes and
airline companies. We talked a lot about the
proposal now in the Congress, which is soon
to be passed, to create a national commission
to ensure a strong, competitive airline industry.
That commission will require five appointments
from the House, five appointments from the
Senate, and five appointments from the President. I assured the representatives here, as did
the Speaker, that we had no desire other than
to find the 15 best people in America immediately to work on this issue, without regard
to party or region. We just want to work together to appoint people who will come back
within 90 days and give us some concrete suggestions to revitalize this very important part
of our economic future.
I thought it was a terrific meeting. We went
around the table. Everyone who was at the
meeting made a very constructive set of comments about what they thought we ought to
do. And I look forward to the legislation passing,
to signing it, and to immediately making the
appointments and to going to work.
Q. What do you think, Mr. President, that
will mean for the worker who is laid off here?
What will be the directThe President. Well, if we do a good job,
we'll be able to find more business and bring
some of them back to work. That's what we
want to do.
I'd like to ask the Speaker and the Secretary
and Mr. Shrontz and anybody else who is here
who wants to make a comment to make some
comments, and then we'll answer a couple of
more questions.
[At this point, Speaker of the House of Rep

resentatives Thomas S. Foley, Secretary of
Transportation Federico Pena, and Frank
Shrontz, president and CEO, Boeing Co., made
brief remarks.]
Q. Mr. President-[inaudible]
The President. If you guys would talk, I
wouldn't have to answer so many questions.
[Laughter]
Bosnia
Q. Mr. President, are we going to airdrop
supplies in to the besieged people in Bosnia?
The President. It's a possibility. I want to wait
a couple of more days before I announce a
policy on it.
Economic Program
Q. Mr. President, you said in your speech
that you wanted spending cuts first and then
invest in programs you call investments. Given
that your spokespeople had said you're going
to pass an authorization for short-term stimulus
spending and that the rest of the package has
come down the line, and given that most of
the spending comes in the early years and the
taxes would come in the out-years, in what sense
do you want the spending cuts first?
The President. Well, I want an omnibus program passed which has all the spending cuts
mandated along with the tax increases. I don't
want to raise taxes and then sit around waiting
to see whether the spending cuts are going to
be enacted. I think that we ought to pass a
package which includes the spending cuts at the
same time we raise revenues.
Q. Will you still be-to do your new spending
first?
European Airline Subsidies
Q. [Inaudible]-the airbus?
The President. Well, you may know that last
year our Government signed an agreement,
which had the support of the airline industry,
which got a commitment out of Europe to dramatically reduce the subsidies to airbus. What
I seek to do, number one, is to review it as
to its adequacy and, number two, to make sure
it's enforced. But I think we made a huge mis

184




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Feb. 23


take permitting it to happen with no response.
And I hope that it's not too late to have an
appropriate response to maintain our position
in this global marketplace.
U.S. Trade Policy
Q. Do you think you need a tougher trade
policy, in general, Mr. President?
The President. No, not necessarily. I think
we need a different trade policy. Let me say
that the linchpin of our policy still must be
to expand trade. A wealthy country cannot grow
wealthier by hunkering down within its own borders. We have to be a great trading nation,
and we have to help other nations to grow
wealthier in order for them to buy more of
our products. So our goal still has to be to
expand trade.
But we no longer have the luxury, with other
nations having grown so much more rapidly than


we for 20 years, other nations being about as
wealthy as we are-we no longer have the luxury of being the only country in the world that
can ignore certain problems in terms of trade
fairness that other countries don't ignore. We
have to make sure that we are treated in these
market-opening measures with the requisite
amount of fairness. And so I think we may have
a firmer trade policy in some respects than
we've had in the past, but our allies will be
under no illusions. I do not want a protectionist
trade policy; I want to expand trade. But I want
to do it in ways that preserves America as a
high-wage country. Otherwise, we won't be very
good trading partners for a lot of these nations
over the long run.
Thank you very much.
NOTE: The President spoke at 3:57 p.m. in Hangar
40-22 at Boeing.


Remarks to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce National Business Action
Rally
February 23, 1993


Thank you very much. Chairman Gorr, President Lesher, Vice Chairman Marcil, ladies and
gentlemen, I thank you for that warm welcome.
And I welcome you to your Nation's Capital
and to this magnificent old hall.
I was glad to be here early enough to hear
at least some of the Marine Band warming you
up. That should put us all in a better frame
of mind.
I thank you all for your concern for your
country and for the contribution you make every
year and every day to make America work. I
want to say a special word of appreciation for
the people from my native State who even hung
a sign up there so I could find them.
As you know, if you've been following the
news, I have been out on the road discussing
with the American people the economic plan
I have presented to the Congress. Yesterday I
had a particularly amazing day, seeing everything
that is best about our economy and some of
the most profound challenges we face. I began
at an interesting firm called Silicon Graphics
in California's Silicon Valley, where I spent a
goodly amount of time visiting with the employ

ees and watching what they do.
The Vice President and I went there to outline our technology policy. But afterward we
just talked to the employees and listened to
them. I was amazed to see that this company,
as so many others in this country, has really
succeeded in making the changes going on in
our world friendly to the company, its employees, its owners, and its customers, not the
enemy. As I have said so many times across
this country, I think one of my primary jobs
as President now is to try to figure out a way
to make these turning changes in the global
environment our friend and not our enemy.
Silicon Graphics have unleashed the creative
energy of their most talented people. They've
made a strength of the diversity that is so prominent throughout the State of California. They
reduced bureaucracy to make it virtually nonexistent, pushed decisions down to the lowest
level, and succeeded in creating products that
are displaced every 12 to 18 months with their
own products.
Then I flew up to Washington to meet with
the employees at the Boeing Corporation, our


185




Feb. 23 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


Nation's largest exporter, a company that, as you
know, is in some trouble now. It just announced
23,000 layoffs. And after I met with several
thousand of the employees there, I had an hour
private meeting with the heads of all the major
American airplane companies: with Boeing, then
with McDonnell-Douglas, with Pratt-Whitney,
those who manufacture the airplanes and the
component parts that are an important part of
our economy.
They're facing some very tough competition.
They have some structural problems in the market here, and I think have been subjected to
some fairly unfair competition abroad, principally from airbus, a consortium of European
efforts that has benefited from $26 billion in
direct Government subsidies in the last year few
years.
I spent a lot of my adult life dealing with
large organizations in times of challenge and
change. I had the great privilege to be Governor
of my State for a dozen years. And I have acquired an enormous respect for people in the
private sector and what they've had to cope with
in this country over the last 12 to 15 years,
some of you over the last 20 years, as we have
moved inexorably into a very different global
economy.
I came here today to ask for your support
for my economic plan to take this country in
a new direction because I believe it will make
business more competitive and workers more
productive and will help us to deal with some
of the principal problems that we have faced
over the last several years: high levels of unemployment periodically, stagnant wages among
workers, lower levels of overall productivity than
many of our major competitors.
In the news today, there are things which
are good news. We know that in the last quarter,
American productivity jumped to almost a 20 -year high as more and more American businesses have come to grips with the challenges
they face. We know that the housing markets
are beginning to pick up, and that's good news.
We know that in the last 2 months of the last
quarter, consumer confidence took a big jump,
and that's good news.
But we also know that there are still very
serious problems in this economy with creating
new jobs, serious problems with stagnant incomes, and enormous problems that have led
to dampening the growth of new jobs in the
small business sector. The restructuring of big


business, which has been going on now for more
than a decade, led to a reduction in employment
in every year of the 1980's in larger businesses.
But in most of that decade, the reduction in
employment in big business was more than offset by the creation of new jobs in small businesses. In the last couple of years, that trend
has not been able to continue.
There are lots of reasons why. Clearly, the
exploding cost of health care is one. The credit
crunch that exists in much of our country is
another, and we're trying to address that. And
there are many other reasons. But it is plain
that the lack of a clear national economic strategy to deal with our long-term problems has
played a central role.
My goal in this economic program is to follow
a strategy which will, short- and long-term, increase jobs, increase incomes, and increase productivity. That means, in my judgment, we have
to increase investment, both public and private;
we have to do more to educate and train our
people so that they can produce at high levels;
we have to take far better advantage of technology in the world, especially in the commercial sector.
In the 1980's, the most successful industrial
strategy we had was our defense budget which
kept our lead in international defense technologies while we were losing our lead in many
commercial technologies.
We have to have a strategy for preserving
our environment that makes that an engine of
economic growth, not a burden on business and
a drag on the economy. We have to reduce
our inordinate Government deficit. We have to
deal with the health care crisis. And we have
to change the way Government operates and
relates to the private sector in very fundamental
ways.
There has not been a serious reexamination
of the structure, the role, and the function of
the Federal Government in some sort of comprehensive way in a generation. And because
we have guaranteed claim on revenues and guaranteed claim on some customers, we have not
been under the same pressures that many of
you have to undergo, the kind of searching reexamination that the international economy has
imposed on all of you. And I am committed
to doing that.
I ask you before we get into the details to
look at just two things: First of all, if we do
not think to change the fundamental pattern


186




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Feb. 23


of the way your National Government works,
if we just keep on doing what we've been doing
and argue around the edges, the Republicans
winning a little here, the Democrats winning
a little there, everybody chipping around, but
basically we keep on the same course, here is
what will happen. By the end of the decade
the annual deficit will be $653 billion. About
22 cents of every dollar you pay to the United
States Government will go to pay interest on
past debt. We'll be up to about 60 cents on
entitlements by then because of the exploding
cost of health care and more people retiring.
We will be spending a certain amount of money
that we have to spend on the national defense,
and people in the Congress will come to this
city having made great campaign commitments
to all of you out in the country and without
regard to their party, they'll be arguing over
how they're going to spend 3 or 4 cents on
the dollar because we will be paralyzed in the
expenditure of the public money, and we'll have
less money to spend on investment in our future.
We'll be spending 20 percent of the gross
national product on health care. And no other
country, if present trends continue, will be
above 10, which means every productive enterprise in the country will be spotting its international competitors 10 cents on the dollar in
health care alone. If we continue the present
patterns, that is what we have to look forward
to.
We have no alternative but to change. We
should begin with a program that increases public investment in technology and education and
in people and bring this deficit down at the
same time. That's hard to do. This country has
never tried to do that before. We've had times
past when times were good and the deficit was
brought down. And in times past when things
were tough, the deficit has been increased to
increase investment. Our Nation has never before tried to increase investment and reduce
the debt at the same time. It is not easy to
do.
I have offered a plan to do that that cuts
spending with real specific cuts, not rhetoric
about overall caps; with tax increases that I believe are progressive, although none are free
of pain; and with targeted, specific investments
to grow this economy.
Now, already we're beginning to see some
impact. Just since the election, since the Sec

retary of the Treasury and other people on our
economic team and the President have been
able to send clear signals to the market that
we are going to bring down this deficit, there
has been a seven-tenths of one percent drop
in long-term interest rates.
Just yesterday, due to increased confidence
in the plan in the bond market, long-term interest rates fell to a 16-year low. As a result, over
the last several days mortgage rates have begun
another significant decline. The serious drop in
interest rates is already providing a major stimulus to economic growth and major savings to
millions of American families.
As interest rates fall more people will be able
to save money on business loans, home loans,
car loans, credit card transactions; all these
things will free up cash to get the economy
moving again. If we do it right and deliberately,
the vast majority of Americans will save more
money on lower interest rates than they will
pay in the higher energy tax. Many businesses
will save more money on lower interest rates
than they will pay in the other tax increases.
By increasing the pool of available investments
through debt reduction, we can free up tax
money away from interest on the debt to invest
in education in our future, and we can free
up major sources of funds in the private sector.
We have to do this together. The reason the
debt portion of the package is important is that
many of the changes which happen in America
that are good, by definition, have to happen
outside Washington. Generations of experience
has taught us that the private sector functions
best when the Government supports it but does
not direct it; frames environment but does not
intrude upon it; when the climate is stable and
sustaining but when you can create jobs and
grow the economy through your own enterprise.
For many years I was charged with being
the chief advocate for the business community
of my State. I went around the world trying
to sell our products and increase investment in
our State. We worked on a long-term strategy
under the most difficult imaginable circumstances. When I took office in 1983, our
unemployment rate was in double digits and
most of our counties had unemployment rates
not only in double digits but in the high unemployment counties in the State we had several
counties with unemployment rates in excess of
20 percent. And we set about to increase investment, increase competitiveness, improve the


187




Feb. 23 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


education and training of our work force. Last
year we ranked second in the country in job
growth, and for the last 5 years have been in
the top 10, not because of anything I did but
because of what we did.
There has to be a clear partnership here that
empowers the private sector to grow jobs by
having the right kind of environment, the right
kind of incentives, and the right kind of longterm commitments. This is the sort of commitment that I seek to bring to the Nation with
this national economic program.
I think it is impossible to underestimate the
importance of any particular element although
there are those who will. If we don't reduce
the deficit, long-term interest rates don't go
down, and the Government spends more of your
money paying interest. If we don't cut spending,
the deficit reduction package has no credibility.
And besides that, a lot of this spending really
needs to be cut. If we don't raise some revenues, we won't really cut the deficit as much
as we should. And if we don't have some targeted investments, we will ignore the fact for
the last 12 years, while other countries have
been putting more into infrastructure, into technology, and into education and training, relative
to the efforts of our competitors, we have been
declining. And in absolute dollars, our Federal
effort has declined in many critical areas.
So I would argue that we need a comprehensive approach. But let me be clear again: This
administration understands clearly that the private sector is the central engine of economic
growth. I have tried to put together a plan that
will enable you to succeed.
I hope that this plan and this speech, frankly,
is just the beginning of a continuing dialog between us. I don't accept the conventional wisdom that a President has about 6 months, and
after that everybody's running for reelection and
everything's over and the political climate takes
over. The truth is that we have been going in
a certain direction economically for 2 decades,
and we have been in the grip of a partisan
and interest-dominated gridlock for a long time,
and it is not going to turn around overnight.
And a lot of the things that I have to do here
with our business cannot be done overnight.
And so we need a dialog, a set of continuous
changes.
If it is true that business has to manage
change on a constant basis, surely it must also
be true of Government. We can no longer afford


the luxury of being told that the President has
a year to work and after that everybody just
waits around until the next election. That is
a highly unproductive way to spend your money.
And I believe we can do better.
Every one of you who's ever run any sort
of enterprise knows that there comes a time
in the life of any organization when the person
in charge has to face facts and change or just
let the thing drift into decline, maybe sudden
loss. I sought this office because I became convinced that the classic American idea of
progress, the idea that if we worked hard, played
by the rules, made the necessary adjustments,
we'd all do a little better, and we could certainly
leave a better life to our children. And that
idea had been imperiled by our failure to face
many of the fundamental realities about which
I have already spoken.
Our Government has responsibilities which
have been too long neglected: to run a balanced
economy, to invest in our people, to support
business ability, to create wealth. In this city,
people are very good at blaming one another
for who did the wrong thing and pointing the
finger at one another, but we've not been very
good in the last few years at forgetting about
blame and assuming responsibility.
Last Wednesday when I gave my State of
the Union speech to Congress, I said to the
Republicans and the Democrats in the audience,
and I say to you, that I don't much care anymore whose fault our problems are. I do think
we should all be willing to assume responsibility
for improving the situation. And if it gets better,
I could care less who gets credit for it. But
the time has come to go to work.
I think that, to be fair, before I ask any of
you to change anything, I need to set an example with the Federal Government. Let me begin
by saying there are an awful lot of good people
who work for you everyday in the Federal Government, people of astonishing dedication. And
like any other business, there are a lot of people
who are out there in the Federal Government
who know a lot more than I do about what
we could do to change it, to save you money,
and to make it work. But as an institution, our
system has become too large, too slow, too unresponsive.
The Government accepts, even when it's
doing things that you would all agree with, is
often locked into a style of management and
outmoded priorities on spending and regulation


188




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Feb. 23


and rulemaking that hamper even the best of
intentions. Really, if this Government were a
business, it would have gone under a long time
ago. And again I say, not because of the people
working here- most of the people who work
for you decided to do this because they love
their country, and they believe in public service-but because we have simply not been
forced to undergo the discipline of reexamining
how we do our business.
And so it is time to take stock of Government,
not just from the point of view of cutting but
from the point of view of how it can be made
to work. We have to look through every program
and ask if it works. I've said this before, but
I'll say it to you in case any of you missed
it, I felt enormous sympathy for all my predecessors when I walked into the Oval Office and
found that I had Jimmy Carter's phone system
operating with Lyndon Johnson's switchboard.
[Laughter] It was a metaphor for how business
is done: when you call into the White House,
there's someone actually there picking up a wire
and hooking it into the extension. [Laughter]
And I might say, they're some of the most valuable people we have, because they do something
that every modern organization needs: They can
find anybody in the country when they need
to. [Laughter] And we certainly need those operators to do that. But the point is that that
really is a metaphor for the fact that Government often feels that it doesn't need to reexamine it.
I found that I could not have a conference
call as the President of the United States in
the Oval Office-[Laughter]-except for one:
anybody in the central office who wanted to
hear what I was saying could punch the lighted
button and listen. [Laughter] We also found,
interestingly enough, that while it cost money
to change the technology on telephones, we
were actually spending more money than we
should be on monthly service charges and operating charges because we had an antiquated system. It was amazing.
Well, anyway, I think the Government has
to set an example. So I have submitted to the
Congress a budget that, in the coming fiscal
year, will cut the White House staff by 25 percent below what it was when my predecessor
left office, and not only cutting it but reorganizing it so that it will function better. We'll have
a smaller drug policy office with more influence
and more impact. We'll have an Economic Pol

icy Council for only the second time in our
country's history to go with the Domestic Policy
Council and the National Security Council so
that we can bring all the people who have an
influence on economic policy together and focus
on every aspect of it so that the right hand
knows what the left hand is doing, and so that,
hopefully, we can do a better job of anticipating
the real consequences of any decisions which
are made.
I've also asked the Congress to cancel next
year's pay raise for Federal employees and to
reduce their raises in each of the following 3
years, not because I want to hurt those people
they make this Government go-but because
we have to tighten our belts before we ask
Americans to tighten theirs.
I have submitted a budget that reduces the
administrative costs of every Federal Agency in
the next 4 years by 3 percent, 3 percent, 3
percent, and 5 percent, a total of 14; and which
will reduce by attrition, not by firing, the Federal work payroll by 100,000, for savings in excess of $9 billion.
I was pleased the other night when I went
up to the Congress to deliver my talk that the
leadership told me they were going to reduce
the staffs of Congress by the same amount that
we reduced the administrative budget of the
Federal Government, which is a real change
and a welcome one.
We have also tried to reduce a lot of the
executive perks to set an example. A lot of our
Secretaries are now eating in the dining room
with their employees, and they're finding they're
learning more during the lunch hour about how
we can improve the Agency than they could
have in all the meetings that have been scheduled.
But these things are the tip of the iceberg.
We have really got to find a way to reinvent
the way the Government works, to bring modern
technology and modern management practices
to the workplace, to speed the flow of information, streamline decisions, and empower people
at the grassroots level. I want you to be able
to look at your National Government a couple
of years from now as a model for customer
service, not a bureaucratic monstrosity.
As an indication of that commitment, I have
appointed as the Deputy Director of the Office
of Management and Budget for Management,
my friend Phil Lader, a remarkable businessman
from South Carolina, who understands these


189




Feb. 23 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


concepts and will be able for the first time to
make the management part of the Office of
Management and Budget as important as the
budget part. It's not just important to cut the
spending; it's important that whatever you give
us we spend right. And I think we can.
Let me just give you one example. We have
contributed an inordinate amount of money to
the Superfund to clean up sites which need
to be cleaned up. The money is being used
to pay lawyers' fees instead to clean up the
sites. We might as well have just have been
crass and said, "We don't care about the environmental consequences. We're not going to
raise this money. We're not going to have a
fund." Then we could pat ourselves on the back
and say, "We're really concerned about this environmental problem of toxic waste sites, and
so we raised the Superfund." Except the Fund's
not being spent to clean up the sites. We're
going to find a way to spend that money cleaning up pollution not paying for lawyers. That's
the kind of thing we have to do if we're going
to run this Government right.
There are also 150 very specific budget cuts
in this budget. And to people who say to me,
"XVell, you ought to be able to find more, "I
say, "that's right, but there's 150 I found in
4 weeks that haven't been there in 12 years."
So I feel that we're doing pretty good.
I'm more than happy to do more. But since
the first budget President Reagan submitted in
1981, which did have a lot of very specific budget cuts, this budget is the one that has the
most specific cuts. Not saying to the Congress,
'Well, let's put a cap on this or a lid on that
and you all figure out how to distribute the
pain," but saying, "I'll take responsibility for angering these constituencies by cutting this
spending."
Can we do more? Of course we can. But
we had to get off to a fast start. And I have
made a good-faith offer to Republicans as well
as Democrats, and to the Congress, and to people around the country to talk about how we
can do that. It is very, very important.
The second thing I want to say to you, however, is that there is a big structural deficit
which it is difficult to overcome by budget cuts
alone, for this reason: Every year we grant costof-living increases to people on Social Security,
and we should. There is a surplus in the Social
Security tax fund which is being used to make
the deficit look smaller. And that is very hard


on small business in America, by the way, that
we finance so much of our Government through
the payroll tax. We'll need those payroll taxes
later, but not now.
We have increases in health care for the same
reasons you do, that is, the cost of health care
is rising faster than the rate of inflation. That
drives up the cost of Medicare for the elderly
and Medicaid for low-income people.
And then we have another problem aggravated by the flaws in our system, which is that
every month in this country 100,000 Americans
lose their health insurance and some of them
are eligible for the Medicaid programs for the
working poor. So our costs go up as private
sector folks can't afford to cover people with
health insurance anymore, and they get pushed
onto the Government payroll. So those increases
occur and will continue to occur until we reform
structurally the health care system. And I'll
come back to that in a moment. So those increases are there.
Then there are some programs that I think
are quite central to our economy that require
us to continue to fund them. Many are controversial with those who don't benefit from
them, but I believe in some of them. I'll tell
you a couple I believe in. I think that we should
continue to fund the superconducting super
collider because I think it's good science, even
though it's expensive. We are going to create
a lot of jobs in the future through investments
in technology and science.
I believe that we cannot afford the space station design we have been operating on. And
it hasn't been properly funded for years, and
it's having huge costs overruns. But I think there
should be a space station program that supports
our shuttle program and supports the kinds of
technological benefits that space has produced
for the American economy here down on the
ground over the last several years. And so I
will support that, though we will not increase
that spending as rapidly as it would take to
support the old design. But we will do enough
to keep all the people that are working, working
in this area that I think is important. And that
means we'll spend more money on that, and
I think that's significant. But there still will be
net budget cuts that are very deep, and I'm
looking for more.
I also want to say that I intend to make reports to you on that, and before we get to
any tax increases I want to know that the spend

190




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Feb. 23


ing cuts are going to be there. I will not sign
a tax increase without the spending cuts.
The tax problem, as you know, is highly progressive. And some say that it is so progressive
that it will discourage people from reinvesting.
I would just ask you to study the whole thing.
We provide for the first time in the history
of the country a permanent investment tax credit for small businesses for 90 percent of the
employers who have 40 percent of the workers
but create a majority of the jobs in this country.
We provided alternative minimum tax relief
for the big capital-intensive businesses of this
country, who have told us repeatedly that the
alternative minimum tax treatment in the
present Tax Code actually discourages people
from making investments. We have provided
some relief from the passive-loss provisions of
the income Tax Code for people who are in
the real estate business, because I think that
has aggravated the condition not only of real
estate but of some of our banks and contributed
to the credit crunch. So I think there will be
both direct benefits to real estate and indirect
benefits to people who had to get bank financing
by changing this passive-loss provision.
There are lots of other things in this bill
which I think are important to the creation of
jobs. So I ask you to look at it as a whole
package and to recognize that we have to, again,
move away from a tax system that is based too
much on fixed-rate taxes, like excise and payroll
taxes, more toward income taxes that have also
offsetting incentives to invest. I believe that that
is the proper direction to go.
I know there is also some controversy over
the energy tax. And I'd like to talk about that
for just a moment. If we are to find more revenue, I would rather not tax work and effort
of working people. I would instead rather have
some tax that operates on consumption and promotes energy efficiency in the development of
alternative energy technologies. We have the
lowest energy taxes in the world by far. And
there was an enormous consensus among the
deficit-reducing folks all over the country that
there ought to be an energy tax but a big difference about what kind it ought to be.
There were those, principally in the East, who
said we needed a huge gas tax. I can hear the
groan from my folks up there in the gallery.
It's tough on people who live in the West or
who have to drive long distances to work where
there's no public transport, where there's no


practical carpooling. It really could have an adverse impact on sectors of our transportation
economy.
Then there were those who if you want only
to clean up the environment, you should have
a carbon tax. The problem is, that's pretty rough
if you're from Pennsylvania or Ohio or West
Virginia or someplace where coal is important
to the economy and where you're already bearing the enormous burden of the enforcement
of the Clean Air Act.
So this Btu tax, taxing the heat content of
energy, seemed to be a fair way of spreading
the burden in a limited way across all energy
sources, in a way that would still do what I
think needs to be done, which is to promote
conservation and not undermine something else
that I strongly support, which is the increased
production of natural gas in America. It's our
fuel. It's clean, and it will create enormous economic opportunities in the future.
I want to say again, I don't want to raise
one penny of this money unless we have the
spending cuts. Not a penny. And I am sure,
after now almost 5 weeks in office, that there
are more cuts coming. I can tell you I will
find more. And I think we have gotten everybody in the National Government interested in
finding more. And I encourage you to give us
more. Nothing is off the table, except those
things that reflect the fundamental interest of
the American people.
But remember, we don't want to do anything
that will further erode our investment in our
children and their future in programs that are
working. Indeed, we need to do more there.
And we cannot afford to break the fragile bond
of responsibility we have with elderly people
who live on Social Security for all their income
and who need Medicare for their health care.
We can reduce further health care expenditures
of the Government but only in the context of
an overall resolution of the health care crisis.
The plan I have presented will reduce the
deficit substantially and fairly. And if we do,
it will mean lower interest rates. You can see
that already by this historic low in long-term
interest rates coming out today.
I also want to say, however, that in my judgment, there are some things we should invest
in, not just the things I've mentioned for business: the permanent investment tax credit for
small business, the targeted capital gains tax,
the technology extension center, the manufactur

191




Feb. 23 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


ing changes in the alternative minimum tax, the
incremental investment tax credit that will be
available to every business in America over the
next couple of years. But there are also some
things that we need to invest in our people.
And I'd like just to mention one or two of
them.
Another change in this tax system is one that
I will hope you will all support, and it is the
one that enables us to hold harmless to 40 -plus percent of the taxpayers with incomes of
$30,000 or less. This is a dramatic increase in
the refundable earned-income tax credit for
working people. This mechanism in this plan
will enable us to say for the first time in the
history of the country, "If you are a full-time
worker with a child in your house, you will
not live in poverty." Let me say why I think
that is so important.
One of the things we have to deal with in
America to make ourselves more productive is
how we can reduce the volume of the large
underclass we have: the people who are permanently trapped in poverty, the children living
in the big cities. And we have to think of strategies to deal with that. Some of those things
are things that I think you can do. I have proposed, for example, urban enterprise zones
which give huge incentives for private sector
investment in depressed areas.
But we have to break the psychology of poverty and dependence on the Government. I will
come forward later this year with a welfarereform proposal that will literally end welfare
as we know it, will say we'll have education
and training and child care and health care.
After 2 years you've either got to go to work
or do public service work to draw an income
tax from the Government.
But consider this: We also need to build in
incentives. You know as well as I do from the
people you work with that an incentive system
is better most of the time than a rulemaking
system. So we can have a welfare rulemaking
system, but you've got to change the incentives.
How many working women are there in America
today who barely make ends meet because of
the cost of child care? I mean, an enormous
number.
So what this refundable earned-income tax
credit will do is to change the economic system.
It will say: We are going to reward work. You
put in your 40 hours; you've got a kid in the
house. If we need to, we will refund money


through the tax system, but we're going to lift
you above the poverty line so no one will ever
have that as an excuse not to be a productive
citizen. If everybody in this country were working, we wouldn't have half the problems that
the Government wrestles with here all day,
every day. And I hope you can support that.
Now, let me just make another couple of
comments that relate to this. In the next few
days we will be announcing some initiatives that
we're going to take from a regulatory point of
view to try to deal with the credit crunch, to
try to make it possible for banks to loan money
to businesses again, to try to release the energies
for the old-fashioned character of small business
loans, to try to reduce the fear that a lot of
banks have that if they make sensible loans,
the Government will come down on them.
I think that the improvement in the books
that will come from changing the passive-loss
provision, plus the regulatory changes we make,
will really make a dent in this credit crunch
problem, especially in the areas of our country
where it has been so profound. And if it isn't,
you let me know about it in a few months,
and we'll do something else. We have got to
deal with this problem for small business to
grow again.
Now, let me talk just very briefly about what
I think will become very quickly a controversial
part of this program. There will be those who
want to cut spending and wish we didn't have
to raise any taxes, who will say, "You wouldn't
have to raise so many taxes if you didn't spend
any new money on anything." And that is absolutely true. I admit that is absolutely true. I
want you to know what I propose to spend
new money on and why, in addition to the tax
incentives I've already discussed.
First of all, I want to increase research and
development in new technologies that will create
new jobs and new economic opportunities, dramatically. Not only by making the research and
experimentation tax credit permanent, but by
increasing commercial R&D by more than we
reduce defense R&D, and by emphasizing dualuse technologies in defense research and development.
It is killing me to look at the numbers when
you compare the percentage of our income
we're spending on research and development
in America compared to our competitors. Five
years, 10 years, 20 years from now, that means
more high-wage jobs somewhere else and fewer


192




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Feb. 23


high-wage jobs here. And we cannot tolerate
it. We must again achieve competitive levels of
R&D, and that is a worthy expenditure of your
tax money. We have good people who will do
that right and spend it efficiently, and I would
hope you would support it.
There is no way the private sector can equal
the aggregate efforts in Germany, Japan, or any
other rich country, provided there by enormous
public sector investment to support the private
sector. So I hope you'll be for that.
Secondly, I think we have to invest more in
our infrastructure, in our roads, our bridges, our
airports, in high-speed rail, in water projects,
in sewer projects, in environmental cleanup. We
are again spending a much lower percentage
of our income on that than all of our major
competitors. And that bears a direct relationship
to productivity, to wealth generation, and to the
cost of doing business in the private sector. So
we propose to fully fund the surface transportation act and to do a lot of things in this area.
Third, we propose to really invest some
money in targeted people investments that will
increase productivity. Let me just mention three
or four. Number one, we want to spend some
new money to set up a network that will permit
us to immunize every child in America by the
age of two for preventable childhood diseases.
For every dollar we spend on that today, we
will save $10 in the future in preventable diseases. We are dangerously at risk of new outbreaks of diseases because our immunization
levels have fallen so low.
Most of the controversy you've seen in the
press is about the price of vaccines, and that's
a legitimate issue. But it is also true that we
don't have the delivery network in this country
we need. And as a result, we have the appalling
statistic that in America, which produces vaccines for the world, we have the third-lowest
immunization rate in this hemisphere. Only Bolivia and Haiti are lower. It is unconscionable.
We can't justify it. For a little bit of money
today we can save big bucks tomorrow.
Secondly, we ought to fully fund the Head
Start program, because it is a proven success
that will save us $3 tomorrow for every dollar
we spend today.
Those are among the things that I think we
should do. Let me just mention two others. We
ought to have an apprenticeship program in
America that guarantees every high school graduate access to 2 years of further quality edu

cation in the workplace, in a community college,
in a vocational institution. The Federal Government's responsibility here is basically to help
States in the private sector create networks and
to fill the funding gap. For next to no money
we could bring our 2-year education program
up to where it is universally accessible to all
Americans and it is at a level of quality comparable to our competitors. We are not there
today. For not very much money, we can do
that.
The next thing I think we really ought to
do is to open the doors to college education
to all Americans. Not just open them, but keep
them open. The college drop-out rate today is
two and a half times the high school drop-out
rate. And one reason is that a college education
is about the only thing that increased more rapidly than health care costs in the 1980's.
Now, all of you need to think about this as
this is something you can do that I can't since
all these colleges-none of them are Federal
institutions. Something needs to be done to contain the rising costs of those colleges. But in
the meantime, we need to make sure that young
Americans are not dropping out just because
they can't afford to go.
The student loan program today is wildly expensive. It costs $4 billion a year, $3 billion
in defaulted loans alone. And what we need
to do is to set up an income-contingent repayment plan so everybody can pay back as a percentage of their income, which will reduce the
incentive to default; really stiffen the collection
measures, including involving the IRS in it. I'm
tired of people making money and defaulting
on their loans; that's not right. But we also
should make available the opportunity for many
young Americans to pay back their student loans
by serving their country, by going home and
working as teachers or police officers, or doing
things that need to be done in the community.
We can rescue a lot of these kids out of
inner cities by letting them work before they
go to college and put in time in building up
credits so that they then turn their loans into
scholarships before they even go. These are
things that ought to be done.
You know, when President Kennedy started
the Peace Corps, it shaped the imagination of
a whole generation. We need a peace corps
here at home to deal with our problems here
at home, and it needs to be much bigger than
the Peace Corps ever was.


193




Feb. 23 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


Finally, let me just make this point: If we
cut spending, increase revenues, target investments, we'll have a Government that will go
in the right direction for the next 4 years with
real discipline. If you want to get to the end
of the decade with a healthy American economy,
we have to do something else. We've got to
reform the health care system.
In 5 years, projected Government expenditures on health care would go from $210 billion
to $350 billion, a two-thirds increase, annualized
increase of 12 percent per year. We are already
spending, as of the end of 1992, 14 percent
of our gross domestic product on health care.
No other nation in the world except Canada
is over nine, and they're just barely over nine.
And our health indicators are not all that much
better. In fact, they're quite worse in some
areas.
Now, this is not a simple problem. This is
the most complex issue with which I have ever
tried to come to grips. But one thing is pretty
clear: If present spending trends continue, we'll
be bumping 20 percent of GDP by the end
of the decade, and you can forget about our
being competitive in manufacturing.
At our economic conference in Little Rock,
Red Poling, the chairman of Ford Motor Company, pointed out how Ford's health care costs
had risen by 800 percent in the last 20 years,
and now they spend as much on health care
for workers as on steel for cars. Almost $1,100
of the price of each American car is in health
care. Our competitors in Japan have only $550
in a car; hard to be price competitive and make
money.
Small businesses are hit even harder by health
care costs. And for many self-employed people
and farmers, it's impossible to get health care.
As I said earlier, 100,000 Americans a month
are losing their health insurance. Seventy percent of the small businesses in this country are
still providing health care to their employees,
but they're hurt very badly by insurance-rating
practices in most States. And workers are terrorized by the fact that if they or someone in
their family has ever been sick, they have a
preexisting condition which locks them into a
job.
I had dinner the other night with a high
school friend of my wife who is a wonderful
small business guy with four employees. And
one of his employees just had a child with
Down's syndrome. And he told me, he said,


"You know, that guy and I, we're partners for
life now." And he said, "He really can do better.
He's a gifted person. I want him to be able
to go on and move, and he can't."
And more and more businesses are having
to give up their health insurance every year or
run the co-pay so high they might as well be
giving up on it. And that, as I said earlier, is
driving some people back down into the Federal
Government's and the State government's health
care system.
What I want to do is to find a way to preserve
what is best about American health care-the
right to choose your doctor, the technology that
we have-and stop the incredible waste on paperwork, which means that clerical workers are
being hired at 4 times the rate of health care
providers in hospitals and doctors' offices, on
unnecessary technology, on the absence of preventive and primary care, on all the things that
we know that are wrong.
And some time in the next several weeks,
within 100 days after the time I took office,
we'll be presenting a plan to the Congress and
the American people to deal with that. But I
want to be up-front about this. The economic
plan I have presented will bring that debt down
for 4 years. If we don't deal with the health
care crisis, it's going to turn around and go
right back up in the next 4 years, just like your
costs are going to.
We have got to face this. Every other advanced country in the world has devised some
system which works better than ours does to
keep costs closer to inflation while providing
a basic package of benefits to all Americans.
We cannot fix this economy over the long run
unless we do that. It is inhumane. It is also
very bad business to let the status quo persist.
Let me close just by saying that if every
American looks at my proposal in terms of what
is best for him or her, at least one-third of
it will seem unattractive. That is, if you're an
upper-income person who has to pay the income
taxes, you would say, "Give me the budget cuts
and don't increase spending." Unless you're in
a technology-related business in which you
might say, "Give me the budget cuts and the
new investments, but forget about the tax increases." Or if you're an educator, you might
say, "Fund Head Start." A middle-class person
might say, "Tax the rich and spend the money
on new jobs. Cut the budget, but forget about
the energy tax." A lower-income person might


194




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Feb. 24


say, "Tax the wealthy. Give me the new spending, but forget about the budget cuts."
In other words, if everybody looks at this just
through the prism of how it will immediately
affect you, it's a nonstarter, because there's no
way you can bat three for three. We can't get
there.
And that's why I say to all of you what I
have asked the American people to do; I invite
your efforts to improve this, to say what's wrong
with it, to say how we can make it better. That's
fine. But ask the question, not just what's in
it for me, but what's in it for us. This country
has got to change. We know we cannot stay
on the present course. We know we cannot stay
on the present course.


We also know if we look ahead to the future
that the next 20 years could be the best years
this country ever had. But we've got to increase
productivity. We've got to increase job generation. We've got to increase income, and we've
got to increase our ability to rely on all the
American people. We do not have a person to
waste. I believe this program achieves those objectives, and I ask for your support.
Thank you very much, and God bless you.
NOTE: The President spoke at 11:15 a.m. at DAR
Constitution Hall. In his remarks, he referred to
U.S. Chamber of Commerce officers Ivan Gorr,
chairman of the board; Richard Lesher, president;
and William Marcil, vice chairman of the board.


Exchange With Reporters Prior to Discussions With United Nations
Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali
February 23, 1993


Bosnia
Q. Mr. President, is an airdrop enough to
relieve the suffering? Will that do the job of
getting food to people?
The President. Well, if we can reach an agreement, it will help, I think.
Q. How close are you to an agreement, Mr.
President?
The President. I don't know. We can't talk
until you leave. [Laughter]
Q. Do you think that there is some risk,
though, of this being the first step to an engagement that we won't be able to get out of?


The President. Not necessarily, no. Not at all.
Q. Why not?
The President. Because what we're discussing
is very different. It has no combat connotations
whatever, and it's purely humanitarian and quite
limited.
Q. Isn't there a risk of people being shot
at by antiaircraft artillery?
The President. Well, if we do it, we'll have
an announcement that deals with that. We think
the risks are quite small.
NOTE: The exchange began at 4:10 p.m. in the
Oval Office at the White House.


Exchange With Reporters Prior to Discussions With Prime Minister John
Major of the United Kingdom
February 24, 1993


Bosnia
Q. Mr. President, are you going to make an
announcement on Bosnia today? On the airdrop?
The President. I don't think we'll have a final
announcement today. But the Prime Minister


and I certainly are going to discuss that along
with a number of other things.
Q. Mr. Prime Minister, are you concerned
that American airdrops might endanger British
troops on the ground, put them subject to
Serbian

195




Feb. 24 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


Prime Minister Major. No, I'm not remotely
concerned about that. We'll discuss the airdrops.
I think, as a humanitarian initiative that's very
welcome. And it'll have our support. I don't
think it is going to endanger British troops.
Q. What is holding you up, Mr. President,
in your decision?
The President. Just going through the procedures we have to go through to discuss this
with our allies.
News Conference
Q. When are you going to announce a press
conference?
The President. You know, I didn't realize it
had been so long since I had one. I really didn't,
Helen [Helen Thomas, United Press International], until you mentioned it the other day.
I need to give you one. I'll getQ. When?
The President. I'm going to take it up with
our folks. I didn't even know it had been a
long time, since I answer these questions all
the time.
The Vice President. It seems like there is a
press conference every day.
Q. That's not a press conference.
The Vice President. Oh, I know. I know.
The President. I'll do better on that.
Q. You promise?


[At this point, one group of reporters left the
room, and another group entered.]
Prime Minister Mulroney of Canada
Q. Do you gentlemen have anything to say
about Brian Mulroney in his resignation today?
The President. I wish him well. I talked to
him. We had a nice visit. And I don't think
that I can add anything to the statement that
was made. But I was very appreciative of the
conversation we had, and I wish him well.
United Kingdon-U.S. Relations
Q. Can we ask how the special relationship
is, Mr. President?
The President. Excuse me?
Q. Can we ask how the special relationship
between the U.S. and Britain is?
The President. Absolutely.
Prime Minister Major. You have got the British press. [Laughter]
The President. Absolutely. It's special to me
personally, and it's special to the United States,
and I think it will be as long as I'm sitting
here in this office.
NOTE: The exchange began at 3:10 p.m. in the
Oval Office at the White House.


The President's News Conference With Prime Minister John Major of the
United Kingdom
February 24, 1993


The President. Good afternoon, ladies and
gentlemen. I want to formally welcome Prime
Minister Major to the White House and to the
United States. We are delighted to have him
here. As I'm sure you know, he has already
met earlier today with people on the Hill and
with members of my Cabinet. We have just
finished the first of two meetings. We talked
for about an hour, and then this evening we'll
have a working dinner.
About the conversations we've had so far, I'd
just like to make two points. First, we covered
a wide range of topics. We talked about Bosnia,
as you might imagine we would. We talked
about the Middle East. And then the rest of


our time was spent virtually exclusively talking
about economic matters, about the upcoming
meeting of the G-7; about the importance of
trying to get an agreement under GATT and
my commitment to that; about the absolute necessity of the United States, Europe, and Japan
working together during this difficult time to
try to prevent a contraction of the global economy and instead to hopefully promote growth,
not only here at home but throughout the world.
And we talked about that at some considerable
detail.
The Prime Minister, as you know, has been
in office a lot longer than I have. And I asked
him for his advice about a number of things


196




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Feb. 24


and his opinion about others. And we had a
very, very good meeting. And I'm looking forward to our dinner tonight.
A second point I would like to make is to
reaffirm something that some of you asked me
during the photo op, and that is whether the
United States will continue to have a very special relationship with Great Britain. The answer
to that from my point of view is an unqualified
yes. I think that only two Presidents ever lived
in England. I think I'm one of only two. There
may have been more somewhere in the past
centuries. But this is a very important relationship to me, and I think it's off to a very good
start. And I would like to say again how much
I appreciate the candor with which the Prime
Minister has approached the issues, with which
we've discussed our mutual interests.
Mr. Prime Minister.
Prime Minister Major. Mr. President, firstly,
thank you for your welcome today. And I've
found our meeting extremely useful, and I look
forward to continuing it this evening. And I
certainly had some very useful meetings this
morning on the Hill and with other members
of your Cabinet earlier this morning, with Lloyd
Bentsen, and of course over lunch as well with
some of your colleagues.
It's nice, having had a number of telephone
conversations over the last few months, to actually see a face across the table rather than just
hear a voice across the phone. And I look forward to continuing that dialog this evening.
You set out some of the things that we were
able to discuss over the last hour or so. I was
particularly pleased we were able to reach such
a meeting of minds on the importance of reaching an agreement to the Uruguay round as
speedily as possible. I think we share the view
that for a raft of reasons it's important to get
a satisfactory and fair agreement to the GATT
round, not just because of the impetus that will
give to trade growth and hopefully to prosperity
and job growth as well but also because of the
very remarkable advantage that will give not just
to the industrialized but to the nonindustrialized
world with the many difficulties that are faced
economically at the moment. So I was particularly pleased at our meeting of minds on that
particular subject.
We found also a complete agreement about
the need for the Security Council resolutions
that have been imposed in respect to Iraq to
be fully met and to be fully honored in the


future. I had the pleasure of being able to welcome the President's initiative, humanitarian airdrops in Bosnia. The United Kingdom-we've
got a number of thousands of troops actually
delivering humanitarian aid in central Bosnia.
They've been doing that for some time. I think
as a result of their activities, many people who
otherwise might not have lived through this winter have done. And I think this new initiative
by the President is thoroughly welcome. So it's
been a very worthwhile and a very enjoyable
meeting thus far, and I look forward to continuing it this evening.
The President. Thank you.
Northern Ireland
Q. Mr. President, do you still want a U.S.
envoy-[inaudible]-Northern IrelandThe President. Well, let me answer the first
question. If the United States can in some way
make a constructive contribution to a political
settlement, of course, we'd be interested in
doing that. But that is not a subject we have
discussed in any way so far. And I think I'd
rather wait to make further comments until after
we have a chance to discuss it.
As far as the campaign, the campaign is over.
You're a good one to ask that question, since
you know that compared to previous campaigns
I've been in, this was just sort of another day
at the office. And once you achieve the responsibilities of office, that's what you have to do.
I told the Prime Minister today that I was just
grateful that I got through this whole campaign
with most of my time in England still classified.
[Laughter]
Bosnia
Q. [Inaudible]-on Bosnia. I'd like to ask both
you and the Prime Minister, what do you think
can be accomplished in the airdrops, since many
in the military believe that it will not be terribly
effective or efficient? And what other steps do
you think need to be taken, military steps, in
particular, such as some that were discussed
during the campaign, in order to inflict enough
pressure on the Serbs?
The President. Let me deal with the airdrops
first. General Powell came over here last weekend, and we talked for a very extended period
of time about this operation and about how we
can maximize the safety to United States pilots
and other personnel on the planes who'd be
involved in this and minimize the prospect that


197




Feb. 24 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


any humanitarian relief operation could be
drawn into the politics and the military operations of this area.
We know that if we are high enough to virtually assure the complete safety of the people
who will participate in the airlift, that a percentage of the packages we drop will be outside
the more or less half-mile circle that we would
be trying to hit. We also know that if we leaflet
the area in advance, if we notify the people
about what we're dropping and how to use the
medicine and what kind of food will be there,
to whatever extent people need it, they'll be
on the lookout for it. And if they have to walk
a mile instead of a half-mile for it, we think
they will. So we believe that, A, there is a need
in some of the remote areas, and B, we can
do this with quite an effective but safe mission.
Now, insofar as other actions, I think there
are a number of things that we're looking at.
I'm encouraged by the United Nations interest
in the war crimes issue. I'm encouraged by the
conversation the Prime Minister and I had about
the importance of trying to make the sanctions
that are now in force actively be more effective.
But I would remind you that our policy is
that we want to try to have a good faith in
negotiations with all the parties there. We are
committed to doing what we can to encourage
the Bosnians to engage in negotiations within
the Vance-Owen framework. And President
Yeltsin has been very forthcoming on his part
in trying to help get the negotiations back on
track, too.
So, I think we should look at it just from
that point of view. It would be a great mistake
to read this humanitarian relief operation as
some initial foray toward a wider military role.
Prime Minister Major. Can I just add something to that, as you requested. We're able, at
the moment, to deliver a substantial amount of
aid in central Bosnia by land. But the natural
terrain of Bosnia, as a whole, means that isn't
practicable for a raft of reasons, not least geographical reasons, at the moment in all parts
of Bosnia. I think, therefore, you do have to
look at imaginative ways of actually getting food
aid and medicine aid through. And I think the
prospect that the President is exploring is an
imaginative one, and I hope it will prove successful. There are a number of logistics to be
worked out.
On sanctions, one of the things we have been
discussing in the last half an hour or so is the


prospects of enhanced sanctions, and I think
there clearly are opportunities there that we'll
need to examine.
Q. Such as?
Prime Minister Major. Well, I think we can
improve the sanctions over the Danube, for example. I don't think they're being enforced very
effectively.
Russia
Q. I would like to direct my question to both
of you. Do you think that Yeltsin, President
Yeltsin, is so politically weakened that his days
are numbered? Also, what can the U.S. and
the allies do to prop him up, to prevent another
Communist takeover that could lead to another
cold war? And are you going to meet President
Yeltsin in March at any point?
Prime Minister Major. I don't think President
Yeltsin is weakened by his present conflict to
the extent that he's not going to continue. Clearly there are difficulties in the disputes he's had
with Congress and, in particular, the Speaker.
But I expect President Yeltsin to be there and
to continue. I think he's the best hope for the
Russians, and I think the policies and the movements towards reform that he has in mind and
continues to have in mind are the right ways
forward.
I think there are two things we can do to
help Russia in general and President Yeltsin.
One is the economic assistance that's been provided, and there's a great deal of discussion
to be had about whether we're directing that
in the right way and in the right volume.
And secondly, I think also there's the political
messages of support to the reformers and to
the reform policies, personified at the moment
in the person of President Yeltsin. But the underlying purpose of the assistance is to assist
the reformers and to assist the reform policies
in Russia. I think we ought to give them political
support as well as the practical and economic
support that we've been giving them.
The President. I believe that President Yeltsin
has not been paralyzed by what's happened. I
support him and his role and what he's trying
to do. I have not established a definite date
for a meeting with him yet, but I do hope
to meet with him soon personally.
I know he's having some trouble with his
Congress, but that's part of being in a democratic society with an elected President separate
from the Congress. He may just be learning


198




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Feb. 24


what it's like in our system. I don't want to
minimize that, but I think it is a grave error
to assume that he cannot continue and do well.
I believe he can.
And I think that in terms of what we ought
to be doing about it, I think the Prime Minister
has pretty well laid out the kind of political
and economic support we ought to be giving.
But let me say that as all of you know, I have
placed a great priority on this. The State Department will now have an ambassador at large
whose job it is to coordinate a response not
only to Russia but to all the Republics of the
former Soviet Union. And we have a very distinguished American, Thomas Pickering, nominated
to be our Ambassador to Moscow. We are putting a lot of effort into trying to support democracy and trying to support economic recovery
there.
Multilateral Trade Negotiations
Q. [Inaudible]-I don't have a word count,
sir, but it's interesting that Prime Minister Major
here may have said more about the importance
of the Uruguay round than you have here in
the White House. I wonder, do you take away
from your meeting with him any renewed sense
of the importance of that round, and if so, how
you plan now to approach it?
The President. Well, we're going to ask for
an extension of fast track authority. And we're
going to really put a real effort into a successful
conclusion of the round. I advocated that in
1991 at the beginning of my race for President,
and I still feel very strongly that it's important.
I think if you look at the press response
around the world to the economic plan I've presented to Congress, it's been very positive because our trading partners have been asking us
for years to make a real effort to reduce the
debt. And so we're doing that. And I think that
sparks hope not only here at home but around
the world. And I think if we were to successfully
conclude the Uruguay round, that would also
spark hope that we will be expanding trade on
terms that are fair to everyone. So I'm very
hopeful that we can get a trade agreement.
Northern Ireland
Q. Did you raise today the question of human
rights in Northern Ireland, and did you get to
discuss it with him
The President. We haven't discussed Northern
Ireland at all. And after we do, I'll be happy


to answer your questions.
Bosnia
Q. Mr. Prime Minister, you expressed earlier-said that you are not remotely concerned
about the British troops, that they will be in
any   danger    because-[inaudible]-defense
against these deliveries, and the President has
said-[inaudible]-slight risk. And I'm wondering, beyond your saying you have this policy,
if both of you could give some idea of why
you sound so confident there will be no attempts to stop this-[inaudible]. There's been
a lot of effort to block it so far.
The President. Well, all I can tell you is General Powell has been-let me answer, and then
he'll answer-has been asked to design the mission in such a way that we would minimize
risk to our folks. And we have obviously engaged
in an extensive consultation, which is not over.
Helen's [Helen Thomas, United Press International] been asking me every day when I was
ready to make this announcement. The consultations aren't over. And one of the things that
we want, we want everybody to know that this
is a humanitarian mission, that we're prepared
to help anybody who needs the food and medicine. And we want the broadest possible support
for this. And we want all the people on the
ground in the various factions to know that this
is not a political issue with us. We're very encouraged by the responses we've gotten so far
to all the elements with whom we have discussed this plan. That's all I can tell you.
Q. Mr. Prime Minister, could you answer,
please?
Prime Minister Major. I don't think there's
a great deal to add to it. As I indicated earlier,
there's a twin-track approach. We're providing
aid by land. The President has in mind aid delivered by air to areas where we can't reach it
by land. I've no reason to suppose that that
is going to put at risk the lives of the British
soldiers in central Bosnia.
Q. But you're in an area where they have
a fighter capability and an antiaircraft weapon.
If they don't want this material to be delivered,
they have to use that.
Prime Minister Major. Well, you asked the
question. I've given you the judgment I make.
Middle East Peace Talks
Q. Mr. President, you said you discussed the
Middle East. Did you reach any conclusion, and


199




Feb. 24 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


do you favor returning to the peace talks even
if the Palestinians do not?
The President. We talked mostly about the
importance of adhering to the United Nations
resolutions as they apply to Iraq and the aftermath of the Gulf war and about our general
support for the peace process continuing. We
didn't deal with that issue, and I think I ought
to wait until the Secretary of State returns from
his mission before I discuss it further.
Bosnia
Q. You talk about consultations on Bosnia.
Is there any realistic expectations at this point
that any other country except for the United
States will be involved in this airdrop?
The President. Yes, we might have some other
countries involved in it. I don't think it would
be-I believe the Prime Minister made his
statement. I think he's done his part. His troops
are on the ground there. But I think there is
a chance that we will have support from other
nations.
Q. [Inaudible]-ask Great Britain to participate in the airdrop as well?
The President. No.
Q. [Inaudible]-question to both leaders. Do
you think that the current Vance-Owen map
forms the fair basis for a settlement of the crisis
in the former Yugoslavia?
Prime Minister Major. Well, that's the matter
that has to be negotiated between the parties.
And I don't think I'm going to express a view
on whether that is the right map. I think the
process of seeking a negotiated settlement and
trying to reach by agreement between the three
parties, an agreement on the map that will enable a political settlement to be reached is the
right way. But I don't think it's for me to judge
whether the map is right.
Clearly, the views of the participants at the
moment is that the map isn't right. But that
is the purpose of negotiations. That is why I
was delighted to hear this morning that Karadzic
and Izetbegovic will be joining talks again with
Boban so that they can actually talk to Cy Vance
and David Owen and see if they can reach an
agreement. The first prize is clearly an agreement that is reached voluntarily and willingly
and as speedily as possible.
The President. The only thing I would say,
just to add to that, is that I agree with what
the Prime Minister has said. As you know, the
United States feels very strongly that this agree

ment must be just that, an agreement that must
not be shoved down the throat of the Bosnians
or anyone else if it's going to work. We also
feel strongly that all the parties should negotiate
in good faith.
And therefore, I agree with what he said
about the map. I would make this further point:
The United States has made it clear in our
statement of policy that if an agreement is
reached in good faith, that we would be prepared to be part of a NATO or United Nations
effort to monitor or support the agreement, and
that map would be difficult to monitor and support, I think.
But I think we're going to have to-before
we make any final judgments, we need to give
the parties a chance to reach their accord.
Spending Cuts
Q. Mr. President, on-[inaudible]-economics, you indicated you will find more spending
cuts. Will you give a sense of when? And are
you really talking about a new round of cuts
or just
The President. Oh well, what I said was, I
have invited the Members of the Congress to
present them to me and instructed our people
to continue to look for them. And I presume
as we define things that we're willing to put
on the table, we will continue to do it. We
don't have any orchestrated theory about how
to do that now. But I'd be surprised if there
aren't some more coming.
Airbus
Q. Mr. Prime Minister, were you disappointed
or taken aback by what the President said the
other day about the airbus, and were you reassured by your conversations today?
Prime Minister Major. There's an agreement
over the degree of subsidies for projects like
airbus. And that agreement continues into July,
and I think there is no proposition in what the
President said to change that particular agreement.
Northern Ireland
Q. Mr. President, you said you may discuss
Northern Ireland this evening. Would you expect to discuss both the-[inaudible]-issue and
the human rights issue? And do you share the
view expressed by some Members of Congress,
Senators and Representatives, that there are
abuses to human rights in Northern Ireland that


200




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Feb. 24


need to be addressed? And perhaps the Prime
Minister would like to address that allegation.
Prime Minister Major. Well, I'll address that
point first. The real abuse of human rights in
Northern Ireland is the abuse of human rights
of people who find bombs in shopping malls
when they're going about their ordinary, everyday business. I think that is the abuse of human
rights that is overwhelmingly the concern of everybody in Northern Ireland on both sides of
the sectarian divide.
Over the past 2 or 3 years, the British Government with the Taoiseach and with the political parties in Northern Ireland, have been engaged on talks to try and find a political settlement to a problem that has existed in Northern
Ireland for generations. We are seeking that
agreement. Those talks, I believe it is fair to
say, have made more progress than most people
believed was possible.
Talks came to a halt with the general election
in the Republic of Ireland and the forthcoming
local elections in Northern Ireland. But it is
the policy of my government to resume those
talks, to resume those talks with all the parties
in Northern Ireland and try and reach a satisfactory political settlement and remove many of
the disputes and hatreds that have existed for
generations.
Those disputes and hatreds are worsened by
violence, whether it is the IRA violence or
whether it is the response to IRA violence which
has also been prevalent over the last year or
so. I condemn both unreservedly and without
any distinction.
Q. Mr. President-[inaudible]-respond to
that.
The President. I believe that obviously there
has to be a political solution there, or there
will be no solution at all, and that the human
rights issues will have to be addressed in that
context. Whether the United States can play any
sort of constructive role is something that we
want to discuss later this evening.
Press Secretary Myers. Last question.
Economic Program
Q. Mr. President, here just one week after
your speech announcing your budget and economic plan, Senator Bob Dole is pronouncing
it in trouble. What's your read on that, and
do you think this is the start of a war of words
that's going to slow down the whole process?
The President. Well, I think you have to ex

pect that there would be some trouble. And
the Senate Minority Leader can say that. But
he was here during the last 12 years when other
Presidents and the Congress quadrupled the national debt. I'm trying to do something about
it and turn it around and go in the opposite
direction. The surveys show that a big majority
of the American people support my initiative.
The response from people and governments
around the world, it's been almost uniformly
positive that America's trying to change the nature of its economic policy, reduce its debt, increase investment in high growth items. And
I never expected this to be easy. This is a fundamental change. I don't expect it to be easy.
But I hope that I'll be working with Senator
Dole and with others to bring it to a successful
conclusion.
Q. Can I follow up on that, Mr. President?
Prime Minister Mulroney of Canada
Q. [Inaudible]-Canada? Have you spoken to
the Prime Minister?
The President. Yes, I spoke to the Prime Minister of Canada. We had a very nice conversation, which was mostly personal. And I thanked
him for his kindness to me. And he assured
me that his country would continue to work
with me and that he would personally until his
tenure in office was over. I wish him well. He
seemed to be a person who had worked through
this and was very much at peace with himself
today.
Prime Minister Major. Can I just answer that
point as well? I regard Brian as an old friend
and a good friend. I shall miss him. He's been
a very good friend to the United Kingdom and
a very good friend to the Commonwealth. So
I'm sad to hear of his decision today. It must
be his decision. I wish him well in the future,
and I look forward to seeing him in the United
Kingdom in a few weeks' time.
Northern Ireland
Q. Mr. Prime Minister, do you think there's
any constructive role the United States can play
in solving the Northern Ireland problem?
Prime Minister Major. I think from time to
time distinguished visitors from the United
States in Northern Ireland have come back to
the United States, and they have actually explained the remarkable changes that have taken
part in Belfast. There was a delegation that was
there recently. And the reality is that anyone


201




Feb. 24 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


who knew the place 10 years ago and knows
the place today will see there is an absolute
and total sea change. And I think the fact that
there is a great knowledge about the willful
peace amongst people in Northern Ireland and
especially the ordinary people of Northern Ireland of both sides of the sectarian divide, the
more that is understood, the better. And what
is actually needed in Northern Ireland to help
speed that is more understanding of the process,
more support for the talks, more investment for
job creation, and less money to fund terrorism.


And the more people know about that, the nearer we come to a solution.
Press Secretary Myers. Thank you.
NOTE: The President's fourth news conference
began at 4:32 p.m. in the East Room at the White
House. In his remarks, the Prime Minister referred to Lord David Owen and Cyrus Vance, Cochairmen of the International Conference on the
former Yugoslavia; Alija Izetbegovic, President,
Republic  of  Bosnia-Herzegovina;  Radovan
Karadzic, Bosnian Serb leader; and Mate Boban,
Bosnian Croat leader.


Statement on the Planned Resignation of Prime Minister Brian Mulroney
of Canada
February 24, 1993


Prime Minister Mulroney and I had a good
conversation following his announcement that he
is stepping down as Prime Minister of Canada.
Prime Minister Mulroney has been a good
friend and partner of the United States, and
I wish him well. The Free Trade Agreement,
the NAFTA, and Canada's voice in helping to
move the world into a more hopeful era are
all testimony to his leadership and courage.
It was a pleasure to meet with the Prime
Minister earlier this month and to speak with
him several times since my election. I greatly
appreciated the Prime Minister's insight and
wise counsel in tackling the common challenges
of promoting world economic growth and peace.
My meeting with him reinforced my conviction
that Canadian engagement in world affairs remains as vital as ever. That our meeting was
my first as President underscores the close rela

tionship between our two countries. Our enduring friendship is based on the common vision
we share of peace and democratic principles.
From peacekeepers in Bosnia and Somalia to
partnership in the G-7 and in NATO, Canada
has been a true global ally. Both our people
benefit from our important trading relationship,
with $200 billion in goods and services alone
exchanged each year.
Our steadfast relationship with Canada is an
indispensable element in the essential continuity
of American foreign policy. As the Prime Minister and the people of Canada prepare for the
road ahead, I want them to know that the United States is and will remain their friend and
partner. Our cooperation will continue to grow
in the years ahead.


Remarks to Business and Labor Leaders and an Exchange With Reporters
on the Economic Program
February 25, 1993
The President. Thank you very much. To all  so ably. Let me begin with a simple thank you
the business and the labor leaders who are here,  to all of you for your support of our common
and to Representative Clayton and the many    efforts to turn our country around and put our
Members of the House whom     she represents  Nation on the right track.


202




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Feb. 25


For too long we have seen business and labor
divided over more issues than we see them united on. Part of that has been occasioned by the
incredible difficulties of our economy. When
people believe there is a shrinking pie, they're
more likely to be fighting over that. Part of
that has been occasioned by the fact that we
have not been on a great national journey together in which we could all feel that we were
a part, making our equal contributions, reaping
our equal rewards.
I'm very encouraged by the business-labor
partnership that we see manifested here today,
by the fact that it represents a commitment
to ending gridlock and to beginning change, and
deeply impressed by the letter which Representative Clayton has brought here today by the
people whom I think in many ways are most
representatives of the American people: this new
big class of freshmen Congress men and women
who are out there, just as Vice President Gore
and I were last year, criss-crossing the country
in a beginning effort, listening to people and
their concerns and their hopes. So I'm very,
very happy about that.
If I might, I'd like to close just by emphasizing three or four of the critical elements of
this economic plan and why I think they are
worthy of the support of this distinguished group
of Americans. Everyone knows we have to bring
the deficit down; it has become the dominant
fact of all the budgeting of the Federal Government. But there are those who say, "Well, how
can you do that. You're just coming out of a
recession, and traditional economic theory holds
that the last thing you want to do is to slow
down a recovery by closing a deficit."
That is, ever since the Depression, our country has operated on an economic theory that
said when times were slow, there should be
more Government spending; when times were
great, then you could bring our accounts into
balance. The problem is that for more than 20
years we have been building in a structural deficit into our Government, one that robbed the
National Government of that flexibility, the flexibility to tighten up in good times to slow down
inflation, and to invest more in bad times to
put people back to work.
And our strategy now, I think, is actually supporting an economic recovery in bringing this
deficit down because you can see the decline
in long-term interest rates which means that
borrowing is cheaper and which means that mil

lions of Americans in their personal capacities
and as business persons are going to refinance
their debt which will free up cash to be reinvested in economic growth. So I believe this
strategy is expansionary.
I also would make a couple of other points
if I might. We are changing fundamentally the
direction of Government spending itself, moving
away from spending for consumption towards
spending a higher percentage of the people's
tax dollars on investment. It is simply not true
that all Government spending is equal. Some
investment will have a much bigger reward in
terms of jobs and incomes than spending more
money on the same program.
Finally, we are looking at ways to basically
make the Government itself work in a very different and more efficient way. One of them
has already been alluded to by Kathryn Thompson. We will be announcing in the near future
some efforts by this administration to ease the
credit crunch on small business. We are also
trying to change the way the Government itself
operates and the regulatory framework to do
things that will achieve objectives in a better
way.
We believe we can promote a clean environment and economic growth with the right kind
of regulatory and investment climate. We believe by changing the way the Government itself
does business, we can give the American people
a much leaner Government. We think that the
White House staff cuts and the reorganization
are simply an example of what we can do
throughout the Government, given time.
So I appreciate the support for this program.
And let me reiterate, I am not simply interested
in raising more revenues. I don't want new taxes
unless we're going to have spending cuts, unless
we are going to change the nature of Government spending toward more investment, and unless we're going to change the way the Government itself operates.
This is a whole program that will fundamentally give us an end to gridlock and the change
we need. And I thank these people who are
here. They are reflective of the kind of unity
we need in America to move this country forward. Thank you very much.
Q. How committed, sir, are you to the stimulus part of your package? It's now been delayed
another month, perhaps; your budget is not even
going up until April 5th. A lot of economists
say that if it gets delayed much longer, it won't


203




Feb. 25 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


even help the economy. Only one of the preceding speakers even mentioned this stimulus package. Just how important is this?
The President. Yes, that's not true. At least
one of them did mention it first. And secondly,
I think it is quite important. I think it would
be a big mistake-let me just give you-it will
do what it's designed to do later in time for
everything except those things that have to be
in place this summer. And I'm hoping that we
can get the kind of-a lot of the Members of
Congress are looking for a way to demonstrate
to the country that they don't want to raise
more taxes without cutting spending. And we're
working on giving them an opportunity to do
that. I agree with that. I think that's fine.
But there are some things that are time-sensitive in this stimulus package. The most obvious
and apparent one is the summer jobs program.
Nearly every person I know, including an enormous number of business people who are in
and around cities like Los Angeles or Chicago
or New York or other cities, believe that the
prospect of being able to provide nearly 700,000
summer jobs in a framework in which we can
then get business people together to work to
provide more jobs-and one of the people here
on this platform today has already told me that
he wanted to get involved in that-could be
a major statement this summer that we are trying to turn some things around in the more
depressed areas of our country.
There are some other things that are somewhat time sensitive, but the main thing is we
need to be investing more money at the same
time that we are bringing down this deficit so
that we'll be creating some jobs. The traditional
economic theory is that if you reduce the deficit,
you're going to slow down the economy and
undermine the ability to create jobs. I just can
convince-that's wrong now because of the vast
accumulated debt. If you can keep interest rates
down, you're going to speed up the economy
by putting more money out there.
But I think the stimulus is important, and
I intend to continue to support it.. Q. Mr. President, I was struck by the fact
that of all your speakers here, they all said,
'"e support the package, but we'd like changes
in the area that affects us." Isn't that what
you've been warning against? That the tax
increaseThe President. That's not what they said.
That's not what-only one of them said that,


I think. And I think that, for one thing, the
very fact that they're here supporting it, knowing
that they'd all like changes in something that
affects them, is the very point I've been trying
to make to the American people.
If you look at this, if you look at this, if
every person looks at this through the mirror
of what is best for you today, there will always
be something in here that doesn't quite work.
The thing that makes this work is that it is
a package in which everybody forgoes something
they would like and gets something that they
would like, but that in the main it moves the
country in the right direction.
The Vice President. Could I add something
to that?
The President. Yes.
The Vice President. You know, Lod Cook
started off by singling out the two provisions
which you would expect him to oppose in the
old model. And he singled those out as things
that he supported. And many of the others have
said, privately and publicly, that they strongly
support the package in spite of the fact that
it contains elements that they would not like
to necessarily single out by themselves but as
part of a package it makes sense for the country.
Q. Would you be willing to put forth more
spending cuts before your budget goes up? I
know you called for the Republicans
The President. Like what? Like what? I mean,
unlike a lot of these other people, I worked
for weeks and weeks and weeks on this budget.
What I said was, if they had more spending
cuts they thought were good ideas, I'd be happy
to embrace them, that I intended for the entire
duration of my term here to continue to look
for more spending cuts. If I find more that
I think are worthy, I'll be glad to incorporate
them.
But let me just say, I have a difficult time
taking these people seriously, who say we should
have more spending cuts, who were here for
the last 12 years. Where were they? I don't
mind; anybody can say whatever they want about
more spending cuts, but why are you asking
me? Why don't you ask them? They're going
around saying, "I have the list of spending cuts
that I will discuss with somebody at some later
date."
Q. They're saying that you're suggesting many
spending cuts which have been up on the Hill
for years and that these aren't any new cuts
and these are


204




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Feb. 25


The President. If we pass them, it will be
new. [Laughter] They've been up there. If we
pass them, they will be new.
Q. You said earlier you obviously don't like
to raise taxes. Are you ready to acknowledge
at this point that you will have to go back to
Congress and ask for more tax increases for
the health care reform package? And would you
also comment on a report that you've dropped
the idea of taxing benefits?
The President. I haven't picked any tax up,
so how could I drop-you can't drop something
you didn't pick up. So I won't comment on
something-if I pick something, I'll tell you.
I can say this: I'm not ready to admit that
I think that the people who have paid the bill
for health care in the 1980's should turn around
and pay more right now. We're spending 14
percent of gross national product. You do have
to find some way to recover some revenues to
cover people who now don't have coverage, if
the Government pays for the coverage. And
that's an important part of stopping the cost
shifting, which has led to so much increase in
private insurance.
But there are lots of options we are looking
at now which wouldn't necessarily increase middle class tax burdens. There are a whole range
of options for dealing with this, which is why
I asked you to let us finish this process of review
before we try to pick it apart.
There was a huge transfer of wealth in America in the 1980's away from everything else to
health care, to pay more for the same health
care. Most of it went into paperwork, insurance
costs, extra procedures by providers, and duplication of expensive equipment, and emergency
care, partly due to the absence of primary and
preventive care. If you correct all those things
and you don't change the present spending patterns, that will create a huge windfall to people
whose pricing structures have all that built in.
There are all kinds of things that we might
be able to do to solve this problem, short of
having health care become even more expensive
for people who are paying 30 percent more for
it than anybody else on Earth.
Q. [Inaudible]-that burden middle class.
Does that rule out sin taxes then?
The President. I think health-related taxes are
different. I think cigarette taxes, for example,
are different.
Q. Why?
The President. Why? Because I think that we


are spending a ton of money in private insurance
and in Government tax payments to deal with
the health care problems occasioned by bad
health habits, and particularly smoking, which
is costing us a lot of money.
Q. [Inaudible]-you stand on the cuts? What
kind of cuts would be considered? I know you're
hearing a lot of input. You stressed the importance of input. In that inputThe President. I haven't really been getting
a lot of input. That's the thing. A lot of people
keep talking about it; I haven't been getting
a lot of specific input. A lot of folks say they
want overall caps. Overall caps are another way
of saying, let's take Social Security benefits away
from people even though Social Security is producing a $70 billion-$60 billion-plus surplus
in taxes. Or let's take Medicare benefits away
from middle class Medicare beneficiaries instead
of reforming the health care system.
That's basically the only things I've heard
since then. If somebody wants to come forward
with something else specific-now, there are
some people who-let me just be also fair.
Some of the people in my party have been
somewhat more specific about some of the cuts
they want that I honestly disagree with, and
there ought to be a debate on that in Congress.
Some of them want me to cut defense more.
I've already had to cut defense more than I
pledged to do in the campaign because it appears that the last budget which was adopted
by Congress had defense cuts in it which
weren't real. So I don't think I can cut any
more right now. The Congress will be free to
debate that.
Some people think that we should abolish the
superconducting super collider or end the space
station program, but I honestly don't agree with
that. I thought about those programs and I debated them, but at least those are specific, and
they can be debated on the floor of Congress.
But these general "cap this, blanket that," I
think people ought to say what the cut is and
who will be affected by it and be very specific.
Thank you.
NOTE: The President spoke at 11:02 a.m. in Room
450 of the Old Executive Office Building. In his
remarks, he referred to Representative Eva M.
Clayton, who represented the newly elected
Democratic Representatives, and Kathryn G.
Thompson, chairman and chief executive officer,
Kathryn G. Thompson Development Co.


205




Feb. 25 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


Statement Announcing Airdrops To Provide Humanitarian Aid to BosniaHerzegovina
February 25, 1993


The war that has raged in Bosnia-Herzegovina
over the past year has taken a staggering toll:
Thousands have been killed or imprisoned, thousands more are at risk due to hunger and exposure, and over 2 million people have been
forced from their homes. The humanitarian
need is particularly great in eastern Bosnia,
where areas have been denied basic food and
medicines.
In view of the emergency humanitarian need,
I am announcing today that in coordination with
the United Nations and UNHCR, the United
States will conduct humanitarian airdrops over
Bosnia. The airdrops are an extension of the
airlift currently underway into Sarajevo. Their
purpose is to supplement land convoys. This is
a temporary measure designed to address the


immediate needs of isolated areas that cannot
be reached at this time by ground. Regular overland deliveries are the best means to ensure
that the long-term needs of the Bosnian population are met, and the United States calls on
the parties to guarantee the safe passage of the
humanitarian convoys throughout Bosnia.
The priority for air deliveries will be determined without regard to ethnic or religious affiliation. These airdrops are being carried out
strictly for humanitarian purposes; no combat
aircraft will be used in this operation. The Department of Defense will be working with the
UNHCR to determine the timing and locations
for the airdrops.
I am grateful for the considerable international support given to this initiative.


Exchange With Reporters at a Meeting With Close-Up Foundation
Students From Arkansas
February 25, 1993


Bosnia
Q. Mr. President, do you care to say any
more about the operational details of the airlift?
The President. No.
Q. How about explaining to the American
people why it's an important issue for the United States to undertake?
The President. What?
Q. Why is it an important mission for us
to put people at risk for that?
The President. Well, I'll say again, General
Powell believes the risk is quite limited and


not appreciably more than many training flights
that our airmen do every year. It's important
because we believe if-number one, there are
a lot of people over there who need the food
and can't get it by road, so it's a humanitarian
gesture. And secondly, we think if we do it,
we will be able to create a somewhat better
climate for negotiations, and we're pushing to
try to have good-faith negotiations. So we're
hoping it works out.
NOTE: The President spoke at 4:01 p.m. in the
Oval Office at the White House.


Remarks at the American University Centennial Celebration
February 26, 1993
Thank you very much, President Duffey, dis-  and faculty and patrons of American University,
tinguished members of the board of trustees,  and Members of Congress, members of the dip

206




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Feb. 26


lomatic corps, and my fellow citizens, and especially to the students here today. I am very
honored to be here today at this wonderful
school on the occasion of your centennial, at
the dawn of a new era for our Nation and for
our world, and deeply honored to receive this
honorary degree, although I almost choked on
it here. [Laughter]
My mind is full of many memories today,
looking at all of you in your youthful enthusiasm
and your hope for the future. I'd like to say
a special word of thanks to all of you for the
warm reception you gave to the person to whom
I owe more than anybody else in this audience,
Senator Fulbright.
When I was barely 20 years old, Senator
Fulbright's administrative assistant called me
one morning in Arkansas and asked me if I
wanted a job working for the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee as an assistant clerk. Since
I couldn't really afford the cost of my education
to Georgetown, I told him I was interested.
And he said, "Well, you can have a part-time
job at $3,500 a year or a full-time job at $5,000
a year." I said, "How about two part-time jobs."
[Laughter] He replied that I was just the sort
of mathematician they were looking for and
would I please come. [Laughter] The next week,
literally a day and a half later, I was there working for a person I had admired all my life,
and the rest of it is history. But Senator Fulbright, now 88 years young, taught me a lot
about the importance of our connections to the
rest of the world, and that even in our small
landlocked State of Arkansas, we were bound
up inextricably with the future, with the passions
and the promise of people all across this globe.
And it is about that which I come to speak
today.
I also want to say a special word of thanks
to your president, Joe Duffey, and to his wonderful wife, Anne Wexler, who have been my
friends for many years. When I was a young
man at Yale Law School, I went to work for
Joe Duffey in his campaign for the Senate. His
wife was then his campaign manager. I enjoyed
working for a woman. I learned a lot about
equal opportunity, which I have tried to live
out in my own life. Well, Joe Duffey didn't
win that race for the Senate. And 4 years later
I went home to Arkansas, and I ran for Congress, and I lost my race, too. And I thought
how ironic it is that our failed efforts to get
to Congress made us both President. [Laughter]


Finally, let me say that in my senior year
at Georgetown, in the winter, on a day very
much like today, I had a date with a girl from
American University. I didn't think about this
until I got in the car to come up here today,
but it was snowing like crazy that night, just
like it was today. And I creeped along in my
car from Georgetown to American with this fellow who was in my class. And we picked up
these two fine women from American University. And we went to the movie, and then we
went to dinner. We went to a movie, we took
them home, and then we were driving home.
As we were driving home it was very slick, just
like it is today. And I put my brakes on when
I was almost home, and my car went into a
huge spin. And it missed this massive pole on
which the stoplight was by about 2 inches. And
I couldn't help thinking after my speech last
week how many more people would have been
happy in America if I'd been a little bit closer
to that pole 25 years ago. [Laughter]
Thirty years ago in the last year of his short
but brilliant life, John Kennedy came to this
university to address the paramount challenge
of that time: the imperative of pursuing peace
in the face of nuclear confrontation. Many
Americans still believe it was the finest speech
he ever delivered. Today I come to this same
place to deliver an address about what I consider to be the great challenge of this day: the
imperative of American leadership in the face
of global change.
Over the past year I have tried to speak at
some length about what we must do to update
our definition of national security and to promote it and to protect it and to foster democracy
and human rights around the world. Today, I
want to allude to those matters, but to focus
on the economic leadership we must exert at
home and abroad as a new global economy
unfolds before our eyes.
Twice before in this century, history has asked
the United States and other great powers to
provide leadership for a world ravaged by war.
After World War I, that call went unheeded.
Britain was too weakened to lead the world to
reconstruction. The United States was too unwilling. The great powers together turned inward as violent, totalitarian power emerged. We
raised trade barriers. We sought to humiliate
rather than rehabilitate the vanquished. And the
result was instability, inflation, then depression
and ultimately a Second World War.


207




Feb. 26 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


After the Second War, we refused to let history repeat itself. Led by a great American
President, Harry Truman, a man of very common roots but uncommon vision, we drew together with other Western powers to reshape
a new era. We established NATO to oppose
the aggression of communism. We rebuilt the
American economy with investments like the GI
bill and a national highway system. We carried
out the Marshall plan to rebuild war-ravaged
nations abroad. General MacArthur's vision prevailed in Japan, which built a massive economy
and a remarkable democracy. We built new institutions to foster peace and prosperity: the
United Nations, the International Monetary
Fund, the World Bank, the General Agreement
on Tariffs and Trade, and more.
These actions helped to usher in four decades
of robust economic growth and collective security. Yet the cold war was a draining time. We
devoted trillions of dollars to it, much more
than many of our more visionary leaders thought
we should have. We posted our sons and daughters around the world. We lost tens of thousands
of them in the defense of freedom and in the
pursuit of a containment of communism.
We, my generation, grew up going to school
assemblies learning about what we would do
in the event a nuclear war broke out. We were
taught to practice ducking under our desks and
praying that somehow they might shield us from
nuclear radiation. We all learned about whether
we needed a bomb shelter in our neighborhood
to which we could run in the event that two
great superpowers rained nuclear weapons on
one another. And that fate, frankly, seemed still
frighteningly possible just months before President Kennedy came here to speak in 1963. Now,
thanks to his leadership and that of every American President since the Second World War
from Harry Truman to George Bush, the cold
war is over.
The Soviet Union itself has disintegrated. The
nuclear shadow is receding in the face of the
START I and START II agreements and others
that we have made and others yet to come.
Democracy is on the march everywhere in the
world. It is a new day and a great moment
for America.
Yet, across America I hear people raising
central questions about our place and our prospects in this new world we have done so much
to make. They ask: Will we and our children
really have good jobs, first-class opportunities,


world-class education, quality affordable health
care, safe streets? After having fully defended
freedom's ramparts, they want to know if we
will share in freedom's bounty.
One of the young public school students
President Duffey just introduced was part of
the children's program that I did last Saturday
with children from around America. If you saw
their stories, so many of them raised troubling
questions about our capacity to guarantee the
fruits of the American dream to all of our own
people.
I believe we can do that, and I believe we
must. For in a new global economy, still recovering from the after-effects of the cold war,
a prosperous America is not only good for
Americans, as the Prime Minister of Great Britain reminded me just a couple of days ago,
it is absolutely essential for the prosperity of
the rest of the world.
Washington can no longer remain caught in
the death grip of gridlock, governed by an outmoded ideology that says change is to be resisted, the status quo is to be preserved. Like
King Canute ordering the tide to recede, we
cannot do that. And so, my fellow Americans,
I submit to you that we stand at the third great
moment of decision in the 20th century. Will
we repeat the mistakes of the 1920's or the
1930's by turning inward, or will we repeat the
successes of the 1940's and the 1950's by reaching outward and improving ourselves as well?
I say that if we set a new direction at home,
we can set a new direction for the world as
well.
The change confronting us in the 1990's is
in some ways more difficult than previous times
because it is less distinct. It is more complex
and in some ways the path is less clear to most
of our people still today, even after 20 years
of declining relative productivity and a decade
or more of stagnant wages and greater effort.
The world clearly remains a dangerous place.
Ethnic hatreds, religious strife, the proliferation
of weapons of mass destruction, the violation
of human rights flagrantly in altogether too
many places around the world still call on us
to have a sense of national security in which
our national defense is an integral part. And
the world still calls on us to promote democracy,
for even though democracy is on the march
in many places in the world, you and I know
that it has been thwarted in many places, too.
And yet we still face, overarching everything


208




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Feb. 26


else, this amorphous but profound challenge in
the way humankind conducts its commerce.
We cannot let these changes in the global
economy carry us passively toward a future of
insecurity and instability. For change is the law
of life. Whether you like it or not, the world
will change much more rapidly in your lifetime
than it has in mine. It is absolutely astonishing
the speed with which the sheer volume of
knowledge in the world is doubling every few
years. And a critical issue before us and especially before the young people here in this audience is whether you will grow up in a world
where change is your friend or your enemy.
We must challenge the changes now engulfing
our world toward America's enduring objectives
of peace and prosperity, of democracy and
human dignity. And we must work to do it at
home and abroad.
It is important to understand the monumental
scope of these changes. When I was growing
up, business was mostly a local affair. Most
farms and firms were owned locally; they borrowed locally; they hired locally; they shipped
most of their products to neighboring communities or States within the United States. It was
the same for the country as a whole. By and
large, we had a domestic economy.
But now we are woven inextricably into the
fabric of a global economy. Imports and exports,
which accounted for about $1 in $10 when I
was growing up, now represent $1 in every $5.
Nearly three-quarters of the things that we make
in America are subject to competition at home
or abroad from foreign producers and foreign
providers of services. Whether we see it or not,
our daily lives are touched everywhere by the
flows of commerce that cross national borders
as inexorably as the weather.
Capital clearly has become global. Some $3
trillion of capital race around the world every
day. And when a firm wants to build a new
factory, it can turn to financial markets now
open 24 hours a day, from London to Tokyo,
from New York to Singapore. Products have
clearly become more global. Now if you buy
an American car, it may be an American car
built with some parts from Taiwan, designed
by Germans, sold with British-made advertisements, or a combination of others in a different
mix.
Services have become global. The accounting
firm that keeps the books for a small business
in Wichita may also be helping new entre

preneurs in Warsaw. And the same fast food
restaurant that your family goes to or at least
that I go to-[laughter]-also may well be serving families from Manila to Moscow and managing its business globally with information technologies, and satellites.
Most important of all, information has become
global and has become king of the global economy. In earlier history, wealth was measured
in land, in gold, in oil, in machines. Today,
the principal measure of our wealth is information: its quality, its quantity, and the speed with
which we acquire it and adapt to it. We need
more than anything else to measure our wealth
and our potential by what we know and by
what we can learn and what we can do with
it. The value and volume of information has
soared; the half-life of new ideas has trumped.
Just a few days ago, I was out in Silicon
Valley at a remarkable company called Silicon
Graphics that has expanded exponentially, partly
by developing computer software with a life of
12 to 18 months, knowing that it will be obsolete after that and always being ready with a
new product to replace it.
We are in a constant race toward innovation
that will not end in the lifetime of anyone in
this room. What all this means is that the best
investment we can make today is in the one
resource firmly rooted in our own borders. That
is, in the education, the skills, the reasoning
capacity, and the creativity of our own people.
For all the adventure and opportunity in this
global economy, an American cannot approach
it without mixed feelings. We still sometimes
wish wistfully that everything we really want,
particularly those things that produce good
wages, could be made in America. We recall
simpler times when one product line would be
made to endure and last for years. We're angry
when we see jobs and factories moving overseas
or across the borders or depressing wages here
at home when we think there is nothing we
can do about it. We worry about our own prosperity being so dependent on events and forces
beyond our shores. Could it be that the world's
most powerful nation has also given up a significant measure of its sovereignty in the quest to
lift the fortunes of people throughout the world?
It is ironic and even painful that the global
village we have worked so hard to create has
done so much to be the source of higher unemployment and lower wages for some of our people. But that is no wonder. For years our leaders


209




Feb. 26 I Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


have failed to take the steps that would harness
the global economy to the benefit of all of our
people, steps such as investing in our people
and their skills, enforcing our trade laws, helping
communities hurt by change; in short, putting
the American people first without withdrawing
from the world and people beyond our borders.
The truth of our age is this and must be
this: Open and competitive commerce will enrich us as a nation. It spurs us to innovate.
It forces us to compete. It connects us with
new customers. It promotes global growth without which no rich country can hope to grow
wealthier. It enables our producers who are
themselves consumers of services and raw materials to prosper. And so I say to you in the
face of all the pressures to do the reverse, we
must compete, not retreat.
Our exports are especially important to us.
As bad as the recent recession was, it would
have gone on for twice as long had it not been
for what we were able to sell to other nations.
Every billion dollars of our exports creates nearly 20,000 jobs here, and we now have over 7
million export-related jobs in America. They
tend to involve better work and better pay. Most
are in manufacturing, and on average, they pay
almost $3,500 more per year than the average
American job. They are exactly the kind of jobs
we need for a new generation of Americans.
American jobs and prosperity are reason
enough for us to be working at mastering the
essentials of the global economy. But far more
is at stake, for this new fabric of commerce
will also shape global prosperity or the lack of
it, and with it, the prospects of people around
the world for democracy, freedom, and peace.
We must remember that even with all our
problems today, the United States is still the
world's strongest engine of growth and progress.
We remain the world's largest producer and its
largest and most open market. Other nations,
such as Germany and Japan, are moving rapidly.
They have done better than we have in certain
areas. We should respect them for it, and where
appropriate, we should learn from that. But we
must also say to them, "You, too, must act as
engines of global prosperity." Nonetheless, the
fact is that for now and for the foreseeable
future, the world looks to us to be the engine
of global growth and to be the leaders.
Our leadership is especially important for the
world's new and emerging democracies. To grow
and deepen their legitimacy, to foster a middle


class and a civic culture, they need the ability
to tap into a growing global economy. And our
security and our prosperity will be greatly affected in the years ahead by how many of these
nations can become and stay democracies.
All you have to do to know that is to look
at the problems in Somalia, to look at Bosnia,
to look at the other trouble spots in the world.
If we could make a garden of democracy and
prosperity and free enterprise in every part of
this globe, the world would be a safer and a
better and a more prosperous place for the
United States and for all of you to raise your
children in.
Let us not minimize the difficulty of this task.
Democracy's prospects are dimmed, especially
in the developing world, by trade barriers and
slow global growth. Even though 60 developing
nations have reduced their trade barriers in recent years, when you add up the sum of their
collective actions, 20 of the 24 developed nations
have actually increased their trade barriers in
recent years. This is a powerful testament to
the painful difficulty of trying to maintain a
high-wage economy in a global economy where
production is mobile and can quickly fly to a
place with low wages.
We have got to focus on how to help our
people adapt to these changes, how to maintain
a high-wage economy in the United States without ourselves adding to the protectionist direction that so many of the developed nations have
taken in the last few years. These barriers in
the end will cost the developing world more
in lost exports and incomes than all the foreign
assistance that developed nations provide, but
after that they will begin to undermine our economic prosperity as well.
It's more than a matter of incomes. I remind
you: It's a matter of culture and stability. Trade,
of course, cannot ensure the survival of new
democracies, and we have seen the enduring
power of ethnic hatred, the incredible power
of ethnic divisions, even among people literate
and allegedly understanding, to splinter democracy and to savage the nation's state.
But as philosophers from Thucydides to Adam
Smith have noted, the habits of commerce run
counter to the habits of war. just as neighbors
who raise each other's barns are less likely to
become arsonists, people who raise each other's
living standards through commerce are less likely to become combatants. So if we believe in
the bonds of democracy, we must resolve to


210




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Feb. 26


strengthen the bonds of commerce.
Our own Nation has the greatest potential
to benefit from the emerging economy, but to
do so we have to confront the obstacles that
stand in our way. Many of our trading partners
cling to unfair practices. Protectionist voices
here at home and abroad call for new barriers.
And different policies have left too many of
our workers and communities exposed to the
harsh winds of trade without letting them share
in the sheltering prosperity trade has also
brought and without helping them in any way
to build new ways to work so they can be rewarded for their efforts in global commerce.
Cooperation among the major powers toward
world growth is not working well at all today.
And most of all, we simply haven't done enough
to prepare our own people and to produce our
own resources so that we can face with success
the rigors of the new world. We can change
all that if we have the will to do it. Leonardo
da Vinci said that God sells all things at the
price of labor. Our labor must be to make this
change.
I believe there are five steps we can and
must take to set a new direction at home and
to help create a new direction for the world.
First, we simply have to get our own economic
house in order. I have outlined a new national
economic strategy that will give America the
new direction we require to meet our challenges. It seeks to do what no generation of
Americans has ever been called upon to do before: to increase investment in our productive
future and to reduce our deficit at the same
time.
We must do both. A plan that only plays
down the deficit without investing in those
things that make us more productive will not
make us stronger. A plan that only invests more
money without bringing down the deficit will
weaken the fabric of our overall economy such
that even educated and productive people cannot succeed in it.
It is more difficult to do both. The challenges
are more abrasive. You have to cut more other
spending and raise more other taxes. But it is
essential that we do both: invest so that we
can compete; bring down the debt so that we
can compete. The future of the American dream
and the fate of our economy and much of the
world's economy hangs in the balance on what
happens in this city in the next few months.
Already the voices of inertia and self-interest


have said, well, we shouldn't do this or this,
or that detail is wrong with that plan. But almost
no one has taken up my original challenge that
anyone who has any specific ideas about how
we can cut more should simply come forward
with them. I am genuinely open to new ideas
to cut inessential spending and to make the
kinds of dramatic changes in the way Government works that all of us know we have to
make. I don't care whether they come from
Republicans or Democrats, or I don't even care
whether they come from at home or abroad.
I don't care who gets the credit, but I do care
that we not vary from our determination to pass
a plan that increases investment and reduces
the deficit.
I think every one of you who is a student
at this university has a far bigger stake in the
future than I do. I have lived in all probability
more than half my life with benefits far beyond
anything I ever dreamed or deserved because
my country worked. And I want my country
to work for you.
The plan I have offered is assuredly not perfect, but it's an honest and bold attempt to
honestly confront the challenges before us, to
secure the foundations of our economic growth,
to expand the resources, the confidence and the
moral suasion we need to continue our global
leadership into the next century. And I plead
with all of you to do everything you can to
replace the blame game that has dominated this
city too long with the bigger game of competing
and winning in the global economy.
Second, it is time for us to make trade a
priority element of American security. For too
long, debates over trade have been dominated
by voices from the extremes. One says Government should build walls to protect firms from
competition. Another says Government should
do nothing in the face of foreign competition,
no matter what the dimension and shape of
that competition is, no matter what the consequences are in terms of job losses, trade dislocations, or crushed incomes. Neither view
takes on the hard work of creating a more open
trading system that enables us and our trading
partners to prosper. Neither steps up to the
task of empowering our workers to compete or
of ensuring that there is some compact of shared
responsibility regarding trade's impact on our
people or of guaranteeing a continuous flow of
investment into emerging areas of new technology which will create the high-wage jobs of


211




Feb. 26 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


the 21st century.
Our administration is now developing a comprehensive trade policy that will step up to those
challenges. And I want to describe the principles
upon which it will rest. It will not be a policy
of blame but one of responsibility. It will say
to our trading partners that we value their business, but none of us should expect something
for nothing.
We will continue to welcome foreign products
and services into our markets but insist that
our products and services be able to enter theirs
on equal terms. We will welcome foreign investment in our businesses knowing that with it
come new ideas as well as capital, new technologies, new management techniques, and new
opportunities for us to learn from one another
and grow. But as we welcome that investment,
we insist that our investors should be equally
welcome in other countries.
We welcome the subsidiaries of foreign companies on our soil. We appreciate the jobs they
create and the products and services they bring.
But we do insist simply that they pay the same
taxes on the same income that our companies
do for doing the same business.
Our trade policy will be part of an integrated
economic program, not just something we use
to compensate for the lack of a domestic agenda.
We must enforce our trade laws and our agreements with all the tools and energy at our disposal. But there is much about our competitive
posture that simply cannot be straightened out
by trade retaliation. Better educated and trained
workers, a lower deficit, stable, low interest
rates, a reformed health care system, world-class
technologies, revived cities: These must be the
steel of our competitive edge. And there must
be a continuing quest by business and labor
and, yes, by Government for higher and higher
and higher levels of productivity.
Too many of the chains that have hobbled
us in world trade have been made in America.
Our trade policy will also bypass the distracting
debates over whether efforts should be multilateral, regional, bilateral, unilateral. The fact is
that each of these efforts has its place. Certainly
we need to seek to open other nations' markets
and to establish clear and enforceable rules on
which to expand trade.
That is why I'm committed to a prompt and
successful completion of the Uruguay round of
the GAFF talks. That round has dragged on
entirely too long. But it still holds the potential,


if other nations do their share and we do ours,
to boost American wages and living standards
significantly and to do the same for other nations around the world.
We also know that regional and bilateral
agreements provide opportunities to explore new
kinds of trade concerns, such as how trade relates to policies affecting the environment and
labor standards and the antitrust laws. And these
agreements, once concluded, can act as a magnet including other countries to drop barriers
and to open their trading systems.
The North American Free Trade Agreement
is a good example. It began as an agreement
with Canada, which I strongly supported, which
has now led to a pact with Mexico as well.
That agreement holds the potential to create
many, many jobs in America over the next decade if it is joined with others to ensure that
the environment, that living standards, that
working conditions, are honored, that we can
literally know that we are going to raise the
condition of people in America and in Mexico.
We have a vested interest in a wealthier, stronger Mexico, but we need to do it on terms that
are good for our people.
We should work with organizations, such as
the Asian-Pacific Economic Cooperation Forum,
to liberalize our trade across the Pacific as well.
And let me just say a moment about this:
I am proud of the contribution America has
made to prosperity in Asia and to the march
of democracy. I have seen it in Japan after
World War II. I have seen it then in Taiwan,
as a country became more progressive and less
repressive at the same time. I have seen it in
Korea, as a country has become more progressive and more open. And we are now making
a major contribution to the astonishing revitalization of the Chinese economy, now growing
at 10 percent a year, with the United States
buying a huge percentage of those imports. And
I say, I want to continue that partnership, but
I also think we have a right to expect progress
in human rights and democracy as we support
that progress.
Third, it is time for us to do our best to
exercise leadership among the major financial
powers to improve our coordination on behalf
of global economic growth. At a time when capital is mobile and highly fungible, we simply
cannot afford to work at cross-purposes with
the other major industrial democracies. Our
major partners must work harder and more


212




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Feb. 26


closely with us to reduce interest rates, stimulate
investment, reduce structural barriers to trade,
and to restore robust global growth. And we
must look anew at institutions we use to chart
our way in the global economy and ask whether
they are serving our interest in this new world
or whether we need to modify them or create
others.
Tomorrow our Treasury Secretary, Secretary
Bentsen, and the Federal Reserve Board Chairman, Alan Greenspan, will meet with their counterparts from these Group of Seven nations to
begin that work. And I look forward to meeting
with the G-7 heads of state and the representatives of the European Community at our Tokyo
summit in July. I am especially hopeful that
by then our economic package here at home
will have been substantially enacted by the Congress. And if that is so, I will be able to say
to my counterparts, you have been telling us
for years that America must reduce its debt
and put its own house in order. You have been
saying to us for years we must increase investment in our own education and technology to
improve productivity. We have done it. We have
done it for ourselves. We have done it for you.
Now you must work with us in Germany and
Japan and other nations to promote global
growth.
We have to work with these nations. None
of us are very good at it. America doesn't want
to give up its prerogatives. The Japanese don't
want to give up theirs. The Germans don't want
to give up theirs. There are deep and ingrained
traditions in all these nations. But the fact is
that the world can't grow if America is in recession, but it will be difficult for us to grow coming out of this recovery unless we can spark
a renewed round of growth in Europe and in
Japan. We have got to try to work more closely
together.
Fourthly, we need to promote the steady expansion of growth in the developing world, not
only because it's in our interest but because
it will help them as well. These nations are
a rapidly expanding market for our products.
Some three million American jobs flow from
exports to the developing world. Indeed, because of unilateral actions taken by Mexico over
the last few years, the volume of our trade has
increased dramatically, and our trade deficit has
disappeared.
Our ability to protect the global environment
and our ability to combat the flow of illegal


narcotics also rests in large measure on the relationships we develop commercially with the developing world.
There is a great deal that we can do to open
the flow of goods and services. Our aid policies
must do more to address population pressures;
to support environmentally responsible, sustainable development; to promote more accountable
governance; and to foster a fair distribution of
the fruits of growth among an increasingly restive world population where over one billion
people still exist on barely a dollar a day. These
efforts will reap us dividends of trade, of friendship, and peace.
The final step we must take, my fellow Americans, is toward the success of democracy in Russia and in the world's other new democracies.
The perils facing Russia and other former Soviet
republics are especially acute and especially important to our future. For the reductions in our
defense spending that are an important part of
our economic program over the long run here
at home are only tenable as long as Russia and
the other nuclear republics pose a diminishing
threat to our security and to the security of
our allies and the democracies throughout the
world. Most worrisome is Russia's precarious
economic condition. If the economic reforms
begun by President Yeltsin are abandoned, if
hyperinflation cannot be stemmed, the world
will suffer.
Consider the implications for Europe if millions of Russian citizens decide they have no
alternative but to flee to the West where wages
are 50 times higher. Consider the implication
for the global environment if all the Chernobylstyle nuclear plants are forced to start operating
there without spare parts, when we should be
in a phased stage of building them down, closing
them up, cleaning them up. If we are willing
to spend trillions of dollars to ensure communism's defeat in the cold war, surely we
should be willing to invest a tiny fraction of
that to support democracy's success where communism failed.
To be sure, the former Soviet republics and
especially Russia, must be willing to assume
most of the hard work and high cost of the
reconstruction process. But then again, remember that the Marshall plan itself financed only
a small fraction of postwar investments in Europe. It was a magnet, a beginning, a confidence-building measure, a way of starting a
process that turned out to produce an economic


213




Feb. 26 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


miracle.
Like Europe then, these republics now have
a wealth of resources and talent and potential.
And with carefully targeted assistance, conditioned on progress toward reform and arms control and nonproliferation, we can improve our
own security and our future prosperity at the
same time we extend democracy's reach.
These five steps constitute an agenda for
American action in a global economy. As such,
they constitute an agenda for our own prosperity
as well. Some may wish we could pursue our
own domestic effort strictly through domestic
policies, as we have understood them in the
past. But in this global economy, there is no
such thing as a purely domestic policy. This
thing we call the global economy is unruly. It's
a bucking bronco that often lands with its feet
on different sides of old lines and sometimes
with its whole body on us. But if we are to
ride the bronco into the next century, we must
harness the whole horse, not just part of it.
I know there are those in this country in
both political parties and all across the land who
say that we should not try to take this ride,
that these goals are too ambitious, that we
should withdraw and focus only on those things
which we have to do at home. But I believe
that would be a sad mistake and a great loss.
For the new world toward which we are moving
actually favors us. We are better equipped than
any other people on Earth by reason of our
history, our culture, and our disposition, to
change, to lead, and to prosper. The experience
of the last few years where we have stubbornly
refused to make the adjustments we need to
compete and win are actually atypical and unusual seen against the backdrop of our Nation's
history.
Look now at our immigrant Nation and think
of the world toward which we are tending. Look
at how diverse and multiethnic and multilingual
we are, in a world in which the ability to communicate with all kinds of people from all over
the world and to understand them will be critical. Look at our civic habits of tolerance and


respect. They are not perfect in our own eyes.
It grieved us all when there was so much trouble a year ago in Los Angeles. But Los Angeles
is a country with 150 different ethnic groups
of widely differing levels of education and access
to capital and income. It is a miracle that we
get along as well as we do. And all you have
to do is to look at Bosnia, where the differences
were not so great, to see how well we have
done in spite of all of our difficulties.
Look at the way our culture has merged technology and values. This is an expressive land
that produced CNN and MTV. We were all
born for the information age. This is a jazzy
nation, thank goodness, for my sake. It created
be-bop and hip-hop and all those other things.
We are wired for real time. And we have always
been a nation of pioneers. Consider the astonishing outpouring of support for the challenges
I laid down last week in an economic program
that violates every American's narrow special interest if you just take part of it out and look
at it.
And yet, here we are again, ready to accept
a new challenge, ready to seek new change because we're curious and restless and bold. It
flows out of our heritage. It's ingrained in the
soul of Americans. It's no accident that our Nation has steadily expanded the frontiers of democracy, of religious tolerance, of racial justice,
of equality for all people, of environmental protection and technology and, indeed, the cosmos
itself. For it is our nature to reach out. And
reaching out has served not only ourselves but
the world as well.
Now, together, it is time for us to reach out
again: toward tomorrow's economy, toward a
better future, toward a new direction, toward
securing for you, the students at American University, the American dream.
Thank you very much.
NOTE: The President spoke at 10:44 a.m. at Bender Arena. In his remarks, he referred to Joseph
Duffey, president of the university.


214




Administration of William j. Clinton, 1993 / Feb. 27


Message to the Congress Reporting Budget Deferrals
February 26, 1993


To the Congress of the United States:
In accordance with the Congressional Budget
and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, I herewith report three new deferrals of budget authority, totaling $354.0 million.
These deferrals affect Funds Appropriated to
the President and the Department of Agriculture. The details of these deferrals are con

tained in the attached report.
WILLIAM J. CLINTON
The White House,
February 26, 1993.
NOTE: The report detailing the deferrals was published in the Federal Register on April 1.


Nomination for Posts at the Defense and Treasury Departments
February 26, 1993


President Clinton today announced his intention to nominate Jamie Gorelick to be General
Counsel of the Department of Defense and Jean
Hanson to be General Counsel of the Treasury
Department.
"Jamie Gorelick and Jean Hanson are two
of the most qualified people in the country for
The President's Radio Address
February 27, 1993
Good morning. Before I talk with you about
our economic program this morning, I want to
say a word to the good people of New York
City and to all Americans who have been so
deeply affected by the tragedy that struck Manhattan yesterday. A number of innocent people
lost their lives, hundreds were injured, and thousands were struck with fear in their hearts when
an explosion rocked the basement of the World
Trade Center.
To their families, you are in the thoughts and
prayers of my family. And in the synagogues
and churches last night, today, and tomorrow
you will be remembered and thought of again
and again. My thoughts are also with the police,
the firefighters, the emergency response teams,
and the citizens whose countless acts of bravery
averted even more bloodshed. Their reaction
and their valor reminds us of how often Americans are at their best when we face the worst.


these important positions," said the President.
"Each of them combines impressive legal expertise and private sector experience with a demonstrable commitment to public service."
NOTE: Biographies of the nominees were made
available by the Office of the Press Secretary.


I thank all the people who reached out to the
injured and the frightened amid the tumult that
shook lower Manhattan.
Following the explosion I spoke with New
York's Governor Mario Cuomo and New York
City Mayor David Dinkins to assure them that
the full measure of Federal law enforcement
resources will be brought to bear on this investigation. Just this morning I spoke with FBI
Director Sessions, who assured me that the FBI
and the Treasury Department are working closely with the New York City police and fire departments. Working together we'll find out who
was involved and why this happened. Americans
should know we'll do everything in our power
to keep them safe in their streets, their offices,
and their homes. Feeling safe is an essential
part of being secure, and that's important to
all of us.
I also want to take this opportunity this morn

215




Feb. 27 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


ing to talk about another crucial aspect of our
security, our economic security. Ten days ago
I asked for your help to bring bold changes
to our economy. I said it would be a challenge
and that our plan would require every one of
us to contribute and that the price of doing
nothing is far, far higher for all of us than the
price of change. Most of all, our work together
will bring us important returns: more jobs, more
growth, better incomes, and a better future for
our children.
Your response to this plan has been overwhelming to me. Business and labor leaders
have made a rare alliance on behalf of a program that offers lower interest rates and investment incentives for private enterprise and modern skills and opportunities for working people.
Citizens from cities all across the country have
looked at our plan and concluded that the
changes we ask are right in the short term and
for the long-term health of the economy. I think
you know that we can no longer deny that our
huge national deficit drains our economic health
and that our investment deficit will smother our
hopes for economic growth.
There is an alternative: our plan for a new
direction. It provides retraining to Americans
for better jobs, incentives for small businesses
to invest, and a head start, better nutrition and
superior schools for our children. Our plan will
cut the deficit as a percentage of our national
income in half between now and 1997, so we
can put our resources to work for all of us.
What is happening in this Nation is historic.
After many years of drift and division and
gridlock, the American people are uniting behind this call for a new direction. In recent
days the White House has been flooded with
letters. You've sent along moving stories about
how you've been affected by the hard economic
times, and we've received several contributions
to reduce the debt.
Many of you who have written are single parents. You're worried about paying your own bills
today, but you're also worried about the lives
of your children tomorrow. Your support is a
symbol of selflessness, of the foresight and determination now catching fire across our Nation.
I received one letter from Rachel Nunamaker
of San Jose, California. She's 83 years old, and
she wrote, "Stick to your guns, you're on the
right track." Well, I think Mrs. Nunamaker is
right; we are on the right track. Already mortgage rates have fallen to their lowest level in


20 years, 20 years. With falling interest rates
more people can afford loans to build their businesses, buy cars, or purchase houses. This is
good news for everyone but especially for the
young adults and middle class families who
thought they would never be able to afford their
own homes. That's an essential part of the
American dream we're working hard to restore.
And it can be restored.
Our plan will work. It cuts waste and inessential Government spending, and it increases public and private investments to create more jobs
and rising incomes and to educate and train
people better. It spreads the burden as fairly
as possible, and the opportunity it promises will
pay us back many times over. If we get America
moving again, I don't care who gets the credit.
Ultimately the credit will go to you, the American people. As a patriot once said to the citizens of our democracy, You are the beginning
and the end. This is an exciting time to be
an American, and we must not let this historic
moment pass. We are rebuilding the American
community and the American economy together.
On March the first we'll mark an anniversary
that is especially significant to my generation.
Thirty-two years ago President Kennedy inspired
Americans to serve in the Peace Corps. On
Monday I will discuss my proposal for a new
form of voluntary national service. It's a plan
to invest in our country's future, a call to action
and to responsibility that will involve one of
our most precious national resources, our young
people. With national service, hundreds of thousands of students will have a chance to pursue
higher education. Everyone with the desire to
serve will have the opportunity and will meet
social needs that for too long have gone
unaddressed. National service will be a great
gift for the next generation of Americans.
In closing today, let me share with you another letter I received that arrived with an extraordinary gift. They come from George L.
Baker of Sherwood, Arkansas, a retired Air
Force major. After serving his country under
extreme danger, Major Baker was awarded the
Distinguished Flying Cross for heroism. It is
a recognition that George Baker should have
kept for the rest of his life. But Major Baker
sent that medal to me as a sign of his support
for our economic program and to encourage me
in this "quest for sanity in our national direction." And he closed his letter, "Godspeed, Mr.
President." From the bottom of my heart, Major


216




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Mar. 1


Baker, thank you for this most inspirational gift.
With your help and with the help of Americans
just like you all across this country, we will
restore the vitality of the American economy
and enjoy a nation united by the dreams we
Remarks and a Question-and-Answer
in New Brunswick, New Jersey
March 1, 1993
Judy Kesin. Welcome, Mr. President. We are
so thrilled and pleased and honored to have
you with us today. And we also would like to
welcome Governor Florio, the attorney general
Del Tufo, Eli Segal from your office who works
with national community service. This is just
such a treat. My name is Judy Kesin, and I
am the principal of the Adult Learning Center
of the New Brunswick Public Schools. We are
so thrilled you could visit our program.
[At this point, Ms. Kesin described the center's
educational and community service programs
and the involvement of Rutgers University students and then presented the President with a
gift. Several participants then discussed the effect of education and involvement in community
service on their lives. ]
The President. Well, first of all, I want to
thank everyone who spoke. And maybe in a
minute I could give some of you who haven't
spoken a chance to say something, if you want
to say something.
Let me tell you why I came here today. First
of all, I've been very impressed by a lot of
the efforts that the State of New Jersey has
already made to serve people who need an education and need a second chance and to give
people a chance to serve their communities.
Secondly, this center reflects two very important things that I'm trying to do in my national
economic program that I'm asking the Congress
to pass. The first is what I came here to talk
about, and I'm going over to Rutgers to talk
to the students about in a few moments, and
that is the idea of giving people a chance to
serve their country in their community, and in
return, giving them the opportunity to further
their education.
I've got the gentleman who was introduced


all share.
Thanks for listening.
NOTE: The President spoke at 10:06 a.m. from
the Oval Office at the White House.
Session at the Adult Learning Center
here a minute ago with me to my right. Eli
Segal and I have been friends since we were
about your age, since we were very young. And
I've asked him to head up our national and
community service program. What we want to
do is to provide young people the opportunity
to do the following things.
Number one, if you go to college and you
have loans outstanding, we want to give people
the opportunity to go out in the community
and do community service work, work as teachers or police officers or work with the homeless
or work in hospitals or work on immunizing
children who need it, and doing that for a lower
rate of pay for a couple of years and then pay
off their college loans by doing the same. Number two, we want to give people some credit
for community service they do while they're in
college. And number three, we want to give
people like you the opportunity to earn some
credits to get college or job training by doing
community service before you go. So the idea
is to make higher education available to more
people, in return for the service they give to
the community.
Now, in addition to all that, we're going to
change the way young people pay their college
loans back. We're going to make it possible for
people who get out of college to pay their loans
back as a percentage, a limited percentage, of
their income. Because what happens now is a
lot of young people get out of college, they
have big college loans. Because they have to
pay the loans back, they might want to get out,
let's say, and do community service work which
doesn't pay very much, but instead they may
take a job paying a higher salary just to make
their loan repayment. So we're going to try to
restructure the college loan program so that if
people want to serve over a long period of time,


217




Mar. 1 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


they won't be discouraged from taking community service type jobs just because they pay less.
They'll be able to pay their loans back as a
percentage of their income.
Now, the other thing I want to emphasize
is there's also an investment in this education
program that helps centers like this: more
money for adult education for people who come
back after dropping out of school, more money
to help welfare mothers move from dependence
to independence, more money to help young
people who drop out of school and come back.
When I was Governor of my State over the
period of about 1983 to 1992, we increased by
about 6 times the amount of investment in remaking education programs like this. It just exploded the number of people in it.
Now, why is that an important economic investment? Because this lady with her three children-it wasn't her fault that her husband, first
of all, is out of the service and then gets hurt,
right? She can either draw taxpayer dollars by
taking public assistance, or get an education and
pay taxes to educate other people's children.
One of the things we have to realize in this
country is that an economic investment is not
just building an airport or a road or investing
in new technology. It's also investing in people
who are prepared to help themselves, to make
sure that all of you can contribute in a world
that is dominated by knowledge, in a world in
which the living you make depends on what
you know and what you can learn.
And if every person, if every single mother
in the United States could stand up and give
the speech you just gave with the determination
you just gave, it would not only help people
like you but you'd be helping people like me.
Right? I mean, we're all better off, right? We
are. And if you look at our country, if you look
at all the different racial and ethnic groups in
our country, all the different levels of education,
if you look at all the different levels of income,
if you look at all the problems we've got, you
just think about it-if everybody in our country
had a chance to get a really good high school
diploma or a GED and then get at least 2
years of education and training beyond that in
some way or another, and if all the while they
were doing it they were doing community service work, we'd have about half as many problems than we've got, wouldn't we?
So that's why I wanted to come here today,
to emphasize that this economic program that


I'm trying to persuade the Congress to pass
will help people to do what you've been doing
in service, will help people who do it to pile
up education credits, and will invest more
money in programs like those here at this center.
Developing the capacity of the American people to be all they can be is perhaps the most
important job that I have as President. And people now all across America will see you today,
and you may have no idea how many people
you will inspire today because you had the courage to do what you did; you, or you, or you,
or all of you for being here. And I reallyI thank you very much. You were great.
Would anybody else like to say anything or
ask a question? I can't believe you have nine
children. You're a beautiful mother to have nine
children. Were one of you going to talk? Yes,
go ahead. Tell us your name and how you happen to be here.
[A Rutgers student presented the President with
a sweatshirt.]
The President. I wish I had this this morning
in Washington. [Laughter] The wind chill factor
was 13 when I was on my jog this morning.
Thank you very much. It's beautiful.
Funding for Arts Programs
Q. My name is Shantel Ehrenberg. I'm a
dance major at the School of the Arts, and I'm
originally from Minnesota. I have a question as
during our program with the children and teaching them about art and through art, eliminating
the prejudices and educating them on something
that they find kind of foreign to them. I was
wondering what you were going to do, if you
have any plans for the arts, funding the arts?
The President. Programs like the one you're
in will be funded basically based on the initiative
of people at the local level. So if there's a program like this one at the local level which you're
participating in, then it will be eligible to get
community service funding.
So the answer is maybe yes, maybe no. And
let me tell you why that's important. We don't
want to set up a big new national bureaucracy
to tell every State and every community what
they should teach and what they should do.
What we want to do is to build on the strengths
of existing community programs like the one
you're involved in. In other words, why should
we come into New Jersey and create some big


218




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Mar. I


bureaucracy and waste a lot of money hiring
people to administer programs when you've got
a perfectly good program here who can access
the money and use it all to put people to work
teaching art or whatever else you're doing.
So the answer is that the people who are
interested in arts education throughout America,
once this national program is passed, should
make sure that that is an important part of the
community service efforts in every State and
every community. Because they will be certainly
eligible for it, but we're not going to tell people
what to do.
As a matter of fact, we'll have relatively few
mandates in this program. The two things we
are going to do is to require every State to
try to provide opportunities for college graduates
to be either teachers or police officers, because
we know we've got a shortage of both of them
in every State. But otherwise, particularly with
the college students themselves or with young
people who are like you, who are in school
and may be earning credit toward going to college or getting job training, we're going to let
that be highly decentralized so that you can
meet the needs in each community and State.
National and Community Service Program
Q. I'm a Rutgers College graduating senior
in May. And I was wondering when you think
that law you're trying to instate or whatever
is going to come into effect. I'm worrying, like,
when I graduate in May, whether I'm going
to go pursue chiropractic college, or because
I may not have the money for it, I may have
to get a job or get in more debt to try to
get into chiropractic school. And I think it's
a good program that you're trying to instate,
but how soon would it come that we would
have a chance to excel?
The President. It's up to the Congress. We'll
present the law, the bill, soon. And I'm hoping
it will pass this year and become immediately
effective.
[A participant explained how improving her education would enable her to pass the citizenship
test. Another participant said how happy she
was to meet the President.]
The President. Anybody else want to say anything?
[A participant presented the President with a
gift from the New Jersey Youth Corps.]


Q. It's my pleasure to have you here, not
only because you're the President but because
you're a President we all like. [Laughter] And
I just wanted to ask you one question. As a
minority student in the United States I have
experience of some kind of prejudice in the
country, and how we have to struggle a little
bit harder than everyone else. And I just wanted
to tell you that all this that you're doing is
great, especially for Hispanics, Latinos, blacks.
We all recognize how you're trying to make
it seem that this is not only a white country
anymore but all a mixture of all different cultures. And one of the groups that I've seen
that has not been seen and they are a minority
group, and there has not been putting any attention toward the handicapped people. I think that
I wanted to ask you are you thinking of doing
anything for them, because I think that they're
there, and we should put some kind of value
to them and some kind importance. I'm very
close to one family that they have experienced
with their handicapped child many different
problems. And one of the things was the Reagan
administration; they always had been cutting
down on those programs, especially for the
handicapped. And they had to have been placed
in different schools, which is not appropriate
for handicapped people. And they have, you
know, have many problems because it's not
where they should be. Do you plan to do anything for them?
The President. Yes, I'm glad you brought that
up. Let's talk about two or three things. Let
me say, first of all, a lot of people with disabilities have problems that aren't easy to solve,
as you know. But they also have enormous potential to contribute to this country. I can make
the same argument for people with disabilities
I made for all of you: that it is in our interest
to see that everyone develops to the maximum
of his or her capacity and serves to the maximum of his or her capacity.
Let me just mention two or three things:
Number one, last year before I became President, the Congress passed and President Bush
signed a bill called the Americans with Disabilities Act. It has not been fully implemented.
One of the commitments I made in this campaign is to try to bring that law to life for
Americans with disabilities. It provides all kinds
of extra effort to make America accessible and
to invest in the potential of people with disabilities.


219




Mar. 1 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


The second thing is, I hope that a lot of
these service programs will involve special services to people with disabilities working toward
independence, not dependence. There are a lot
of Government programs now which if you
know someone with disabilities, you know it's
basically-it favors funding that is designed almost to keep disabled people dependent instead
of independent. And more and more disabled
people want to and are able to, given technological supports, to live on their own, to work
on their own, to live in at least assisted-living
environments. And this is a very big deal for
me and for my administration. My Domestic
Policy Adviser has a child, whom I've known
since he was a little boy, who had cerebral palsy
and is now living out on his own in an assistedliving environment. And he will soon get his
high school diploma. So I believe in that.
The third thing I would say is we're going
to do a lot of work through the Department
of Education to try to make sure that children
get appropriate placements and at least have
the chance that they need to get a public education.
I don't know if you've noticed this but, not
this Saturday, the Saturday before last, I did
a little town meeting like this with children.
And there was a 9-year-old child with cerebral
palsy who was very eloquent on the show. And
she said she had a twin sister who was also
in a wheelchair, but her twin sister couldn't
speak except with the use of a computer, which
is not uncommon. And she said because she
could speak, she was in a regular classroom;
because her sister had to use the computer to
speak, she was in a special ed classroom. And
she felt that they had the same mental capacity.
So she said, "Can you help get my sister in
my classroom?" And I asked-it was an interesting thing to question-I asked her, I said,
'Would you, if your sister couldn't do the work,
would you then favor her getting special assistance?" And she said, "Yes." And I said, "What
you really want is for your sister just to have
a chance to do what you do?" And she said,
"That's what I want. I just want her to have
a chance." It was very moving.
But a lot of schools and school districts are
just now learning what they can do. And we're
always learning more and more about proper
placements of these children. So anyway, those
are some of the things that I will work on for
persons with disabilities.


I appreciate the other comment you made,
because I am trying to demonstrate to the
American people that we are all one country.
We have to live together not only with tolerance
for one another but with absolute appreciation
for one another's differences. We shouldn't just
put up with one another; we should actually
enjoy the fact that this is a country of people
of different racial and ethnic backgrounds.
When you look at what's going on today in
the former Yugoslavia with the ethnic hatredthe Serbs and the Croatians and the Bosnian
Muslims shooting and killing each other and
starving each other, with differences, cultural
and historic differences that are deep and longlasting but, at least to the naked eye, not near
as different as the cultural differences represented just in this room-for all of the problems we have in this country, we are moving
forward on that. And I really believe that a
great test of whether we will go into the next
century and maintain our position as the greatest
and strongest nation in the world may well be
whether we can learn to live together across
racial and ethnic lines, and not just put up with
one another but absolutely enjoy the fact and
make the most of it.
One of our counties, Los Angeles County in
California, has 150 different racial and ethnic
groups within one county. I once spoke at a
university there that had students from 122 different countries. You know what that meant.
This can be an enormous strength of us in a
world that is getting smaller and smaller and
smaller. If you look around this room, the fact
that some of you can come from such different
cultures is a very big positive in a world that's
getting smaller. The fact that we have a huge
Hispanic population, for example, will be an
enormous asset to us as more and more of our
trade goes to Mexico, Central America, and
South America to try to build up their economy.
That's just one example. If you look at the fact
that we have a substantial Asian population, it
can be an enormous strength to us with the
fastest growing economies in the world being
in Asia. There are lots of examples. The fact
that we have a big African-American population
will be an enormous strength to us when 20
years from now we might find out that Africa
then has the fastest growing economy in the
world, if they can solve some of their political
problems. So America is in an incredible position to have another great century as a nation


220




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Mar. 1


if we can learn to really build on the strength
of our diversity.
Oh, yes. I want you all to be-you've been
invited to ride a bus over to the speech. And
I'm going to go with you. Do you want to go?
Ready?
World Trade Center Bombing
Q. Mr. President, I have a question before
you go, if you don't mind. It's not directly related to this event. But if you could, I know the
American public is really interested in knowing
what is going on with the World Trade Center
explosion. Was it a terrorist incident?
The President. I'm not in a position to say
that now, and I don't mean because I know
something that I'm not telling you. I think you
know that there was severe structural damage
done to the World Trade Center. And as I think
Governor Cuomo has already announced, you
know the Federal and State and local people
have been working together ever since the incident occurred. It took a substantial amount of
time just to get people down in the crater that
the bomb made to begin the analysis. I can
tell you this: that we have put the full, full
resources, the Federal law enforcement agencies, all kinds of agencies, all kinds of access
to information at the service of those who are
working to figure out who did this and why
and what the facts are. But I cannot answer
your question yet.
National and Community Service Program
Q. Mr. President, on national service, you
campaigned on the promise that anybody who
wanted to go to school could go and then repay
their loans in national service. I think in your
economic plan, under investment, there's $3 billion allotted for national service.
The President. More now.
Q. Which would not be enough to provide
this to everyone. How long would it take to
phase it in? And do you think that you're not
really fulfilling your campaign promise?
The President. No. As a matter of fact, in
the campaign, we only talked about making it
available as an option. We talked about making
it available for everybody to pay off their loans
as a percentage of their income, and then the
funding of national service slots will be college
graduates. That's all we talked about in the campaign. Now, we're actually going to start funding
slots for people before they go to high school.


And we think we'll start-we think we'll have
35,000 of them, which is twice as many people
as were ever in the Peace Corps in any given
year, in addition to those coming out of college.
What we don't know, and we may have to
modify the funding I asked for from Congress
over the next 4 years, but it is impossible to
know how many people will choose the service
option. So the funding we asked for is based
on our best available effort to estimate how
many people will choose the service option. All
the students will be able to choose to pay their
loans back as a percentage of their income immediately. And we think we'll be able to accommodate over the next 4 years, everybody who
chooses the service option. We think we will.
But we have to build it up a little in the
first year or two so we learn how to do it.
There has been a pilot project going, as you
probably know, under legislation that was sponsored in the previous Congress by, I think, Senator Nunn, Senator Wofford, and others. And
we're going to expand it just as quickly as we
can, and we're going to do our level-best, once
we get the system worked out over the next
year or so, to make service available to everybody who wants it. We think their numbers
are about right. We think we have funded it
about the level of maximum participation for
college graduates. But we're adding on pre-college students, which we think is a good thing.
This is something I had not planned to do basically until I kept seeing programs like the L.A.
Conservation Corps, City Year, programs like
the ones the young people are involved in here.
Q. Are you concerned, sir, that it may become
a kind of a new entitlement, that it will grow
beyond the ability to fund and out of control?
The President. No, if we can't fund it, the
entitlement will be access to a loan you can
pay back based on a percentage of your income,
which will be a huge-we're going to strengthen
collection procedures, cut defaults, cut the cost
of administering the program until we can fund
a lot of that.
The service issue cannot become an entitlement. If all of a sudden in one year a million
people want to convert from a loan to service,
we won't be able to afford that. But based on
the experiences we have seen in the past, we
think that this will be, by far, the biggest service
program in the history of America. And we think
we'll be able to take everybody who will choose
the service option. We're just going on historical


221




Mar. 1 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


precedents now. We think we can more than
fund the people who will choose the service
option in the first 4 years. If they don't, I would
consider going back. But we can't let that become an absolute entitlement.
World Trade Center Bombing
Q. [Inaudible]-economic aid, sir, to New
York, and are you prepared to do that? Governor Cuomo has asked for it.
The President. This morning I got a report
on that, and it's my understanding that we are
going through the regular agencies and that the
request will be processed promptly. I don't think
that there is any problem with the request that
he made as far as I understand it. And we're
giving that a high priority.
Rutgers University and Community Service
Q. Mr. President, why did you choose Rutgers
for this announcement? And what impressed you
about their community service program here?
The President. I chose Rutgers because, first
of all, the university was involved with this facility and because I want to keep highlighting adult
education, education of welfare recipients, education of kids that drop out of school, and because I like this New Jersey Youth Program
here. Under Governor Florio's administration,
they started, I think, 9, 10, 11 of these, something like that. Again, I do not want this to
be a bureaucratic program. I want to encourage
kind of an entrepreneurial spirit out there at
the State and local level. I want States to be
encouraged to set up Youth Corps. I want comprehensive community service centers like this
to be able to get people doing national service.
So I wanted to come here to say I really
appreciate what these folks are doing, but also
to give the rest of America an idea of what
we mean by community service, what we mean
by national service, and how it can embrace
people of different ages and different backgrounds with different needs; because it's very
important that to make this work, we're going
to have to rely on the creativity of people at
the grassroots level. And the last thing I want
is another centralized bureaucracy telling people
how to serve.
As I said, right now, the only decisions we
have made for categories of service that have
to be approved in every State are in the area
of police and teaching, because we know as a
practical matter we need more community polic

ing in high-crime areas where we can reduce
crime and work with kids and not just be there
after it happens. And we know we need more
teachers in a lot of core areas to reduce the
student-teacher ratio and increase learning. So
we've done that. But otherwise, this program
is not going to have a huge set of national requirements or bureaucracy.
Neighborhood Corps Legislation
Q. Mr. President, how closely, if at all, did
you work with Senator Bradley's neighborhood
corps bill?
The President. We reviewed it very closely.
I think he's going to meet us over at Rutgers
today. I was very impressed by it. And as a
matter of fact, I had a personal conversation
with him about it. That's one of the reasons
we wanted to come up here, too. And I invited
him to come today, and I think he's going to
be over there.
Terrorism
Q. Mr. President, do you fear that a fear
of terrorism in America might change the way
of life that most Americans have, if this bombing
proves to be terrorism?
The President. I certainly hope not. We've
been very blessed in this country to have been
free of the kind of terrorist activity that has
gripped other countries. Even a country like
Great Britain, that has a much lower general
crime rate, has more of that sort of activity
because of the political problems that it has
been involved in.
I don't want the American people to overreact
to this at this time. I can tell you, I have put
the-I will reiterate-I have put the full resources of the Federal Government, every conceivable law enforcement information resource
we could put to work on this, we have. I'm
very concerned about it. But I think it's also
important that we not overreact to it. After all,
sometimes when an incident like this happens,
people try to claim credit for it who didn't do
it. Sometimes if folks like that can get you to
stop doing what you're doing, they've won half
the battle. If they get you ruffled, if they get
us to change the way we live and what we
do, that's half the battle.
I would discourage the American people from
overreacting to this. It's a very serious thing.
And I'm heartbroken for the people who were
killed and their families and those who were


222




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Mar. 1


injured. There was some significant business disruptions, too, as you probably know and as I'm
afraid we'll find out more about in the next
day or two, just by shutting down the World
Trade Center and all the activities that go on
there. But I would plead with the American
people and the good people of New York to
right now keep your courage up, go on about
your lives. And we're working as hard as we
can to get to the bottom of this.
[A student expressed appreciation and support
for community service ideals.]
Gun Control Legislation
Q. The National Rifle Association right now,
in New Jersey, is actively seeking to overturn
the assault weapons ban that Governor Florio
put on the books in 1990. They say if they're
successful, then no other State will be able to
enact rigid gun control and that you'll have a
very tough time getting the Brady bill through
Congress. Are you concerned about that?
The President. I think Governor Florio is
right. And I'm going to sure try to pass the
Brady bill. I think Americans who want safer
streets and still want people to be able to hunt
and fish and pursue their sporting activities
should take a lot of heart in the success that
Governor Wilder had in Virginia recently. And
Virginia, it has become a source, as you know,
of weapons for a lot of illegal activity all up
and down the Atlantic seaboard. And they've
gone to that once-a-month limitation on the purchase of guns.
You know, we can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans
to legitimately own handguns and rifles-it's
something I strongly support-we can't be so
fixated on that that we are unable to think about
the reality of life that millions of Americans
face on streets that are unsafe, under conditions
that no other nation-no other nations-has
permitted to exist. And at some point, I still
hope that the leadership of the National Rifle
Association will go back to doing what it did
when I was a boy and which made me want
to be a lifetime member because they put out
valuable information about hunting and marksmanship and safe use of guns. But just to know
of the conditions we face today in a lot of our
cities and other places in this country and the
enormous threat to public safety is amazing.
I've got young Americans now in Somalia try

ing to create conditions of peaceful existence
there in a country where it is difficult. But there
are a lot of young Americans who are living
in neighborhoods today that are about as dangerous or worse than what kids are facing in
Somalia in terms of shots, not in terms of hunger and access to medicine and shelter, that's
different.
But I have to tell you I think that Governor
Florio did a gusty thing here. I think Governor
Wilder did a brave thing. I had my own encounters back home in Arkansas, and I just hope
to be able to pass the Brady bill and do some
other sensible things that do not unduly infringe
on the right of the law-abiding citizen to keep
and bear arms, but will help make these children's future safer. And I think we ought to
do that.
Q. Do you think that the NRA's contributing
to that threat that you just talked about because
it is opposing these gun control measures?
The President. Well, I don't want to get into
character. I think that it is an error for them
to oppose every attempt to bring some safety
and some rationality into the way we handle
some of the most serious criminal problems we
have. And these things do not unduly affect
the right to keep and bear arms. It's not going
to kill anybody to wait a couple of days to get
a handgun while we do a background check
on somebody that wants to buy a gun.
I have personal experience with this. I live
in a State where half the people have a hunting
or a fishing license. I know somebody who once
sold a weapon to a person who went out and
killed a bunch of people because he was an
escapee from a mental hospital. And the guy
liked to never got over it. And if he had just
had a law where he was supposed to wait 2
or 3 days to check, they would have found that
out. I know that happens. I don't believe that
everybody in America needs to be able to buy
a semiautomatic or an automatic weapon, built
only for the purpose of killing people, in order
to protect the right of Americans to hunt and
to practice marksmanship and to be secure in
their own homes and own a weapon to be secure. I just don't believe that.
So I hope that this is a debate that will continue. And I think, as I said, what Governor
Florio did and what Governor Wilder did, I
think will contribute to Americans facing this
and trying to reconcile our absolute obligation
under the Constitution to give people the right


223




Mar. 1 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


to handle a firearm responsibly and our obligation to try to preserve peace and keep these
kids alive in our cities.


NOTE: The President spoke at 11:20 a.m. at the
center.


Remarks on National Service at Rutgers University in New Brunswick
March 1, 1993


Thank you, Nakia Tomlinson, for that fine
introduction. I wish I could take you with me
everywhere. We'd make a great duo there. Let's
give her another hand. I thought she was great.
[Applause]
I'd like to thank President Frank LawrenceFrancis Lawrence-for his fine speech. Does
anybody call him Frank? I should have asked.
[Laughter] I want to compliment Professor Benjamin Barber for his leadership and service here.
And I want to thank all of you here in the
Rutgers community for coming out for what I
hope will be a truly historic moment in our
Nation's history.
In addition to the people who have been introduced here, there are a host of mayors and
members of the assembly and county officials
here from your State. We have two former Governors, both of whom I served with, Brendan
Byrne and Tom Kean, who are out there. I'm
glad to see them, my friends. We have a distinguished array of Members of the House from
New Jersey, Herb Klein, Bob Menendez, Frank
Pallone, Donald Payne.
But you have some Members of the Congress
from all over America here, and I want to introduce them, too, because they have taken a lot
of trouble to come to Rutgers and because without them and without the people who represent
you, the proposal I make today has no hope
of passage. Many Members of the Congress for
years have believed we ought to do more in
national service, and some of them are here
today.
I'd like to begin by introducing your Senator,
Bill Bradley, who's behind me. I must say, when
I walked into this arena, I turned around and
asked Bill Bradley if he'd ever shot any baskets
in here. I'd be intimidated to be the opposing
team in here. Senator Bradley sponsored legisla

tion to establish neighborhood corps and selfreliance scholarships, things that are forebears
of the proposal I came to make.
I'd like to recognize the presence on the platform of Senator Ted Kennedy from Massachusetts who chairs the Senate Committee on
Human Resources and Education, which shepherded the pilot national and community service
bill through the Congress in the last session,
along with his counterpart who is out here in
the audience somewhere. I'd like to ask him
to stand up, the chairman of the House committee, Congressman Bill Ford, who came all the
way from Michigan to be with us. Congressman,
would you stand up.
I'd like to recognize in the audience the presence of Senator Chris Dodd from Connecticut,
who was one of the first Peace Corps volunteers
in the United States.
The Member of Congress who introduced
many, many years ago the first piece of national
service legislation ever introduced, the chairman
of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator
Claiborne Pell from Rhode Island is here.
I'd also like to introduce the only person in
this audience, at least of our crowd, who doesn't
have to look up to Senator Bradley, Senator
Jay Rockefeller from West Virginia, an early
VISTA volunteer in the United States.
And finally, I would like to recognize two
other people, one a Member of the United
States Senate and one a distinguished American
citizen, the first boss of the Peace Corps, Sargent Shriver, who's up here with me, and his
deputy, Senator Harris Wofford, from Pennsylvania, and Mrs. Wofford, I'm glad to see you.
Now, I was involved before I became President in a group called the Democratic Leadership Council, and we made one of the central
parts of our platform to reclaim a new majority


224




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Mar. 1


of Americans for our party the establishment
of a system of national service to help people
to finance education. And one of our founding
members and guiding lights is here, Representative Dave McCurdy from Oklahoma. I'd like
for him to stand up.
Let me make this last point, if I might, by
way of beginning. None of these things happen
at the national level. We empower them to happen, and then people have to do things here
at the grassroots. And I want to say a special
word of thanks to your Governor for supporting
the New Jersey Youth Corps and several other
projects like it around the State, because if nobody's here to believe in this, it can't happen.
And I thank Governor Florio for his support
for these things.
I came here to ask all of you to join me
in a great national adventure, for in the next
few weeks I will ask the United States Congress
to join me in creating a new system of voluntary
national service, something that I believe in the
next few years will change America forever and
for the better.
My parents' generation won new dignity working their way out of the Great Depression
through programs that provided them the opportunity to serve and to survive. Brave men and
women in my own generation waged and won
peaceful revolutions here at home for civil rights
and human rights and began service around the
world in the Peace Corps and here at home
in VISTA.
Now, Americans of every generation face profound challenges in meeting the needs that have
been neglected for too long in this country, from
city streets plagued by crime and drugs, to classrooms where girls and boys must learn the skills
they need for tomorrow, to hospital wards where
patients need more care. All across America we
have problems that demand our common attention.
For those who answer the call and meet these
challenges, I propose that our country honor
your service with new opportunities for education. National service will be America at its
best, building community, offering opportunity,
and rewarding responsibility. National service is
a challenge for Americans from every background and walk of life, and it values something
far more than money. National service is nothing
less than the American way to change America.
It is rooted in the concept of community:
the simple idea that none of us on our own


will ever have as much to cherish about our
own lives if we are out here all alone as we
will if we work together; that somehow a society
really is an organism in which the whole can
be greater than the sum of its parts, and every
one of us, no matter how many privileges with
which we are born, can still be enriched by
the contributions of the least of us; and that
we will never fulfill our individual capacities
until, as Americans, we can all be what God
meant for us to be.
If that is so, if that is true, my fellow Americans, and if you believe it, it must therefore
follow that each of us has an obligation to serve.
For it is perfectly clear that all of us cannot
be what we ought to be until those of us who
can help others, and that is nearly all of us,
are doing something to help others live up to
their potential.
The concept of community and the idea of
service are as old as our history. They began
the moment America was literally invented.
Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of
Independence, "With a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually
pledge to each other our lives, our fortune, and
our sacred honor."
In the midst of the Civil War, President Lincoln signed into law two visionary programs that
helped our people come together again and
build America up. The Morrill Act helped States
create new land grant colleges. This is a land
grant university. The university in my home
State was the first land grant college west of
the Mississippi River. In these places, young
people learn to make American agriculture and
industry the best in the world. The legacy of
the Morrill Act is not only our great colleges
and universities like Rutgers but the American
tradition that merit and not money should give
people a chance for a higher education.
Mr. Lincoln also signed the Homestead Act
that offered 100 acres of land for families who
had the courage to settle the frontier and farm
the wilderness. Its legacy is a nation that
stretches from coast to coast. Now we must
create a new legacy that gives a new generation
of Americans the right and the power to explore
the frontiers of science and technology and
space. The frontiers of the limitations of our
knowledge must be pushed back so that we can
do what we need to do. And education is the
way to do it, just as surely as it was more than
100 years ago.


225




Mar. 1 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


Seven decades after the Civil War, in the
midst of the Great Depression, President Roosevelt created the Civilian Conservation Corps,
which gave 21/2 million young people the opportunity to support themselves while working in
disaster relief and maintaining forests, beaches,
rivers, and parks. Its legacy is not only the restoration of our natural environment but the restoration of our national spirit. Along with the
Works Products Administration, the WPA, the
Civilian Conservation Corps symbolized Government's effort to provide a nation in depression
with the opportunity to work, to build the American community through service. And all over
America today you can see projects, even today
in the 1990's, built by your parents or your
grandparents with the WPA plaque on it, the
CCC plaque on it, the idea that people should
be asked to serve and rewarded for doing it.
In the midst of World War II, President Roosevelt proposed the GI bill of rights, which offered returning veterans the opportunity for
education in respect to their service to our
country in the war. Thanks to the GI bill, which
became a living reality in President Truman's
time, more than 8 million veterans got advanced
education. And half a century later, the enduring
legacy of the GI bill is the strongest economy
in the world and the broadest, biggest middle
class that any nation has ever enjoyed.
For many in my own generation, the summons to citizenship and service came on this
day 32 years ago, when President Kennedy created the Peace Corps. With Sargent Shriver and
Harris Wofford and other dedicated Americans,
he enabled thousands of young men and women
to serve on the leading edge of the new frontier,
helping people all over the world to become
what they ought to be, and bringing them the
message by their very lives that America was
a great country that stood for good values and
human progress. At its height, the Peace Corps
enrolled 16,000 young men and women. Its legacy is not simply good will and good works
in countries all across the globe but a profound
and lasting change in the way Americans think
about their own country and the world.
Shortly after the Peace Corps, Congress,
under President Johnson, created the Volunteers
In Service To America. Senator Jay Rockefeller,
whom I introduced a moment ago, and many
thousands of other Americans went to the hills
and hollows of poor places, like West Virginia
and Arkansas and Mississippi, to lift up Ameri

cans through their service.
The lesson of our whole history is that honoring service and rewarding responsibility is the
best investment America can make. And I have
seen it today. Across this great land, through
the Los Angeles Conservation Corps, which took
the children who lived in the neighborhoods
where the riots occurred and gave them a
chance to get out into nature and to clean up
their own neighborhoods and to lift themselves
and their friends in the effort; in Boston with
the City Year program; with all these programs
represented here in this room today, the spirit
of service is sweeping this country and giving
us a chance to put the quilt of America together
in a way that makes a strength out of diversity,
that lifts us up out of our problems, and that
keeps our people looking toward a better and
brighter future.
National service recognizes a simple but powerful truth, that we make progress not by governmental action alone, but we do best when
the people and their Government work at the
grassroots in genuine partnership. The idea of
national service permeates many other aspects
of the programs I have sought to bring to America. The economic plan that I announced to
Congress, for example, will offer every child the
chance for a healthy start through immunization
and basic health care and a head start. But
still it depends on parents doing the best they
can as parents and children making the most
of their opportunities.
The plan can help to rebuild our cities and
our small communities through physical investments that will put people to work. But Americans still must work to restore the social fabric
that has been torn in too many communities.
Unless people know we can work together in
our schools, in our offices, in our factories, unless they believe we can walk the streets safely
together, and unless we do that together, governmental action alone is doomed to fail.
The national service plan I propose will be
built on the same principles as the old GI bill.
When people give something of invaluable merit
to their country, they ought to be rewarded
with the opportunity to further their education.
National service will challenge our people to
do the work that should and indeed must be
done and cannot be done unless the American
people voluntarily give themselves up to that
work. It will invest in the future of every person
who serves.


226




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Mar. )


As we rekindle the spirit of national service,
I know it won't disappoint many of the students
here to know that we also have to reform the
whole system of student loans. We should begin
by making it easier for young people to pay
back their student loans and enabling them to
hold jobs that may accomplish much but pay
little.
Today, when students borrow money for an
education, the repayment plan they make is
based largely on how much they have to repay,
without regard to what the jobs they take themselves pay. It is a powerful incentive, therefore,
for young college graduates to do just the reverse of what we might want them to do, to
take a job that pays more even if it is less
rewarding because that is the job that will make
the repayment of the loans possible. It is also,
unfortunately, a powerful incentive for some not
to make the payments at all, which is unforgivable.
So what we seek to do is to enable the American students to borrow the money they need
for college and pay it back as a small percentage
of their own income over time. This is especially
important after a decade in which the cost of
a college education has gone up even more rapidly than the cost of health care, making a major
contribution to one of the more disturbing statistics in America today, which is that the college
dropout rate in this country is now 21/2 times
the high school dropout rate. We can do better
than that through national service and adequate
financing.
The present system is unacceptable, not only
for students but for the taxpayers as well. It's
complicated, and it's expensive. It costs the taxpayers of our country about $4 billion every
year to finance the student loan program because of loan defaults and the cost of administering the program. And I believe we can do
better.
Beyond reforming this system for financing
higher education, the national service program
more importantly will create new opportunities
for Americans to work off outstanding loans or
to build up credits for future education and
training opportunities.
We'll ask young people all across this country,
and some who aren't so young who want to
further their college education, to serve in our
schools as teachers or tutors in reading and
mathematics. We'll ask you to help our police
forces across the Nation, training members for


a new police corps that will walk beats and
work with neighborhoods and build the kind
of community ties that will prevent crime from
happening in the first place so that our police
officers won't have to spend all their time chasing criminals.
We'll ask young people to work, to help control pollution and recycle waste, to paint darkened buildings and clean up neighborhoods, to
work with senior citizens and combat homelessness and help children in trouble get out of
it and build a better life.
And these are just a few of the things that
you will be able to do, for most of the decisions
about what you can do will be made by people
like those in this room, people who run the
programs represented by all of those wearing
these different kinds of tee-shirts. We don't seek
a national bureaucracy. I have spoken often
about how we need to reinvent the Government
to make it more efficient and less bureaucratic,
to make it more responsive to people at the
grassroots level, and I want national service to
do just that. I want it to empower young people
and their communities, not to empower yet another Government bureaucracy in Washington.
This is going to be your programs at your levels
with your people.
And as you well know, that's what's happening
all across America today. People are already
serving their neighbors in their neighborhoods.
Just this morning, I was inspired to see and
to speak with students from Rutgers serving
their community, from mentoring young people
as Big Sisters to helping older people learn new
skills. I met a lady today who has 13 grandchildren and 5 great-grandchildren who dropped
out of school the year before I was born, who's
about to become a high school graduate shortly
because of the efforts of this program. You back
there? Stand up.
I'm impressed by the spirit behind the Rutgers Civic Education and Community Service
Program, the understanding that community
service enriches education, that students should
not only take the lessons they learn in class
out into the community but bring the lessons
they learn in the community back into the classroom. In that spirit, during this academic year
alone, more than 800 students from Rutgers are
contributing more than 60,000 hours of community service in New Brunswick, in Camden, in
Newark, throughout this State.
This morning I also met with members of


227




Mar. 1 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


the New Jersey Youth Corps-here they are;
see them? Stand up-young people who are
looking for a second chance at school and who,
when coming back to finish their high school
degrees, also serve in their communities.
Through this program, more than 6,500 young
adults have contributed over 900,000 hours of
service to the State of New Jersey. They've done
everything from paint senior citizens' homes to
tutor and mentor children in after-school programs. For the future of our State and Nation,
we need more young people like those in the
New Jersey Youth Corps who exemplify the spirit of service.
That spirit also moves people all across the
Nation. In my State, there's a young woman
named Antoinette Jackson, who's a senior in a
small community called Gould, Arkansas. She's
a member of the Delta Service Corps. The rural
Mississippi Delta is still the poorest place in
America. And in that area, she works with a
"lend-a-hand" program which runs a thrift shop
to provide hungry and homeless people with
food and clothing. And in return, the Delta
Corps is going to help her attend college so
that she can make an even greater contribution.
The spirit of service also moves a young man
I met about a year ago named Stephen Spalos,
who works with the City Year program in Boston. At age 23, he's had some hard times in
his life. But as he puts it, City Year gave him
a place and the tools to be able to start over.
He works as a team leader, a mentor, a tutor,
a project manager for a bunch of young people
who restore senior citizens' homes. Last year
when I visited his project, he literally took his
sweatshirt off his back and gave it to me so
that I would never forget the kids at City Year.
And I still wear it when I go jogging, always
remembering what they're doing in Boston to
help those kids.
The spirit of service moves Orah Fireman,
a graduate of Wesleyan College. As a sophomore
in high school, she worked with disadvantaged
children in upstate New York. That experience
changed her life. And during her high school
and college years, she continued to work with
children. And now that she is out of college,
she has begun what will probably be a lifetime
of service by working at a school for emotionally
disturbed children in Boston. She wants other
people to have the opportunity to serve, and
she wrote this: "Service work teaches responsibility and compassion. It fights alienation by


proving to young people that they can make
a difference. There is no lesson more important
than that."
Well, there are stories like this in this room
and all across America. And we're going to create thousands of more of them through national
service. We'll work with groups with proven
track records to serve their community, giving
them the support they need. And if you have
more good ideas, if you're entrepreneurs of national service, we'll let you compete for our form
of venture capital, to develop new programs to
serve your neighbors. That's how we want the
national service program to grow every year,
rewarding results, building on success, and bubbling up from the grassroots energy and compassion and intellect of America.
I don't want service to wait while this potential is wasted. That's why I want to make this
summer a summer of service when young people can not only serve their communities but
build a foundation for a new national effort.
I've asked Congress to invest in and I'm asking
young people to participate in a special effort
in national service and leadership training just
this summer. We are going to recruit about
1,000 young people from every background,
from high school dropouts to college graduates,
to send to an intensive leadership training program for national service at the beginning of
the summer.
Then we'll ask them to work on one of our
country's most urgent problems, helping our
children who are in danger of losing their Godgiven potential. Some of them will tutor. Some
will work on programs to immunize young children from preventible childhood diseases. Some
will help to develop and run recreational centers
or reclaim urban parks from dealers and debris.
Some will counsel people a few years younger
than themselves to help keep them out of gangs
and into good activities. And everyone will learn
about serving our country and helping our communities.
At the end of this summer, we'll bring all
these people together for several days of debriefing and training, and then they'll all join
in a youth service summit. I will attend the
meeting, and I expect to listen a lot more than
I talk. I'll ask leaders from Congress, from business, labor, religious, and community groups to
attend the youth service summit too. We'll give
those who serve the honor they deserve, and
we'll learn a lot more about how to build this


228




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Mar. 1


national service program. And from the thousand pioneers of this summer, I want the national service to grow 100-fold in the next 4
years.
But even when hundreds of thousands are
serving, I want to maintain the pioneer spirit
of this first few months, because national service
can make America new again. It can help solve
our problems, educate our people, and build
our communities back together. So if anybody
here would like to be one of those 1,000 or
if anybody who is listening to this speech by
radio or television or reads about it would like
to be one of those 1,000, drop me a card at
the White House and just mark it "national service." We're going to pick them, and I can't
promise you'll be selected, but I promise you'll
be considered. I want to engage the energies
of America in this effort.
I also want to say that you shouldn't wait
for the summer or for a new program. We need
to begin now. We are going to be looking for
the kinds of ideas that we ought to be funding.
This is Monday. I ask you by Friday, every one
of you, to think about what you think you can
do and what we should do to be agents of
renewal; to talk with your parents, your clergy,
your friends, your teachers; to join the effort
to renew our community and to rebuild our
country; and to write to me about what you
are doing. It's time for millions of us to change
our country block by block, neighborhood by
neighborhood; time to return to our roots an
excitement, an idealism, and an energy.
I have to tell you that there are some among
us who do not believe that young Americans
will answer a call to action, who believe that
our people now measure their success merely
in the accumulation of material things. They believe this call to service will go unanswered.
But I believe they are dead wrong.
And so, especially to the young Americans
here, I ask you to prove that those who doubt
you are wrong about your generation. And today
I ask all of you who are young in spirit, whether
you are a 10-year-old in a service program in
our schools who reads to still younger children
or a 72-year-old who has become a foster grandparent, I ask you all to believe that you can
contribute to your community and your country.
And in so doing, you will find the best in yourself.
You will learn the lessons about your life that
you might not ever learn any other way. You


will learn again that each of us has the spark
of potential to accomplish something truly and
enduringly unique. You will experience the satisfaction of making a connection in a way with
another person that you could do in no other
way. You will learn that the joy of mastering
a new skill or discovering a new insight is exceeded only by the joy of helping someone else
do the same thing. You will know the satisfaction
of being valued not for what you own or what
you earn or what position you hold but just
because of what you have given to someone
else. You will understand in personal ways the
wisdom of the words spoken years ago by Martin
Luther King, who said, "Everybody can be great
because everybody can serve."
I ask you all, my fellow Americans, to support
our proposal for national service and to live a
proposal for national service, to learn the meaning of America at its best, and to recreate for
others America at its best. We are not just another country. We have always been a special
kind of community, linked by a web of rights
and responsibilities and bound together not by
bloodlines but by beliefs. At an age in time
when people all across the world are being literally torn apart by racial hatreds, by ethnic
hatreds, by religious divisions, we are a nation,
with all of our problems, where people can
come together across racial and religious lines
and hold hands and work together not just to
endure our differences but to celebrate them.
I ask you to make America celebrate that again.
I ask you, in closing, to commit yourselves
to this season of service because America needs
it. We need every one of you to live up to
the fullest of your potential, and we need you
to reach those who are not here and who will
never hear this talk and who will never have
the future they could otherwise have if not for
something that you could do. The great challenge of your generation is to prove that every
person here in this great land can live up to
the fullest of their God-given capacity. If we
do it, the 21st century will be the American
century. The American dream will be kept alive
if you will today answer the call to service.
Thank you, and God bless you all.
NOTE: The President spoke at 1:15 p.m. at Rutgers University. In his remarks, he referred to
Nakia Tomlinson, a Rutgers student, and Benjamin Barber, founder of the Rutgers Civic Education and Community Service Program.


229




Mar. 2 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


Exchange With Reporters Prior to a Meeting With Democratic
Congressional Leaders
March 2, 1993


Spending Cuts
Q. Mr. President, we hear you're not going
to ask for any more spending cuts. Is that right?
The President. Where did you hear that?
Q. Well, there's a little piece in the paper
that says somebody on your staff admitted that,
well, they didn't really think you'd be able to
find any more spending cuts.
The President. Well, I expect there will be
a lot more as we go along. I just don't think
we should shut the Congress down while we
all look for them. Keep in mind that we've got
more than they've had in a long time, and we
need to go forward with this program. But I
think you'll see a continuous stream of them
coming out as we go along.
Q. From you?


The President. From me and from others.
Bosnia
Q. Mr. President, are you satisfied with the
airdrops in Bosnia, the success of the airdrops?
The President. Well, the last report I got this
morning was pretty good, based on the last information I had. And I haven't talked directly
to General Powell today, but he thinks they've
gone pretty well, and I have to rely partly onlargely on his judgment.
Q. How long do you think they need to go
on there?
The President. I don't have an answer to that
now.
NOTE: The exchange began at 10:19 a.m. in the
Cabinet Room at the White House.


Exchange With Reporters Prior to Discussions With Secretary General
Manfred Woerner of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
March 2, 1993


Branch Davidian Religious Sect Standoff
Q. Mr. President, the incident in Waco appears to be ending. Do you have any misgivings
at all about how that was executed?
The President. I don't think now is the time
to discuss that. I'm pleased that it's ending. I
think it's ending in a way that's very consistent
with a similar incident that occurred in my
State, very similar, when I was Governor there
many years ago.
Q. Are you satisfied that the appropriate action was taken in the first place?
The President. I don't think this is the time
for me to comment on that. It's not appropriate
at this time for me to comment on it.
Haiti
Q. Are you having any second thoughts about
your criticism of George Bush's Haiti policy during the campaign, given that today you went
to court to essentially support his position?
The President. But our position is different.


Our position now is that there's a difference
if there are extreme circumstances, and I think
there are. You know, maybe I was too harsh
in my criticism of him, but I still think there's
a big difference between what we're doing in
Haiti and what they were doing in Haiti. And
there's a big difference between the kinds of
problems that are created by the Haitian circumstance. I mean, something that was never
brought up before but is now painfully apparent
is that if we did what the plaintiffs in the court
case want, we would be consigning a very large
number of Haitians, in all probability, to some
sort of death warrant. I mean, if you look at
how many people have been lost at sea, look
at the number of people who died not even
trying to come to the United States in a much
shorter trip recently, given the means they had
to get here, the kinds of boats they have and
all of that.
We have now cut from 2 months down to
1 week the amount of time it takes to process


230




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Mar. 2


people who want to be considered to be refugees in Haiti. When we bring people back, we
meet them there now. We don't just let them
get dispersed into the country. We're going out
into the country and doing the refugee handling.
So it's a very different set of circumstances than


it was.
NOTE: The exchange began at 4:25 p.m. in the
Oval Office at the White House. A tape was not
available for verification of the content of this exchange.


Statement by the Director of Communications on the Situation in Haiti
March 2, 1993


Today the Supreme Court heard arguments
concerning the current repatriation policy regarding Haitian asylum-seekers. At that time, the
Justice Department supported the President's
legal authority to carry out the practice of direct
return. The President believes it is essential that
he retain the ability to implement such measures
when exceptional circumstances demand.
The current practice of direct returns is based
on the President's conviction that it is necessary
to avert a humanitarian tragedy that could result
from a large boat exodus. Hundreds, if not thousands, could lose their lives in overloaded,
unseaworthy vessels if the United States reversed the practice of direct return precipitously.
At the same time, the President regards the
current practice of direct return as a policy for
exceptional circumstances. It is continually
under review and will be adjusted when conditions permit.
In addition, the President is taking a series
of initiatives to promote human rights and democratization in Haiti and to enhance the safety
and well-being of those who have reason to fear
persecution.
First, the Clinton administration strongly has
supported the negotiating process undertaken by
the United Nations and the Organization of
American States (U.N./OAS) and has urged
other nations, both within and outside the hemisphere, to provide diplomatic and financial support to the U.NJOAS effort. A U.NJOAS civilian monitoring team now is being deployed in
Haiti. We hope and expect that their presence
will create an atmosphere conducive to respect
for human rights and political dialog, including
progress on a settlement to this crisis.
The President will continue efforts to move
the negotiating process forward as expeditiously
as possible, leading to the restoration of con

stitutional government and the return of President Aristide. President Clinton will meet with
President Aristide on March 16 to review the
progress that has been achieved and the challenges that lie ahead.
Second, the President is committed to enhancing the safety and well-being of those in
Haiti who have reason to fear reprisal for their
political activities and affiliations, and has taken
a number of actions to improve in-country processing of Haitian refugees, the procedures by
which Haitians may apply in Haiti for refugee
status and resettlement in the United States.
Shortly after January 20, the President directed that U.S. officials double our capacity
for the interviewing of refugee applicants in
Haiti by officials of the Immigration and Naturalization Service. The President also directed
the State Department to send a technical mission to Haiti to develop detailed proposals for:
-more rapid refugee processing;
-making it easier for Haitians outside of
Port-au-Prince to apply for refugee status
and U.S. resettlement; and
-enhancing the safety of the repatriation
process for returnees.
Since return of the technical team, we have
streamlined procedures and added staff in Portau-Prince and have reduced considerably the
processing time for refugee applications in Haiti.
We have already developed the capacity to reduce processing time for high priority cases
from 2 months or more to about 7 working
days.
The technical team, which also included congressional staff and representatives from the
INS, made a series of additional recommendations for improvements in procedures, including
the addition of personnel at the U.S. Refugee
Processing Center in Haiti to serve as liaison


231




Mar. 2 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


with human rights groups and as a resource
for INS adjudicators; procedures for identifying
those who may be especially at risk; and the
establishment of processing centers outside of
Port-au-Prince to enhance access to the program
for Haitians throughout Haiti.
Based on these and other recommendations
made by the team, the President has directed


that U.S. officials implement further improvements in the process. To accomplish these goals,
the President is authorizing expenditure of up
to $5 million from the Emergency Refugee and
Migration Assistance Fund (ERMA).
The United States has been in the forefront
of refugee protection around the world. We will
continue to play this important role in the years
to come.


Nomination for Posts at the State and Education Departments and the
Environmental Protection Agency
March 2, 1993


The President announced today his intention
to nominate a total of 11 officials for senior
sub-Cabinet jobs at the Department of State,
the Environmental Protection Agency, and the
Department of Education.
"This group of nominations continues the
process of filling our Government with top-flight
public servants," said the President. "I am proud
that they have agreed to join my administration."
The individuals named today are:
State Department
Patrick Kennedy, Assistant Secretary for Administration
Elinor Constable, Assistant Secretary for
International Environmental and Scientific
Affairs
Alexander Watson, Assistant Secretary for
Inter-American Affairs
John Shattuck, Assistant Secretary for Human
Rights and Humanitarian Affairs


Mary Ryan, Assistant Secretary for Consular
Affairs
Wendy Sherman, Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs
Environmental Protection Agency
Robert Sussman, Deputy Administrator
Bailus Walker, Jr., Assistant Administrator for
the Office of Research and Development
Steve Herman, Assistant Administrator for
Enforcement
David Gardiner, Assistant Administrator for
Policy Planning and Evaluation
Education Department
Kay Casstevens, Assistant Secretary for Legislation and Congressional Affairs
NOTE: Biographies of the nominees were made
available by the Office of the Press Secretary.


Exchange With Reporters Prior to a Meeting With Democratic
Congressional Leaders
March 3, 1993


Texas Senatorial Campaign
Q. When are you going to Texas to campaign
for Mr. Krueger?
The President. I don't know. I want to go.
I haven't been invited yet. I imagine I'll get
a way down there.


The Vice President. I'm going next week,
aren't I?
The President. You're goingThe Vice President. I'll be there next week,
Carl [Carl Leubsdorf, Dallas Morning News].
You didn't ask, but that's the answer.
Senator Krueger. Don't insult the Vice Presi

232




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Mar. 3


dent, Carl.
Q. Will you?
The Vice President. Next week.
Bosnia
Q. [Inaudible]-situation on the Bosnian airlift? Is it on or offP
The President. No, it's
Q. [Inaudible]-Aspin off the reservation?
The President. No, we're continuing the airlift
plan. This phase of it's going forward just as
planned. And it's under continuous review, but
we're going forward with the phase just as it's
planned.
Q. There's no pause at all in relief efforts,
in flying it in?
The President. We're going forward with the
phase as we had planned. As you know, for
obvious reasons we don't want to discuss specifi

cally when we're doing what. But the initial
phase of the airlift is going forward just as
Q. Why did Secretary Aspin indicate thatThe President. I don't know exactly what he
said. I haven't had a chance to talk to him
about it.
Q. He said it was symbolic.
Q. Was there ever a time when it was going
to be off?
The Vice President. No, no. What he meant
by that was that it accomplished not only the
result of getting the relief but also getting the
convoys a little freer access. That's what he
meant by that word.
Q. And has it done that?
The Vice President. Yes, it has.
NOTE: The exchange began at 9:45 a.m. in the
Oval Office at the White House.


Remarks Announcing the National Performance Review
March 3, 1993


Ladies and gentlemen, I think you all know
we are here to announce a terribly important
initiative in this administration to bring about
greater efficiency and lower cost of Government.
I want to begin by saying that we intend
for this to be a bipartisan and a citizen Government effort. And I'm delighted by the concerned
Members of Congress who are here today with
the Vice President and me, people who have
already worked on this issue. I'd like to begin
just by acknowledging the presence here of Senators Glenn and Levin, Senator Cohen, Senator
Dorgan, Senator Lieberman, Senator Roth, and
Senator Krueger; and in the House, Congressman Conyers, Congressman Clinger, Congressman Gordon, Congressman Laughlin, and Congresswoman Pryce and Congresswoman Slaughter. All of them have manifested an interest
in the issues we are here to discuss today.
I also want to especially thank the distinguished comptroller of the State of Texas, John
Sharp, who's to my right here, for the work
that he did with us to put this project together
and for coming all the way from Texas to be
with us and with his Senator.
Today I am taking what I hope and believe
will be a historic step in reforming the Federal


Government by announcing the formation of a
national performance review. Our goal is to
make the entire Federal Government both less
expensive and more efficient, and to change the
culture of our national bureaucracy away from
complacency and entitlement toward initiative
and empowerment. We intend to redesign, to
reinvent, to reinvigorate the entire National
Government.
Working under the direction of the Vice
President for the next 6 months, we'll conduct
an intensive national review of every single Government agency and service. We'll enlist citizens
and Government workers and leaders from the
private sector in a search not only for ways
to cut wasteful spending but also for ways to
improve services to our citizens and to make
our Government work better.
I'll ask every member of our Cabinet to assign
their best people to this project, managers, auditors, and frontline workers as well. And to put
the "M" back in the OMB, I've asked Phil
Lader, who is to my far left, the new Deputy
Director for Management at OMB and a person
who has spent his life solving difficult and challenging management and people problems, to
take the lead in making our Government work


233




Mar. 3 / Administration of WilliamJ. Clinton, 1993


better, not only during this 6-month period but
permanently for as long as I am President.
We will turn first to Federal employees for
help. They know better than anyone else how
to do their jobs if someone will simply ask them
and reward them for wanting to do it better.
We'll ask the public to help us improve services
and cut waste by calling an 800 number or
by writing to the Vice President, because no
one deserves a bigger say in the services Government provides than Government's customers,
the American people. We'll look for ways to
streamline our own organizations to reduce unnecessary layers and to improve services to the
better uses of technology by giving managers
more flexibility and by giving frontline workers
more decisionmaking power. Just as we're trying
to do that in the White House, we will try
to do that throughout the National Government.
When I was the Governor of Arkansas, our
State became the first in the Nation to institute
a governmentwide total quality management
program. And I can tell you, it works. It isn't
easy. It isn't quick. It can make a huge difference, not only to the people but also to the
people who work for the Government as well.
We'll look at the good work that has already
been done, including many thoughtful reforms
proposed by Members of the Congress, including the work last year by the House Task Force
on Government Waste, chaired by then Congressman and now Senator Byron Dorgan. They
discovered, among other things, that the Pentagon had stockpiled 1.2 million bottles of nasal
spray. Even with my allergies, I only need half
that many. [Laughter] As we locate such waste
and wipe it out, it will be a breath of fresh
air to the American taxpayers.
Cutting spending will be a priority. But so
is making the system work better for the people
who work in Government and the people who
pay the bills and are served by it. The truth
is we can't achieve the savings we want simply
by cutting funds. We must also use the remaining funds in a much wiser way. We'll challenge
the basic assumptions of every program, asking
does it work; does it provide quality service;
does it encourage innovation and reward hard
work? If the answer is no or if there's a better
way to do it or if there's something that the
Federal Government is doing it should simply
stop doing, we'll try to make the changes needed.
Many good programs began for a good reason:


to serve a national purpose or to give the States
time to develop an institutional capacity to administer them. But times change, and in many
cases State and local governments are now better suited to handle these programs. The Federal Government simply can't do everything, and
there are many things the States or the private
sector could do better.
This performance review will not produce another report just to gather dust in some warehouse. We have enough of them already. That's
why I am asking for a list of very specific actions
we can take now, agency by agency, program
by program. This is hard work. We've been a
long time getting to this spot, and we can't
change the Government overnight. But we can
continuously improve our operations in ways
that reap dramatic results for the people of this
country.
Two years ago, when the State of Texas faced
an enormous budget shortfall, they launched a
performance review under the leadership of
John Sharp that saved the taxpayers billions of
dollars over the ensuing years, made government
work better at the same time.
Last month, Senator Bob Krueger took out
an ad in the Washington Post just inviting the
public to call a waste hotline to help make Government work and to help make it 100 percent
fat-free. He got 200 calls the first day.
Vice President Gore and I think a national
performance review is an absolutely necessary
beginning, because we have too much to do
that a wasteful and mismanaged Government
will not be able to do. We have to cut and
invest at the same time, something that's never
been done before. We have to reduce the cost
of health care and meet the challenges of an
intensely competitive global economy. And we
have to do those things with less money than
we're spending in many areas today. We have
to reduce the largest deficit in our history, as
we do in our economic program, or it will literally rob us of our ability to solve problems,
invest in the future, or thrive economically.
And most important, the American people deserve a Government that is both honest and
efficient, and for too long they haven't gotten
it. For most Americans, a college loan or a Social Security check represents a common border
with the best ideals and goals of our country.
We all count to some extent on our Government
to protect the environment, to provide education
and health care and other basic needs. But de

234




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Mar. 3


mocracy can become quickly an empty phrase,
if those who are elected to serve cannot meet
the needs of the people except with Government that costs too much or is too slow or
too arrogant or too unresponsive.
Finally, let me stress that this performance
review, as I said at the beginning, is not about
politics. Programs passed by both Democratic
Presidents and Republican Presidents, voted on
by Members of Congress of both parties, and
supported by the American people at the time
are being undermined by an inefficient and outdated bureaucracy and by our huge debt. For
too long the basic functioning of the Government has gone unexamined. We want to make
improving the way Government does business
a permanent part of how Government works,
regardless of which party is in power.
It isn't written anywhere that government
can't be thrifty or flexible or entrepreneurial.
Increasingly, most government is, and it is time
the Federal Government follows the example
set by the most innovative State and local leaders and by the many huge private sector companies that have had to go through the same sort
of searching reexamination over the last decade,
companies that have downsized and streamlined
and become more customer friendly and, as a
result, have had much, much more success.
In short, it's time our Government adjusted
to the real world, tightened its belt, managed


its affairs in the context of an economy that
is information based, rapidly changing, and puts
a premium on speed and function and service,
not rules and regulations.
Americans voted for a change last November.
They want better schools and health care and
better roads and more jobs, but they want us
to do it all with a Government that works better
on less money and is more responsive. The
American people may not know specifically how
to do it, although many of them have good
particular ideas, but I'm confident our people
are willing to try new ways and they want us
to experiment. They want us to do things that
have worked in other contexts now in the National Government, and that's what we are here
to do today.
I thank the Vice President for his willingness
to lead this effort. I thank the Members of Congress who are here and those who are not who
are supporting us. And I earnestly enlist the
support of the American people and especially
the employees of the United States Government
in this important effort.
I'd like now to introduce the Vice President,
who will be in charge of this effort of performance review for the next 6 months, for his statement.
NOTE: The President spoke at 10:07 a.m. in Room
450 of the Old Executive Office Building.


Statement on the Death of Albert Sabin
March 3, 1993


I was saddened to learn of the passing this
morning of Dr. Albert Sabin, one of the great
heroes of American medicine. The oral polio
vaccine that he developed has saved countless
lives and provided millions more with the comfort of security.


I have made a commitment to work towards
the goal of ensuring that all of our Nation's
children receive proper immunizations. This loss
today reminds us all of the seriousness with
which that task must be taken. We must continue the battle which Albert Sabin so nobly
waged.


235




Mar. 4 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


Remarks on Receiving the Rotary International Award of Honor and an
Exchange With Reporters
March 4, 1993


Award of Honor
Clifford Dochterman. Mr. President, as the
former president of Rotary International, I have
the occasion on several occasions to present an
award called the Rotary International Award of
Honor presented to selected heads of state.
We've only presented this on about 12 occasions. This award is given for humanitarian service. And the service that you're giving for Rotary
International's programs of support for immunization of children in the world, as well as our
programs of humanitarian aid in Bosnia and
Croatia, gives me the opportunity-if you would
accept this award on behalf of 1,100,000 Rotarians of the world in 187 countries-it would
be a great pleasure-to accept this award.
The President. Thank you for your good work,
and thank you for the award. I appreciate that.
Mr. Dochternan. It has a ribbon there, but
I'll not be so presumptuous to put it over
yourThe President. Isn't it beautiful? Thank you.
Mr. Dochterman. This award has been presented on selected occasions on behalf of those
who support humanitarian efforts throughout the
world.
The President. I'm deeply honored.
World Trade Center Bomibing
Q. Excuse me, Mr. President, can you tell
us anything about the arrest and whether the
American people can now believe that they are
secure in that someone has been arrested?


The President. I can tell you that I was informed this morning about it. And the authorities are still working on a statement that I think
will be issued to you later this afternoon. I think
they'll be able to give you some more information later this afternoon.
Q. Now the suspect though is linked to terrorism, should Americans feel less secure about
their safety?
The President. I think you should wait until
the-I think, first of all, the American people
should be very proud of the work done by the
law enforcement authorities. They worked hard
together. They worked aggressively. They
worked without stopping until they made, I
think, a very quick arrest. But I'd like for you
to wait until the proper authorities have a
chance to make their statement to you later
this afternoon. And then tomorrow I will have
a chance to make some more comments on it.
Q. Can we assume that it's terrorism?
The President. I don't think you should assume anything until you hear the statement
today. I know that an arrest was made. I know
who was arrested. I think that at the time I
was informed this morning there were a lot of
other questions we did not know the answers
to. And they're trying to get as much information together as possible to give you later this
afternoon.
NOTE: The presentation began at 3:07 p.m. in the
Oval Office at the White House.


Exchange With Reporters Following a Meeting With Tilden Middle School
Students
March 4, 1993


Health Care Task Force
Q. Mr. President, can you explain to us why
your health care task force won't be open to
the public?
The President. No working group of the Government before they have a proposal-that


would be like opening the White House at every
staff meeting we have. We can't do that. I mean,
they've got 400 people over there, working continuously on thousands of different issues. Nobody ever does that. We would never-we can't
get anything done.


236




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Mar. 4


Also, what we've done has been publicly reported. Most of the papers have been released
or leaked. But they have to be able to work.
It's an ongoing project. It's like any other staff
work the White House does.
Q. But how do we know that there is no
conflict of interest since we don't know who
is working on it and we can't attend any of
the meetings, the public meetings?
The President. It's just like any other-how
do you know that about anything we do here
at the White House?
World Trade Center Bombing
Q. Can you be any more reassuring on the
whole terrorism question, sir? This is obviously
what people are going to be most worried about.
The President. I think that people should be


very reassured by the incredibly rapid work
done by the law enforcement officials involved.
It is very impressive. All resources were put
into this from the moment the explosion occurred, and I think they did a remarkable job.
I don't think I should say more than I know
now. And I think you should wait until the statement is made tonight by the appropriate officials, and I'll be glad to give you further comments. But I think the American people should
be very much reassured by the speed with which
the law enforcement folks responded to this circumstance.
NOTE: The exchange began at 3:25 p.m. in the
North Foyer at the White House. A portion of
this exchange could not be verified because the
tape was incomplete.


Remarks on Signing the Emergency Unemployment Compensation
Amendments of 1993 and an Exchange With Reporters
March 4, 1993


The President. I want to, first of all, acknowledge the presence here of Senators Mitchell,
Moynihan, Riegle, Sarbanes, Sasser, Hatfield,
and Durenberger; the Speaker and Congressman
Matsui and Congressman Fish. I would also like
to acknowledge the Labor Secretary and two
of his employees whom I will recognize formally
in just a moment.
Today I am signing important legislation to
extend unemployment benefits long term. I want
to thank the Congress for passing this bill, which
is the first provision in the economic package
I recommended to them in my joint address.
The bill reforms existing law. It symbolizes
the success of a new management style we are
bringing to the Government. And it reminds
us of how critical it is to adopt the rest of
our economic plan, to increase investment, reduce the deficit, create private-sector jobs, and
increase the incomes of working Americans.
We have extended unemployment benefits.
Now it's time to extend jobs. It's been less than
a month since I asked the Secretary of Labor
to prepare the emergency legislation. I want to
commend the leadership of the Congress, of
those who are here and those who are not,
who made rapid action possible. Thanks to


them, the benefits of millions of Americans will
proceed without interruption. More important,
this legislation takes an existing pilot program
and applies it nationally in ways that I am convinced will help tens of thousands of workers
immediately. This reform was brought to the
attention of Secretary Reich by line workers at
the Department of Labor, and it reflects the
kind of innovation and imagination we must
bring to the entire Federal Government. It is
at the core of the national performance review
initiative that the Vice President and I announced yesterday.
The Department of Labor funds a demonstration project in New Jersey that matches up
workers who are permanently displaced with
training and reemployment services. They use
existing data to provide services to people in
need. Once they're identified, the workers receive the kind of counseling, training, and retraining that gets them back to work faster and
often at higher wages than would have otherwise
been the case.
Secretary of Labor Reich held a town meeting
in his Department of Labor to break down the
walls that too often have existed between senior
management and Federal employees. Because


237




Mar. 4 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


two dedicated public employees brought this
successful innovation to his attention, today it
is becoming the law of the land everywhere,
thanks to the Congress. It's a great example
of what we can and must do throughout the
Government.
And the people who made it happen have
joined us here for this important moment. With
this bill becoming law, 1/2 million unemployed
Americans who need help making the rent and
buying groceries and paying for school clothes
will receive it. I hope they will also recognize
the efforts of the two gentlemen to my left
with the Secretary of Labor, Steve Wandner and
Steve Marler, the Labor Department employees
who brought the profiling reform to the Secretary's attention. Thank you very much.
Some of the indicators are that we are coming
out of a long and deep recession. But, as all
of you know, this has been a slow, anemic recovery when it comes to job growth especially. It
is time now to get on to the important work
of stimulating our economy and putting the
American people back to work, to creating the
conditions that will allow the private sector to
create jobs, and to create jobs at good wages.
I hope that this is a good first step.
There are those who say we don't need to
do anything else to our economy, but I would
remind you all that we are 3 million jobs behind
where we would be at this point in an ordinary
American recovery. Claims for unemployment
benefits are up again this week, and there are
still deep structural changes going on in this
economy as well as a recession in Europe and
a very difficult economic problem in Japan, all
of these things affecting our future prospects.
I think we can grow our economy, and we can
create jobs. But we have to be committed, as
I said, to a long-term program to create jobs
and raise incomes. That is what our economic
plan seeks to do.
As I said, we're now extending unemployment
benefits, and that's a good thing to do. We are
recognizing the fact that more and more Americans who lose their jobs now don't expect to
go back to those old jobs. There's been a stunning increase in the number of people who say
when they lose their jobs today, I don't expect
to get this job back. And the reform brought
to our attention by these two fine gentlemen
will help us to help those people. But in the
end, what we have to do is to extend jobs and
not unemployment. That is our next great test,


and I think we're off to a good beginning today.
[At this point, the President signed the bill.]
Bosnia
Q. Mr. President, do you have any response
to Mr. Karadzic, who had an implied threat
of violence against the United States because
of its policy of airdrops?
The President. Well, if that's what he meant
to do, he made a terrible mistake, and it was
something that I viewed with grave concern and
real disapproval.
World Trade Center Bombing
Q. Do you think that the incident in New
York and the arrest today should make Americans afraid about foreign policy decisions that
might affect us domestically through terrorism?
The President. No, I don't think the American
people can afford to be afraid. I think we all
have to be concerned about any risks to our
people's safety. But I would say again what I
said to you earlier: My feeling now is one of
real gratitude to the law enforcement officials
at every level who worked together and moved
quickly to try to resolve this matter and who
did make an arrest.
I think we should wait until the formal statement is issued, until we know more facts before
we can draw any conclusions about anything
other than the fact that an arrest was undertaken. When I know more facts I'll be glad
to answer more questions and say more. But
I think that today we ought to be very impressed
that the law enforcement authorities in this
country moved so quickly to make an arrest.
And I'm grateful to them.
Q. Why would it be a grave mistake for him
to make implications?
Q. Based on what you know, sir, do you think
they'll be able to crack the bombing case?
Deficit Reduction
Q. What does this say about your commitment
to cutting the deficit?
The President. It says I've done more about
it than anybody in recent history. And I intend
to keep on.
Thank you.
NOTE: The President spoke at 4:33 p.m. in the
Roosevelt Room at the White House. H.R. 920,
approved March 4, was assigned Public Law No.
103-6.


238




Administration of WilliamJ. Clinton, 1993 / Mar. 4


Statement on Signing the Emergency
Amendments of 1993
March 4, 1993
Today I am pleased to sign into law H.R.
920, the "Emergency Unemployment Compensation Amendments of 1993." This legislation
will provide critical assistance to the unemployed
and their families by extending the Emergency
Unemployment Compensation (EUC) program-which is scheduled to expire March 6 -through October 2, 1993. In addition, the legislation includes an innovative worker profiling
program to encourage States to use the Unemployment Insurance system to link permanently
displaced workers to reemployment services
early in their period of unemployment and facilitate their transition to new jobs.
With the EUC program due to expire this
Saturday, I commend the Congress for its swift
action to ensure that there will be continued
help for millions of jobless Americans who want
to work to support their families but cannot
find jobs. I believe that, as a Nation, we have
a moral obligation, as well as an economic interest, to help these families stay afloat while they
attempt to find jobs.
While there have been recent signs of improvement in the economy, this improvement
has regrettably not extended to the area of employment. The unemployment rate has been
over 7 percent for 14 consecutive months and
the current rate is higher than the rate that
existed when the EUC program was originally
enacted. Moreover, the current labor market is,
in many respects, weaker than it was at what
was considered the worst point of the recession.
For example, the rates at which the unemployed


Unemployment Compensation
are now exhausting their regular State benefits
and the average length of time the unemployed
are now receiving benefits are significantly higher than they were at the bottom of the recession.
H.R. 920 combines compassion with a healthy
dose of common sense. It not only provides
extended income support to help the unemployed with grocery bills, mortgages, car and
tuition payments, and other expenses, but also
offers a means to help target reemployment
services to the structurally unemployed so they
can get back to work.
Enactment of this bill is an important first
step. While there are funds available to pay
EUC benefits for a few more weeks, the funds
for the balance of the extension are included
as part of my economic stimulus package. The
EUC extension will help sustain the unemployed
until we are successful in creating more jobs.
It is therefore also imperative that we now work
together to enact quickly the stimulus package,
as well as the long-term public investment and
deficit reduction proposals I have presented.
These actions will ensure strong, sustained economic growth and significantly increase the job
opportunities available to the American people.
WILLIAM J. CLINTON
The White House,
March 4, 1993.
NOTE: H.R. 920, approved March 4, was assigned
Public Law No. 103-6.


Letter to the Acting Director of the Federal Emergency Management
Agency on Disaster Assistance for Washington
March 4, 1993


Dear Mr. Tidball:
I have determined that the damage in certain
areas of the State of Washington, resulting from
severe storms and high winds on January 20 -21, 1993, is of sufficient severity and magnitude


to warrant a major disaster declaration under
the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act ("the Stafford Act").
I, therefore, declare that such a major disaster
exists in the State of Washington.


239




Mar. 4 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


In order to provide Federal assistance, you
are hereby authorized to allocate from funds
available for these purposes, such amounts as
you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance
and administrative expenses.
You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the designated areas. Consistent with
the requirement that Federal assistance be supplemental, any Federal funds provided under


the Stafford Act for Public Assistance will be
limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs.
Sincerely,
BILL CLINTON
NOTE: This letter was made available by the Office of the Press Secretary but was not issued as
a White House press release.


Letter to Governor Mike Lowry on Disaster Assistance for Washington
March 4, 1993


Dear Governor Lowry:
As requested, I have declared a major disaster
under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief
and Emergency Assistance Act (the Stafford Act)
for the State of Washington due to damage resulting from severe storms and high winds on
January 20-21, 1993. I have authorized Federal
relief and recovery assistance in the affected
area.
Public Assistance will be provided. Consistent
with the requirement that Federal assistance be
supplemental, any Federal funds provided under
the Stafford Act for Public Assistance will be
limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs
in the designated areas.


The Federal Emergency Management Agency
("FEMA") will coordinate Federal assistance efforts and designate specific areas eligible for
such assistance. The Federal Coordinating Officer will be Mr. John Kainrad of FEMA. He
will consult with you and assist in the execution
of the FEMA-State Disaster Assistance Agreement governing the expenditure of Federal
Funds.
Sincerely,
BILL CLINTON
NOTE: This letter was made available by the Office of the Press Secretary but was not issued as
a White House press release.


Nomination for an Associate Judge of the Superior Court of the District
of Columbia
March 4, 1993


The President has nominated Russell F.
Canan to be an Associate Judge of the Superior
Court of the District of Columbia. In doing
so, the President discharged his responsibility
under local law to select a nominee from a
list of candidates originally submitted last year
by the District of Columbia Judicial Nominating
Commission.
"I was impressed with all of the candidates,"
said the President, "but Russ Canan stood out
because of his broad support within the District


of Columbia legal community, including Mayor
Kelly's personal recommendation, and because
of the impressive track record he has accumulated in 16 years of law practice in Washington.
Above all, we heard nothing but the highest
praise for Mr. Canan's professional skills and
talents from those who know his work the best:
the many judges on the Superior Court before
whom he has practiced."
NOTE: A biography of the nominee was made
available by the Office of the Press Secretary.


240




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Mar. 5


Remarks on Mayoral Support for the
With Reporters
March 5, 1993
The President. I want to thank all of the mayors who spoke, and all the ones who are here
who have not spoken, for their strong support
without regard to party or region or the size
of the communities from which they come. As
a matter of fact, when I heard the Mayor of
York, Pennsylvania, speak, I was trying to decide
whether his tie was a Republican or a Democratic tie. I think it is really an all-American
tie. It's a bold tie, the Vice President said.
[Laughter]
I want to say a special word of thanks, too,
to the Secretary of the Department of Housing
and Urban Development, Henry Cisneros, who
is with us, who has worked very closely with
the mayors.
I have just a few things I want to say about
this. First of all, any mayor who has served
for any length of time has been compelled to
make the kinds of choices that are embodied
in this economic program. If you look at the
budgets of the cities of this country or the budgets of the States of this country over the last
decade you will see the choices that have been
imposed in order to balance books and keep
the functions of our cities running, in order
to deal with relative reductions in Federal assistance and all the economic crises that have
ripped our communities. Mayors have learned
to cut budgets and to shift funds away from
inessential things toward investments in our futures.
I know that that is one reason that mayors
intuitively and without regard to party have responded to my efforts to increase investment
and reduce the deficit at the same time. We
have to do both. Today there was a report that
the unemployment rate in February dropped to
7 percent, one-tenth of 1 percent, and that
365,000 jobs were created, an estimated 365,000
jobs. That is good news. But if you look behind
the numbers, it also reveals the stark challenges
before us, for most of those jobs were parttime jobs, and we are still about 3 million jobs
behind where we would ordinarily be in a recovery.
Indeed, we are, according to the aggregate
economic statistics, in a recovery in which, iron

Economic Program and an Exchange
ically, the unemployment rate is still higher than
it was at the very bottom of the recession. That
shows you that there is a fundamental restructuring going on in the American economy which
requires an extraordinary approach to the creation of jobs in the short and in the long term.
That's why these investments in repairing our
streets and bridges, renovating our housing, rebuilding our water and sewer lines, improving
mass transit, retooling our industrial parks, and
protecting our environment are important parts
of the larger plan also to invest in our people
and their economic, educational, and technological futures.
Through $3 billion in additional funding for
highways, airports, and mass transit, $2.5 billion
in community development block grants, which
can be used to create new jobs and improve
the quality of life, communities will be able to
complete projects they've needed for years but
haven't been able to finance. They will create
new jobs today, but they will also build the
foundations for broader economic growth in the
private sector tomorrow.
This plan also will create almost 700,000 new
jobs this summer for unemployed young people,
something that will be profoundly important
again in sending the right signals. We all know,
for example, that the financial markets, as Mayor
Dinkins said, respond to the right signals, interest rates are down almost one full point now.
And if we can keep them down for several
months, we may well put another $100 billion
in refinancing back into this economy for investment and growth. Why? Because the markets
have responded to a signal.
Well, people respond to signals, too. People
in San Diego, where the unemployment has
been so high, will respond to a signal. Will this
stimulus program give a job to every person
in San Diego? Of course not, but it will send
a signal that America is on the move again.
Will this stimulus program provide a summer
job for every young person in south central Los
Angeles that Mayor Bradley is so concerned
about? Of course not, but it will sure send a
signal that America is on the move again and
coming together again.


241




Mar. 5 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


Will it in the beginning provide enough funds
for everybody to do in every city what Mayor
Lanier and Mayor Freedman and others have
done in parts of their communities with community policing? Of course not, but it will provide
a beginning, and it will send a signal that we
are moving in the right direction. And it will
actually have an economic impact that is positive. These things are very important.
I also don't want to forget the fact that a
significant percentage, almost half, of this stimulus package is as incentives to the private sector
for private investment in these same communities. Small businesses have created virtually
all of the new jobs in our country in the last
10 years. Their inability to create more jobs
than larger employers have been shedding is
the central cause of stagnant employment in
America. So the small business tax credit that
we offer, the new business long-term capital
gains tax, and the other incentives for businesses, both small and large, to create new jobs
is very important.
This plan is based on the idea that we all
have to work together to build our future; the
idea that we have to look at the long-run needs
for the 365,000 or so kids that will be in Head
Start, for the millions of young people who we
want to provide for education and training, for
all the people who have lost their jobs because
of defense cutbacks or other industrial relocations; that they need intense efforts to reinvest
in their community as well as to retraining opportunities; that we need to couple those longterm efforts with the short-term stimulus that
will send the right signal, spark this economy,
and get some job growth back into this recovery.
This is not, as so many have said, a partisan
issue. It is not a small town or a large city
issue. It is something that we all have to face
to get the job done. And I'm very grateful for
the support that's been given.
Meeting With Russian President Yeltsin
Now, before I answer questions, I'd like to
make just a very brief announcement that I
think the press here already knows about. But
I want to formally announce that in Vancouver,
Canada, on April 3d and 4th, I will meet with
President Yeltsin of Russia to explore what the
United States can do to support his efforts to
strengthen democracy and to create a vibrant
market economy, and to support our common
interests in solving crises around the world in


maintaining a general march toward peace and
freedom and democracy.
I will try to be rather specific at that time
in terms of what the United States will be prepared to do, and we will try to offer some innovative solutions to the difficulties faced by the
President and by the Russian people.
I hope that this will be a very productive
thing. I look forward to it. I'll be glad to answer
a few questions about that, but I hope, too,
that you recognize that the significance of this
action today is that if we can have enough bipartisan support to pass an economic program in
the Congress that will strengthen America.
America, in turn, will be better able to deal
with the problems that we face beyond our borders. Unless we're strong here, it's going to be
very difficult for us to meet our responsibilities
around the world.
Q. Mr. President, the Soviets or the Russians
have made it clear that what they need most
at this point is U.S. financial aid. Are you planning to bring anything like that to the Vancouver
summit?
The President. There will be-obviously,
money will be discussed, but it is not just a
question of money, and it's certainly not money
alone. I don't want to put a figure on it yet.
We've made no decisions. But I can tell you
we've discussed some rather innovative things
that have not yet been on the table in these
discussions in the past. This will not be a meetand-greet meeting with President Yeltsin. We
have met before, and we have talked several
times since I have been in office. I am going
there to try to have a very businesslike meeting.
And as we get closer to the meeting, we'll be
able to discuss more specifics.
Stimulus Package
Q. Several economists already this morning
were jumping on the unemployment figures to
say that, no, in fact, the stimulus package isn't
needed, despite your interpretation of these
numbers. What does this do to the political environment that you face in getting this through
as quickly as you need to?
The President. That in part depends on
whether the Members of the Congress listen
to economists who have good jobs-[laughter]
and who have not had declining incomes, by
and large, for the last 12 years, or whether they
listen to people like the folks who are up here
with me, without regard to party, who know


242




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Mar. 5


what's happening on the streets out there.
The assumption is-look, nothing would make
me happier than to know that just the efforts
to bring interest rates down and the extraordinary efforts by American business-people in
the private sector to increase productivity would
generate 365,000 jobs a month for 2 or 3 years.
That would be a wonderful thing.
But I would say again, the unemployment rate
in this country is 7 percent. That is very high
in our economy because it's an open economy
without the sort of huge support you have in
some of the European economies that are built
for higher unemployment rates in a way. And
a lot of those jobs were part-time jobs. That,
again, speaks to the need to address the health
care issue because one of the reasons so many
of these jobs are part-time jobs is that employers
can't afford to hire full-time employees because
they can't pay the health care bill.
But I just simply don't agree. I mean, there
are people who see one month of-the employment rate dropped one-tenth of a point. That
is not an enormous drop. These jobs were not
all, or even most, full-time jobs. I am very grateful for it, but it seems to me that, if anything,
the continued persistence of relatively high unemployment is a good argument for the stimulus
package.
Q. Politically, you are trying to buck a trend
here, right? I mean, the political indicators are
going the other way.
The President. The economic indicators are
not. I think the political indicators are going
the other way because I have challenged the
Congress to cut spending. And so since there
hasn't been a response in terms of "Here's our
list," the easiest thing to do is to say, "Well,
let's just don't hire any kids this summer in
Los Angeles or New York or Cincinnati or
Cleveland or whatever."
You know, this is about jobs. This economic
recovery is about jobs. How anybody could go
to any State in this country, and particularly
to some of those in real duress, and say that
we're in the midst of a strong recovery is a
mystery to me.
Aid to Russia
Q. One of the things that's plagued the U.S.Russia relationship when it comes to this aid
question for the last couple of years has been
this kind of chicken and egg situation: We want
Yeltsin to make the reforms, and we'll give him


the aid. He says, "I need the aid first. Then
I'll make the reforms." How can we get out
of that situation? And is it time for the West
to maybe consider lowering the goalpost a little
bit in terms of the prior conditions he has to
implement before we come through with our
aid?
The President. Let me try to answer the question in this way: I believe that he is a man
of real courage and real commitment to democracy. I believe, indeed, even his parliamentary
opponents, who often say things with which I
disagree, are engaged in the messy process of
democracy which many other countries trying
to move to a market economy, for example, have
decided to postpone until they get the market
reforms underway.
So I believe that they've made enough effort
for us to try to engage them in specific actions
that will produce economic results. Now, I don't
want to make any sweeping commitments that
would indicate that I would disregard a move
toward reform or disregard issues that have been
at play before, proliferation issues and others.
But I'm going there to this meeting with the
intention of trying to more aggressively engage
the United States in the economic and political
revitalization of Russia. I agree, frankly, with
the general thrust of President Nixon's article
in the New York Times today.
Mayoral Support
Q. Mr. President, why would you expect
Members of Congress to be swayed by this
event here today when big-city mayors would
obviously support your package? It's a veritable
goody basket for them.
The President. A veritable what?
Q. Goody basket.
The President. Well, I disagree with that. It
is not nearly as much money as most of them
believe we should need. And not all of them
here are big-city mayors.
The fundamental issue is really here whether
you believe there is a distinction between investing in infrastructure and technology, in people,
and just continuing present Government spending patterns and whether you really believe that
7 percent unemployment and another decade
of stagnant wages is an acceptable economic
course for America. I just think that this notion
that-let me tell you what I really think is going
on. [Laughter] Let me tell you what I really
think is going on, and I say this to compliment


243




Mar. 5 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


the Congress to some extent on this issue.
I think the American people liked it when
I offered 150 specific spending cuts, and they
said they wanted more. But if you do a poll,
the people are still trying to come to grips with
the reality of the budget. They'll also say, do
you want us to spend more on jobs, education,
and health care? Eighty percent will say yes.
Do you want Congress to find more budget
cuts? Eighty percent will say yes.
So the issue is not whether there should be
more budget cuts. Indeed, the process that I
announced, the 6-month process that I announced for the national performance review
that the Vice President is overseeing, will
produce more reductions in spending. There is
no question about it. The issue is whether under
the general shield of saying we need to reduce
spending, we'll step away from investment. Just
because a mayor wants to do it doesn't make
it wrong, doesn't make it pork, and doesn't make
it useless. I mean, we have tried ignoring the
cities for 12 years, and it has not been a very
successful economic strategy for the country.
Bosnia
Q. Are you concerned, sir, at all by indications
that your mercy flights to Bosnia are actually
increasing the violence there, increasing the ethnic cleansing? And if so, what could you do
about it, sir? Any thought of
The President. Well, first of all, let me say,
both at the national security meeting and again
that morning at our morning briefing I asked
and pressed this question that's being asserted
in the press. And it is true-I mean, we knew
when we dropped food into a contested area
in eastern Bosnia where there had been a buildup of fighting over time that we were dropping
food to people who were at risk. That's precisely
one of the reasons that that's an area we were
asked to look at for airlift because the cars
couldn't get in there. I mean the trucks couldn't
get in there.
But all I can tell you is the people I have
asked in the privacy of the Oval Office and
the privacy of the national security meetings,
frankly, just dispute that assertion. They do not
believe that the airlift has exposed the Bosnians
to any more danger than they otherwise would
have been exposed to. And the surveillance
we've done indicates that there has been actually
slightly more accuracy in the drops from the
altitude we chose for safety for our pilots than


we thought there would be.
So would I reexamine it if I thought they
were doing more harm than good? Of course,
I would. But I can tell you that I have pressed
that point very hard in our meetings, and our
people simply dispute the proposition.
9. Mr. President, following up on that, what
more can be done to tighten the embargo on
oil and other supplies? The leakage to the Danube is quite clear. Is a naval blockade the way
to go?
The President. Let me say we are exploring
and, indeed, are in the process of implementing
ways to tighten the embargo, which we will announce very shortly. And I think there are other
things we can do. There are two constraints
on our field of action that I would ask all of
you to remember. Apart from my concern that
we not commit the United States to a quagmire
where our efforts would be frustrated but where
I could put a lot of Americans at risk, but apart
from that, apart from the whole issue of ground
forces which is not on the table at all, there
are two other constraints on our action which
I ask you all to consider.
One is the need to proceed with the cooperation of our European allies, who have been reluctant to do certain things because the French
and the British actually have forces on the
ground who would be at risk if there were a
reaction to whatever else we did. And those
forces have been superintending the delivery of
humanitarian aid, and most people there believe
that their presence has saved more lives than
their absence and tougher action would have
saved.
The other is, of course, the not insignificant
difficulties that further confrontation might depose to the cooperation we have enjoyed so
far in that region with the Russians, given the
internal political conflicts in Russia based on
their historic ties to Serbia.
Now, notwithstanding those two things, we
want to find ways to tighten the embargo, and
we are moving on that right now. Even as we
speak we are moving on that. And we're moving
on some other options that might be available
to us that I wouldn't rule out. But I do need
to proceed here. The United States cannot proceed here unilaterally. We need the support of
the Europeans, who are much closer to the situation and who will be much more immediately
impacted by any further adverse instability in
the Balkans than we would.


244




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Mar. 5


Q. But does this 24-hour incidence indicate
to you that the ethnic cleansing is succeeding,
that the policy of the Serbs
The President. I don't think there's any question that when the Serbs take an area and then
run all the Bosnian Muslims out, then that
means that they are succeeding. They have succeeded in running some people out of communities.
Now, the people on the ground, the United
Nations, I think still have to be defended for
trying to facilitate their escape, not for supporting ethnic cleansing but because it is below
freezing, it is in the snow, those people are
at risk, and the United Nations operation there
is now simply trying to save their lives.
There is some indication that there may be
some break in the negotiations and some willingness on the part of some of the parties to compromise in the Vance-Owen process. And I think
it will be very interesting for the world to look
and see if the Serbians are willing to negotiate
in good faith in a process that they have embraced when it suited their short-term strategic
interests. I hope that they will support it over
a longer term. We'll see.
Press Secretary Myers. Last question.
World Trade Center Bombing
Q. Mr. President, I'm wondering if you and
perhaps Mayor Dinkins could update us on the
investigation in New York of the World Trade
Center bombing. Yesterday you indicated you'd
have more to say after the arraignment of this
one suspect.
The President. Anything else I can say is
something I've already read in the morning
press. You now know more about the profile
of the person who was arrested, and you've seen
the speculation about it. I do not want to feed
that speculation. I will say again I am very impressed with the work done by the law enforceExchange With Reporters on Bosnia
March 5, 1993
Q. Mr. President, can you tell us any more
about the Bosnian sanctions that you're putting
on today?
The President. No, we'll have more to say.


ment officials. They got on this. They did it
in a hurry. They would admit there was a break
or two in their inquiry, but they also, I think,
did a very commendable job.
I think it is very important not to rush the
judgment here, not to reach ahead of the facts
which are known to reach broad conclusions
about who was behind this or what happened.
When I know who was behind this and what
happened, I will then determine what the appropriate course for the United States is, and I
will say it. But I think it is very, very important,
and this is a delicate matter, that we reassure
the American people in terms of what law enforcement did in response to the incident.
But we ask them not to jump to conclusions.
We have massive resources at work on this case,
massive. And we are doing everything we can
to get as many facts as quickly as we can. When
we know the facts and when I can state them
to you with real confidence so that it's not conjecture or opinion, I will be glad to make a
very forthright statement about it.
Thank you.
Dave, do you want to say anything else?
Mayor David Dinkins. The President has said
it all. As a matter of fact, the Department of
Justice has requested that the New York City
Police Department and all others involved in
this effort stay within the confines of the complaint. And while it is easy to go a little beyond
that because you think it won't be harmful, you
really get to a slippery slope situation, and some
unfortunate comment can impede an otherwise
very successful investigation.
NOTE: The President spoke at 10:46 a.m. in Room
450 of the Old Executive Office Building. In his
remarks, he referred to the following Mayors: Bill
Althaus, York, PA; David Dinkins, New York City;
Bob Lanier, Houston, TX; and Sandra Freedman,
Tampa, FL.


Q. Are these going to be unilateral or through
the United Nations?
The President. We'll put it out-I'm noteverything we've done on the sanctions so far


245




Mar. 5 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


is, and all of the things I've explored with our  The President. I'm in a photo op. [Laughter]
allies has pretty well been supported by everyone.                                        NOTE: The exchange began at 11:21 a.m. in the
Q. Are the Russians sending arms to Serbia,  Oval Office at the White House, prior to a meetsir?                                        ing with Roman Catholic bishops.
Remarks Congratulating the Super Bowl Champion Dallas Cowboys
March 5, 1993


The President. It's about time we had somebody with real popularity in here. [Laughter]
I want to say it is a great pleasure and honor
for all of us to have the Dallas Cowboys in
the East Room. Four years ago they were about
1 and 15, and 4 years later they won the Super
Bowl. In the parlance of Washington we call
that deficit reduction. [Laughter]
I want to say a special word of appreciation
to Jimmy Johnson and Jerry Jones. I watched
them win a national championship for Arkansas
30 years ago, before most of the players were
born, and I've been cheering them on ever
since. Most of the people in our State were
Cowboy fans even before Arkansas got its hands
on the Cowboys.
I also want to say something very serious.
I watched this team over the last year win the
way I think Americans win best. They hung
in there. They were strong. They were dedicated. They started a lot of games slow, and
they always finished fast. And that's what we
have to do as a country. We have to endure.
We have to never quit, and we have to finish
fast. And I think that the country was very
thrilled just to watch the renaissance of the
Cowboys over the last couple of years.
Let me also say I had a very great political
dilemma because the Super Bowl occurred the
night I hosted the state dinner for the Governors. So, I had the Governor of New York
and the Governor of Texas sitting on either side
of me in the beginning of the game before
it was obvious what the outcome would be. I
was tested as never before in trying to maintain
a poker face about the game. [Laughter] But


you made it easy for us after a couple of quarters.
Let me say again on behalf of the Vice President and myself to you, Jerry, and to you,
Jimmy, and to all the Cowboys, we're grateful
to have you here.
And I understand that this is Michael Irving's
birthday, is that right?
Jimmy Johnson. He probably just made that
up. [Laughter]
The President. Is that right? Is that right?
Is it your birthday? Come up here. How old
are you? I said, "How old are you?" He said,
"27, but tell them 24." Have you ever considered running for office? [Laughter] Can you
imagine that, 27 years old and wealthy enough
to retire the national debt. [Laughter] Well,
happy birthday. I hope you'll have many more.
You may not be able to have any years better
than this one, but I hope you have many more
at least as good.
[At this point, Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry
Jones made a statement.]
Mr. Johnson. Mr. President, it is a tremendous thrill and tremendous honor for all of us
to make you an official member of the Dallas
Cowboys as a reserve quarterback.
The President. Thank you. I'm just going to
sit around now and wait for my number to be
called. [Laughter] I'm going to start practicing
this afternoon. You know, it's never too late.
Thank you very much.
NOTE: The President spoke at 3:20 p.m. in the
East Room at the White House.


246




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Mar. 6


Nomination for Posts at the Departments of Health and Human Services
and Education
March 5, 1993


The President today announced his intention
to nominate Bruce Vladeck to be Administrator
of the Health Care Financing Administration at
the Department of Health and Human Services
and Norma Cantu to be Assistant Secretary for
Civil Rights at the Department of Education.
"I am very pleased to make these nominations


today to two extremely important positions," said
the President. "Bruce Vladeck and Norma
Cantu are highly talented individuals with
unique qualifications for the leadership roles
that I have asked them to take."
NOTE: Biographies of the nominees were made
available by the Office of the Press Secretary.


Nomination for Posts at the Department of State
March 5, 1993


The President today expressed his intention
to nominate Douglas Bennet, the president and
CEO of National Public Radio, to be the Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs; Eric James Boswell to be the
Director of the Office of Foreign Missions; and
Conrad Harper to be the State Department's
Legal Adviser.
The President's Radio Address
March 6, 1993
Good morning. We've come a long way together in the last few weeks. You've had the
opportunity to look over my plan to give America a new direction. And from what I've heard
all across the country, you like what you see,
not because you agree with all of the details
but because you know that this program is a
fundamental departure from business as usual
in Washington. It makes dramatic reductions in
deficit spending, over 150 specific cuts in domestic programs, and asks a contribution from
every American based on his or her ability to
pay, all to get the deficit down.
I've challenged the critics of our plan to help
me find more spending cuts that reduce the
deficit for real, not the kind of gimmicks and
not the delays of tough choices we've seen in


"These three positions are essential to the
smooth workings of State Department operations," said the President. "Douglas Bennet,
Eric James Boswell, and Conrad Harper will
fill them with talent, dedication, and the steady
hands that are needed to get the job done."
NOTE: Biographies of the nominees were made
available by the Office of the Press Secretary.


the past. Previously, when Washington has
talked about cutting the deficit tomorrow, it was
a tomorrow that never comes. We're going to
change that. But perhaps the biggest change
we're offering is a national investment strategy
to create jobs and grow our economy. Every
investment we make is paid for, dollar for dollar,
by spending cuts in existing programs. Every
investment is designed to make us smarter,
safer, and more secure, now and in the long
term. These investments embraced old-fashioned ideas like education and work and selfreliance, but they meet the challenges of the
new economy with an arsenal of new ideas.
But we begin by making an ironclad commitment to the safety and well-being of our families: First, to immunize every American against


247




Mar. 6 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


avoidable, preventable childhood diseases. For
every $1 we spend today, we'll save $10 in the
future. Then, to fully fund the Head Start program to give all of our children a chance to
start school ready to learn. That will save $3
for every $1 we invest. And then, to open the
doors to college education to tens of thousands
of promising young students in exchange for
their work in a program of national service. In
every case, they are investments that will pay
dividends and strengthen our economy for years
to come. We can't afford to do less.
At a time of immense global change, the price
of doing nothing is persistent unemployment,
shrinking wages, and workers unable to fulfill
their potential. But with the advantages of intelligent investment, our workers can compete and
win in this global economy. For example,
changes are coming for communities and companies which defended America during the cold
war. As the defense industry shrinks and adjusts
to the new world, we must make offsetting investments in civilian research. And if your job
has been threatened by the end of the cold
war or by changes in world trade or by changes
in the way we build products or provide services
here in America, the United States shouldn't
let you down.
This investment program includes a bold new
initiative to ensure that every worker has the
training to get a good job in the new economy.
And the plan contains the boldest national apprenticeship program our country has ever had,
so that all high school graduates who don't go
to college can receive the skills and the encouragement they need to find good jobs.
For all these workers and students, their lives
and livelihoods depend upon the power of investment. Overall, this plan will create more
than 8 million public and private sector jobs
over the next 4 years. It'll put people back to
work in building roads and bridges and creating
the new technologies that will employ our people and bolster our profits well into the 21st
century.
We also propose the boldest package of incentives targeted to small business: a $3 billionper-year permanent investment tax credit, targeted to the small businesses that promote job
growth in this country, and tax initiatives for
small companies who will start new enterprises
so that we can reward entrepreneurs who take
risks to build new businesses. And next week
we'll go further by announcing regulatory


changes to expand the availability of credit for
small- and medium-sized businesses seeking
loans, without sacrificing our abiding commitment to the safety and security of our financial
system.
By making more capital available to the private sector and by lowering its costs, business
will be able to expand, grow, and create jobs
again. All of these investments, the new policies,
and the new ideas reflect my belief, and I think
yours, that the status quo isn't good enough
and that we can do better.
Yesterday we saw figures showing a slight improvement in the Nation's jobless rate. We're
happy whenever fewer Americans are out of
work. But we certainly can't declare victory now.
For while employment is edging up, unemployment is still higher than it was at the depths
of this recession. And most of the new jobs
being created pay part-time wages and rarely
provide workers with the health care coverage
families need. If this anemic recovery is the
best we can do, it's further proof that real
changes are needed to produce a better economy and a better life for our people.
There are those who actually lack the vision
to support these investments because they say
that we shouldn't spend any new money trying
to grow this economy. It's not that they have
a plan to make the economy grow, but they
just dismiss the investment portion of our program by calling it more Government spending.
There is a profound difference between
spending and investment. It's the difference between the status quo and change. And clearly,
we have to change. We have to have the courage
to cut spending and the wisdom to invest our
new resources wisely. We can't do nothing, but
we shouldn't do one without the other. The
program I've offered to Congress is the only
one which will offer a balanced approach to
turn the economy around, and we have to do
it now.
I hope you'll join me in this call for a new
direction. I hope you'll enlist your Representatives and Senators in the critical cause of
change. This is the American way, taking charge
of our destiny, working hard, and investing today
so that we might build a better tomorrow.
Thanks for listening.
NOTE: The President spoke at 10:06 a.m. from
the Oval Office at the White House.


248




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Mar. 8


Letter to Representative Robert H. Michel on Justice Department Action
on the Trial of Representative Harold Ford
March 6, 1993


Dear Mr. Leader:
This is in response to the March 2 letter
from you and four of your colleagues. In that
letter you express concern about the process
which led the Department of Justice to object
to the impaneling of a virtually all-white jury
brought in from Jackson, Tennessee to try Congressman Harold Ford in Memphis, Tennessee.
Please be informed that when the White
House received inquiries concerning this jury
issue, they were referred, at the direction of
my Counsel, to the Department of Justice for
whatever action the Department deemed proper. I have been informed by Counsel that the
White House made no recommendation to anyone at the Department of Justice as to how
this issue should be resolved.
The Acting Attorney General, Stuart Gerson
(who, as you know, was a senior member of
the prior Administration and will be leaving office when a new Attorney General is confirmed),
has informed us that he personally made the


decision to object to the impaneling of the jury
and that he did so strictly on the merits. When
he made his decision, Mr. Gerson wrote that
he was motivated by "a desire to achieve a principle of fairness and uniformity that reflects on
far more than this case" and his decision was
based on an "[un]willing[ness] to say on behalf
of the United States, that justice cannot be obtained from a Memphis jury or, indeed, from
the jury in any city." I am attaching a copy
of his written statement.
I have no reason to question this statement
by Mr. Gerson or his explicit assurance that
political considerations played no role in his decision.
Sincerely,
BILL CLINTON
NOTE: This letter was made available by the Office of the Press Secretary but was not issued as
a White House press release.


Remarks to the Legislative Conference of the National League of Cities
March 8, 1993


The President. Thank you very much, Mayor
Fraser, ladies and gentlemen. It's a great honor
for me to be here. This is a pretty rowdy bunch.
[Laughter] A vital group, a group more interested in change than in more of the status quo,
I think. I look around this audience today, and
already, just walking in and looking in the crowd
and saying hello to people here at the head
table, I see people without whom I would not
be standing here today. I thank those of both
parties and those who run as independents for
your support of this plan. And I say again what
I always feel when I'm with a group of people
from America's cities and small communities or
from the States, and that is I feel very much
at home.
A lot of times my friends ask me what's the
difference from being President and having any
other kind of job or the life you used to have.


The following thing occurred to me the other
day in the White House. I was down on the
ground floor; I had been out running or something, and I was going back up to get ready
to start the day's work. And a group of people
were coming out who had been at a meeting
there, at another meeting with other people.
And I ran into them and stopped and shook
hands with them. It was totally an impromptu
thing. And this man who worked at the White
House said, "Mr. President, I'm really sorry that
you had to confront those people." And I said,
"That's all right. I used to be one once."
[Laughter] I look forward to being one again
someday. [Laughter]
The work of this White House has been very
much influenced by many of you in this group.
And I assure you that you will be represented
in the future. We have a strong intergovern

249




Mar. 8 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


mental affairs group that works every day with
leaders at the city and county and State level,
including Regina Montoya and Loretta Avent,
who used to work for you. [Applause] Now,
we had a bet coming over here. I said, "Loretta,
if I mention your name, will they boo or clap?"
She won. [Laughter]
I came here today to ask you to translate
the support you have given to the program I
have presented to the Congress and to the
American people from support to a commitment
to secure its approval in the Congress and to
make the change that we seek inevitable and
return to the status quo impossible.
All of you are on the frontlines of change.
Every day in every way you have to struggle
with the things which now confront me as your
President. For a long time you've been making
tough choices, struggling to balance your books,
trying to spend less on yesterday's mistakes and
more on tomorrow's needs. You try to put common sense into practice. And now I would like
you to ask to help make common sense more
common here in your Nation's Capital.
I think everyone now recognizes that we cannot continue on the past course. If we keep
on doing just what we've been doing with no
fundamental changes, then by the end of the
decade the Government's annual deficit will be
$650 billion a year. We will be spending 20
percent of our Nation's income every year on
health care, and our nearest competitor will be
spending about 10 percent, and we'll be insuring
fewer people than any country with which we
compete. And over 20 cents of every dollar the
American people pay in taxes to the United
States Government will be expended just paying
interest on the vastly accumulated debt.
We've been spending too much and investing
too little for quite a long while now. And the
result has been slow growth and weak job creation. We've had our private sector handcuffed
by high interest rates and inadequate investment, a work force inadequate to the needs
of the 21st century and an economic program
equally inadequate. If we keep on doing business as usual, we'll just stumble into the next
century burdened by the baggage of the past.
But if we have the courage to change, the next
20 years could be the best in our Nation's history.
When I introduced my plan to the Congress
just 19 days ago, I asked all of us to ask of
this plan not what's in it for me but what's


in it for us. And people have responded in astonishing ways but I suppose predictable ways
if you look at the history of the American people. All across this country people have been
taking off their special interest hats and putting
on their thinking caps. Business and labor, Republicans and Democrats, people from every
walk of life and all points on the political spectrum have rallied behind this plan as a vehicle
to move this country forward. I think everybody
who seriously thinks about it understands that
the great issue now is no longer Republican
versus Democrat, urban versus rural, liberal versus conservative. It is whether we will stay in
this gridlock that you have buttons campaigning
against, or have the courage to change in ways
that allow all our people to live up to the fullest
of their potential. Even if I start preaching, I
promise not to pass the plate. [Laughter]
You would be amazed how many times in
the last year I would be in a little town or
along some country crossroads and people would
say to me they were worried about what happened in Los Angeles. You would be amazed
how many times I was in a community that
was 99 percent one ethnic group and somebody
would say they wished that we could work out
a way for the ethnic diversity of America to
be a source of our strength. You would be
amazed how many times I was in groups of
people, all of whom had incomes above
$150,000 a year, when they said to me, isn't
there something we can do about homelessness
in America. I think the people of this country
are dying to come together again and make this
country work again.
Nonetheless, let us be clear on this: There
are people who are honestly debating whether
this three-pronged plan is the right thing to
do for the country. There are some who say,
"Well, of course, I want you to cut spending.
And as a matter of fact, if you'll cut her spending more, you could cut mine a little less."
[Laughter] And there are others who say, 'Well,
I know you have to raise taxes, but I wish you
wouldn't raise this one or that one so much.
Raise the upper income taxes less," or "Do away
with the energy tax," or "Put it all on gasoline,"
which is harder on the rural States and the
western States, "but let natural gas and oil off
the hook."
And then there are those-and I want to talk
to you about them today because you are not
among them, but I need your help to deal with


250




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Mar. 8


it-who say, "Well, if you cut the spending and
raise the taxes and didn't invest any new money
in anything, you'd have more deficit reduction,"
or "If you cut the spending and didn't invest
any new money in anything, you wouldn't have
to raise quite so many taxes," and "After all,
if the Government spends a dollar, it's Government spending."
One of the central debates now raging in this
Capital is whether there is any difference in
the kinds of Government spending. Is there a
distinction to be made between, for example,
spending more for the same health care every
year and accelerating the funding of the Surface
Transportation Act? Is there a distinction to be
made between a subsidy that was justified 50
years ago because we needed more wool in our
uniforms and a subsidy that might be justified
tomorrow to give to people who start new businesses and new high-tech enterprises to grow
jobs for the future?
The people who say we do not need this
economic stimulus plan and we do not need
so much investment either argue one of two
points. They either say, "All Government spending is bad, and there is no distinction to be
made," something until recent times every Republican and Democratic officeholder in America, from the top to the bottom, would have
disagreed with. Dwight Eisenhower knew there
was a difference between the interstate highway
system and paying to maintain the status quo
of Government programs that didn't work. Everybody always recognized that distinction before, but there are a lot of people who have
had a lot of sway in this town for years now
who really argued that there are no distinctions
to be made. There are others who say, 'Well,
the economy is recovering anyway and everything is going to be hunky-dory. So all you have
to do is worry about reducing the deficit." Now,
their view of what we ought to do might be
characterized as "status quo lite." [Laughter]
That is, "Yeah, I know you've got to change
on the cutting side, and maybe we have to have
a little tax increase, but there is no distinction
between kinds of Government spending. And
besides, the economy is in great shape. We just
don't know it yet." [Laughter]
Now, let's be candid. We do have some good
economic news in the aggregate. And last
month, for the first time really in a very, very
long time, we had a significant number of new
jobs. But if you look behind those numbers,


you see that while employment is edging up,
an awful lot of those jobs were part-time jobs
with part-time wages which rarely provide the
health care benefits that families so desperately
need today.
To build a stronger recovery with real jobs
and rising incomes, we'll have to break the
gridlock that has paralyzed public action, cut
the deficit, and invest more in the future. If
you look at our economic performance over the
last dozen years and you say, describe the ways
in which America has not been competitive with
other nations that are growing faster, and you
had to list them, you just think of what you
would list. You would say, well, the deficit grew
more rapidly than it did in Japan, for example.
And America spent a higher percentage of its
income on health care than any other country
in the world by far, even though we did less
with it in terms of covering people.
You'd also have to say, however, our investment in the things that make a country rich
and strong actually went down in several areas,
in our infrastructure, in K-through-12 education.
Nine nations in the world invest a higher percentage of their income in K-through-12 education than we do, even though we have more
diversity by race and income, which would argue
for greater efforts in our Nation.
If you look at the United States budget just
over the last 4 years, you will see we spent
more on Medicaid and Medicare and food
stamps, with over 1 in 10 Americans on food
stamps, and more on interest in the debt, and
relatively less on everything else, the investments which would make us richer as a country,
which will grow the economy,. which will put
people back to work, which will reduce our reliance on public assistance and increase our ability to support each other.
So I would argue to you, my fellow Americans, that we have to argue in this community
where the ultimate decision will be made: number one, that we need to pass the whole program; number two, there are jobs still begging
to be created out there; number three, there
are differences in the quality and character of
government spending, whether it is in the smallest community of this country or the United
States budget. There are differences.
The stimulus plan I have asked the Congress
to adopt, along with the spending cuts, the investment increase, and the tax increase itself,
will create a half a million new jobs in the


251




Mar. 8 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


short run. The economic program, if it is fully
enacted, will create 8 million jobs over the long
run-that is, in this 4 year period-the vast majority of them in the private sector.
This plan is based on values that are central
to what makes America work and what has always made America work: work and family and
faith, responsibility and community and opportunity. I think the change obviously has to start
at the top. I have presented a budget which
in the next fiscal year will cut the White House
staff by 25 percent and save $10 million in privileges and perks and payroll. I have reduced
the administrative costs of the executive branch
by 14 percent over 4 years and, by attrition,
payroll, 100,000 over 4 years, saving $9 billion.
I have asked the Congress to freeze the pay
of Federal employees next year and then to
lower it by one percent less than would otherwise be the cost of living for the succeeding
3 years, saving billions more dollars and asking
a substantial, a very substantial sacrifice from
the Federal work force because I thought that
was important before I could ask the taxpayers
to contribute more.
And last Wednesday, I asked the Vice President to head a national performance review of
every Government agency and every Government program, not simply to identify more specific spending cuts but also to identify services
that don't work and things that can be done
better, to do what the smartest private companies and the best local governments are already
doing: streamlining operations, eliminating unnecessary layers of management, empowering
frontline workers in holding our investments up
to the clear light of day to see whether they
make sense.
I have proposed already 150 specific spending
cuts, saving $247 billion. And that's much more
than the cost of the net new investments I have
proposed. I ask you to join me now in fighting
for these investments and in cutting back the
spending, but not in doing one without the
other.
For example, our plan calls for ending the
designated project program at the Department
of Housing and Urban Development. It spends
over $100 million a year without any published
selection criteria or competitive procedures or
basic accountability. But if you join me in cutting that program, I also ask that you support
what I know you believe in and what we have
to say to the Congress is worth doing: doubling


the number of housing vouchers for working
people on moderate incomes, creating a network
of community development banks, bringing new
opportunities to our communities through enterprise zones, and doing something to reinvigorate
the housing programs of this country. These
things can be done together.
I ask you to help me reduce low-priority highway demonstration projects by $1 billion; but
also for calling in the new investments we need,
we ought to fully fund the Surface Transportation Act, and do it quickly. And we should
recognize that transportation offers enormous
economic opportunities to increased productivity
and jobs. So we have to look at mass transit,
high-speed rails, smart cars, smart highways, and
commercial aviation as we move toward the 21st
century. If we want this economy to grow, we
have to do those things.
This plan calls for cutting $300 million in
earmarked small business loans but also calls
for the most dramatic effort in the history of
America that I can determine, at least, from
our research, to help small business create jobs:
a permanent investment tax credit for small
businesses, 90 percent of the employers in this
country with 40 percent of the employees creating the vast majority of the new jobs; a new
venture capital gains tax for people who will
start new businesses and have the courage to
begin being on the cutting edge of change; and
real steps which we will announce in a couple
of days to try to end the credit crunch and
the lack of availability of credit to small businesses who have to provide the jobs of today
and tomorrow.
In short, we have to cut, and we have to
invest. We have to reject trickle-down economics, and we have to reject tax-and-spend economics. We have to stop spending money on
things that don't work, but we have to continue
to invest in things that do.
A lot of the things that we propose to do
are literally direct investment incentives to the
private sector. I mentioned a couple already:
the $3 billion permanent small business investment tax credit; some significant changes in the
way taxes are computed for our larger businesses
so that when they do invest in new plant and
new equipment and new jobs for our people,
they will be rewarded, not punished, by the
tax system. If people do what's right, they
should be supported. We should make a distinction between how private companies spend their


252




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Mar. 8


money. And when they invest to grow and to
create jobs, they should be rewarded for that.
And that's what we're trying to do in the tax
system.
In addition to those things I have already
mentioned, I recommended a significant increase, about $2.5 billion-the first one in a
very long time, as all of you know-in the community development block grant program. I can
say with confidence as a Governor that that program was absolutely critical to helping many of
the smaller and moderate-sized communities in
my State attract new jobs in the tough decade
of the 1980's and that without it I do not know
if we would have been able to do so. There
are people in this audience from my State who
know that is true because they have personally
experienced it. And I think that is true all across
the country.
We simply cannot afford not to invest what
it takes to make our communities attractive to
new businesses and new jobs. And if anyone
here in this community tells you that the economy is fine in America, tell them where you
live there's still a little work to be done.
I want to hammer this home as hard as I
can. This is the first recovery, economic recovery, in my lifetime where if you look at the
overall numbers, it really does look like a recovery is underway. Productivity is increasing.
American businesses are doing a better job. A
lot of things are going on, but the jobs themselves are not yet being created. And we are
facing other problems which may further put
pressure on some communities, including the
imperative of continuing to reduce the defense
budget. We have got to follow a jobs strategy.
We have got to do that.
Now, one of the things that I've tried to do,
as all of you know, is to reduce the deficit,
because if we do we'll reduce interest rates.
And if you keep interest rates down and people
go out and refinance their businesses, their
homes, their cars, their credit cards, they'll have
more cash. They can invest it and make this
economy grow. That is also happening.
Interest rates just since the election have gone
down, long term, almost one full point. If we
can keep them down and everybody, all of you
and all of the people you represent, will go
out and refinance all the debt they've piled up
in the 1980's, that will free up another $80
billion to $90 billion to $100 billion this next
year to grow this economy. That's important,


but we also have to get some real investment
incentives, public and private. Unless we create
jobs, we cannot claim to have done anything
to promote an economic recovery that affects
the lives of the people that you see on the
street every day.
Let me also say, in addition to creating an
economic environment in which there is investment, we also have to do what we can in common to prepare our people for those challenges.
And we have to recognize the fact that, in many
ways, America has not done a good job of preparing its people. Example number one, to
begin with children, all the nations in this hemisphere, only two, only two, Haiti and Bolivia,
have lower immunization rates against preventable childhood diseases than the United States
of America, where all of the vaccine is made.
Only two. We have proposed in this program,
starting with the stimulus package, an effort that
will permit us over the next few years to immunize all the kids in this country against preventable childhood diseases.
The estimates are that for every $1 we spend
immunizing children against those diseases, we'll
save $10 down the road in the care that will
otherwise be spent on them. But in order to
make those estimates right, you have to have
a critical core threshold of young children who
are immunized. And we are running the risk
of falling dangerously below that threshold in
many areas and having new epidemics of disease
break out among our children simply because
we do not provide either the infrastructure in
order to do that or the affordability and availability of the vaccines. We must do that.
Let me give you one other example. The
Head Start program, where it is fully and firmly
implemented along with other support services,
plainly saves more money than it costs in the
terms of keeping kids in school and making
them successful, in helping them to graduate
and do well. And yet for years we've all talked
about fully funding the Head Start program and
supporting other efforts like in-school preschool
programs or parent-based preschool programs,
yet we've never really done it. Congress and
the previous administration did expand the Head
Start program some, but there are still enormous
numbers of children who are not able to access
those services. This budget starting this summer
fully funds the Head Start program. And we
ought to pass that.
If we begin this summer and we work for


253




Mar. 8 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


the next 3 years, just think what it will be like.
Wouldn't it be nice to be able to say we've
actually done something so we can go and work
on a new problem? Wouldn't it be nice if in
the next election cycle in 1996, no one could
argue about Head Start or immunization; they
had to argue about something else? [Laughter]
I mean, somebody asked me one time what
my goal as President was, and I said that I'd
like to leave my successor a new set of problems. [Laughter] You think about it.
This plan will create about 700,000 summer
jobs for people in this country. And we are
attempting to mobilize private sector employers
to match what we're doing with the goal of
creating over a million jobs. Think about it.
Think about how many young people in this
country have been surrounded by devastating
economic conditions year in and year out for
the last several years. They flip on the television,
and they see another ad telling them what they
ought to say no to. Well, I'm all for telling
them what they ought to say no to. But I think
we should set an example and give them something to say yes to as well.
This plan will give our country the most ambitious system of lifelong learning we have ever
had: programs for high school dropouts and others to learn to read adequately and get their
high school equivalency; programs for young
people to be able to borrow the money they
need to go to college and pay it back on far
more favorable terms or with service to our
country here at home as police officers or teachers or in other forms of community service; programs for adults who lose their jobs because
of defense cutbacks or because of sweeping
changes in the global economy to get serious,
serious opportunities to retrain in areas where
there are jobs available, tied to incentives to
getting investments for those new jobs in their
communities. Not just talking about it; this plan
gets serious about it. We have almost $5 billion
for the retraining of adults in the work force
alone in the next 4 years in this program, and
it needs to pass.
And anybody who says that this recovery will
just do fine without a serious attempt to retrain
the work force has not been to California lately
to see what's happened in the industries where
the defense cuts occurred; have not been in
the rural parts of America to see what has happened when a lot of those low-wage, low-skilled,
high labor-intensive manufacturing plants closed


down and moved overseas with no plans to retrain or reinvest in those communities; or all
the places in-between.
There is too much work to be done. We need
a partnership, and it has to begin with making
sure the people of this country can compete
and win in the global economy. And that requires some investment. And there is a difference between whether you spend money
making people stronger and smarter and safer
and more secure and more able to compete,
and whether you just keep spending more
money on the same thing. There is a difference.
And this program is different.
This plan will enable us over the next couple
of years to work with you to put 100,000 more
police officers on the streets of the cities of
this country. There are cities which have actually
seen a reduction in the crime rate, either in
specific neighborhoods or in the cities as a
whole, in the last few years, cities here represented in this room, when they've gone to
community policing strategies. You know it
works. I know it works. And we know most
cities don't have enough money to do it right.
We're going to help you through giving people
incentives who are coming out of the service
to be police officers, through giving people incentives to be police officers as a way of paying
for their college education, and through, I hope
and pray, passing the crime bill, which didn't
quite make it through last year, to put these
police officers on the street.
One of the most remarkable aspects of this
program is one that hasn't received a great deal
of attention and doesn't involve you directly,
but it will shape the communities you lead and
govern indirectly. And that is the astonishing
increase in this program in the refundable
earned income tax credit for working people,
not only to offset the impacts of the energy
tax on families with incomes under $30,000 but
also so that we can finally say in this country,
if this earned-income tax credit passes as it will
be presented, that if you work 40 hours a week
and you have children in the home, you should
not be in poverty. And the tax system will lift
you out and reward work. It will reward work.
Imagine it! just imagine, politicians for years
have been saying they wanted to reward work,
not welfare. Now, by adopting a simple bill that
says the tax system will reward work, not welfare, we can give people something new to argue
about. It would be a great thing to do.


254




Administration of WilliamJ. Clinton, 1993 / Mar. 8


I ask for your help again. The big issue is,
should we do all these things: Should we cut
spending; should we raise revenues; should we
increase investment so that the deficit goes
down while investment goes up. This country
has never tried to do this before. You've got
to be fair to the Members of the United States
Congress. We are asking them to do something
our country has never tried to do before, which
is to hammer the deficit down and increase investment significantly at the same time. But you
know where you live, you can see it every day
that we have to do both. We have to do both.
And so I say again in closing, I thank you
for your endorsement of this program. It made
me feel great. I want every Member of the
United States House and Senate to know that
you not only endorsed it but that you believe
in it, not just because of what you get out of
it but
Audience member. What about drugs?
The President. You want to talk? I'll be gladthis program has a lot in it, actually, about
drugs. It has a significant increase in funds for
drug treatments and gives you, through providing 100,000 more police officers, the power to
combat drugs on the street. It does both things.
It increases enforcement and treatment, which
I would think you would want.
But that makes a good point: Is that spending,
or is that an investment? You have to decide.
But you have got to give the Congress courage
to do this. And you have to help people understand that in this group there were Republicans
and Democrats and city people and country people, people from the frost belt and the sun
belt and the rust belt and the Bible belt, people


like me that have to get bigger belts every year.
[Laughter] You can do that. And if we can do
that, we've got a real shot to sit here in honest
discussion year in and year out and face these
problems.
You know, how many years have you been
coming up here and listening to this debate,
and it doesn't bear any relationship to the life
you live when you go back home? How many,
really? I mean, whether it's a discussion about
drugs where somebody just talks about getting
tough on crime and nobody ever gets down to
what they're going to do to help you deal with
the problem where you live; or jobs, and somebody rails against taxes and the deficit, and then
every year the deficit goes up and so do taxes.
Or just how many years have you been coming
here listening to these debates when nothing
ever changed?
And I just want to tell you, as I said to the
Congress, there is plenty of blame to go around;
this is not about party. And I don't care who
is to blame. I'm prepared to take responsibility.
I'm more than willing to face the heat, and
if something goes wrong, I'll take responsibility
for that and change it. But let's do something,
and let's do it now.
Thank you.
NOTE: The President spoke at 1:15 p.m. at the
Washington Hilton. In his remarks, he referred
to Donald M. Fraser, Mayor of Minneapolis, MN,
and president of the National League of Cities;
Regina Montoya, Assistant to the President for
Intergovernmental Affairs; and Loretta Avent,
Special Assistant to the President for Intergovernmental Affairs.


Exchange With Reporters Prior to a Meeting With the Congressional Black
Caucus
March 8, 1993
Spending Cuts                                forming to the reestimates of the CBO in genQ. Mr. President, do you agree to the extra  eral terms and that will still contain the invest$50 billion in cuts that the House and Senate  ment strategy that I want to pursue.
leaders want?
The President. I agree that we will have a  NOTE: The exchange began at 5:11 p.m. in the
budget resolution which will be roughly con-  Roosevelt Room at the White House.


255




Mar. 8 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


Nomination for Posts at the Housing and Urban Development, Commerce,
and Agriculture Departments and the United Nations
March 8, 1993


The President continued the process of filling
the sub-Cabinet today, expressing his intent to
nominate eight senior officials at the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, and Housing
and Urban Development and at the U.S. Mission to the United Nations. Named today were:
Michael Stegman, Assistant Secretary for Policy Development and Research, Department of Housing and Urban Development
Everett Ehrlich, Under Secretary for Economic Affairs, Department of Commerce
Eugene Moos, Under Secretary for International Affairs and Commodity Programs,
Department of Agriculture
Richard Rominger, Deputy Secretary of Agriculture
Wardell Townsend, Jr., Assistant Secretary for
Administration, Department of Agriculture


Francis Vacca, Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations, Department of Agriculture
Victor Marrero, U.S. Representative to the
Economic and Security Council, United
Nations
Karl F. (Rick) Inderfurth, U.S. Alternate Representative for Special Political Affairs,
United Nations
"The people I am asking to serve in my administration today combine academic achievement with real world experience," said the President. "I am particularly pleased to be naming
two family farmers to help run the Department
of Agriculture."
NOTE: Biographies of the nominees were made
available by the Office of the Press Secretary.


Exchange With Reporters Prior to a Meeting With the Senate Budget
Committee
March 9, 1993


Q. Mr. President, are you going for nonmilitary domestic spending cuts across the
board?
The President. Well, first of all, let me say
I think both the Senate and the House committees deserve a lot of credit. They've come forward with further spending reductions consistent
with what the CBO group calculations would
indicate. They are consistent with the direction
of my plan to reduce the deficit and increase
investment. And I think that eventually all the
committees will get together, and the two bodies
will get together, and we will work out a budget
that the American people can be proud of that


does the things that we're all trying to do. I'm
encouraged by it.
Q. So you are going to accept the acrossthe-board cuts?
The President. We haven't worked out the
details on how it's going to be done. The two
committees have slightly different positions, as
you probably know. But I think that in the end
there will be further cuts and there will be,
I'm convinced, a much more substantial reduction in the deficit than the estimates show. I
feel good about it.
NOTE: The exchange began at 9:17 a.m. in the
Old Family Dining Room at the White House.


256




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Mar. 9


Exchange With Reporters Prior to Discussions With President Francois
Mitterrand of France
March 9, 1993


Russia
Q. Mr. President, are you going to accept
Russia into the G-7 and hold an emergency
summit meeting of heads of state involved also
on the economy?
President Clinton. Well, I intend to discuss
the Russian situation with President Mitterrand
today. And obviously, whatever the United
States does, we hope it will be part of a coordinated effort. But in terms of mechanics, no decision has been made.
Q. Do you think a compromise is possible
on a special meeting of the G-7, discussing
maybe Russia and the economy both together?
President Clinton. I don't think it's a-we're
at a point even to make that decision yet. As
you know, the Japanese have been somewhat
reluctant to have any kind of special meeting,
looking toward their own meeting they're
hosting in Tokyo this summer. But I think that
we will-let me say this, I think we will all,
the G-7, be dealing with the issue of Russia
before July in some form or fashion. How that
will happen, I can't say yet. That's one of the
reasons I was looking forward to this meeting
with President Mitterrand.
Q. Did President Nixon talk you into talking
Japan out of opposing Russia's participation?
President Clinton. No, we had a great meeting. But we were pretty much on the same


wavelength. And we have been pretty much on
the same wavelength on this issue for more than
a year now. And he gave me a lot of very
good ideas. It was a good meeting.
Q. Have you forgiven him for Watergate?
President Clinton. That was a long time ago.
Is there another round?
Q. The French.
President Clinton. Now, Mr. President, it's
your turn. I'm going to smile and look wise.
[Laughter]
Q. Did you have a good trip?
President Mitterrand. All is well.
Q. How's the first contact going?
President Mitterrand. As you can see. You
will know later.
President Clinton. He answers these questions
better than I do.
Q. Do you speak some French, Mr.
President?
President Clinton. No, but I understand a little. I can pick up the questions a little.
Q. What's the first order of business with
President Mitterrand?
President Clinton. Well, we want to get acquainted and talk about some matters of mutual
concerns. We'll discuss that later.
NOTE: The exchange began at 10:35 a.m. in the
Oval Office at the White House.


The President's News Conference With President Franqois Mitterrand of
France
March 9, 1993


President Clinton. Good afternoon. It is a
great pleasure for me to welcome President Mitterrand to the White House at this early date
in our administration.


possible a remarkable amount of cooperation in
recent days in meeting the challenges in Iraq
and Somalia and Bosnia.
Today President Mitterrand and I discussed


Our two nations share a friendship which  the global partnership that we must bring to
dates back to the revolutionary birth of both  the post-cold-war world, new uncertainties and
countries, rooted in common values of equality,  new opportunities. Both our nations and both
liberty, and democracy. These bonds of culture,  our continents are renewing institutions of secuof history, and of common purpose have made  rity and economic growth for this era.


257




Mar. 9 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


I salute President Mitterrand and the French
people for their leadership. Their exemplary
contribution to the United Nations peacekeeping
operations around the globe is just one of many
examples of the contributions they have and will
continue to make.
This morning we discussed Russia, Bosnia,
and the progress toward European union. Over
lunch we will discuss other issues including the
Uruguay round of trade talks. We have differences on some issues. Clearly, we need
French leadership to resolve some outstanding
differences but also to make common cause in
the areas in which we agree.
Both our nations are great trading nations and
have much to gain by resolving the differences
between us and moving the world toward a
growing global economy. I am very, very hopeful
that the United States and France can be partners in updating our common interests and in
leading the G-7 toward coordinated policies of
global economic growth and especially toward
action in dealing with Russia.
President Mitterrand is going to Russia soon,
and he will be there and back before I have
an opportunity to meet with President Yeltsin
in April in Canada. I look forward to closely
consulting with him about that again after his
trip to Russia.
We talked a little bit about the Vance-Owen
peace process today, and you might want to
ask President Mitterrand about his views on
that. Let me say that I have been very pleased
with the comments that he has made today and
with the possibilities that we might have toward
working together to secure a peace in Bosnia.
There are many challenges facing the great
democracies of the world today. We have to
reaffirm our support for the difficult transformations to democracy now taking place in
the former Soviet Union and in central and eastern Europe, to reaffirm our interest in closely
cooperating to advance peace in the Middle East
and elsewhere in the world, and to promote
democracy and economic growth throughout the
world.
We made a very good beginning this morning,
and I want to publicly thank the President, as
I have privately, for the enormously helpful conversations we had this morning. He has been
at this work longer than I have by several years.
I learned a lot today. I appreciated his candor
and the insights which he brought to our discussion. I look forward to continuing over lunch


and to continue a long and significant relationship between the United States and France.
And I thank you, Mr. President. And the
microphone is yours.
President Mitterrand. Ladies and gentlemen,
I think everything that needs to be said has
been said. At least everything has been said
about what we talked about and about what
we will be talking about during the time that
remains for our meeting. So I haven't really
anything to add, while waiting for questions that
you may wish to ask.
On the other hand, I would like to recall,
just as President Clinton has just done, I'd like
to recall that for Frenchmen it's always a very
important moment, it's a real event, and it's
a very happy moment to be coming to Washington in order to meet with the President of the
United States of America. And so it is with
the same keen interest that today I'm here in
this capital city in order to meet a President
whose fame has already encompassed the world
several times but whom I'd never met.
And now we have had useful conversations.
And the subjects that we've talked about, as
mentioned by President Clinton, these subjects
have given us the opportunity of seeing that
our positions were very similar. And it is pleasant to note, particularly as the subjects are very
difficult subjects, Bosnia, former Yugoslavia, the
revolution that is taking place in Russia and
in all the countries of the former Soviet Union,
and all this is very important.
President Clinton has shown a keen interest
in the future of the European unity. And I gave
him my feelings and what I was committed to
myself. We still have matters to talk about.
There are interests of which oppose us, which
is perfectly natural, between our countries.
That's in the nature of things. But there is a
real determination to reach agreement. And that
is, I think, which is the leitmotiv of all our
conversations. And I'm delighted with the hospitality extended to me. I appreciate this very
warmly, very much.
And I wish to express my warm thanks, at
the same time, to the members of the press
who have been good enough to be present here
today. Now, I am at your disposal, as you are,
doubtless, yourself, Mr. President, at the disposal of the curiosity of the ladies and gentlemen of the press. I'm sure they'll be very discreet. They won't ask much.


258




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Mar. 9


Bosnia
Q. President Clinton, did you discuss at all
the specifics of a possible American contribution
of ground troops in the enforcement phase of
a peace agreement in Bosnia?
President Clinton. Only in the most general
terms. I restated the position of the administration, which is now well-known in the public,
that we were opposed to the introduction of
American ground forces to try to mandate an
agreement or to in any way engage in the
present conflict, but that if an agreement could
be reached, that the United States would be
interested in being part of a United Nations
effort to secure the agreement.
Q. Mr. President, you said that both of you
have reached some sort of agreements on new
efforts in Bosnia. Can you tell us what they
are?
President Clinton. No.
Q. And also, I would like to ask President
Mitterrand how can European leaders ban the
slaughter, in view of the lead-up to World War
I and World War II, similarities of the hatreds
and abuses that have led now to these conflicts?
President Clinton. Shall I go first? The only
agreement we made with regard to Bosnia was
that it would be an error for France to increase
its troops or for the United States to introduce
troops to become embroiled in the conflict but
that we both should be prepared to make our
contributions to securing the agreement if the
Vance-Owen process could produce one.
President Mitterrand. Madam, no more than
you do, we just do not accept violence, violence
of any kind, the violence that is taking place
in particular in Bosnia. A problem for us-and
we have the responsibility of defining the policies of our countries-our problem is to know
how, by what means, what means do we have
and what means should we employ in order
to get the results that we all want, which is
peace or at least the end of violence.
And in that respect, may I remind you that
France is participating in the United Nations
efforts. France is actually the country that is
at present supplying the most numerous troops,
military contribution to the U.N. efforts, more
than-well, almost 5,000 men right now. And
we already have lost 12 people killed and more
than 100 wounded.
Our position is very simple to express but,
of course, difficult to implement. We approve


the Vance-Owen plan. We want it to be successful. We see in what way it is not perfect, but
this instrument, well, we know of none better.
And as it is the best of the possible plans, right
now, as of today, we support the Vance-Owen
plan, and we want it to be the basis of an
agreement.
So if it does succeed, if it gets the agreement
of the three parties concerned-one might almost say four parties or five even-in other
words, if you include the three countries which
are Croatia, Serbia, and Bosnia, but there are
also the Serbs in Bosnia and perhaps the Croats
in Bosnia, et cetera. So if the agreement is
reached-and for the moment it is under discussion, as you know, as a whole series of discussions that are taking place and will take place,
and I'll have occasion to take part in them myself in the next few days. And the purpose of
all these discussions is to get the Owen-Vance
plan accepted, agreed. If it is agreed, thanks
to discussions and possibly modifications, but if
it ends up by being agreed, accepted, then we
think that immediately it will be necessary to
set up without the transition taking too longand if it could be immediate transition, it would
be even better-we think we must ensure military presence in order to ensure the full respect
for the agreements reached, so that the passions
and local animosities should not immediately
prevail. And in that respect, France is prepared
to participate in this force of peace under the
authority of the United Nations.
Russia
Q. [Inaudible]-have an emergency meeting
of the C-7 sometime before the July summit
in order to deal at the clinical level the question
of Russian aid? And, if not, how do you propose
breaking what seems to be the gridlock between
the Russian Government and the international
lending institutions?
President Clinton. The short answer to your
question, I suppose, is yes. I think it is entirely
possible that such a meeting might be useful.
Whether a meeting is possible or not depends
in part on the response of the other members
of the G-7. The Japanese, as you know, have
territorial disputes outstanding and also have put
a lot into the upcoming meeting in July. Perhaps
there is some other way that we can engage
the G-7 in trying to address the Russian situation.
I guess the important point I'd like to make


259




Mar. 9 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


is, I don't believe we can wait until July for
the major countries of the world who care about
what happens in Russia and who would like
very much to keep political and economic reform on track there to move. And President
Mitterrand is going to Moscow, and then we'll
talk when he gets back. Then I'm going to Canada. And at the conclusion of that meeting, if
not before, I will try to move to mobilize others
to act in this regard whether or not it is possible
to have a formal C-7 meeting.
Bosnia
Q. Did you get the impression that President
Clinton would be prepared to, in fact, move
in, in former Yugoslavia once an agreement is
reached?
President Mitterrand. Yes, well, he has just
expressed himself on this a moment ago. He
said that he did not want to engage in a military
campaign on the basis of a disagreement among
the parties concerned. And that is exactly the
same position as France.
But the President also indicated that he was
prepared to examine the possibility of having
an American presence in the framework of all
the steps that will be taken for the implementation of an agreement, once an agreement is
reached, if the agreement is reached.
Russia
Q. Did you specifically talk about Russia?
President Mitterrand. Well, I am glad you
asked me the question, too, because it was already a question for President Clinton. I'm in
favor of what you are suggesting, an earlier C7. I think it's even necessary, because there are
problems specifically in Eastern Europe and in
Russia that are urgent, quite apart from many
other problems. I also know about the Japanese
opposition to the idea. Perhaps Japan is not
having sufficient regard in this respect to the
importance of events that are taking place mainly in Europe. I have already given my agreement
to Mr. Delors anyway.
Middle East Peace Talks
Q. Did you discuss with the French President
at all the Middle East peace process? And are
you optimistic, for the next round of talks, that
Syria comes to an agreement with Israel?
President Clinton. We have not discussed the
Middle East yet. We will over lunch. Yes, I
am hopeful.


Health Care Reforn
Q. Mr. President, may I ask, regarding your
health care reform, now that you're so deeply
involved in trying to find more budget cuts,
what is your expectation for when you would
start seeing some savings from health reform?
And should Americans expect that they will have
to settle for reduced core benefits unless they
can pay more, of coursePresident Clinton. No.
Q. -for some sort of reduced services in
order to achieve these savings?
President Clinton. No, I don't necessarily accept that. Of course, we have 400 people working on this now and consulting widely with all
the people involved in the health care issue.
Let me answer your first question pointedly.
I believe, under all the scenarios I have seen
that I think are possible, we would see immediate savings in the private sector if we were
to adopt a comprehensive health care reform
package. That is, private employers and employees would see the rate of their insurance premium increases drop rather dramatically and
there would be really significant savings immediately in the private sector.
Because those savings in the public sector
would have to be used to provide some insurance at least to the unemployed uninsured, who
are about 30 percent of the total population
of uninsured-at least to them-it might take
4 years or so before we would start seeing significant taxpayer savings. But interestingly
enough, that's about the time we need it. That
is, if you look at all the scenarios, the deficit
can be brought down under our plan for 4 years,
and then if health care costs are not brought
under control, it will start up again in the latter
part of this decade. So we certainly believe that
the health care plan would bring the deficit
down virtually to zero over the next 8 to 10
years.
Now, will people have to accept a lower quality of health care? I just dispute that entirely.
We're already spending 30 percent more of our
income than any country in the world. I don't
think thatSteel Subsidies
Q. Yesterday the United States imposed some
tithes, additional tithes on some products of
steel. The argument is that the subsidies are
unfair. But the other side says that the subsidies
are not unfair. What is the middle ground?


260




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 I Mar. 9


What do you think can be negotiated? And,
also, I would like to hear the response of President Mitterrand.
President Clinton. First of all, I want to make
it very clear that the steel case was a case which
was made on the basis of the facts, and waiting
for me when I took office as President and
waiting for our Trade Ambassador. So the real
question was whether we would act consistent
with the work that had been done before we
took office, based on the evidence that had been
amassed then. And we decided that we had to
proceed with that to provide the continuity of
the enforcement of our trade laws.
I think the ultimate resolution of all these
things is to continue to work for a more open
trading system. I am strongly committed to a
successful completion of the Uruguay round this
year and to taking other measures which will
open markets all around the world and reduce
trade barriers. And I'm going to do everything
I can to be instrumental in that regard. In order
to get there, every nation has to have some
mechanism to protect itself if there is uneven
treatment. And we'll always have factual arguments about what is even and uneven, but I
think the key is, are we moving toward a more
open trading system or not?
International Armis Sales
Q. How can we stop wars as long as the
United States permits the sale of arms around
the world by our CIA agents and by bringing
in arms from China? And now, faced with the
proposition from the Soviet-Russia that we let
them sell conventional arms around the world
to aid their economy, how can we get wars
to stop under those conditions?
President Clinton. I think both of us should
answer that question. President Mitterrand will
be the company misery loves on that question.
[Laughter]
I believe the United States has an obligation
to try to stop the proliferation of weapons of
mass destruction and to slow the proliferations
of weapons generally throughout the world. It
is not a simple or an easy thing to do. And
our ability to do it is limited by the sovereiguty
of other nations and by the policies they pursue.
But I can assure you just since I have been
in office, and on more than one occasion, I
have done what I could within the means available to me to try to limit proliferation, and
I will continue to do that.


Since you brought up Russia, let me say again,
one of the reasons I think it is so important
for us to try to move aggressively to give the
Russians the means to restore some economic
growth and opportunity and preserve political
liberty is that as other options close to them,
they will be more and more and more forced
to look upon their capacity to sell arms as the
only way they can earn foreigu currency, the
only way they can keep the economy going,
the only way they can keep a lot of their factories open. So I think the case you have made
and the question is a powerful argument for
the policies we are attempting to undertake with
Russia.
Mr. President.
President Mitterrand. Well, I might simply recall to the lady who spoke that it was in Paris
at the end of an international conference-well,
it was the largest ever number of participants.
It was in Paris, then, that there was the siguature of the convention on the prohibition of
chemical and biological weapons; furthermore,
that France has always approved the various
plans for limiting nuclear weaponry sigued between the United States of America and the
Soviet Union in the past and more recently with
Russia. And France took the initiative of stopping nuclear testing precisely in order to give
everyone time to reconsider the possibility of
bringing them to a definitive end, with the end
of over-armaments in this area.
So I think that there is a very favorable
ground here. The reduction of armaments,
though, can only be conceived with the ending
of sales of armaments. This can only be conceived in the framework of an international negotiation. No country otherwise could afford to
place itself in a situation of danger, in fact,
if the other countries don't do likewise and
make the same effort. But we're certainly prepared to move ahead in this direction.
Trade
Q. Mr. President, you heard President Clinton
and his administration in recent months challenging Europe on steel, on agriculture, on civil
aircraft. I know that that part of your discussion
will be for lunch, but what is your viewpoint?
President Mitterrand. Well, we decided to talk
about this later on, so it's difficult for me to
accelerate things all alone just of my own accord. I can't jump the gun. But President Clinton probably knows as much as you do about


261




Mar. 9 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


my frame of mind and the frame of mind of
France, in this respect, which can be summed
up in a word: international negotiations of
GATT is trade negotiation so as to eliminate
protectionism, precisely. And it's an overall comprehensive negotiation, global negotiation which
doesn't touch all sectors but many, many sectors
and, therefore, not only farming and agriculture.
If one, therefore, looks at the discussion solely
from the point of view of agriculture, then it
can't work. If, however, it is looked at in the
form of a balanced negotiation, covering the various sectors that are involved, of industries, services, intellectual property, and so on, then
there's no reason not to be able to succeed.
And in that respect, what France wants is that
there should be a success of this, because I
share the view expressed by President Clinton
a moment ago which is that it is better we
will be able to succeed in this respect, then
the sooner we will get out of the present recession, the present crisis, the present problems.
But at the same time, we mustn't isolate and
separate off subjects and just deal with them
piecemeal. No, we mustn't do that, which is
what happens only too often nowadays.
Spending Cuts
Q. Several questions have been raised by your
agreement to cut spending further here. First
among them is why you've agreed to general
budget cuts without the specifics when you have
for so long been demanding specifics of others
who wanted to cut the budget further. Also,
Senator Sasser said outside that while you have
not agreed to necessarily $90 billion in further
cuts, that is about as far, he suggested, that
you feel they could go without harming the
economy. Is that the case, that $90 billion is
it and no more suggestions need be made?
President Clinton. There are two different
questions there. First of all, in this budget resolution there is an attempt to deal by both the
Senate and the House Budget Committees, an
honest attempt to deal with the so-called
reestimates of the Congressional Budget Office;
that is, to get even more deficit reduction. And
I believe it will produce far more than we even
estimate. They have to decide to get the budget
resolution passed by category. But I assure you
that we will be very specific before the process
is over.
It is true that I think that we have cut the
deficit in a 4-year period about as much as


we should with these new numbers. But that
doesn't mean we don't need more specifics, because we have to define how we're going to
cut. And since I also strongly believe we have
to increase our investments in education and
training and in new technologies and in the
things which will make our economy grow, it
means we need all the suggestions we can get
about other places we can cut the budget, and
we will need to do that until the budget is
finally passed.
So I strongly support that. The Vice President, as you know, is heading the performance
review audit of the entire Federal Government.
And the more specific suggestions we can come
up with that everyone agrees with, the fewer
controversial and potentially damaging cuts we'll
have.
Let me just make the economic argument.
Our deficit reduction package-and Senator
after Senator said today, you know, that this
is the most credible budget I've seen in 15
or 17 or however many years-it is producing
the desired results: low interest rates, stock market back up and doing well.
We have to deal with that against a backdrop
of a Europe that's had slow growth, Japan with
some serious economic problems and no political consensus about what to do about it in
Japan. So we want to do what our European
and Japanese friends have been telling us for
years we should do, get our deficit under control. But we want to do it at a moderate pace
so that we don't throw the United States back
into recession and further complicate the economic problems of Europe, which will be
helped by a growing American economy. So I
think we've struck the right balance, and that
was the point I was making to them.
Middle East Peace Talks
Q. President Clinton, concerning the Middle
East, you said that your country intends to play
the role of a full partner in the peace process.
How do you intend to translate this? And what
would you tell Israeli Prime Minister Rabin
when you receive him next week so that to
resume the talks, especially concerning the Palestinian deportees?
President Clinton. Well, I think that what we
mean by a full partnership was evidenced by
the fact that the Secretary of State's first trip
abroad was to the Middle East and that he
made aggressive efforts there to try to get the


262




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Mar. 9


talks back on track and to involve as many parties as possible. In terms of what I will tell
Prime Minister Rabin when he comes back, I
won't say anything I haven't said in public about
the deportee issue or anything else. We are
working together. I feel comfortable and confident that he very much wants the peace process back on track, and I will support that.
Civil Aircraft Agreement
Q. What specific revisions do you want in
the agreement on civil aircraft? And are you
prepared to abrogate last year's agreement?
President Clinton. No, no, absolutely not. I
think to some extent my remarks in that regard
have been misunderstood, and they may be my
fault. I support last year's agreement. The point
I was trying to make is this: The United States
had a big lead in civilian aircraft. Arguably, it
was contributed to by the massive investments
we made in defense and the spinoff benefits.
That was always the European argument for
their own direct subsidies in the airbus program,
that we had indirectly done the same thing
through defense.
It costs a great deal of money to develop
new aircraft, to break into new markets, and
to go forward. The argument I was trying to
make to the Boeing workers last week, and I
will restate it here, is that the adversity they
have suffered in the market is through no fault
of their own. That is, they have not failed by
being unproductive or lazy or asking for too
much but that Europe was able to penetrate


this market because of the airbus policy. And
the blame I placed was on our Government
for not responding, not Europe's for trying to
get in. That was their right; it was legal under
international law, and they did it. Now, we
chose instead to try to convince them to stop
doing as much as they were doing, which produced the agreement to which you just alluded.
I strongly support that agreement. I do not want
it abrogated; I want it enforced.
My policy now on this-and I don't want to
prejudge the work that the commission we're
about to appoint-Congress is going to pass a
bill in the next few days-we're going to appoint
a commission on the future of our commercial
airlines company and our airline manufacturers.
I don't want to prejudge that, but my policy
basically has two points: Number one, the agreement must be honored and strictly adhered to.
And, number two, the agreement leaves the
United States as well as Europe the opportunity
to significantly invest in the development of new
technologies for new generations of aircraft, and
we have to take that opportunity in order to
be competitive. And I appreciate your asking
the question because it gives me the opportunity
to clarify my position.
Thank you very much.
NOTE: The President's fifth news conference
began at 12:20 p.m. in the East Room at the White
House. President Mitterrand spoke in French,
and his remarks were translated by an interpreter.


Letter to Congressional Leaders on Nuclear Cooperation With EURATOM
March 9, 1993


Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)
The United States has been engaged in nuclear cooperation with the European Community for many years. This cooperation was initiated under agreements that were concluded
over 3 decades ago between the United States
and the European Atomic Energy Community
(EURATOM) and that extend until December
31, 1995. Since the inception of this cooperation, the Community has adhered to all its obligations under those agreements.
The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act of 1978
amended the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 to


establish new nuclear export criteria, including
a requirement that the United States have a
right to consent to the reprocessing of fuel exported from the United States. Our present
agreements for cooperation with EURATOM do
not contain such a right. To avoid disrupting
cooperation with EURATOM, a proviso was included in the law to enable continued cooperation until March 10, 1980, if EURATOM agreed
to negotiations concerning our cooperation
agreements. EURATOM agreed in 1978 to such
negotiations.
The law also provides that nuclear cooperation


263




Mar. 9 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


with EURATOM can be extended on an annual
basis after March 10, 1980, upon determination
by the President that failure to cooperate would
be seriously prejudicial to the achievement of
U.S. non-proliferation objectives or otherwise
jeopardize the common defense and security and
after notification to the Congress. President
Carter made such a determination 13 years ago
and signed Executive Order No. 12193, permitting nuclear cooperation with EURATOM to
continue until March 10, 1981. President
Reagan made such determinations in 1981,
1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987, and 1988,
and signed Executive Orders Nos. 12295, 12351,
12409, 12463, 12506, 12554, 12587, and 12629
permitting nuclear cooperation to continue
through March 10, 1989. President Bush made
such determinations in 1989, 1990, 1991, and
1992, and signed Executive Orders Nos. 12670,
12706, 12753, and 12791 permitting nuclear cooperation to continue through March 10, 1993.
In addition to numerous informal contacts,
the United States has engaged in frequent talks
with EURATOM regarding the renegotiation of
the U.S.-EURATOM agreements for cooperation. Talks were conducted in November 1978,
September 1979, April 1980, January 1982, November 1983, March 1984, May, September,
and November 1985, April and July 1986, September 1987, September and November 1988,
July and December 1989, February, April, October, and December 1990, and September 1991.


Formal negotiations on a new agreement were
held in April, September, and December 1992
and are expected to continue this year.
I believe that it is essential that cooperation
between the United States and the Community
continue, and likewise, that we work closely with
our allies to counter the threat of proliferation
of nuclear explosives. Not only would a disruption of nuclear cooperation with EURATOM
eliminate any chance of progress in our negotiations with that organization related to our agreements, it would also cause serious problems in
our overall relationships. Accordingly, I have determined that failure to continue peaceful nuclear cooperation with EURATOM would be seriously prejudicial to the achievement of U.S.
non-proliferation objectives and would jeopardize the common defense and security of the
United States. I therefore intend to sign an Executive order to extend the waiver of the application of the relevant export criterion of the
Atomic Energy Act for an additional 12 months
from March 10, 1993.
Sincerely,
BILL CLINTON
NOTE: Identical letters were sent to Thomas S.
Foley, Speaker of the House of Representatives,
and Albert Gore, Jr., President of the Senate. The
Executive order is listed in Appendix D at the
end of this volume.


Nomination for Posts at the Departments of Agriculture, Education, and
Housing and Urban Development
March 9, 1993


The President made eight senior personnel
announcements today, expressing his intention
to nominate a group of experts from around
the country to posts at the Departments of Agriculture, Education, and Housing and Urban Development.
Named today were the following:
Department of Agriculture
James Gilliland, General Counsel
James Lyons, Assistant Secretary (Natural Resources and Environment)
Bob Nash, Under Secretary for Small Com

munity and Rural Development
Department of Education
Judith Heumann, Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services
Dr. Augusta Kappner, Assistant Secretary for
Vocational and Adult Education
Dr. Thomas Payzant, Assistant Secretary for
Elementary and Secondary Education
Dr. Marshall Smith, Under Secretary
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Nicolas Retsinas, Assistant Secretary (Federal
Housing Commission)


264




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Mar. 10


"I am committed to bringing people into the who truly meet that standard."
Federal Government who've made a difference
in States and communities around the country,"  NOTE: Biographies of the nominees were made
said the President. "This is a group of people  available by the Office of the Press Secretary.
Remarks Announcing the Initiative to Alleviate the Credit Crunch
March 10, 1993


Thank you very much. Thank you very much,
Secretary Bentsen, other members of the Cabinet and distinguished Members of the House
and Senate of both parties, and the business
men and women and the bankers who are here
today.
I am in debt to many people in this room
and throughout this country who raised to me
in many ways, over the 16 months in which
I was engaged in the campaign for the Presidency, the question of the credit crunch. From
the beginnings of that campaign in New Hampshire, across the country to Illinois and Michigan, down to Florida, across to California, and
in all points in between, I repeatedly ran into
small business men and women, I repeatedly
met bankers themselves who said they wished
that something could be done to open up credit
again to creditworthy loans, to generate jobs in
the private sector.
Today we are taking a step to speed the economic recovery that will increase jobs by increasing access to credit for the main engine
of our economy, small and medium-sized businesses. At the same time, by strengthening our
banking system, our plan will move us beyond
the banking problems of the last decade. The
initiative avoids the regulatory excess and duplication we've seen and focuses on real risks within our financial institutions and on fair lending,
equal opportunity, and credit availability.
Every day, small business is a big part of
all of our lives. It's the coffee shop on the corner, the florist down the street, the stationery
store that carries office supplies, the dry cleaner,
the contractor who will remodel a kitchen. Many
are businesses with fewer than 100 employees.
Many more employ fewer than 20 people. But
they keep communities and neighborhoods vibrant and vital. They are the industry in a cottage, in a garage, in a spare bedroom. They
are downtown in every town, and sometimes


they grow into very large enterprises indeed.
Small business includes small farms, the agricultural community. Their contribution is evident every day on our tables. But it is much
more. They are the cultivators of an essential
part of our history, our heritage, our culture.
Small business is also high tech, the industries
of tomorrow, from computer software to communications, to biotechnology and environmental testing, all enterprises that create highwage, high-skill jobs for Americans today, and
they will be there tomorrow.
And small business has been the route to
a better life for immigrants who set up a family
business, for men and women who save as they
work for others until they can venture off on
their own. Often a small business is actually
an outgrowth of the global economy. As larger
firms downsize to remain competitive, they contract out to smaller firms. And many talented
people who once worked for large companies
are now going off on their own to seize opportunities in smaller enterprises, building businesses
for themselves.
Owning one's own business is a cornerstone
of the American dream, fortified by hard work,
determination, and creativity. My first experience in life with business was in my grandfather's little grocery store. He was the symbol
of hope and opportunity to many people with
whom he dealt in many ways, 6 days a week
at all hours of the day and night.
Today's small businesses are a barometer of
the economic recovery. And as the strength of
this recovery has been diluted by the inability
to create jobs, it is clear that it's largely because
small companies are still having a hard time.
If you look at this chart here, you can see the
number of small business failures, just since
1985: 119,000 in '85-'86; 118,000 the next year;
111,000 in the next 2-year period; but in '91 -'92, almost 185,000 small business failures.


265




Mar. 10 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


These businesses have been hit especially
hard by the recession and by a problem not
of their own making that can be summarized
by two fearsome but now well-worn words: credit crunch. Small companies are simply unable
in too many cases to get loans from banks. And
I want to show this-they turned it, and I didn't
see-if you look here, the growth in commercial
and industrial loans, '85-'86, in billions of dollars; and the last 2 years, down to a negative
$36 billion. Now, if these businesses can't begin
or expand or try new ventures, that means stagnation for our economy, lost opportunity, and
sometimes ruin for entrepreneurs. Indeed, I've
met business people in this country in the last
year and a half who've never missed a payment
on a loan and still had the loans canceled.
These problems are America's problems.
When small businesses aren't prospering, they
create fewer jobs, and that means fewer jobs
for America. If you look at this last chart, you
will see the real essence of why this has turned
out to be, so far, a jobless recovery. In '85 -'86, there was a positive change in small business employment of 2.4 million; '87-'88, 2.8 million; '89-'90, 3.2 million; but down in '91-'92,
400,000. Now, in every year of the 1980's the
Fortune 500 companies have reduced employment by several hundred thousand people a year
in the United States. But all during the eighties
that reduction was more than offset by the creation of new jobs in the small business sector,
until the last couple of years.
If you had to put in a sentence why this
has been a jobless recovery, it's because small
business job creation hasn't offset big business
job losses. And that is the central challenge we
face. As we take advantage of the incredible
things going on now in the big and small business sector with productivity increases, with the
aggregate indications that we're in an economic
recovery, we have to look for ways, all of us
together, to try to help to spur small business
and medium-size business job growth so that
we can put some jobs back into these impressive
economic figures of the last quarter.
Nearly two-thirds of all of our workers are
employed by small businesses. And as I said,
millions of jobs in the last decade were created
by them, even as larger employers were
downsizing, contracting out, or moving employment offshore. We cannot afford not to try to
resume this trend in the 1990's. We know that
if we create a reliable and secure system of


credit for America's small businesses, they'll create jobs for Americans and profits for themselves. That's why we have offered incentives
like investment tax credits for small employers,
the new business capital gains tax, urban enterprise zones, and a network of small business
community development banks.
In our country you can become successful
if you have a better idea that you can turn
into reality. But that reality can only occur if
credit is available, for most Americans. And we
think we have a better idea for getting lenders
and creditworthy borrowers together. What we
propose does not involve any changes in legislation. These steps can be taken quickly because
they have been agreed to already by the four
Federal bank and thrift regulatory agencies: the
Comptroller of the Currency, the Federal Reserve, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and the Office of Thrift Supervision. Today
I'll outline the basics of the plan, but the four
bank and thrift regulators are issuing a joint
interagency policy statement today that sets out
more of the details. It will be available to all
of you, and most of you will understand it.
[Laughter] I don't know if I left the implication
that I didn't. [Laughter]
What we have done, first of all, is to reexamine our examination system, a system that bankers often felt has become too excessive in the
wake of the banking and savings and loan failures of the eighties. With this plan our examiners will be directed to do what they do best
and not to spend endless hours on pointless
paperwork. It will strengthen our oversight by
shifting our regulatory attention from unproductive and repetitive procedures, redirecting our
resources to better use so that bank examiners
will be able to seek out the real risks in today's
environment. They'll go after bad loans and
troubled banks. That means improved safety and
soundness. But they will reduce the credit
crunch because they will reduce attention to
things that do not deserve them.
We will not, I will say again, we will not
reduce attention to important regulation or to
proper reserves for problem loans. The plan will
not lower the capital requirements established
in accordance with international standards. It
will not cause a single bank to fail. And it will
not cost the deposit insurance funds one dollar.
Through a proper allocation of our regulatory
resources, we will be able to focus more on
examination procedures to further meaningful


266




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Mar. 10


compliance with the Community Reinvestment
Act and to promote fair opportunities for all
of our people while reducing the hassles for
all creditworthy loans.
Above all, borrowers can go to their banks
expecting fair and equal treatment and a reasonable application process. Fairness is a goal for
many good reasons, including the fact that
women and other minorities have been very
bullish for small business and for America. Female-owned companies now employ 111/2 million Americans.
A side effect of the savings and loan disaster
was a reaction that forced many banks into a
thinking mode that didn't distinguish between
a good risk and a bad risk where small businesses were concerned. They were afraid to.
This was a problem, especially for community
bankers who frequently had to decide whether
they could loan money to other members in
their own community. Even if a banker could
personally vouch that an applicant was a person
of good character with an unblemished credit
record and a good business track record, a loan
might still be turned down because the banker
felt his hands were tied by tight restrictions.
So while we ask bankers to give the small
business men and women credit, we'll give the
bankers some credit too, as they consider loans
to small and medium-size companies in their
own communities and neighborhoods. They'll be
encouraged to use their judgment to determine
whether a borrower is creditworthy. And we're
telling bankers that as long as their institutions
and their practices are sound, they shouldn't
be afraid of the regulator. If they disagree with
a decision by a regulator, they'll now have a
recourse, a workable and prompt appeals process.
To bankers across the Nation we say, you
are a pillar of our neighborhoods and communities. We know the demands of rebounding
from the last decade have often been painful
for many of you. Your comeback has been nothing short of amazing. But there is more work
to do. And we need you to get it done. And
if it gets done, there will be something to show
for it, the kind of broad-based economic growth
that benefits all of us.
And we further say to bankers across the land
that if you make sensible loans, the Government
should not come down on you. That's why we're
taking this action today. We want bankers to
get back into the business of lending money,


and we're going to work with them to make
it happen.
We're also making clear that taking collateral
as part of a business loan should not be so
burdensome or costly to discourage borrowers
or lenders from making sound credit decisions.
Often the only collateral a would-be borrower
can offer is real estate. Of course, we learned
the hard way in the eighties that we had to
be careful where loans involving commercial real
estate are concerned. But care has been confused with regulatory excess that has been too
much of a burden for everyone. The changes
we propose will strike a balance so that we
can have both safety and credit availability.
These changes will also address the paper
crunch in getting a small business loan. It simply
shouldn't be as burdensome to get a $25,000
loan as it is to get a $25 million loan. It makes
no sense for a small or medium-sized business
borrower, or for an individual for that matter,
to be required in every case to produce a pile
of paper like this one-pretty thick-when a
loan can be made safely in many cases, particularly by banks who have demonstrated judgment
in their business practices, with merely a promissory note and a financial statement and possibly a short credit application like this.
So under the current system, the paperworkand I expect every one of you to come back
and show me your measured envelopes here.
We've got to prove that the difference is what
we're asserting it is today. [Laughter] Under
the current system, the paperwork is often
daunting to the applicant and discourages banks
from making smaller loans. Streamlining the
process will make it easier to free up credit
without compromising security. This is action
that everyone, conscientious regulators, community-conscious banks, and growing businesses,
can embrace.
With this approach we want to marry the
ingredients for a thriving business climate. Right
now banks are healthier than they've been in
years; 1990 was a record year for bank profitability. And these profits have been used to put
banks in the strongest position they've been in,
in a quarter of a century. At the same time,
interest rates have gone down. Just 3 years ago
the average interest rate on a small business
loan was 12 percent. So far the average is 8
percent. The climate for business ventures has
been made even sunnier by economic growth
that we've seen in the last quarter. That's a


267




Mar. 10 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


byproduct of the optimism for the growth that
we are pressing for now with all the economic
initiatives that are before the Congress and the
country.
So both supply and demand for business loans
are there. And would-be small business owners
are right to feel they have the wind at their
backs. Now that we have banks in the strongest
positions they've been in in a quarter century,
they ought to be able to give us the strongest
economic boost we've had for small business
in a quarter century. Until now the problem
has been that everyone has had to face a 10 -foot wall called the credit crunch. This action
that this administration is taking today should
take a big chunk out of that wall. The result
should be a flow of billions of dollars of economic stimulus that doesn't cost the American
taxpayers one red cent. The payoff will be in
new jobs and in reversing the charts that I have
shown you today.
At the same time, by encouraging new small
business ventures, we'll be laying the ground

work for a smarter work force that can compete
more effectively in the global economy. Getting
financing to these businesses is absolutely essential to the future growth of America. We'll see
the benefits, and so will our children.
This administration is firmly and unequivocally committed to the private sector as the engine of economic growth in America. We have
no illusions, no abstractions, no preoccupations;
we know that this is what works in this country.
In America we put people first, first by having
a prosperous economy founded on a thriving
private sector. What's good for America is good
for business, and we are determined to make
the climate for business and for growth better
and better and better, beginning today where
so many of you have told me for so long we
ought to begin, with a real assault on the credit
crunch.
Thank you very much.
NOTE: The President spoke at 1:43 p.m. in the
East Room at the White House.


Exchange With Reporters Prior to a Meeting With California State
Legislators
March 10, 1993


Health Care Task Force
Q. Mr. President, can your health care task
force proceed in public?
The President. Well, I understand we got a
good ruling from the judge today.
Q. The judge ruled that the meetings have
to be open.
The President. He's ruled that they had to
have some open meetings, but the briefing I
got was that he ruled that some of the assertions
that were made were absolutely unconstitutional.
The briefing that I got was that we got a very
good ruling from the judge today.
Military Base Closings
Q. Are the bases going to close in California,


sir?
The President. I don't know. We don't know
what's going to happen. I don't know whatyou all have published lists. I've not seen the
lists. You know how it works: The base closing
commission has to make a recommendation.
Then they give it to me, and I have to evaluate
whether I think it's right or not. And then, after
that, after those two things are reconciled, the
Congress gets to vote up or down on it. So
I don't know what's going to happen.
NOTE: The exchange began at 2:45 p.m. in the
State Dining Room at the White House.


268




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Mar. 11


Statement on Announcing the Forest
March 10, 1993
Planning and good long-term management
can help us protect jobs and the unique oldgrowth forests that are as much a part of our
national heritage as the Grand Canyon or Yosemite. It is time to break the gridlock that
has blocked action and bring all sides together


Conference
to craft a balanced approach to the economic
and environmental challenges we face.
NOTE: The President's statement was included in
a White House statement announcing the Forest
Conference scheduled for April 2 in Portland, OR.


Remarks to Westinghouse Employees in Linthicum, Maryland
March 11, 1993


Thank you very much. I want to say a special
word of thanks to the people from Westinghouse
who greeted me when I arrived: Gary Clark,
who introduced me, Dick Linder, Gladys Green,
Rich O'Leary, and Gary Eder. And thank you
to all of you who made this tour possible.
I want to thank the Members of the United
States Congress who are here, who have worked
very hard for a long time and before I became
President to help to design a plan to strengthen
our economy even as we reduce military spending. Your Senators, Barbara Mikulski and Paul
Sarbanes, are here. Your Congressman, Ben
Cardin, is here. Senator Jeff Bingaman of New
Mexico; Senators Barbara Boxer and Dianne
Feinstein of California; Senator Bill Cohen of
Maine; Senator Claiborne Pell of Rhode Island;
Congressman Martin Frost of Texas; Congresswoman Jane Harman of California; and Congressman Tom Foglietta of Pennsylvania. I think
that is the entire delegation here, along with
Mayor Kurt Schmoke of Baltimore and Governor Schaefer. I'm glad to see all of them.
I have to note here, you can tell who the best
politician is. Of all these people I've introduced,
only Senator Mikulski found a seat. [Laughter]
I'd also like to thank the members of my
Cabinet who have helped to work on the statement that I will announce today who are here:
the Defense Secretary Les Aspin, Labor Secretary Bob Reich, Veterans Affairs Director
Jesse Brown, Energy Secretary Hazel O'Leary,
Commerce Secretary Ron Brown. I want to
thank all of them for their work.
All of you know from personal experience how
much American industry has been changed by


the cutbacks in defense. Defense spending
peaked in 1985. And by 1997, it will have been
reduced approximately 40 percent, perhaps
more, from its 1985 peak. These changes have
led not only to reductions in military personnel
abroad and closings of bases at home but dramatic changes in military contracting that have
affected companies like this one and which have
affected the economies of the States of California, Connecticut, Texas, and many others.
It has been said that while change is certain,
progress is not. And that certainly is true when
it comes to the challenge of meeting the national economic goals that we have in the face
of cutbacks in military spending. As I said, these
cutbacks have been made since 1985; more are
to come. They are essential in a world in which
we need funds to be reinvested in the domestic
economy and in which the security threats we
meet today, while very serious, are different and
clearly less expensive than those we faced when
the Soviet Union and the United States faced
each other across the Berlin Wall with the barriers of the cold war and the imminent prospect
of nuclear war. So these changes had to come.
But if we do nothing in the face of change,
we have learned the hard way that we are its
victims. If we take bold action, we can be the
beneficiaries of change.
All of you here at Westinghouse Electronic
Systems Group are proof that you can make
change your friend. In 1986, just 16 percent
of the work done here was nondefense. Today,
it's 27 percent. By 1995, half or more of your
work will be nondefense. What you have done
here is what I wish to do nationally: take some


269




Mar. 11 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


of the most talented people in the world who
produce some of the most sophisticated military
technology and put that to work in the civilian
economy.
The military surveillance technology I have
seen here can now be used to help commercial
airlines avoid wind shears. Military security technology can now be used to help police officers
on the streets and in their patrol cars to be
safer and to solve crimes and to find missing
children more rapidly. State-of-the-art batteries
is helping here to develop an electric car which
may well provide an enormous opportunity for
America to become more energy-independent
and to dramatically reduce the pollution of our
atmosphere, at a time when we have been reminded anew that there really is a hole in the
ozone layer and there really are problems with
unlimited emissions of CO2.
Clearly, defense conversion can be done and
can be done well, making change our friend
and not our enemy. But in order to do it we
must act, act decisively, act intelligently, and
not simply react years after the cuts occur.
Last year, when a candidate for President,
I outlined a plan to create new jobs in the
civilian economy. Anticipating this challenge, farsighted Members of Congress appropriated approximately $1.5 billion for defense conversion
last year, including ideas that literally came from
the minds and the efforts of some of the Members of Congress who are here with us today.
They've demonstrated aggressiveness in adapting
to change. But until today, in spite of that act,
none of the money appropriated by Congress
was released, and there was no comprehensive
plan for what to do with it.
Today I want to explain how we're going to
put your money to work to put Americans to
work and how we're planning for the future
by investing in our people, encouraging our
companies, and assisting our communities. Our
first priority has to be investing in our people.
Keep in mind, as you all know here, when the
defense budget is reduced, that affects, obviously, contracts and therefore the jobs of people
who work in the private sector. It also affects
the size of the military force itself, the configuration of our defense forces abroad and here
at home, and the people who will be affected
by the reductions.
Our defense reinvestment and conversion initiative will rededicate $375 million right away
to help working people affected by defense re

ductions with employment services, job training,
and transition assistance; $150 million of that
will go to Government and employer-sponsored
job training programs; $112 million will help
members of the Guard and the Reserves make
the transition to civilian life and to provide severance pay and health benefits to civilians who
are leaving Government employment.
There's also initiative to provide early retirement benefits for military personnel with 15
years of service or more, to start a new program
to encourage them to put their skills to work
in vital areas like teaching, law enforcement,
environmental restoration, and health care.
Under a provision offered by Senator Sam Nunn
of Georgia, any member of the military who
is being mustered out with 15 years or more
of service can go to work in law enforcement,
for example, and earn a year of military retirement for every year they were in law enforcement, so that these people who have committed
their lives to the service of our country and
could not reasonably have known that this reduction would occur and would affect them can
still earn their military retirement by serving
their country here at home.
We must also recognize the ripple effect of
defense adjustment and target assistance to our
communities. In 1993 alone, we will triple the
budget of the Defense Department's Office of
Economic Adjustment. The $30 million we've
committed to this task will be invested in helping our communities find the tools and the expertise to adjust to the changed nature of their
local economy. It will be an investment that
pays off in the long-term.
In addition, through the Commerce Department, we'll invest another $80 million in a revolving loan and grant program to directly and
immediately aid communities hit hardest by defense cuts.
Finally, the Secretary of Defense has assured
me that he will do everything he can to speed
the environmental cleanup on bases that are
closed so that they can be turned over either
to commercial purposes or to local government
at the earliest possible time so that there will
be a minimum loss of economic activity in areas
where bases are closed.
But all the worker training in the world and
all the community assistance in the world will
do no good if there are no jobs for those workers and no businesses for those communities.
The private sector is the engine of lasting eco

270




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Mar. 11


nomic growth in our system, and therefore, our
plan must help our companies to make these
transitions to compete and to win.
We seek to go beyond the debate of the past
in which some thought Government alone could
do everything and others claimed Government
could do nothing. In this area there are two
things Government can do to aid companies like
this one: promote dual use research and promote civilian use of technology that was formerly developed for military purposes. That is
what you have done here. We want to speed
and expand that process all across the United
States.
One of the success stories of the cold war
was the Defense Advanced Research Agency,
or DARPA. DARPA helped keep America on
the cutting edge of defense research. To meet
the new challenges of the new world, we're giving DARPA a new mission and restoring its
old name, because before 1972 that Agency was
known simply as the Advanced Research Products Agency. By going back to that name and
refocusing the Agency's efforts on dual use technologies, such as that which you have demonstrated to me here today, rather than strictly
military applications, we'll be better able to integrate research to strengthen defense and to promote our economic security here at home.
Starting now, this Agency, ARPA, will allocate
more than $500 million to technology and industrial programs like the ones we've seen here
today. We'll support industry-led consortia and
dual use technologies and promote efforts to
break through with commercial uses of formerly
defense technologies. Programs will be selected
on the basis of merit and will require matching
funds from the corporations affected. We're
even going to set up a toll-free number to attract good ideas from good companies. And you
will like this. The number is 1-800-DUALUSE. The hotline will be hooked up tomorrow,
so don't call today. [Laughter]
To help walk companies through their new
opportunities, ARPA will provide them with this
book, which puts together programs from the
Defense Department, the Department of Commerce, the Department of Energy, NASA, and
the National Science Foundation. It is a remarkable coalition of Agencies finally putting all the
information together for defense technology
conversion, reinvestment, and transition assistance.
To further coordinate assistance, ARPA will


work with four other Agencies, the ones I just
mentioned. And we're going to have a series
of regional outreach meetings all across this
country, again, to try to mobilize other companies to get involved in this initiative so that
they can save or create jobs instead of lose jobs
in the face of defense reductions.
We want Government-industry partnerships to
help develop advanced materials. We want companies to form regional technology alliances so
they can share information and develop new
products and new markets. Our manufacturing
extension programs will help bring state-of-theart technology to companies in much the same
way as the Agricultural Extension Service helped
our farmers more than two generations ago
begin to become the most productive in the
world. And through the Small Business Innovation Research Program, we'll help small businesses in their efforts to develop dual use technology.
But dual use technology is just the beginning.
We have to explore also new opportunities in
purely civilian technologies. This year alone,
we'll invest $300 million in emerging nondefense
technology. The Department of Energy will
speed the transfer of technology to private industry from our national labs. And when Congress passes the stimulus package I have proposed, we'll have millions more to invest in research and development partnerships, in advanced technology programs, and in computer
networks for schools and libraries around the
country.
As with every aspect of the program for
change I have asked the American people and
the Congress to embrace, defense conversion
will require us to literally reimagine and
reinvent the way Government works. I've asked
the National Economic Council to take the lead
in our efforts to streamline and coordinate our
conversion efforts so that you don't have to deal
with a big bureaucracy where all the information
is in many different places and sometimes seems
to be operating at cross purposes.
Shifting to a civilian economy is of obvious
concern to the Defense Department, but it's
also the business of the Commerce Department,
the Labor Department, the Energy Department,
NASA, and many other agencies, including the
Department of Veterans Affairs, which will have
even more veterans now as people are coming
out of the service and going into the civilian
work force. Our National Economic Council will


271




Mar. 11 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


cut through redtape, break through turf battles,
and help to deliver services to our customers
quickly and efficiently.
I don't pretend that this will be easy, and
all of it will take some time. But the choice
we face is between bold action to build a stronger and safer and smarter America, or continuing
to cut defense with no appropriate response or
with one that is too localized and too limited.
The soldier-statesman Dwight Eisenhower
once observed that the resourceful American
makers of plowshares could, with time and as
required, make swords as well. Our challenge
is now to reverse the process. You have given
us a stunning example of just how brilliantly
that can be done here in this fine facility. I


know today that the world's finest makers of
swords can and will be the finest makers of
plowshares, and they will lead America into a
new century of strength, growth, and opportunity.
Thank you very much.
NOTE: The President spoke at 12:29 p.m. at Westinghouse Electric Corp. In his remarks, he referred to Dick Linder, president, Westinghouse
Electronic Systems Group; Gary Clark, acting
CEO, Westinghouse Electric Corp.; and union
local presidents Gladys Green, IBEW, Rick
O'Leary, IUE, and Gary Eder, Salaried Employees Association.


Remarks to the Children's Defense Fund Conference
March 11, 1993


The President. Thank you very much, ladies
and gentlemen, distinguished members of the
Children's Defense Fund board, Secretary
Reich, and Secretary Riley. Did you see the
way Secretary Reich rushed out when they said
the President of the United States? [Laughter]
That's not true. I pushed him through the door
so I could get a laugh out of it. [Laughter]
My dear friend Marian Wright Edelman, as
usual, your introduction has left me nothing to
say. I will say this: I know a lot of people will
come here and tell you how much they appreciate people who are children's advocates. Not
very many people appreciate it enough to marry
one, and I did. [Laughter] I also have savaged
the ranks of the CDF board. My wife had to
resign because she was married to a Presidential
candidate. And then Donna Shalala had to resign because I gave her a job-[laughter]which on Sunday she'd probably rather swap
for being chair of the Children's Defense Fund
board.
I am delighted to be here. I look out on
this crowd and I see many old friends. You
know, a lot of people ask me what it's like
to be President. And I don't know if I can
explain it, but it is different. People either want
to walk around on tippy-toe or take a baseball
bat and whack your head off. There seems to
be nothing in between. The other day Hillary


had a number of people into the White House
on the first floor to some sort of meeting, and
I got off on the floor, and I had to go someplace
else. And all of a sudden, all these people were
there. And I walked out into this crowd, and
I started shaking their hands. And the guy who
was with me said, "Oh, Mr. President, I'm so
sorry that you had to deal with all those people."
I said, "That's all right, I used to be one."
[Laughter] I hope I will be again some day.
Meanwhile, I'm going to depend on you and
the American people to keep me just as close
to humanity as I possibly can.
I've just come from a remarkable event in
Maryland with a number of Members of the
Congress who are friends of the Children's Defense Fund. We were there; Secretary Reich
was there with me; we flew back. And we were
at a plant that belongs to Westinghouse. It used
to be a defense plant, and it is increasingly
becoming a domestic technology plant. And we
went there to announce an economic conversion
program to try to help more people who are
losing their jobs from military cutbacks either
in the private or the public sector find new
opportunities moving toward the economy of the
21st century.
This is a very important thing. We've been
reducing defense since 1985, and no nation
would so reduce one sector of its economy that


272




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Mar. I1


provided so many high-wage, high-growth jobs,
that was on the cutting edge of new technology-no other nation would ever have done
what we've done with no clear strategy for what
to do with all those resources, all those people,
to try to help to build our economic base. So
we will continue to reduce defense, as we must,
but we're trying to plan for the future of those
people and those incredible resources.
I saw military technology turn into an electric
car that will drive over 80 miles an hour and
which may hold the promise of ending our dependence on foreign oil and cleaning up our
atmosphere. I saw a police car with a computer
screen with visual imaging developed for defense technology, which can now be used immediately to transmit to police officers who have
it pictures of missing children, immediately,
while they're in their car. I saw a plane with
radar technology which just came back from
dealing with the difficult incident in Waco,
Texas-defense technology-another plane with
a different sort of technology now which can
be put on all of our commercial air flights to
detect wind shears, which is one of the major
causes of airline misfortunes now among commercial airlines.
I say all this because everybody says, well,
that's a great idea, and it's self-evident, and why
haven't we been doing this? But it is simply
reflective of a problem we have had in this
country for some time, which is that we have
undervalued the importance of increasing the
capacity of our people. We have talked a lot
about a lot of things in America. But when
you strip it all away and you look at where
we have been, sort of out of sync with many
other countries and with where we have to go
in the future, it is clear that on a broad range
of areas, we have simply undervalued the importance of making a commitment to the idea that
we don't have a person to waste, that everybody
counts, and that what you can do affects not
only your future but mine as well.
These, of course, are the arguments that the
Children's Defense Fund has been making since
its inception in its struggles to get a better deal
for America's children. They have become far
more important arguments in the last decade.
In 1985 a remarkable thing happened, a thing
altogether laudatory in our country: Our senior
citizens became less poor than the rest of us,
a thing we can be proud of. People used to
have to live in absolute agony wondering what


would happen to their parents. You still do if
you have long-term care problems. But most
elderly people now, because of Social Security
and supplemental security income and Medicare
and because of the pension reforms of the last
several years, can look forward to a security
in their later years that 10 or 20 or 30 years
ago was utterly unheard of. And it is really a
testimony to the farsightedness of our country.
However, at the same time, in the same decade, we began to experience a new class of
poor people who were dramatically undervalued.
They were little children and their poor parents,
usually their single poor parents. And they had
no advocates in many councils of power. If it
hadn't been for the Children's Defense Fund
and a few others who walked with them through
life, many of the good things which have been
done would not have been done. And all the
things which were done were not enough to
reverse the trends of the 1980's, when the elderly became less poor and the children became
more poor.
Now, because many of you in this room have
continued this fight, and because of the decisions the American people made in the last election, we once again have a chance to invest
in the hopes and the dreams of our children.
I have asked the United States Congress to
embrace a program that recognizes, as was said
earlier, that we have two big deficits in this
country. We have a huge budget deficit, but
we also have a huge investment deficit. It was
a cruel irony of the last 12 years that we not
only took the Government debt from $1 trillion
to $4 trillion, with annual deficits now in excess
of $300 million projected for the next few years
unless we change it, but we found a way in
all of that to actually reduce our investment
in our future at the national level.
How could it happen? Well, it happened because of a big military buildup. It happened
because of a big tax cut early. It happened because health care costs have been completely
out of control. It happened    because  an
underperforming economy didn't produce many
revenues. But it happened also because there
were not enough people who said we must constantly invest in the most important thing in
a modern society, the capacity of the people
to be healthy and strong and good.
So you have all these anomalies. The United
States, the world's strongest economy, has the
third worst record in the Western Hemisphere


273




Mar. 11 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


for immunizing its children against preventable
childhood diseases. The United States, a country
that has dominated the economy of the world
for the last half a century, has higher rates of
adult illiteracy and school dropout and dysfunction among adults than most of its major competitors, and the highest rate of incarceration
of any country in the world, something we rank
first in.
That bespeaks our inability to make the diversity of our country a source of strength instead
of weakness, and to deal with the stark dilemmas of poverty in ways that at least give the
children a chance to do better. Well, now we
have a chance.
The good news is we know a lot about what
works. We've known for years through clear
studies that, though not perfect, Head Start and
WIC and immunizations really do make a difference. We know that if you give children a
better life and you strengthen their families, you
make the economy stronger and you free up
money to be spent on things like that economic
conversion program I just visited today.
We know that if we focus on people and
their capacities, it really does work. That's why
I was really pleased that the first bill I signed
was the Family and Medical Leave Act because
it will, even to those who oppose it, make their
businesses more productive, not less, by securing
family life and making it possible for people
to be good parents. That's why the long-term
economic plan and the short-term economic
stimulus I asked the Congress to embrace includes funds to put our people first: for 700,000
summer jobs for young people; for the beginnings of summer Head Start programs where
they don't exist; for beginning to set up the
infrastructure of immunization where it isn't, so
that we can start to do the work that has to
be done.
We have simply got to invest in our people
in ways that work. Marian has already said it,
but I will reiterate. This budget, if funded by
the Congress, will fully fund Head Start and
WIC, will create a network of immunization efforts which will permit us to finally immunize
our little children against preventable childhood
diseases, something that will save, over the long
run, 10 bucks for every dollar we put into it.
How do you explain, I mean, how can you possibly justify to anybody that our country, with
the power of its economy, that produces the
vast majority of vaccines produced anywhere in


the world, is better only than Bolivia and Haiti
in this hemisphere in immunizing our children?
And you know, you have to have a certain
core of immunization to make sure that there
will be no outbreak of diseases. We are dangerously, perilously close to falling below that
core of immunized children in many different
areas. This is a big deal, folks.
So I hope that we will have this attitude now
that we ought to invest as we cut the deficit.
The plan that I presented to the Congress reduces the deficit dramatically, has 150 specific
budget cuts, starts with an example from the
White House staff. We cut the staff in the next
fiscal year 25 percent below the staffing levels
that I found when I came. We cut $9 billion
out of the administrative costs of Federal agencies. And I mean they're real cuts; they're going
into the budget. They cannot be escaped. [Applause] I'm glad you're clapping for that, you
know, because the people that are attacking me
act like anybody that wants any money from
the Government just loves all that bureaucracy
you have to put up with. I know better. [Laughter] It's good for you to clap. [Applause]
We also raised some tax money. I saw the
proof of an article by David Stockman coming
out in a magazine soon which talked about how
the clear problem is that the tax base of this
country was dramatically, fundamentally, and
permanently eroded in 1981, that Social Security's about the same percentage of gross national product today it was back in 1981.
So we have to raise some more money if
we want to reduce the debt. But we also try
to reverse the investment gap in things that
you didn't come here to talk about, like transportation and clean water and better sewage
systems, in things that will strengthen the environment and put people to work and increase
our productivity, in things like community development operations to add jobs to high unemployment areas, in national service, which Marian mentioned, and in other areas that will increase the capacity of people to work, to grow,
to learn, to flourish.
Now, there are people, believe it or not, who,
number one, don't want to pass a stimulus package at all because they say the economy's
great-that's because most people in Washington are employed; talk to them about that, will
you-[laughter]-and who think that this program would be even better if it didn't have
any new investment at all.


274




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Mar. 11


Now, to be fair to those people, there are
basically three lines of attack. You're going to
the Hill. I want you to know I need your help.
I need your help because there are a lot of
people without jobs; there are a lot of people
without adequate jobs. Most of the new jobs
created in this last round-365,000 last monthhallelujah, that's great, but more than half of
them were part-time jobs that don't have health
care benefits for the kids and the families.
You need to know what they are saying, the
people against whom you must argue. They will
say, number one, "We can cut the deficit even
more if we just didn't have any investment,"
or "If we didn't pass any of the President's
spending programs, we could cut the deficit as
much and raise taxes less."
The problem with that argument is those people think there is absolutely no difference between putting another child in Head Start and
keeping somebody working in an agency when
the job is no longer needed and can be phased
out, in supporting a regulatory apparatus that
has long since lost its justification, in funding
a pork barrel project that can't possibly be justified. In other words, these people think anything
the Government spends is equally bad. Educating a kid to go to college is the same as continuing the subsidy for sheep or any other program;
no difference. Government spending is Government spending is Government spending. There
is no difference.
Now, do you believe that in your own lives?
Audience members. No-o-o!
The President. No. I mean, in your lives, if
you take home a check every month, is it the
same whether you spend it on making a house
payment, making a car payment, saving money
for your child's education, or just paying for
an extra helping at dinner? Of course not. There
are distinctions in the relative impact of how
you spend your pay, how your business invests
its money, and how your Government invests
your money. And so when people tell you
there's no difference, tell them that's wrong.
And then there is a crowd that say, "Well,
these programs don't really make any difference.
Head Start doesn't work, and there's no proof
Head Start works." Now, this is an interesting
argument. Most of those who think there's no
proof Head Start works still believe trickle-down
economics did.
Until I proposed phasing in the full funding
of this program, many of those who themselves


objected had previously voted to expand it. To
be fair, President Bush praised Head Start at
every turn. A few years ago, Senator Dole introduced his own legislation to expand it. Sure,
there are serious criticisms rooted in the fact
that this is now not a new program. There are
people who say it's not evenly good across the
country. That is true. There are people who
say it could be managed better. That's true.
There are people who say that cognitive improvements don't always last more than 2 years
after children stop attending, depending on
where they are. That's true. One big deal is
how strong the parents' involvement really is.
There are those who say there ought to be more
school-based programs or more home-based programs, and we've worked hard on that at home.
All that's true. That is not an excuse not to
fully fund Head Start.
Our program will serve more children, but
it will also strengthen the quality of Head Start
and put some flexibility back into the program
so that it can meet the needs of the different
communities that are served. But those who
choose to ignore the overwhelming evidence of
the program's success have an obligation to tell
us why more children with high self-esteem and
better grades and better thinking skills and better predictable long-term performance is such
a bad idea. I think it's a great idea.
But we must, in fairness to the criticisms,
become our own most severe critics. That's
where you come in, because all of you live out
there where these programs work. You could
give a better criticism of what's wrong with most
of these public programs than those who don't
want to fund them. Most of you could. So tell
them you know it is up to us to be our own
most severe critics.
I just asked the Vice President to review every
program in the Government, come back to me
in 6 months with all kinds of other things that
we can stop doing or that we can modify or
that we can push back to people at the grassroots level. If we who believe in Government
don't have the courage to change it, we cannot
expect those who don't to help us in our efforts.
And this is just the beginning. Just 2 days
ago I asked Secretary Shalala to draft a new
child welfare initiative to combine family support and family preservation services, to do more
to build on the work of Senator Rockefeller
and Congressman Matsui and Congresswoman
Schroeder and to do more for families at risk,


275




Mar. 11 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


especially those at risk of foster care placement,
even as we try to strengthen our efforts to enforce child support enforcement for those who
have been abandoned by one parent.
Now, there is a third argument against this
effort. There are those who say, "Yes, Head
Start's a good deal; WIC is a good deal; the
immunization's a good deal. And yes, we ought
to invest as opposed to consume. There is a
distinction to be drawn in the way this money
is spent, and investment is better, investment
in our children, our future. But we still ought
not to do it because we need even more deficit
reduction."
And let me say, that is an argument you must
treat with respect. We have gone from a $1
trillion deficit to a $4 trillion deficit in 12 years.
We have imposed a crushing burden on the
present and a bigger one on the future. And
if you think about it, it's really an income transfer. Now that we're spending 15 cents of every
dollar you pay the Government-most of you
are middle class people, and we spend 15 cents
of every dollar you pay the Government paying
interest on the debt. Those bonds are largely
held by upper income people. So there are now
a lot of liberals in the Congress who are rethinking their old positions on things like the mechanisms by which we move to balance the budget
on the theory that we're spending all this money
having an income transfer from middle class taxpayers, lower income taxpayers to people who
hold the bonds because we didn't have the discipline to run our budgets better.
And if we don't do something about the deficit, we just keep on spending like we are, by
the end of the decade your annual debt will
be $653 billion a year. The interest service will
be about 22 cents of your tax dollar. Twenty
cents on the dollar of every dollar in America,
public and private, will go to health care. So
we have to change.
But my answer to those who say, "Well, let's
just don't invest because this deficit is such a
big problem," is: Number one, we got into this
mess over 12 years, and we have more than
4 years to get out of it. Number two, we are
reaping the benefits of the clear and disciplined
and determined effort that the congressional
leadership has now agreed to make with me
to bring the deficit down. We have interest rates
at very, very low rates. We have the stock market back up. People say, "Hey, this thing is
going to work." All of you can now look at


whether you should refinance your home or
your car. Businesses should refinance their debt.
If we get all this debt refinanced in the next
year, that will add $80 to $100 billion back
in our economy. We are reaping the benefits
of a disciplined program to reduce the deficit
today. But if we do not also at the same time
recognize that for 12 years we have ignored
our obligations to invest in our jobs, in our
people, in our education, if we don't do that,
we will pay for that neglect tomorrow, just like
we're paying for yesterday's neglect today. We
can do both things.
There's another argument you need to
make-and I'm speaking for my wife now, as
well as for me-which is that if you just cut
out all these programs that we believe in, if
you just cut them plumb out, you'll still have
an increase in the deficit again, starting in about
5 years, because of the explosion in health care
costs. The real, ultimate answer to the deficit
problem is to bring health care cost in line
with inflation and provide a decent system of
health care for all Americans.
And we can do that. So, with discipline, with
a willingness to both cut and tax, with a willingness to reduce consumption expenditures and
increase investment in our future, we can do
the things that we have to do. But we can't
walk away from any of our challenges and expect
the results America needs.
If we walk away from the health care challenge, it doesn't matter what they do on all
these other cuts. You'll be swallowed up in debt
in 5 or 6 years again if we walk away from
the health care challenge.
If we walk away from the challenge to raise
some more revenues and cut the spending we
must, we'll lose control of our economic destiny
even if we spend more money on the programs
you want. You'll be raising and educating
healthier, more well-educated kids to a weaker
economy.
But if we reduce the deficit and we forget
about the fact that in the world we live in the
only thing that really counts is people-every
factory can be moved overseas. Three trillion
dollars in money crosses national lines every day.
Everything else is mobile except us. We're here.
We don't want to move. [Laughter]
All we've got's each other now in America.
That's what we've got. And if we ignore that,
we don't think those little kids that live in the
Mississippi Delta, in my home State, many of


276




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Mar. 11


whom never see a dentist the whole time of
their childhood, need a better shot in life because of us as well as them; if we don't believe
that those kids that are sitting out there in the
barrios in Los Angeles, in the black community,
in the Hispanic community, in the Asian-American community, waiting for the resolution of
the Rodney King trial only because it stands
for everything else that ever happened to them,
not because of the trial but because of what
it stands for; if we don't think that we need
to prove that a county like Los Angeles County
with people from 150 different racial and ethnic
groups can live together and learn together and
grow together and if they play by the rules
can have the right to earn a decent living, and
we don't think that affects the rest of us, we
haven't learned very much in the last 12 years.
And so I ask you to do this: I ask you to
go to the Congress and ask them to support
this program. And go with respect, because I
promise you most of these people are trying
to come to grips with the dilemmas of this time.
And they have gotten one big message: that
is that we made a horrible mistake to let the
deficit get out of hand like we did in the last
12 years. And they deserve respect for getting


that message. And they now have a President
who will take the lead and fade some of the
heat for the unpopularity of the decisions which
have to be made. Go with respect for that. Say,
"You had to do that, and we respect that."
But remind them that out in the country
where you live, bringing down the deficit is important if it gives people jobs and raises people's
incomes and if there are people out there who
can seize the opportunities of the future. And
what you represent is the future. You represent
the needs of the people who will not be able
to perform even with a sensible economic policy
unless we do better in health care, in education,
and in dealing with the needs of our poorest
children. That is what you represent. None of
this other stuff will amount to a hill of beans
unless we put the American people first in all
of these decisions. That is the message I plead
with you to bring to the Congress.
Thank you, and God bless you all.
NOTE: The President spoke at 1:52 p.m. at the
Washington Hilton. In his remarks, he referred
to Marian Wright Edelman, president, Children's
Defense Fund.


Exchange With Reporters Prior to a Meeting With the National
Conference of State Legislatures
March 11, 1993


President Boris Yeltsin of Russia
Q. Mr. President, do you think Yeltsin's going
to survive?
The President. I think that he is the duly
elected President of Russia and a genuine democrat, small "d," and that he is leading a country
that is trying bravely to do two things: one,
escape from communism into market economics,
a world they never lived in before; and second,
to preserve real democracy. That's a tough job.
It's pretty hard to do here. [Laughter]
I intend to do what I can to be supportive
of that process and to be supportive of him
while he serves as President of Russia. I don't
know what else to tell you. I'm not a seer.
I don't know what's going to happen to him


or to me tomorrow. But I've got confidence
in him. I'm going to work with him as long
as I can.
Attorney-General-Designate Janet Reno
Q. What about Janet Reno?
The President. I'm elated by that. I had some
Senators in the office, and I said, "That may
be the only vote I carry 98 to 0 this year."
But I enjoyed it. She's an extraordinary person,
and I think she will do well.
We've got to go. Thank you.
Q. When is she going to be sworn in?
The President. When?
Q. When?
The President. Soon, I hope. I've been waiting


277




Mar. 11 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


for someone in the Justice Department for a NOTE: The exchange began at 4:15 p.m. in the
while now.                                   State Dining Room at the White House.
Exchange With Reporters Prior to a Meeting With the Congressional
Caucus for Women's Issues
March 11, 1993


Abortion Clinic Shooting
Q. Mr. President, do you have any reaction
to the shooting of Dr. Gunn in Pensacola?
The President. Yes. I was outraged by it. We
have got to create a climate in this country
where people do not think that is acceptable.
And I think that's-how could someone have
thought that they could take civil disobedience
and carry it one extra step? Dr. Gunn was exercising his constitutional rights. And what happened was awful.
President Boris Yeltsin of Russia
Q. [Inaudible]-Yeltsin apparently had informed you that he plans to dissolve or may
have to dissolve the Parliament. Have you gotten


word of that, and what's your
The President. I have had no
from him today, or if it has,
communicated toQ. Thank you.


reaction to it?
communication
it hasn't been


Chancellor Helmut Kohl of Germany
Q. How about Mr. Kohl? Has Mr. Kohl called
you about a summit?
The President. If he has, no one on my staff
has told me he's called me today.
NOTE: The exchange began at 5:35 p.m. in the
Roosevelt Room at the White House. A tape was
not available for verification of the content of this
exchange.


Statement on the Death of Dr. David Gunn
March 11, 1993


I was saddened and angered by the fatal
shooting in Pensacola yesterday of Dr. David
Gunn. The violence against clinics must stop.
As a nation committed to rule of law, we cannot


allow violent vigilantes to restrict the rights of
American women. No person seeking medical
care and no physician providing that care should
have to endure harassment, threats, or intimidation.


Statement on Joint Production Venture Legislation
March 11, 1993


I want to commend Chairman Jack Brooks,
Senator Pat Leahy, Chairman Joe Biden, and
the bipartisan leadership of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees on the introduction
today of an important new bill to help create
jobs and build a more competitive, high-tech
American economy. This bill, the National Cooperative Production Amendments of 1993, will


pave the way for companies large and small
to pool their resources and talents in new joint
production ventures. It is just the kind of forward-thinking initiative we need to drive our
economy toward a decade of creative change.
We live in a world in which our competitive
advantage flows more and more from our command of high technology, but in which the de

278




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Mar. 12


velopment and production of high-tech products
has become enormously expensive. It is altogether appropriate to lift the legal barriers that
prevent good companies from playing to win
in the global market, provided, of course, that
our antitrust laws continue to prevent improper


collusion. Now is the time, as we work together
to turn this Nation in a new direction, to strip
away outdated impediments to our growth and
potential.
I look forward to working with Chairman
Brooks, Chairman Biden, Senator Leahy, and
their colleagues on this important legislation.


Announcement of the Continuation of Foreign Service Officers in Three
State Department Posts
March 11, 1993


The President announced today that three career Foreign Service officers will continue serving in State Department positions that they currently hold. The three are Genta Hawkins
Holmes, Director General of the Foreign Service and Director of Personnel, Robert Gallucci,
Assistant Secretary for Politico-Military Affairs,
and Anthony Quainton, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Diplomatic Security.


"I am very pleased with the team that Secretary Christopher and I are assembling at the
Department of State," said the President. "I am
particularly gratified that we have been able to
put a number of people into senior positions
who have devoted their careers to the Foreign
Service."
NOTE: Biographies were made available by the
Office of the Press Secretary.


Remarks on the Swearing-In of Attorney General Janet Reno
March 12, 1993


Thank you very much. Please be seated. We
are honored here in the White House to be
joined today by distinguished Members of the
Senate and the House: Senator Biden, Senator
Hatch, Senator Kennedy, Senator Sarbanes, one
of Janet Reno's Senators, Senator Connie Mack.
Senator Graham called me last night. He's in
Florida today with the First Lady at a health
care hearing. And he said he had an excused
absence from the Attorney General. [Laughter]
The Speaker and Congressman Edwards are
here, and we're delighted to see all of them.
I also would say we're delighted to be joined
by Mr. Justice White and Mrs. White. Thank
you very much for coming. Let me say that
it is a great honor for me to be able to be
here at this ceremony today with Janet Reno,
her family, and a few of her many friends.
I'd like to say a special word of thanks to
Stuart Gerson, who has served ably and honorably as Acting Attorney General since the Inau

guration. I think we owe him a round of applause. [Applause]
Somehow I don't think any of my other proposals will pass the Senate by the same vote
margin-[laughter]-that Janet's confirmation
did. I especially want to thank Senator Biden
and Senator Hatch and the members of the
Judiciary Committee for waiving the normal
waiting period between hearings and the confirmation vote, making this event possible today
and making it possible for us to proceed immediately with the urgent tasks at hand.
But more than anything else, I think it is
clear that Janet Reno made her own swift confirmation possible, showing the Senate and all
who followed the hearings the qualities of leadership and integrity, intelligence, and humanity
that those gathered in this room have recognized
for a very long time.
You shared with us the life-shaping stories
of your family and career that formed your deep


279




Mar. 12 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


sense of fairness and your unwavering drive to
help others to do better. You showed us that
your career in public service, working on the
frontlines in your community, fighting crime,
understanding the impact on victims and on
neighborhoods, mending the gritty social fabric
of a vibrant but troubled urban area, is excellent
preparation for carrying forward the banner of
justice for all the American people.
You'll help to guide the Federal Government
to assist State and local law enforcement in ways
that really count. You demonstrated that you
will be a formidable advocate for the vulnerable
people in our society and especially for our children.
Most of all, you proved to the Nation that
you are a strong and an independent person
who will give me your best legal judgment
whether or not it's what I want to hear. [Laugh

ter] It's an experience I've already had, I'm glad
to say. That is the condition upon which you
accepted my nomination and the only kind of
Attorney General that I would want serving in
this Cabinet.
As Janet Reno begins her work at the Justice
Department, she will enter a building that symbolizes our Nation's commitment to justice, to
equality, to the enforcement of our laws. On
the side of that building, carved above one of
the portals, is the inscription, "The halls of justice are a hallowed place." With Janet Reno
serving as our Nation's Attorney General, those
words will have great meaning for all Americans.
NOTE: The President spoke at 9:21 a.m. in the
Roosevelt Room at the White House. Following
the President's remarks, Justice Byron White administered the oath of office.


Remarks to the Crew of the U.S.S. Theodore Roosevelt
March 12, 1993


Thank you very much, Captain. I know that
I won't be able to see all of you now, but
I've seen as many as I could, and I've shaken
hands with a lot of you. I've also reviewed your
mission and been very impressed with it.
I want to recognize the presence on the ship
of the 1992 Sailor of the Year, Donald Leroy
Heffentrager; as well as the First Class Petty
Officer of the Quarter, Gary Neff; the Senior
Petty Officer of the Quarter, Gregory Ham; the
Junior Petty Officer of the Quarter, Jason
McCord; and the Blue Jacket of the Quarter,
Airman Todd Pearson.
I've been very impressed with everything I've
seen and with all the people I've met. As Com

mander in Chief it's immensely reassuring to
me to know that the United States is served
by people of such high quality and such great
dedication. The Secretary of Defense, Les
Aspin, and the others who are here in my company have already learned a great deal and see
a lot that we admire and that we like. I thank
you for your service to the country, and I look
forward to the remainder of my stay here. And
I wish you well on your deployment.
NOTE: The President spoke at 1:40 p.m. in the
Carrier Intelligence Center aboard the ship. A
tape was not available for verification of the content of these remarks.


Remarks to the Crew of the U.S.S. Theodore Roosevelt
March 12, 1993
Thank you very much, Secretary Aspin, Admi-  ple who came in my party, including the distinral Miller, Admiral Johnson, Captain Bryant,  guished Members of the United States Congress
Captain Moore, Colonel Schmidt, General Keys,  who are here. This has been a wonderful day
and to all of you here on the crew of the Theo-  for us, and we thank you.
dore Roosevelt. I think I can speak for the peo-  I am honored to be here. As many of you


280




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Mar. 12


know, it is a great blessing and a great honor
to be elected President of the United States.
But there is no greater honor in the office than
being the Commander in Chief of the finest
Armed Forces in the world today and the finest
America has ever known.
Our Armed Forces are more than the backbone of our security. You are the shining model
of our American values: dedication, responsibility, a willingness to sacrifice for the common
good and for the interests and the very existence
of this country. Our Armed Forces today stand
as one of modem history's great success stories.
Look at this crew, reflecting every color, every
background, every region of our society. I might
say it's been a special pleasure to me to meet
at least six people from my home State of Arkansas here today. I'm sure there are more of
you here that I haven't met.
The American military pioneered our Nation's
progress toward integration and equal opportunity. It is America's most effective education
and training system. It's constantly asked to
adapt to change and always, always, you have
risen to the challenge. All who wear America's
uniforms are what makes the United States of
America a true superpower and a genuine force
for peace and democracy in the world.
Yes, this carrier can extend our reach. These
planes can deliver our might. They are truly
extraordinary tools, but only because they are
in the hands of you. It is your skill, your professionalism, your courage, and your dedication to
our country and to service that gives the muscle,
sinew, and the soul of our strength. And today,
I'm proud to be here to salute you. I want
to say a word about the Navy and to tell you
what it means to me to have a ready fleet.
When word of crisis breaks out in Washington, it's no accident that the first question that
comes to everyone's lips is, where is the nearest
carrier? This ship's namesake, President Theodore Roosevelt, once said, "The Navy of the
United States is the right arm of the United
States and is emphatically the peacemaker."
Theodore Roosevelt took special pride in our
Navy, and I do, too. All of you ought to know
that he was the first American ever to win the
Nobel Prize. He won the Nobel Peace Prize
for his role in settling a war between Russia
and Japan in the first decade of this century,
in part due to the contributions of the United
States Navy.
This impressive ship, not yet 10 years old,


already has an impressive history, serving with
distinction during the Gulf war, where many
of you served as well. And today we should
recall that three of this ship's crew gave the
last full measure of their devotion toward that
victory.
But the Theodore Roosevelt was part of history even earlier. In 1988, it was here that an
American Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
first welcomed his Soviet counterpart to visit
an American aircraft carrier. When my friend
Admiral William Crowe and Marshal Sergey
Akhromeyev stepped aboard this ship together
to meet the crew and watch flight operations,
as I have done here today, it was a key milestone on the road to the end of the cold war.
Now, less than 5 years later, the world has
changed faster than anyone on board then could
have possibly imagined. The cold war is over.
The Soviet Union itself no longer exists. The
Warsaw Pact is gone. The specter of Soviet
tanks rolling westward across the north German
plain no longer haunts the United States.
Yet this world remains a very dangerous place.
Saddam Hussein confirmed that. The tragic violence in Bosnia today reminds us of that every
day. The proliferation of nuclear and other
weapons of mass destruction is a growing menace, unfortunately, not a receding one, to peaceful nations. And human suffering such as that
now being endured by the people of Somalia
may not threaten our shores, but still they require us to act.
Such challenges are new in many ways, but
we dare not overlook the significance that they
pose to our new world. Blinders never provide
security. A changed security environment demands not less security but a change in our
security arrangements.
What is happening on this ship proves that
it can be done. On this deployment you are,
as the Secretary of Defense noted, doing something new. You've changed your crew and your
equipment to reflect the new challenges of the
post-cold-war era. A squadron of sub-hunting
planes is gone, giving room to carry a contingent
of tough and versatile Marines, enabling you
to address new potential challenges such as
evacuations or taking control of troubled ports.
You have the services working together in new
ways. That enables you to operate perhaps with
fewer ships and personnel but with greater efficiency and effectiveness. This isn't downsizing
for its own sake. It's rightsizing for security's


281




Mar. 12 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


sake.
The changes on board the Theodore Roosevelt
preview the changes I believe we must pursue
throughout our military. We must keep, however, a few core ideas in mind as we pursue
those changes. Our military must be exceptionally mobile, with first-rate sealift, airlift, and the
ability to project power. And there is no more
awesome example of that than the fearsome
striking power that can be launched from the
deck of this mighty ship.
Our military must also be agile, with an emphasis on maneuver, on speed, on technological
superiority. That's exactly what the special purpose Marine air ground task force you have on
board is all about. Our fire power must be precise, so that we can minimize the exposure to
harm for the men and women who wear our
uniforms and reduce civilian casualties where
we must act.
Our military increasingly needs to be flexible
so that we can cooperate with diverse coalition
partners in very different parts of the world.
And we must be smart, with the intelligence
and communications we need for the complex
threats we face. And I might say I was deeply
impressed with a wide array of communications
equipment that many of you showed me today.
Above all else, we must always be ready, given
the unpredictability of new threats.
None of these goals are possible unless we
have a quality force. You, the crew of this ship,
exemplify that quality with your skills, your experience, your training, and your dedication,
many of you at astonishingly young ages. You
have shown me that you know how to get the
job done. I know our Nation can now have
confidence that America's vital interests are well
protected.
While all of you from the grapes on the roof
to the aviators in the ready rooms, to the snipes
in the holes, while you carry out your missions
so far from home over the next few months,
we back at home will be engaged in a raging
debate about defense policy. As you watch the
news on CNN or read the newspapers that are
delivered here to your ship, you will hear us
talk of roles and missions. You will see news
about bases and budgets. But as we reduce defense spending, we will not leave the men and
the women who helped to win the cold war
out in the cold. As bases close, and they must,
we must not close our eyes and hearts to the
need for new investments to create opportuni

ties in the communities with the old bases.
Defense spending has been declining ever
since 1986. But I believe we have not had a
strong enough plan for what to do with the
new defense we are building and with those
who contributed to the old defense; an insufficient plan for military personnel who muster
out; an insufficient plan for civilian workers who
made the wonderful weapons that helped us
to dominate the world who now have lost their
jobs; an insufficient plan for the communities
that have been devastated or for the companies
that have been hurt.
We cannot repeal the laws of change. After
all, you and those who preceded you in uniform
worked so hard, fought so hard, and many died
so that the cold war could be won and we
could rely less on defense and focus more of
our resources on building our economy here
at home. But still, we must act boldly to deal
with the consequences of the changes we face.
That's why it's so important to make the investments we need in defense conversion and the
education and training in new jobs and new
industries but also to continue to make the investments we need in the defense that must
be there for the United States and for the world
tomorrow.
As you follow the news of these events during
your voyage, while our voyage back home into
this great debate is taking place, I ask you to
remember this: As your Commander in Chief,
I am immensely proud of who you are, what
you stand for, and what you are doing. As these
changes proceed, I pledge to you that as long
as I am President, you and the other men and
women in uniform of this country will continue
to be the best trained, the best prepared, the
best equipped, and the strongest supported
fighting force in the world. There is no single
decision I take more seriously than decisions
involving the use of force. As I weigh crises
that confront America around the world, you
will be in my mind and in my heart.
This is a hopeful time, yet one still full of
challenges. It is uncertain, and therefore, we
are glad that missions such as this, while not
darkly framed by the cold war confrontation
with a nuclear adversary, are still smartly focused on the challenges we might face in the
days ahead. Many new duties and dangers are
taking place. And there is no clear direction
for what things we all might have to face in
the future. There is no sonar that can enable


282




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Mar. 12


us to fathom all the changes in the terrain over
which we are now setting sail.
Napoleon had a standing order to his corps
commanders to, quote, "March to the sound
of the guns." He meant that when the shooting
starts on a battlefield, it is the soldier's obligation to move into the fight. Well, today, there
are different security challenges into which we
must march. And at times you who serve our
Nation in uniform may be called upon to answer
not only the sound of guns but also a call of
distress, a summons to keep the peace, even
a cry of starving children. The calls will be more
diverse, but our values remain unchanged. Our
purposes remain clear. And your commitment
to serve remains the linchpin in every new and
continuing effort.
I know this has been a difficult day for many
of you. It can't be easy to leave family and
friends for 6 months at sea, especially when
the challenges before us seem unclear, and
when you wonder whether world events may
or may not place you in harm's way. But I
hope you understand that your work is vitally
important to the United States and to the ComRadio Address to the Armed Forces
March 12, 1993
Good afternoon. I'm coming to you from
aboard the United States ship Theodore Roosevelt, which left yesterday from Norfolk, Virginia, on a 6-month mission. What I've seen
on this ship today only increases my pride not
only in the sailors and marines I met but also
in every soldier, every sailor, every airman, every
marine who serves our Nation, from Rhein-Main
Air Force Base in Germany, where Americans
are leaving to airdrop lifesaving supplies into
Bosnia, to Somalia, where our Armed Forces
have served with great distinction and made
every American proud.
I'm honored to join you on Armed Forces
Radio. I've had many blessings this year: the
privilege of meeting Americans all across our
Nation, the opportunity to hear about their lives
and their dreams for our future, and of course,
the opportunity to become the President of the
United States. But there is no greater honor
than actually serving as America's Commander


mander in Chief.
This is a new and hopeful world but one
full of danger. I am convinced that your country,
through you, has a historic role in trying to
make sure that there is, after all, a new world
order, rooted in peace, dedicated to prosperity
and opportunity.
The American people have placed their faith
in you, and you have placed your life at the
service of your country. The faith is well placed,
and I thank you.
NOTE: The President spoke at 2:25 p.m. in the
hangar bay aboard the ship. In his remarks, he
referred to Adm. Paul David Miller, USN, commander in chief, U.S. Atlantic Command; Adm.
Jay L. Johnson, USN, commander, Carrier Group
8; Capt. Stanley W. Bryant, USN, commanding
officer, U.S.S. Theodore Roosevelt; Capt. C.W.
Moore, USN, commander, Carrier Air Wing 8;
Col. John W. Schmidt, USMC, commander, Special Purpose Marine Air/Ground Task Force,
U.S.S. Theodore Roosevelt; and Gen. William M.
Keys, USMC, commander, Marine Forces Atlantic.


in Chief.
Your work is often dangerous, even when
times are quiet. Your day at the office can be
6 months or longer. And it's not for the money,
it's always for the country. Because America's
Armed Forces are more than the backbone of
our security, you're the shining model of our
best values: dedication and responsibility and the
willingness of you and your loved ones to bear
a tremendous level of sacrifice. You commit your
daily energies and even your lives to benefit
your fellow Americans.
Our armed services stand as one of history's
great successes. Every color, every background,
every region of our society is represented in
America's Armed Forces. The American military
pioneered our Nation's progress toward integration and equal opportunity. It's America's most
effective education and training system. It's constantly adapted to change and always rising to
the challenge of change. You, and all who wear


283




Mar. 12 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


America's uniforms, are what make the United
States a true superpower. It is your skill, your
professionalism, your courage, and your dedication to country and service that constitutes the
muscle, the sinew, and the soul of our strength.
And today I salute you.
I want to say a special word about the Navy
since I'm on board this fine ship today. It means
a lot to a Commander in Chief to have a ready
fleet. When word of a crisis breaks out in Washington, it's no accident that the first question
is: Where is the nearest carrier? This ship's
namesake, President Theodore Roosevelt, once
said, "The Navy of the United States is the
right arm of the United States and is emphatically the peacemaker." Theodore Roosevelt was
the first American ever to win the Nobel Peace
Prize, in part with the help of the United States
Navy.
We have a great stake, you and I, in maintaining a strong American defense and in working
hard even at the end of the cold war. The
Theodore Roosevelt played an important part in
the end of the cold war. In 1988, it was here
that an American Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff first welcomed his Soviet counterpart
to visit an American aircraft carrier. That was
when my friend Admiral William Crowe and
Marshal Sergey Akhromeyev stepped aboard this
ship to meet the crew and watch flight operations just as I have done today. It was a key
milestone on the path to the end of the cold
war.
Less than 5 years later, the world has
changed, faster than anyone could have possibly
guessed. The cold war is over. The Soviet Union
no longer exists. The Warsaw Pact is gone. The
specter of Soviet tanks rolling westward across
the northern German plains no longer haunts
us. But the world remains a dangerous and increasingly an uncertain place. Saddam Hussein
confirmed that. The tragic violence in Bosnia
reminds us of that every day. The proliferation
of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction is unfortunately a growing, not a receding,
menace. And human suffering, such as that in
Somalia, may not threaten our shores but still
requires us to act.
These challenges are new in many ways, but
we dare not overlook their significance. Blinders
never provide security. A changed security environment demands that we change our security
arrangement. Yes, we are reducing the defense
budget because of the end of the cold war,


but we're not downsizing for its own sake, we're
trying to rightsize our security for security's sake.
And as we change, we must keep a few core
ideas in mind: Our military first must be exceptionally mobile, with first-rate sealift, airlift, and
ability to project power. Our military must be
agile, with an emphasis on maneuver, on speed,
and on technological superiority. Our firepower
must be precise so that we can minimize the
exposure to harm for men and women who wear
our uniform and reduce civilian casualties. Our
military must be flexible so that we can operate
with diverse coalition partners in different parts
of the world. Our forces must be smart with
the intelligence and communications we need
for complex threats. And above all, our military
must be ever-ready, given the unpredictability
of new threats.
None of these goals are possible without a
quality force. The people on this ship and all
of you who are listening to me exemplify that
quality. It is your skills, your experience, your
training, and your dedication that will get the
job done for America and guarantee that our
vital interests can be protected.
While all of you carry out your mission so
far from home, we back home will be engaged
in many debates on defense policy. I will tell
you that there are changes which lie ahead. Defense cuts are, and have been for the last several
years, a fact of life, an inescapable consequence
of the new world you've worked so hard to
create. As you watch the news or read newspapers, you will hear us talk of new roles and
missions and you'll see news about bases and
budget cuts. But as we reduce defense spending,
we must not leave the men and women who
won the cold war out in the cold. As these
bases close, as close some of them must, we
must not close our eyes and our hearts to the
need for new investments and a need to create
new jobs in communities with old bases.
Defense spending has been declining since
1986, but there's been no real plan about what
to do on it, no real plan for military personnel
mustered out, no real plan for civilian workers
who have lost their jobs or for the communities
who have been hurt or for the companies who
have been devastated. We can't repeal the laws
of change, but we do have a choice: We can
be buffeted by change, or we can act boldly
to use this change to make our country stronger
and safer and smarter. That's why it's so important to make the investments we need in de

284




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Mar. 13


fense conversion, in education and training and
new jobs in new industries. I want to help ensure that those of you who choose to leave the
military in the years to come return to a nation
of jobs and growth and opportunity.
As you follow the news of all these changes,
I ask you to remember this: I am immensely
proud of who you are and what you're doing.
And as these changes proceed I pledge that
as long as I am your President, you and the
other men and women in uniform will continue
to be the best trained, the best prepared, the
best equipped fighting force in the world. There
is no single decision I take more seriously than
those involving the use of force. As I weigh
crises that confront America around the world,
you will be in my mind and in my heart.
This is, on balance, a very hopeful time. But
still, it is full of challenges. We can be glad
that your mission is not darkly framed by the
cold war's confrontation with a nuclear adversary. But many new duties and dangers are taking the place of that single stark threat, some
of them yet unknown. There is no sonar, no
radar that can enable us to fathom all the
changes in terrain over which we are about to
set sail.
Napoleon had a standing order to his corps
The President's Radio Address
March 13, 1993
Good morning. I want to talk with you about
a decision Americans will make very soon, one
that will determine the future of our country,
our communities, our companies, and our jobs.
All around us, we see changes transforming
our economy. Global competition, new technologies, and the reductions in military spending
after we won the cold war. We can't stop the
world from changing, but there is one decision
we can and must make. Will we leave our people and our Nation unprepared for changes that
are remaking our world, or will we invest in
our people's jobs, our education, our training,
our technology to build a high-skilled, high-wage
future for ourselves and for our children?
The choice is especially urgent because of
the reductions in military spending here at
home. Yesterday I visited the U.S.S. Theodore


commanders to, quote, "March to the sound
of the gun." He meant that when the shooting
starts on a battlefield, it is the soldier's obligation to move into the fight. Today, there are
many different security challenges into which
we must all move. And at times, you who serve
our Nation in uniform may be called upon to
answer not only the sound of guns but also
the call of distress, or a summons to keep the
peace in a troubled part of the world, or even
the cry of starving children. The cause may be
more diverse, but our values must remain unchanged, our purposes clear. And your commitment to serve remains the linchpin in every
new and continuing effort.
I know that for some of you listening to me
today, this is a difficult time. You have left your
family, your friends, your home. I hope you
understand that your work is vitally important
to your fellow Americans and to the President
and to this very new and very hopeful world
we are trying to nourish and to build. The
American people have great faith in what you
do. Their faith is well placed, and I thank you
for your service.
NOTE: The President spoke at 3:03 p.m. from the
U.S.S. Theodore Roosevelt.


Roosevelt. That aircraft carrier and its crew
served with distinction during the Gulf war.
There's no greater honor than serving as their
Commander in Chief. As long as I'm President,
the men and women who wear our Nation's
uniforms will continue to be the best trained,
best prepared, and best equipped fighting force
in the world.
We must never forget that the world is still
a dangerous place. Our military is continuing
to change, not to downsize for its own sake
but so that we can meet the challenges of the
21st century. In the post-cold-war era, our military can be cut even while we maintain the
forces necessary to protect our interests and our
people.
The preliminary announcements of base closings in this morning's paper are part of that


285




Mar. 13 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


process. What we need to decide is whether
we will invest in the economic security of the
people who defend our national security. For
the past 4 years our Government has done essentially nothing. Since 1989, 300,000 soldiers,
sailors, and flyers have been mustered out of
the service. One hundred thousand civilian employees of the Defense Department have also
lost their jobs. And 440,000 workers from defense industries have been laid off.
As the business magazine Fortune has reported, these cuts cost 840,000 jobs over the
past 4 years. That's more than the combined
total layoffs at GM, IBM, AT&T, and Sears.
Too many of the men and women affected by
defense cuts are still looking for full-time jobs
or working at jobs that pay much lower wages
and use fewer of their skills.
These Americans won the cold war. We must
not leave them out in the cold. That's why I
propose a new national strategy to make these
Americans have the training, the skills, and the
support they need to compete and win in the
post-cold-war economy.
Last year the Congress appropriated $1.4 billion for defense conversion activities. But the
previous administration did not put any of that
money to work. Our administration's plan gets
those funds moving immediately and calls for
an additional $300 million in resources, for a
total of $1.7 billion this year alone, and for
nearly $20 billion over the next 5 years.
Our plan invests in job training and employment services for military personnel and defense
workers who have been displaced by declining
military spending. And we'll make sure that
every community affected by a base closing will
have the help they need right away to plan
for new businesses and new jobs. It takes 3
to 5 years for a base to close. We need to
use that time to be ready.
That's why I'm proposing a national strategy
to make sure that all these communities and
all these workers can use this valuable time to
plan and to acquire the tools to build a new
future.
Our plan also invests in dual use technologies,
that is, those that have both civilian and military
applications and in advanced civilian technologies as well. With these technologies, defense companies can create new products and
new jobs.


Americans have the ingenuity to adapt to
changing times. On Thursday I visited a defense
plant just outside Baltimore that is using military
technology to make products for commercial
use. I wish you could have seen what I saw.
Police cars with computer screens that display
photographs of missing children and radar systems that warn the commercial airlines about
sudden wind currents that cause accidents. I
saw an electric car that will run 80 miles an
hour, and run for more than 120 miles before
being recharged.
With a national economic strategy, more companies will be able to make the most of changes
that are affecting not only defense but every
industry, and will be able to make products like
these. Our economic plan cuts Government
spending that we don't need and brings down
the Federal deficit that threatens our future.
But just as important, our plan also makes
the investments that we do need in our children's schools, our workers' skills, cutting-edge
technologies, and our transportation and communications networks. This plan will create 8
million jobs, building the foundation for a new
era where every American can profit, prosper,
and produce.
In the days ahead you'll hear a great debate
in Congress about this plan. Some will say, don't
cut anything; some will say, don't invest in anything. But what many of them are really saying
is, don't change anything, because failing to invest and failing to reduce the deficit means failing to change the status quo.
I'm confident that Congress and the country
will choose a new direction for America, making
our Government more effective and less expensive, and making the investments that make us
smarter, stronger, and more secure. I ask you
to express your support for this approach to
Senators and Representatives. Those who support our entire plan should be supported.
They're cutting spending that we don't need
and investing more in what we do need.
It's been said that while change is certain,
progress is not. Together, we can turn away
from drift and decline and choose a new direction with hope and growth and opportunity for
every American.
NOTE: The President spoke at 10:06 a.m. from
the Oval Office at the White House.


286




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Mar. 13


Interview With the Southern Florida Media
March 13, 1993


The President. Good morning. Last August,
Hurricane Andrew devastated south Florida. Essential services were wiped out, and although
6 months later basic services have been restored,
the progress toward redevelopment has been
minimal.
Two weeks ago I asked Secretary Cisneros
to go to south Florida and assess the situation,
to try to evaluate what was holding up Federal
efforts, and report back to me. As a result of
the initial work done by the Secretary, I have
released a seven-point plan to ensure that the
remainder of the Federal funds dedicated to
hurricane relief can be used for long-term building efforts now needed for south Florida. That
seven-point plan includes the following:
First, the Federal Emergency Management
Agency will stay on the job in south Florida
for as long as it takes to help the residents
of south Dade. They will expedite removal of
debris that litters the streets, keep the trailers
in place as long as people need housing, and
continue to promptly reimburse owners and assist renters.
Second, the physical and mental health of
south Dade residents is critically important. The
people of this community need help to cope
with the problems that have loomed large in
the last 6 months and that still lie ahead. Therefore, the Department of Health and Human
Services will accelerate its efforts to inoculate
residents against disease and, additionally, will
fund crisis and counseling centers for the many
children and adults now experiencing severe
emotional problems as a result of the traumatic
experiences they have undergone.
Third, housing continues to be the single largest need in south Dade. Thousands are homeless. Many more are living in tents, trailers, with
friends and relatives, and other temporary quarters. As you know, they are under particular
distress today because of the storm that is
sweeping up our coast. The Department of
Housing and Urban Development will put $100
million in reprogrammed funds in the most flexible programs available, such as home and community development block grants, to rebuild
housing in south Dade. Additionally, HUD will
open an office in south Dade with community


development, public housing, and fair housing
capabilities to ease the rebuilding efforts.
Fourth, I have requested the Department of
Defense to release the $76 million Congress
appropriated to help facilitate the rebuilding of
those facilities at Homestead Air Force Base
that are critical to the future use of the base,
to explore the possibility of joint military and
civilian uses of the base, and to make sure we
do everything we can in the transition period
to serve the people who are in south Dade
County.
Fifth, agriculture is a vital economic resource
in south Florida. The Department of Agriculture
will transfer several hundred million dollars to
programs to assist with emergency conservation,
debris removal on farmlands, and housing for
migrant farm workers.
Sixth, recognizing the need to provide assistance to property owners who must comply with
the Government's rebuilding requirements in
flooded areas, we have made this one of our
highest priorities, and we are looking for ways
to address this issue.
And finally, in order to effectively coordinate
our efforts, I believe we need local leadership
and the Secretary does, too. As a result, Secretary Cisneros and I have asked Otis Pitts, Jr.,
a highly respected nonprofit developer of affordable housing in the Miami area to coordinate
our efforts in south Dade. I met Otis last year
on one of my many trips to the Miami area.
I was very impressed with what he had done.
I think I want to emphasize to all of you
that these actions, in my view, only constitute
the beginning of our long-term commitment to
south Florida. Through the leadership of Secretary Cisneros and Mr. Pitts and the coordinated efforts of the community, I believe we
can find the resources, develop the solutions,
and maintain the spirits and the commitment
necessary to ensure the economic, political, social, and physical vitality of south Dade County.
I'd like now to ask the Secretary to make
a few remarks and then to introduce Mr. Pitts
for whatever he would like to say.
[At this point, Secretary Cisneros and Mr. Pitts
made brief statements.]
The President. Let me just make one more


287




Mar. 13 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


remark, and then we'll be available for questions. I also want to acknowledge the work of
Jeff Watson, a valued member of the White
House staff, who is a native of Florida and who
has worked very, very hard on this with Secretary Cisneros and me. And again, I want to
thank Otis for being willing to take on this task.
We plan this to be a very long-term and intense
effort, and I'm looking forward to producing
some results.
Homestead Air Force Base
Q. Mr. President, on behalf of the people
of south Florida, we all thank you for your efforts on the economic and emotional side. But
there is also the perception of threat. We are
going to be living with the closing of Homestead
Air Force Base, closer to a Cuban military air
force base than to an American Air Force base.
And several years ago, a Cuban general said
that the Cuban Government had a plan in case
of a crisis, of attacking Turkey Point nuclear
plant. Can you tell us if the Federal Government can tell the people of south Florida, yes,
you are safe, yes, we're going to take care of
you, that perception of threat?
The President. Yes, I can say that categorically. The Pentagon has considered very carefully what the possible threats to this country's
security are and before making any of those
recommendations. But let me also say one of
the things that I have advocated very stronglyand just in the last couple of days I've talked
to Senator Graham and Governor Chiles about
this-is releasing the money that was approved
last year by the Congress to rebuild Homestead
for purposes that will permit us always to have
access to joint use of that air base if we need
it.
And let me just mention that Secretary Aspin
and I had another long conversation yesterday
morning about this. We want to rebuild the
airstrip and make sure that it is adequate to
take any kind of planes. We need to rebuild
the control tower. We want the facility, during
the transition period, at a minimum to be available for use for the Reserves, for the Guard,
for the DEA, for any Coast Guard operations,
all of the things that might make possible longterm dual use planning and would also make
the base a valuable facility in the event that
the community decided that they wanted to
have it for some potential commercial use, or
in the event that we can use it for both commer

cial and Government uses. So in any case, we're
going to rebuild the capacity of the air base
to actually engage in operations, which I think
is terribly important.
Federal Rebuilding Effort
Q. Mr. President, why do you think that the
progress in the rebuilding effort has been so
unsatisfactory so far? Do you think the Bush
administration botched the job?
The President. I don't want to get into that.
I don't know. All I know is that not long after
I took office, the people I know in south Dade
County reminded me of what I had seen there
and talked to me about how important it was
to get things moving. And I asked Secretary
Cisneros to go down there and conduct a firsthand assessment of the operation. He said we
needed someone on the ground who knew the
community and could get things done, and that
there were lots of things we could do to push
the money through the pipeline that had already
been approved that hadn't been done. And he
came up with this plan, working with Jeff Watson, and Otis Pitts agreed to help us. So I
don't want to go into what happened before,
I just want to try to get things done now.
Homestead Air Force Base
Q. Mr. President, after you toured south
Dade on September 3d, you said at a news
conference, "It is my belief that there is a mission for Homestead. It is still the closest major
airstrip to Cuba, and it still has the potential
to play a major role in our effort to reduce
drug trafficking." Now, do you think that your
statement today and your seven-point plan is,
in a sense, a fulfillment of what you had said
September 3d, or do you think that in fact you
would be willing to listen to Dante Fascell or
people from south Florida who are going to
try to tell you that Homestead should remain
a functioning Air Force base?
The President. Well, let me tell you the decision I had to make on that. The series of base
closings that were announced yesterday are the
third of four series of base closings that will
be announced. All the services did what they
were required to do under the law. They assessed what they needed and what the infrastructure of the country was and what they
thought ought to do done.
The Secretary of Defense then forwarded the
list, after having tried to evaluate the aggregate


288




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Mar. 13


economic impact of the past three base closings,
and something only the Secretary can do, which
is to evaluate the cumulative impact of the recommendations of the Air Force, the Army, and
the Navy, since they didn't review each other's
recommendations before they were made.
I did not believe that I should interfere in
that process. I think that I am open to any
arguments anybody wants to make, and I think
the base commission will be, too. Keep in mind,
this is the biggest round of base closings we've
ever announced. The base closing commission
did make adjustments, modest adjustments in
previous recommendations coming out of the
Pentagon, and they may well make some this
time.
But the conclusion that I reached is that at
this point, I should let the services make their
recommendation, the Secretary do his economic
evaluation, then let the recommendations go to
the commission and try to get all these arguments out in the public. But in any case, if
we can get the money released and we can
rebuild the airstrip itself and the control tower
and some of the facilities, then we will be able
to meet at least the security needs of the area
and also develop what could be an immensely
valuable long-term economic resource to the
people of south Dade County, something that
has the potential, I think, of being a far bigger
economic impact even than the base was.
Q. Mr. President, in south Florida there is
a feeling among some people, a sense of betrayal. They thought they had tantamount to a
promise that you would restore Homestead Air
Force Base in some form or fashion. Longrange, what specifically will you do to blunt the
economic impact? Because what you're saying
sounds like it will help a little bit, but it won't
replace
The President. I disagree with that. First of
all, I also made it clear to the people of south
Florida that we had a base closing commission
process and a United States Congress that had
roles in this, and there is no prospect whatever
that the Congress would have appropriated any
money to fully rebuild that base with it on the
base closing list until the commission ruled on
it, one way or the other. I mean, that is just
not an option. There wasn't a 10 percent, a
5 percent chance that that would be done, with
the Air Force saying we don't need the base
and it being submitted under law to the base
closing commission.


I would remind you that the Congress appropriated $76 million to rebuild, to do rebuilding
work at the base that the previous administration
did not release. I support releasing the money.
I'm going to aggressively work to rebuild the
airstrips and to rebuild the control tower and
to use the rest of that money to maximize the
potential of both military and civilian uses of
that airstrip. And I would say again to you, it
is an enormous potential resource to south Dade
County. If we handle this right, we can generate
more jobs out of that facility over a period of
a few years even than were presented by the
Air Force.
Q. Mr. President, the joint use proposal
you've talked about a number of times-not just
Homestead, other bases you've mentioned-do
you have something in the back of your mind,
specifically, that you'd like to see there-you're
talking about either a mega-airport, an industrial
development zone, or something like that, or
are you just waiting to hear ideas from the private sector of what could be done there? Do
you have someThe President. In the case of south Dade
County, as you know, there have been people
for years who thought that you could have a
mega-port there, a big commercial airport, perhaps even a newer and bigger airport for passenger traffic, too. And what I think we need
to do is to rebuild the infrastructure; that's what
I'm saying. Try to maintain some basic functions
there, the Guard function, the Reserve function,
the DEA function. I hope I can get an approval
to go along with that, and then see what happens as we explore possibilities with the people
who live in south Dade County.
The only thing I want to point out to you
is that it is an immensely valuable resource,
and that one of the areas of our economy that
everyone projects to grow in the next 10 years
is the area of commercial aviation, not just passengers but also freight, mail, and other things.
So I think that one of the things we know for
sure is, if we don't rebuild the strip and we
don't rebuild the control tower, nothing good
can occur. We know that for sure.
We know, too, in my judgment that the Federal Government has an obligation to do that.
Let me just give you-if you go back-even
if let's say the whole thing were going to be
shut down in 3 years under the base closing.
No dual use, no nothing. Every other place in
the country with a base that's about to be shut


289




Mar. 13 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


down has a resource right now that could be
turned over to the local community that's worth
a lot of money.
The Homestead base is not worth what it
ought to be until it's rebuilt. So what I want
to do is to focus on rebuilding it so that it
is a valuable asset-the airstrip and the control
tower, at least, and maybe some other facilities
there-and then see what we can do, see what
we can do in terms of joint use, and see what
the community wants to do in terms of potential
uses. I do have some specific ideas, but I think,
frankly, that the people down there will have
better ideas than I do.
Haiti
Q. I have two foreign questions. Yesterday
in Haiti, the military arrested a man who was
granted asylum by the United States and was
at the airport with U.S. officials. What are you
going to do about that? And second, Mr.
Aristide, who was going to meet you next week,
is urging you to set a date for his return. Is
that feasible?
The President. First of all, I'm very upset
about what happened to Haiti. The man was
returned by error, frankly. He should be given
status in this country. And this is a very serious
thing. We are actually meeting on it today to
see what our options are.
Q. Would that
The President. But we believe that, strongly
that the Haitian Government should release him
so that he can be brought back here, and we
believe it very strongly, and we are discussing
it today.
As to your second question, I think that I
should leave my conversations with President
Aristide until we have them. But I am committed to the restoration of democracy in Haiti.
It is the only thing that will fully resolve the
economic problems and the enormous social dislocation and the enormous numbers of people
who are willing to risk their lives to leave the
island, hundreds of whom have lost their lives
trying to leave the island, and I think you will
see this administration taking a more active role.
I have tried to exercise some restraint in my
remarks, because I believe it's important that


what we do, we do with the Organization of
the American States and with the United Nations and in tandem with the Caputo mission
to Haiti. I don't think it should look as if the
United States is alone dictating policy there. But
the people who have power now cannot hold
it inevitably. They've got to recognize that the
people of Haiti voted in overwhelming numbers
for a democratic government, and they're entitled to it. They are entitled, those people, to
human rights protections just like everybody
else. They're entitled not to be subject to violence and abuse of their own rights and existence, and I think we can work out such an
arrangement, and I think we can work it out
in the not-too-distant future.
All I can tell you is, I've spent a lot of time
on Haiti, I'm working hard on it. And the United States will become increasingly insistent that
democracy be restored.
Cuba
Q. Some in Congress, including Congressman
Torricelli, are asking for the U.S. to spearhead
the internationalization of the U.S. embargo
against Cuba, specifically going to the United
Nations and the Security Council. What is your
position?
The President. Well, first I'd like to talk to
Congressman Torricelli about it. I'm not sure
the Security Council is open to that, but I'll
be glad to talk to-he may know more about
it than I do, and I'll be glad to talk to him
about it. But as you know, I supported the
Cuban Democracy Act when he conceived it
and pushed it, and I supported it all during
last year. I was pleased when it was signed,
and the United States intends to honor it. But
just last week, one member of the Security
Council strongly disagreed with our policy there,
and so I think it's highly questionable that we
could get the Security Council to go along.
NOTE: The President spoke at 11 a.m. via satellite
from the Roosevelt Room at the White House.
In his remarks, he referred to Jeffrey Watson,
Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy Director of Intergovernmental Affairs, and Dante
Caputo, U.NJOAS Special Envoy to Haiti.


290




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Mar. 13


Interview With the Connecticut Media
March 13, 1993


East Coast Winter Storm
The President. I'm sorry I'm a little late, but
I'm trying to make sure we're doing what we
need to do about the storm, which, as you know,
is moving up the coast with winds very heavy
now in the South Carolina area. And the center
of the storm is projected to reach here as late
as 7 o'clock tonight, so it will come to you
sometime in the middle of the night. And we're
working hard, but I wanted to get an update
and see what FEMA was doing. And we're going
to be talking today about what other resources
we ought to make available.
I think the only thing I would say is that
we have shared all the information we have with
all the State governments involved, and I think
people should simply exercise caution, because
it's easy to go from what seems to be a nice
big snowstorm to these very rapid winds. And
the more you can keep telling people when the
winds are coming, I think the better off we'll
be. Once you get north of Washington, most
people are fairly well-prepared for heavy doses
of snow, even if it's the biggest they've had
in years. But the winds are of great concern.
Whatever you can do to make sure your people
know that there are winds coming-and unless
this storm dissipates, that can be serious; that
would call for them to exercise great caution
as the center of the storm approaches, which
will be sometime late, late tonight for youI'd appreciate it. Questions?
Defense Conversion
Q. Yes, sir. Can we talk about the defense
cutbacks in Connecticut?
The President. Sure.
Q. You have a $1.7 billion plan for retraining
and dual use technology. You've got $350 billion
set aside for FY '93. I guess the bottom line
is, when we hear in Connecticut, for example
Pratt & Whitney, they're going to be laying off
7,000 people, sir, for people that are facing unemployment, the people who are unemployed,
when are they going to see some of that money
come to them this year? And is the infrastructure already in place to see that those industries
are targeted that need it and the money gets
there?


The President. Well, let's back up a minute.
The Congress appropriated this money months
and months and months ago. There was a big
debate, and the previous administration basically
didn't believe that this was a big problem, so
they never released any of the money. In the
last few weeks, we have worked very hard to
put together a plan that would release over $1
billion this year in defense conversion.
In addition to that, let me just say, apropos
of the Connecticut economy specifically, if the
Congress passes the stimulus plan that I have
recommended to try to jumpstart the economies
of the States with high unemployment rates,
Connecticut should receive about $118 million,
just out of the stimulus package, in funds for
community development block grants and Federal highway construction and clean water and
clean drinking water efforts and urban transit
money. So all that will be coming into the State,
and obviously that will create a lot of jobs. Some
of those jobs will be created in the same areas
where the defense jobs have been lost.
Now, to go back to your original question,
we're going to move the job training money,
the community assistance money, and the new
technology money as quickly as we can. By and
large, in most States there is a retraining infrastructure which will accommodate it. The infrastructure we need to create, frankly, is to make
sure there's a good partnership between the Defense Department, the Commerce Department,
and all the other Federal Agencies and communities, so that communities can take money and
begin immediately planning to generate new
jobs. And we need a better partnership between
the Government and the private contractors to
make sure that they have as much lead time
as possible to plan to put new technologies into
effect or to take their defense technologies and
convert them into commercial products.
I'm sure all of you saw the press when I
went to Baltimore to the Westinghouse plant.
To assist in that regard, we're going to do two
things. First, we've got all the Federal Agencies
involved to put together a book which can be
made available to every defense contractor in
America, which shows the resources and the
efforts that can be made by the Advanced Re

291




Mar. 13 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


search Products Agency, the Commerce Department, the Energy Department, which controls
the Federal labs where a lot of this research
is done, the Defense Department, NASA, and
others.
Secondly, we're going to go out across the
country now and hold meetings that are literal
workshops for defense contractors to try to get
them involved in this process before the contracts run out. The thing that has bothered me
about this all along is that these contracts have
been canceled, and then someone comes along
and says, well, why don't you think of something
else to do? So what we're going to try to do
is to develop an ongoing relationship with defense contractors which will permit them to plan
for conversion, even as they're still producing
whatever products they're contracted to produce
by the Defense Department. And this whole
thing has to be coordinated in a much more
disciplined fashion than it has been in the past.
And that's why I've set up this defense conversion group, to do.
Let me just make one other point, since the
Department of Defense yesterday announced
another round of base closings and realignments,
which would be modest compared to the contracting losses you've had. There would be a
reduction of 2200 jobs in Connecticut around
the submarine operations. Here is the dilemma
for us-and I want to just put that out here
so you will be able to evaluate what happens
in the future. We've had two rounds of base
closings so far. They've been fairly modest. And
this announcement from the Pentagon was pretty big. And there will be another one in 1995.
Keep in mind, all these bases that were on
that list, even if the commission approves them
for closing or realignment, they won't be closed
for 3 to 5 years. That gives us real time to
plan, if we do it. If we really have an aggressive
plan, it gives us time to plan the futures of
the men and women in uniform who may be
mustered out. It gives us time to plan for the
futures of the communities and the civilian employees.
Let me ask you to consider what happens
when you don't do this. On the plan we're on
now, if we don't close any more bases, we will
have by 1997 reduced defense by 40 percent,
personnel in uniform by 35 percent, overseas
deployments by 56 percent, and base structure
by 9 percent. Now, what does that mean to
Connecticut? It means that if you-because of


the incredible difficulty of closing domestic
bases, it means if you don't close any of them
and you have this defense budget going down,
that means more reductions in contracts. It
means it hurts the plants and where the hightech production is done even more.
One of the reasons that we have to close
some more bases is, with a reduced Armed
Forces at the end of the cold war, we have
got to maintain a very, very high level of technological superiority and military readiness, which
means we still are going to have a very significant amount of military contracts out there in
high technology areas. But you could argue that
over the long run, the States that have a lot
of the plants that do this work, like Connecticut,
California, and others, would be better off if
we can exercise the discipline to close the bases
in a way that is humane and fair and economically advantageous. So that's what we're trying
to do.
Sea Wolf Submarine Program
Q. Mr. President, John Baxter from Associated Press. As you know, I'm sure, part of your
reputation in Connecticut regarding defense
stems from your comments during the campaign
in support of the Sea Wolf, and I'm sure you
know what an important program that is in
terms of jobs up there. I wonder if I could
ask you if you could tell us at this point what
your plans are for the Sea Wolf, and more generally, what your comments to the people of
Connecticut would be now that we're beyond
the campaign and into the administration and
defense spending is going down sharply?
The President. Well, you remember what my
position was on the Sea Wolf, which is that
I thought at least one more ship should be completed than the administration said, and then
we should, in effect, transform the operation
to produce a smaller follow-on ship. That is
what I believed, and interestingly enough, that's
what I was advised by the people with whom
I was consulting back in 1991 was the best policy. Contrary to a lot of the things which were
written in and out of Connecticut, it didn't have
much to do with the Connecticut primary. I
didn't even know if I'd be politically alive in
the Connecticut primary in November and December of 1991 when we were trying to evaluate
these decisions. I see no reason in my own
mind to change that position.
Now, what we are doing now with the De

292




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Mar. 13


fense Department-let me tell you what we
have to face. What we are doing now is to
try to see what our options are for proceeding
both with contracts and with personnel, with
the new budget targets we're going to be required to meet. I'm hopeful that both the Senate and the House will adopt my defense budget
cuts without cutting them anymore. And if so,
then we may be able to pursue the course that
I outlined in the campaign.
But let me tell you, there is one other problem. I just want to make you aware of this,
and we won't know exactly what the end of
it is until, oh, about 2 weeks from now. The
budget that the Department of Defense has that
was approved by the last Congress includes several billions of dollars in management savings
in the Department of Defense which the Secretary of Defense, Mr. Cheney, offered and
which the Congress accepted, which are now
being questioned. That is, it's now being questioned about whether these management savings
are real. And a special committee has been appointed to review the budget and to see whether
or not, in effect, the Congress has approved
a cut which can't be realized simply by reorganizing the Defense Department in management savings. We were advised to put another
$10 billion in reduction on our defense budget
at the end of this cycle, in fiscal year '97, as
a hedge against the fact that as much as $30
billion of those management savings by FY '97
may not be real.
Now, let me tell you what that means practically since we're all committed to certain deficit reduction targets. What that means is that
if these management savings which the Congress
has already budgeted for from the previous administration don't turn out to be real, we'll have
a very serious question to address. I am resisting
further cuts in defense, apart from the $10 billion extra one I agreed to try to absorb at the
end of this process. But I just want you to
be aware of the fact that that is out there and
that this is sort of an ongoing debate in-house
here. We're trying to figure out-the Secretary
of Defense is working with the services to see
what they believe we should do and to work
out the best possible result.
Q. But the Sea Wolf question relating to this
upcoming budget remains an open question
until notice
The President. I think it is an open question,
but I haven't changed my position on it. But


I cannot tell you it's a lock-cinch deal because
of what's happened, because of this-this is sort
of a wild card for us-and because I'm obviously
involved with the Congress now in trying to
work through this.
Q. Brian Thomas at WTIC in Hartford. General Dynamics as a corporation, producer of the
Sea Wolf, as you know, openly is not embracing
the dual use concept. They are staying with defense as a livelihood. Is this kind of approach
in your view something that's viable, given this
situation we have now, or will they sign on to
this eventually?
The President. Well, it depends. Let me say
what I mean by that. It depends on what General Dynamics or any other kind of company
in this position projects will be the future demand for defense products that they can
produce. Let me give you an example. For example, Sikorsky in Connecticut and another one
of your helicopter companies I think is up in
employment. And a lot of our allies may well
be buying more short-haul aircraft and may be
buying more helicopters in the future for more
limited and different kinds of military operations. So there's no question that some military
contractors will be able to continue to fullyor almost all military contractors-and do well.
And there will be some things where the demand for products will actually increase. We,
the United States, will be buying some new
military products and technology that we have
not purchased in the past. So some people will
be there.
On the other hand, with the overall budget
going down and, therefore, with both the size
of the Armed Forces and at least the guaranteed
replacement of old products being less, a number of these defense contractors are going to
have to look for alternative products. And I
don't know enough about what General Dynamics' options are to know whether that's the right
or the wrong decision. All I can tell you is
that we're prepared to assist with joint research
and development efforts and everything else in
our power. We're prepared to assist those companies that are serious about converting. The
Westinghouse plant-let me just tell you, the
one in Maryland I visited-5 years ago was 16
percent nondefense. Today it's 27 percent
nondefense. By 1995 it'll be 50-plus percent
nondefense. And what I think you're going to
see-I'll just make a prediction where I think
you're going to see in many areas-is a kind


293




Mar. 13 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


of a blending where the defense-nondefense line
is regularly crossed and where the technology
is being used for both civilian and military purposes. For example, at Westinghouse we saw
some things making full circle. We saw military
technology producing a civilian product; then
we saw civilian technology being marketed back
to the military for the first time. So I think
that this will become a blurry line.
Now, submarines have few uses other than
military. I mean, it's hard to imagine-you
know, maybe some weather uses there, maybe
nonmilitary uses for submarines in the environmental area, particularly around the poles and
other things. But I just think-I wish I could
give you a yes or no answer, but I'd have to
know more about what their options are and
what they project the products to be.
Q. When you say completion of another submarine, are you talking about the third or the
second, since the second hasn't really started
yet? And if the submarine fleet is to be reduced
to 40 to 45 submarines, when do you envision
funding for the next generation and what would
it look like?
The President. I can't answer that yet because
that's one of the things we have under review.
But I will be glad to try to get you an answer
from the Defense Department as quickly as I
can. The last time I had a conversation about
this, there was a general consensus that the design of the Sea Wolf was not necessary in terms
of its size, bulk, given a declining Soviet threat
and breathtaking drops in production there for
their own capacity, but that we still needed and,
in fact, were quite dependent on submarine
technology to maintain our overall military superiority, but that there ought to be one designed
that was smaller and quicker and could do more
different things. And so we're working on that.
But I don't have-I can't answer the specifics
you've asked.
Russia
Q. [Inaudible]-the developments in the
former Soviet Union right now with Boris
Yeltsin, and how does that fit into your accounting strategy for defense?
The President. Well, obviously, we're all concerned about it. But, you know, I don't think
you could have ever predicted an easy ride for
democracy and for a market economy in a country which had never had a market economy and
which had the courage to try to seek democracy


at the same time. So I view all these things
with-I'm interested in it, I'm concerned about
it, but as far as I'm concerned, he is still the
only person who's been elected President of the
country, and I believe he genuinely believes in
economic reforms and political democracy. And
I think we should support that. And I'm going
to do what I can to be supportive.
I think that if the major countries, the C7 countries that are in a position to support
those movements would show a more coordinated and aggressive approach to the problems,
it might be possible to build a consensus in
Russia for how they would work with all of
us. Every elected official has his or her political
opponents. That's part of the way the system
works. And an awful lot of the people that are
in the Russian legislature were active members
of the Communist Party. So you would expect
it to be somewhat less reformist than he is.
Plus a lot of them are responding to the cries
of their own people for help. They're in deep
trouble economically.
My own view is there are a lot of things
that can be done, that that country can still
have a bright future as part of a peaceful coalition of nations in the world. And I just hope
that we'll have the opportunity to do it. I was
encouraged in my meeting with President Mitterrand that he seemed very willing to adopt
an aggressive posture toward trying to do more.
And I'll do the best I can to be ready on April
4th, which is just a few days from now, with
my meeting with President Yeltsin.
Q. Would you support him still if he suspends
the Parliament? And also, if he calls in military
force, would you support him? Also, what would
you say to those who are saying you're relying
too much on his survival?
The President. Well, first of all, I don't think
that it would serve any useful purposes for me
to try to interpret the Russian constitution right
now and what it does or doesn't mean or what
we would or wouldn't respond to. The United
States supports democracy and economic reform
in Russia.
Now, in terms of whether we're putting too
much reliance on Yeltsin personally, my answer
to that is, we will work with what we have
to work with, whatever happens. But I think
we should support him because he has been
elected, after all. I mean, there was an election;
the people voted for him. And he represents
a passionate commitment to democracy and eco

294




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Mar. 13


nomic reform. And he's gotten, frankly, in my
judgment, from the major countries of the world
who have a stake, not just a political but an
economic stake in Russia, an inadequate response to date.
So I'm trying to do what I can to muster
the support to do more, because I think it's
very much in America's interests, and he's the
person that I think I should work with. He
is the elected President of Russia. That is a
fact. And I hope he will continue to be the
elected President of Russia. But the United
States has an interest in a Russia that is not
hostile to us, that is not a military enemy, and
that, frankly, has a whole lot more economic
growth than the Russia that we know does now.
And I'm just trying to respond to that. I think
that working with him is the best way to do
it at this time, and I believe-I'll say againno one knows what's going to happen. But the
man is an honest democrat small "d" -and
he's passionately committed to reform. And I
want to keep working with him.
Defense Conversion
Q. Mr. President, diversification is a goal, but
what can you do about the fact that so many
defense manufacturers have been reluctant to
diversify?
The President. All I can do is to try to make
sure that they have the maximum number of
options. Let me give you an example of what
happened yesterday, or the day before yesterday
at the Westinghouse plant. I talked to one of
the people, a woman there who was in charge
of marketing these new products, and I said,
"Tell me what the problems are." She said,
"Well, it's not so much that we can't ever think
of what we could do that might have a
nondefense application, but most of us have
never contracted in the private sector before.
We have never marketed in the private sector.
And we're not sure that what we think will
work, will work." Basically, I think what I have
to do for these defense contractors is to try
to create, through the enormous resources that
the Federal Government has invested in them
over time and has invested in technology research, an environment in which they can at
least visualize and imagine all the potential that
might be there and then the opportunity they
have to make the connections with the private
sector on the civilian side. So that's what we're
going to try to do. I just would say every defense


contractor needs to think about it. The answer
may be no in some cases, but everybody really
needs to think about it and that the Government
is going to be there in a consistent way to do
it.
If you look at every projection of high technology, high-wage employment going well into
the 21st century, the technologies that are there
are things that have often been dealt with in
defense; biotechnology, civilian aviation, computer software. Some of the most sophisticated
imaging in the world is done by the Defense
Department. Now, that's the only thing I would
say. There may be some products which are
not susceptible to civilian spinoffs, but most of
them are.
Legalized Gambling
Q. I don't know if you're aware of it, but
one of the things that's been talked about in
Connecticut, to fill the gap with defense leaving,
is casino gambling. And I wonder if you'd just
share your thoughts with us on how you feel
about legalized gambling coming to a State like
Connecticut, if we should do it?
The President. I'm not the best person in
the world to ask about that because I grew
up in a town that had the largest illegal gambling operation in America-[laughter]-when I
was a kid, until it was shut down in the midsixties.
First of all, I strongly believe it should remain
a question of State law. That is, I don't think
I should decide for you one way or the otheror the Congress. I think that it ought to be
a local question. The second thing I would urge
is that before you do it, you analyze very carefully what the benefits and the costs are, because it is not a free ride. That's the only thing
I'll say. It is not an unmixed blessing. You may
decide that it is, on balance, worth doing, but
it is not an unmixed blessing. If you look at
Nevada, for example, the fastest growing State
in the country, one of the reasons they're growing fast is that they're diversifying away from
gambling toward more broad-based convention
work and other kinds of economic activity. So
that would be my advice. Don't just take it
at face value. And really think about it before
you do it.
Thanks.
Military Base Closings
Q. [Inaudible]-reviewing and tinkering with


295




Mar. 13 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


the base closing list?
The President. No. The Secretary of Defense
had the list, and he made the decisions. The
only thing I asked him to do was to make sure
that he had really evaluated the economic impacts of it all. And he said that he would do
that. The only-he made a point to me that
under the law, the Defense Department is required to do that, and it really couldn't be done
by the services because they made their recommendations based on their needs within their
Interview With the California Media
March 13, 1993
East Coast Winter Storm
The President. Hello, everybody. Welcome to
sunny Washington. [Laughter] I want to basically just answer questions. I brought Mr. Panetta so he could help with any details of any
questions you might have. I'm sorry we're a
little late, but as you might imagine, I've had
to take some time this morning to try to calculate what our response should be to this severe storm that is sweeping the east coast and
that will move over Washington in its center
not until about 7 o'clock tonight. So that's what
I've been working on. And I know it doesn't
concern you except you're here.
Yes.
Military Base Closings
Q. Mr. President, you got some of your highest vote totals from the San Francisco Bay area
when you ran for President: San Francisco 78
percent, Alameda County. A lot of folks out
there are wondering how you're letting them
take such a big hit to lose five facilities when
they're watching southern California facilities
also, some of them being taken care of. What
do you say to the people in the Bay area who
supported you so strongly and now are looking
at themselves taking a pretty big hit?
The President. Well, first of all, those decisions were not made on a political basis, and
I did not intervene individually in those decisions, nor do I think I should have. I'll tell
you what I did do. I asked the Secretary of
Defense to be sure that he fulfilled his legal
responsibility to consider the economic impact


services. So the Air Force and the Army and
the Navy couldn't have foreseen the cumulative
impact on any given State of what they recommended. And that's why the Secretary of Defense went through the process he did. But he
did it. I think it's very important that we leave
the process in that way. And so that's what
we did.
NOTE: The President spoke at 11:42 a.m. in the
Cabinet Room at the White House.


of every State, including California, and because
it's so big, all parts of California, before sending
the list on to the Congress. And he did that
to the best of his ability.
There hadn't been a lot of naval closings in
the first two rounds. The Navy strongly recommended all the sites, including the ones in
the Bay area. I'm concerned about it. If you
look at the whole country, the Bay area and
perhaps Charleston, South Carolina, were the
hardest hit, although the Charleston Yard won't
close entirely.
But the way the process works, it seems to
me, is the only way it can work. And that is
for the services to make their recommendation
and for the Secretary of Defense to try to evaluate the economic impact-something, by the
way, that can't be done by the services because
they don't know what each other is doing; so
if the Secretary of Defense doesn't do it, no
one can, because they've got the Navy, the Air
Force, and the Army cumulatively coming in
with these recommendations-and then to send
it on to the Congress.
I believe that the Bay area ought to doI think we ought to have two things to be sensitive to what's happened there. One is the base
closing commission itself, which has in the two
previous cases made modifications in the services' requests, should consider the strongest argument the Bay area can put together for some
modification of it. But secondly, the areas that
are disproportionately hit, it seems to me,
should receive extra attention from this administration in the new conversion effort that we


296




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Mar. 13


have announced just in the last couple of days.
We are going to put into play this year over
$1 billion in funds not only for worker retraining
but also for community redevelopment and for
the development of new technologies and new
purposes for economic activity where there has
been a severe dislocation.
So I am prepared to do that for the Bay
area, to make a special effort to focus on their
long-term needs so that-and keep in mind, this
is not going to happen overnight, this is a longer
term phaseout-so that by the time the jobs
were actually lost there, we would be ready to
move forward with new economic activity, perhaps even before that time.
Another issue that relates to all the bases in
California, and indeed all the ones in the United
States, is that the environmental cleanup at a
lot of these bases, especially the air bases, has
taken so long that by the time the bases close,
they're not ready to be taken over by local community interests, even though if they were
ready, economic activity would pick up almost
immediately. So another thing we've really focused on is trying to make sure we are moving
as aggressively, as quickly as possible on the
environmental cleanup. I talked to the Secretary
of Defense for an hour about that yesterday
when we were on the helicopter going to visit
the U.S.S. Theodore Roosevelt.
Q. Mr. President, how do you justify, although
it's not your decision, but how would you justify
spending $320 million to close a working capable home for three nuclear carriers in Alameda
to build a facility in-[inaudible]-that was conceived as part of an outdated home-porting
strategy that won't post its first carrier, nuclear
carrier, until 1996, that will require by the
Navy's own estimates at least another $140 million to complete, and that the GAO recommended closing 2 years ago on the grounds
that it was a waste of money to duplicate facilities already present in Alameda?
The President. That's a question you should
ask the Navy and the Secretary of Defense. As
I said, I did not review that list. I didn't think
I should. This law was established-this is the
third round of base closings. The Navy's been
pushing for base closings. I heard about the
GAO report after the list was ultimately released
yesterday, and that's one of the issues I think
the base closing commission ought to be required to confront.
Q. Mr. President, you said politics didn't play


a role in this. Let's not talk politics, let's just
talk simple fairness. Was this list fair to the
Bay area?
The President. Well, let me answer you in
this way. I think that the Secretary of Defense
deleted a couple of the facilities in northern
California because he thought the aggregate economic impact was too great. That's my impression of why he made the decision that he made.
The Bay area still takes a big hit. The Navy
was very adamant about the recommendations
they made and pointed out that very few Navy
installations had been closed previously. If the
Navy can be proved wrong, I think that's something we ought to consider.
I believe that a couple of those facilities, the
Treasure Island one, for example, I think that
the potential of even more economic benefits
by turning some of those facilities over to nonmilitary uses are very great indeed. But again,
I think that the people from the Bay area and
the elected Representatives from California
ought to make the strongest case they can to
the base closing commission.
This is the public process. This sort of enables
me in a way to discuss these things, to get
involved, to evaluate them, because after the
base closing commission makes their recommendations, they send it back to me so that
there's no suggestion of closed doors or behindthe-scenes maneuvering. This is all out-in-theopen debating. And I think that the people in
the Bay area ought to make the strongest case
they can on all these things, including aggregate
fairness, to the base closing commission. I'm
going to review it very closely. I also think they
ought to claim the right to have an extra intense
effort in our conversion process if they're going
to have to eat all these closings.
Q. Mr. President, the Naval Training Center
in San Diego is now on the so-called hit list
when it wasn't before. Do you have any insight
as to why that changed?
The President. No, I don't. What do you mean
it wasn't before?
Q. It never showed up on a list before, the
Naval Training Center, and then it seemed to
be on the list in the newspaper in the morning.
The President. No, because I didn't know
whether the list that was in the press was right
or not. You know, the Long Beach facility was
on that list, and apparently it was not recommended for closing. So I can't comment on
that. San Diego is going to net out a substantial


297




Mar. 13 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


increase in jobs in this. There will be a few
thousand more people employed in the San
Diego area when all these changes are made,
I know that.
Q. Do you know why McClellan was removed
from the list? It was the biggest one that was
removed.
The President. You ought to ask the Secretary
of Defense. The only thing I asked him to do
was to realize that the law imposed on us the
responsibility of seriously taking into account the
aggregate economic impacts not only on this
round of base closings but on the previous two
as well. And I think you should ask him about
that.
Q. Mr. President, the people of California,
the people of Los Angeles understand that we've
got to cut the deficit, so we've got to cut the
defense budget, so we've got to cut bases. But
given the fact that the recession in California
is so deep, many people there feel the timing
is poor to cut so deeply now. What's your view?
The President. If we were cutting now, I
would agree with that. But keep in mind, these
are bases that starting between 3 and 5 years
from now will be closed. And I certainly hope
that 3 years from now the California economy
will be in much better shape than it is now.
Right now, what I'm trying to do is to get
a big infusion of capital into California through
this stimulus program that will put a lot of
money to work in community development block
grants and highway projects and clean water
projects and through some changes in the Federal aid programs that Mr. Panetta and I have
worked very hard on, to try to get several hundred million dollars a year more into California
in recognition of the fact that you have a big
problem with immigrants that the Federal Government has let you struggle with for too long
without appropriate response.
And during this 3-year period, I plan to start
an intense effort to diversify defense contractors'
production, to intensely retrain men and women
who might lose their jobs, and to put real funds
into communities to develop new and different
economic strategies. I think there is an enormous potential in California, if we do all these
things, to rebuild the high-wage job base that
has been so savaged by this.
And let me just make one other point I made
to the State legislators who were here last week
about the base closing issue. Now, this doesn't
answer the Bay area question, I don't pretend.


But in the aggregate, let me make this point.
We started reducing defense spending in 1986 -topped out, and it started going down. And it's
projected to go down until 1997. If we don't
change anything else-let's say we hadn't made
this announcement yesterday. It doesn't answer
any of the detail questions. You may be right
about the specific one. If no announcement had
been made yesterday, here's what would have
been the picture by 1997: a 40-percent reduction in the defense budget, a 35-percent reduction in personnel, a 56-percent reduction in our
presence overseas, and a 9-percent reduction in
bases.
Now, if we permitted that to happen, what
State would be hurt worst? California. Why?
Because California, with 12 percent of the Nation's population, received 21 percent of the
total defense budget last year. Why? Because
you have a lot of the plants that make the hightech defense products that are a critical part
of this country's economic strategy. So the more
you keep bases that can't be justified for strategic purposes, if you keep the same defense cuts,
the more you wind up cutting contracts and
laying factory workers off and putting pressure
on those companies.
So if we want a balanced approach that maintains a smaller but still the best trained and
best equipped military force in the world, with
unquestioned technological superiority, and if
we keep in place an industrial infrastructure that
can be called upon to meet those needs and
to expand if necessary, that's another reason we
have to proceed with discipline on the base closing, so we can build up and maintain the private
sector industrial production we need that gives
us our technological lead.
Q. Mr. President, you made this point a couple of times, and I just want to make sure
that we get it nailed down. Some Members of
Congress are pointing to the exclusion of
McClellan Air Force Base as evidence that the
whole process was contaminated by politics. And
they're saying we're going to get a coalition together, we're going to kill the whole list. What
would you say to those delegates?
The President. I would say to them that, first
of all, they ought to talk to the Secretary of
Defense before they do that. Secondly, if they
didn't want the economic impact on States considered, then that shouldn't have been part of
the legislation. Thirdly, that there is no way
the aggregate economic-let me ask you this:


298




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Mar. 13


Add back in McClellan and the Defense Language Institute to the Bay area closings, and
calculate the impact on northern California, and
add that to the impact on California of the previous two rounds of base closings, and tell me
that that is fair or takes into account the economic impact.
My view is that the Secretary of Defense basically took the list that was submitted to him
by the separate services and did two things they
did not do. He aggregated them together so
he could calculate the cumulative impact of
Navy, Air Force, and Army closings and then
considered the cumulative impact of the previous two rounds of base closings. And I believe
that was his legal responsibility. That is all I
asked him to do. We didn't get into any specifics. I just said, you've got to-that's part of
your job-do that. And I think he'll be able
to do that with great credibility.
There was also a lot of effort made in other
areas to minimize the economic impact by the
services themselves. For example, they didn't
entirely close the Charleston Navy Yard. They
didn't entirely close up some other operations
that people had feared that they would. So, to
me, he did the best job he could with a very
difficult circumstance. And even with this, this
round of base closings is the biggest we've had.
And even with this, California takes the biggest
hit. I think that's going to be a pretty hard
sell for those other Congressmen.
Q. Mr. President, someone in the California
delegation said the military base closure list was
actually left over from the Bush administration,
that more time and thought should be given
to it in terms of what combination of bases
should be closed for the best cost-effectiveness
and also more knowledge of the military economic impact. They think that it should be
slowed down-the process, even a new list started. What would be your response to that?
The President. I think it would be a mistake
to discard the list. I think that the people in
California-it is true that this is left over from
the Bush administration in the sense that the
legislation requiring a list to be produced in
1993 was signed previously and that the services
surely were doing this work last year, working
on this. But, after all, this list was produced
by the military services and only slightly modified by the Secretary of Defense under a discipline that has to be undertaken in this country.
I will say again, if you leave all these bases


open it means more contract cuts. We're taking
the military force down to 1.4 million people
and keeping a base structure that supported
nearly twice that many. These things have to
be done.
That does not mean that the services made
the right decision in every case. But that's why
we have a commission. In each of the two previous commission hearings, even though the aggregate base closings were much smaller, the
commission made some minor modifications to
the recommendations. And I would say to the
people who make those arguments that they
ought to go forthrightly with those arguments
to the commission; they ought to make them
in public. There are some things that I might
want considered by the commission as I have
time to evaluate this. And I will seriously consider those things as they're made.
But that's why we're moving now to the public part of this process, and that's the time for
those arguments to be made. But the people
in the services had a very difficult and heavy
responsibility. I don't suppose that the Naval
officers or the Air Force officers or the Army
officers in charge relished making the recommendations they made. They did it because
they think that that is best for the national security, given the reductions in the defense budget.
Defense Conversion
Q. Turning to your defense conversion program, a lot of what you say-a lot of your program involves having companies in California
compete for partnerships. And I'm not sure exactly what your program involves concerning defense contractors, but the problem in California
is that a lot of jobs, a lot of high-wage manufacturing jobs have moved out of State. Some have
moved to Arkansas. You, in fact, helped negotiate one deal where a company moved from
southern California to Arkansas. How do you
safeguard against that, and do you want to safeguard against that? Do you want to keep highwage manufacturing jobs in California?
The President. Oh, absolutely. Well, I think
part of that work has to be done in California
itself. That's why I was very enthusiastic when
the leaders of the House and the Senate and
the Governors co-sponsored that bipartisan economic conference recently that I spoke to by
satellite technology. I think California needs a
manufacturing base, in my judgment. And there
needs to be a serious evaluation of where you


299




Mar. 13 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


are with regard to that competitively and what
you have to do to rebuild it.
But I believe that most of the companies will
stay where they are if they have enough work
to keep them going. And we are allocating over
the course of the next 4 or 5 years, if my budget
passes, about $20 billion to help the private
sector convert this economy and to deal with
the dislocations caused by defense cutbacks and
by other differences in the economy. And a lot
of those companies are going to be able tothey will be competing with one another, but
they'll be competing with one another for a
much bigger economic pie in terms of the exploration of new technologies.
Let me just give you one example. There's
an effort going on in California similar to the
one I saw at the Westinghouse plant in Maryland 2 days ago to develop an electric car. There
are now electric cars that run 80 miles or more
an hour, that run over 100 miles without being
recharged. You get up to about 200 miles without being recharged, and then you begin to talk
about real commercial viability. That could put
an unbelievable number of people to work in
the State of California.
Q. But the problem with that is GM developed an electric car in southern California, and
it is now building it elsewhere. With your technology partnerships and your other programs,
are you going to have some sort of a safeguard
to make sure that these companies keep these
manufacturing jobs in California?
The President. Well, I don't think you can
force-I don't think the national Government
can force private companies not to cross State
lines. I mean, that's almost a constitutional issue.
I mean, under the commerce clause, that would
be a hard sell.
Military Base Closings
Q. Mr. President, the reason there are so
many political questions this morning-one of
the reasons is that all the politicians in California
are taking credit for saving a number of bases.
The two Senators and the Governor have had
press conferences and said, "We saved Long
Beach." And they said, "We took a list that
was 11 and took it down to 6." But when you
check with the Pentagon, they say that's not
true. There were only two changes from the
original list: McClellan and Monterey. And all
this other stuff is just smoke. And that's why
we are confused here. Was there, in fact, only


those two adjustments in the list, or was there,
in fact, a grand salvage effort here, successfully
completed by the two people out there, the
two Senators and the Governor?
The President. Well, I can say this: I know
that the Secretary of Defense recommendeddecided to delete the two facilities. I know that
now. I don't know that there were any others
that were deleted. Those were the only two
that I know about. I know that your Senators
and a number of the people in your congressional delegation made pleas to the Defense Department, contacted us, contacted others after
the list was leaked. The list that was leaked
was not accurate in some respects. The list that
was leaked did have other facilities in California
on it that I am not aware-that I don't know
that the Secretary of Defense deleted, norI wouldn't say that wasn't done. I'm just telling
you I don't know. I only know of two personally.
But I do think that at least the people who
contacted him and contacted me probably had
some impact on him. The only thing I said
to him was that the law requires us to take
into account economic impact, and I think you
ought to do that.
I guess I ought to say one other thing. There
were some people who weren't from California
who urged the Secretary of Defense not to delete the Defense Language Institute, including
Senator Simon from Illinois who made a public
plea about it. So there was a lot of support
around the country for not doing that. But I
do think you've got to give credit to the people
who made that intense plea. I mean, they may
have had some impact on this. I'm sure they
did in the sense that I told them that he should
consider economic impact and he did and he
made the decisions he did. But I don't know
that the list was as long as has been speculated
about.
Immigration
Q. Mr. President, may I change the subject
for a moment? You mentioned immigration. I'm
from San Diego. Our drought ended with millions of dollars in flood damage and a tremendous loss of life of people trying to cross the
river to come to California. We're at a point
now where the county, tragic in both senses,
says it doesn't even have the money to pay for
the medical examiner to deal with the loss of
life amongst immigrants, both legal and illegal.
How do you foresee dealing with some of


300




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Mar. 13


our border problems-of dealing with the problem of immigration and the load on the county
and the local jurisdictions, of issues that some
would argue really are solely a Federal problem?
The President. Well, first of all, I think what
I'd like to do is ask Leon Panetta to explain
to you what we've got in this budget to deal
with that, to deal with the whole immigration
issue. But there's no question in my mind that,
for years, the Federal Government's immigration
policy or lack of it has had a profound impact
on California and on Florida and on Texas, and
that basically, immigration is a national policy,
the lack of an immigration enforcement is a
national responsibility, and that under the system we have for joint financing of all kinds
of health and human services, California, Texas,
and Florida, and to some extent New Yorkand to a much lesser extent some other Stateshave basically been unfairly financially burdened
by Federal policy, and we're trying to offset
that.
Since Leon worked up the budgets, I'd like
for him to describe in more specific terms what
we're trying to do. Would you do that? Let
him answer that question first.
Director Panetta. We have been working on
a program to try to target those States that
are impacted by immigration, in part, legal immigration and refugee resettlement but also undocumented immigration as well. And the key
to our program is to try to develop an approach
that, first of all, tries to fully fund the immigration assistance, the so-called SLIAG provisions
that flow to States like California, Texas, and
Florida. That's the legalized immigration assistance grants. While those grants have been there,
they've never been fully funded for various reasons. We intend to fully fund those. So, for
example, in a State like California, we estimate
that SLIAG funding will approach almost $600
million for '94.
Secondly, what we want to do is develop a
program to expand refugee settlement assistance. That is a program that's in place. As a
matter of fact, there were some cuts that were
enacted in that program. There was an effort
by the prior administration to, so-called, privatize it. Never worked, and as a consequence
we're going to be asking for additional funds
for refugee resettlement and a supplemental request that will follow the battle on the stimulus
program; that's two.
Three, we're looking at additional funds for


migrant education as well as Chapter I education. And then, fourthly, we're looking towards
assistance, an assistance program to try to help
those States that are providing health care to
undocumented individuals.
Q. Is it realistic to assume that there might
be Federal money for the hospital to treat so
many, for all of the facilities that the county
now pays for, to augment those with Federal
dollars because
Director Panetta. I can't tell you that there
will be direct funding to that kind of hospital,
but what we want to do is provide some assistance to the States that have to meet that responsibility, and that's what we're trying to fashion
now. And there will be a program like this included in the budget presentation that we'll
make at the end of this month.
Q. Mr. President, do you feel under siege
on this issue from California?
Military Base Closings
The President. No, but I want to tell you
that if you go back to the very first question
I was asked, if this had been a purely political
process, your question would have had a different answer. You know, this has been a very
painful thing for me, seeing this thing happen
to the Bay area. The chairman of the House
Armed Services Committee, a man I very much
respect and admire, has taken-his district has
the biggest projected loss. But was there-do
the people who speak for California deserve
some credit for making sure that the Secretary
of Defense did fulfill his legal obligation? I think
that's probably yes. The answer to that is, yes,
that they did.
But I will say again, this is not going to happen tomorrow; this is going to happen between
3 and 5 years from now. If we want to maintain
our high-wage base and technological lead in
defense, we will have an easier time doing that
if we close appropriate bases and if we do it
in a timely fashion. The difference between now
and what has been done in defense cutbacks,
both bases and defense contractors-and keep
in mind, most of the losses California has endured in the last few years has come from the
loss of private sector jobs because of contracting
cuts. And we have not got an aggressive and
a well-funded program which we will pursue,
which has not been done for the last 3 or 4
years, to try to make sure that we find jobs
and economic opportunities for the people in


301




Mar. 13 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


the communities involved.
So I don't feel under siege. I wanted to do
this today. I think you could make a compelling
case if it hadn't been for the people of California, I wouldn't be the President of the United
States. And I told them that I would work on
these problems, and I will. But I cannot walk
away from my responsibilities to continue this
base closing process. And in the end, California
is going to be better off if we preserve the
capacity for high-tech employment in the defense industries and if we speed up the diversification process.
Thank you.
East Coast Winter Storm
Q. [Inaudible]-about your response to the
storm?
The President. What was that?
Director Panetta. There was a question on
the storm.
The President. On the storm, we've got two
FEMA people in every State now with a State
operation. We're in touch with the State officials
in every State involved, and we will be spending
the remainder of the day trying to assess the
damage that has been done, the damage that
might be done, and what other resources we
should perhaps bring into play. I don't want
to say any more about it than that because we're
monitoring it as it goes along.
I will say that I just came from a meeting
with press people on the east coast, and I would
just urge our people to exercise caution as the
center of the storm moves closer to their community and because what looks like a very enjoyable late-winter snowstorm-and it's not enjoyable maybe if you're from the South and you're


not used to seeing it. But as you move from
here on up, a lot of people will be used to
seeing snows of this magnitude. And I don't
want them to get careless in it, because behind
the snow are very, very high winds. And so
that we're trying to do is just prepare as best
we can and deal with it. And we may have
more to say later today.
Defense Conversion
Q. Mr. President, laid-off workers in California think this is too little, too late.
The President. I just got here. It's not too
little, too late. This is a good program. It is
very aggressive. The Congress appropriated $1.4
billion last year, and none of it was spent. And
we're going to spend it and move aggressively.
Twenty billion dollars over 5 years is a lot of
money to put into defense conversion.
Q. People will have lost their houses by then.
Q. [Inaudible]-in California.
The President. Well, maybe people who were
affected by decisions made before I got here
will be, but these decisions we announced yesterday are going to take effect 3 to 5 years
from now and we will have our programs in
place and we'll be working on it. And we're
going to do our best to reach out to those who
have already been adversely affected.
That's one of the reasons the stimulus package
ought to pass. California will get more than a
billion dollars worth of benefits out of this.
NOTE: The President spoke at 12:25 p.m. in Room
450 of the Old Executive Office Building. Following the interview, Office of Management and
Budget Director Leon Panetta continued to answer questions from reporters.


Statement on Disaster Assistance for Florida
March 13, 1993


On March 12 and 13, excessive rainfall, tornadoes, flooding, high tides, and gale force winds
caused death, serious personal injury, and property damage in the State of Florida.
In a telephone call to me today, Gov. Lawton
Chiles requested individual assistance and public
assistance from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for Alachua, Citrus, Co

lumbia, Dade, Duval, Hamilton, Hendry,
Hernando, Hillsborough, Lake, Levy, Manatee,
Marion, Martin, Pasco, Pinellas, Polk, Putnam,
Sarasota, Taylor, and Volusia Counties.
The situation is of such severity and magnitude that effective response is beyond the capabilities of the State of Florida and local governments. Therefore, I concur that supplemental


302




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Mar. 15


Federal assistance is necessary, and FEMA is
directed to provide such assistance.
Individual assistance can include temporary
housing, grants, low-cost loans to cover uninsured property losses, and other programs to
help individuals and business owners recover


from the effects of the disaster. Public assistance
is available to eligible local governments on a
cost-sharing basis for the repair or replacement
of public facilities damaged by the flooding.
Additional areas may be designated at a later
date, if requested and warranted.


Exchange With Reporters Prior to Discussions With Prime Minister
Yitzhak Rabin of Israel
March 15, 1993


Middle East Peace Talks
Q. Mr. President, what do you think are the
chances of resuming the Middle East peace talks
if deportees are not returned immediately?
The President. I think the Secretary of State's
done a commendable job on his trip, and he's
worked with the Prime Minister on that issue.
And I think we've got a good chance to resume
the talks. I certainly hope we will.
Q. Do you think all the parties will come
back?
The President. I certainly hope so.
Q. Sir, as you prepare for the first peace
talks under your guidance, what do you think
the prospects are for a lasting peace in the Middle East?
The President. I think there are a lot of reasons to be hopeful. Obviously, there's difficulty,
and there are those who would prefer that it
not be done, but I think we have a real shot.
[At this point, one group of reporters left the
room, and another group entered.]


Q. Mr. President, do you think the United
States could be helpful in bringing peace between Israel and Syria? Are you optimistic that
peace between these two countries can come
during this year?
The President. Well, I hope that the peace
process will resume shortly. And I'm hopeful
that it can produce a good result. I think there's
a chance.
Q. What is your reaction to terrorist action
in Israel today and the day before? If you've
heard about it, what do you think about it?
The President. Yes, I've heard about it, and
I'm disturbed about it. I hope it won't deter
any of the parties involved from seeking a genuine long-term peace. But the larger security interests of all the nations involved still argue for
trying to have a good-faith effort at the peace
process.
NOTE: The exchange began at 10:35 a.m. in the
Oval Office at the White House.


The President's News Conference With Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin of
Israel
March 15, 1993


The President. Good afternoon. It's a great
pleasure for me to welcome Prime Minister
Rabin back to Washington. Since we first met
here last August, much has changed. But one
thing I can say definitely will never change is
the unique bond that unites the United States
and Israel. It is a bond that goes back to the
founding of the state of Israel and beyond,


based on shared values and shared ideals.
Israel's democracy is the bedrock on which
our relationship stands. It's a shining example
for people around the world who are on the
frontline of the struggle for democracy in their
own lands. Our relationship is also based on
our common interest in a more stable and
peaceful Middle East, a Middle East that will


303




Mar. 15 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


finally accord Israel the recognition and acceptance that its people have yearned for so long
and have been too long denied, a Middle East
that will know greater democracy for all its peoples.
I believe strongly in the benefit to American
interests from strengthened relationships with
Israel. Our talks today have been conducted in
that context. We have begun a dialog intended
to raise our relationship to a new level of strategic partnership, partners in the pursuit of peace,
partners in the pursuit of security.
We focused today on our common objective
of turning 1993 into a year of peacemaking in
the Middle East. Prime Minister Rabin has
made clear to me today that pursuing peace
with security is his highest mission. I have
pledged that my administration will be active
in helping the parties to achieve that end. At
the same time, Prime Minister Rabin and I
agree that our common objective should be real,
lasting, just, and comprehensive peace, based
on Resolutions 242 and 338. It must involve
full normalization, diplomatic relations, open
borders, commerce, tourism, the human bonds
that are both the fruits and the best guarantee
of peace. And Israel's security must be assured.
The Israeli people cannot be expected to make
peace unless they feel secure, and they cannot
be expected to feel secure unless they come
to know real peace.
Those like Prime Minister Rabin who genuinely seek peace in the Middle East will find
in me and my administration a full partner. But
those who seek to subvert the peace process
will find zero tolerance here for their deplorable
acts of violence and terrorism.
Prime Minister Rabin has told me that he
is prepared to take risks for peace. He has told
his own people the same thing. I have told
him that our role is to help to minimize those
risks. We will do that by further reinforcing
our commitment to maintaining Israel's qualitative military edge.
Another way we can strengthen Israel and
the United States is to combine the skills of
its people with those of our own. I am pleased
to announce today the establishment of a U.S.Israel science and technology commission,
chaired on the American side by our Secretary
of Commerce, Ron Brown. The commission will
enhance cooperation to create technology-based
jobs for the 21st century in both Israel and
the United States. Our economies will also ben

efit from a lifting of the Arab boycott. And
I hope that this boycott can end soon.
Prime Minister Rabin, this year will be a year
of enhanced relations between our countries. It
should also be a year of peace in the Middle
East, as you have declared. We have an historic
responsibility and an historic opportunity. We
stand here together today resolved not to let
that opportunity pass.
Prime Minister Rabin. President Clinton, in
just a few days I will return to Israel, but I
know, and will tell everyone in my country, Israel has a friend in the White House. Our home
is many miles away, but Mr. President, we feel
very close. We thank you for the hours we spent
with you and your team, for the atmosphere
of friendship and the openness and the depth
of our discussions. The leadership which you
have displayed in coping with America's domestic problems is inspiring and stands out like a
beacon in the night.
Today we were happy to learn that at the
same time you are also willing to invest efforts
in promoting peace and stability in the Middle
East. In this effort, Mr. President, you will find
us to be full partners. You are aware that no
one wants peace more than us and that there
is no country more resolved to defend itself
when necessary. We are veterans of many wars.
And today we say, no more blood and tears.
We now wish to experience lasting and meaningful peace.
In our talks today, I presented to you Israel's
approach to the peacemaking. And we are willing to take upon ourselves risks for peace. But
we are determined to protect our security.
Peace has many enemies. Terror is used by
the enemies of peace in our effort to undermine
it. And we will combat it while we continue
to seek a solution that will lead to peace.
Since the formation of my government, we
have invested efforts in trying to advance towards peace in the framework of the Madrid
formula. We introduced new ideas in the negotiation tracks with Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and
the Palestinians. Some progress has been made,
but more is needed in order to come to agreement. We are ready for compromise, but compromises cannot be one-sided. We call on our
partners, the Arab States, the Palestinians from
the territories, to seize the moment, to return
to the negotiating table so that we can use this
historic opportunity. We call upon them to respond openly and willingly to our positions. Our


304




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Mar. 15


children and grandchildren in Jerusalem and the
Arab children and grandchildren in Damascus,
Beirut, Amman, and elsewhere in the Arab
world will not forgive us if we all fail to act
now.
We have heard today with satisfaction, Mr.
President, your concept of the role of the full
partner as an intermediary. We shall continue
our direct talks with our Arab neighbors. But
in order to expedite the dialog between the parties, we welcome your good offices and hope
to rely on your role as facilitator.
President Clinton, we are deeply indebted to
you and to your predecessors who helped us
in hours of need. We do appreciate and greatly
value the decision to maintain the current level
of aid to Israel. This decision will help us to
integrate new immigrants into our society and
to bear the heavy burden of our security.
You know, President, that we will not be able
to win the battle for peace without a qualitative
edge. Therefore, I wish to thank you and your
colleagues on behalf of the Israeli soldiers and
their parents and the citizens of Israel for your
decision to help to maintain that edge. Moreover, such a qualitative edge enables the Israeli
defense forces to contribute to the overall effort
to maintain stability in our stormy region. The
decision made today to raise the level of strategic dialog between our two countries will open
new doors of opportunity. The fact that the next
months we will renew the memorandum of
agreement between us for 5 more years, and
that we do it as a matter of course, is a proof
of the kind of mutually beneficial relationships
that we enjoy. The formation of new high-level
forum for strategic dialog will further upgrade
this relationship.
We will also have a turn in the near future
with much urgency to address the struggle
against various kinds of fanaticism which give
birth to murderous terror, the kind that recently
landed even on these shores. We must institutionalize our dialog and include all free countries
in consultations on the ways to curb the threatening extremism.
We attach much importance to the decision
made today to create the high-level joint commission for the development of projects of
science and technology. The investment in research and industrial applications in Israel and
in America will explore new frontiers of knowledge. And they are a telling example of how
our two countries can mutually benefit from this


cooperation.
President Clinton, thank you for your invitation and reception, for the warmth on a wintry
day, and for your good will. I came from Jerusalem, the city of the prophets. I return to Jerusalem, the city that witnessed so many wars and
wants so dearly peace because she knows that
in war there are no winners and in peace no
losers.
Thank you very much.
Palestinian Deportees
Q. President Clinton-[inaudible]-demands
for the immediate repatriation of the Palestinian
deportees, and where did you leave that subject?
The President. No, we did not discuss that.
As far as I'm concerned, the Secretary of State
and the Prime Minister reached an agreement
on that. And I think that is the framework within which we are proceeding.
Middle East Peace Talks
Q. Mr. President
The President. Yes. Go ahead.
Q. Mr. President, the last peace agreement
between an Arab nation and Israel was, as you
know, the Egyptian Peace Agreement. In that
case, the President kept a very personal part
as an intermediary. To what extent are you willing to become personally involved? And Mr.
Prime Minister, to what extent are you willing
to see the President become personally involved
in this peace negotiation?
Prime Minister Rabin. Well, as you can expect, I cannot answer in the name of the President of the United States. But I believe, as
it has happened whenever agreements were
reached between the Arab countries and Israel
from '74 to '79, and even the creation of the
Madrid peace conference, could not be achieved
without the United States being involved in encouraging the parties to do so. I believe that
there was, there is a need of the United States'
partnership to the peacemaking process. At what
level, at what time, it's not up to me to answer.
The President. The answer to your question
is that I would be prepared to commit the resources, the effort and the attention of this administration, of my Secretary of State, and my
personal efforts to achieve lasting agreements.
We have, on the table, the potential of very
significant bilateral agreements and the potential
of some regional agreements that I think ought
to be pursued. I feel very strongly about it,


305




Mar. 15 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


and I think the opportunities for progress are
there. I don't want to minimize the difficulties,
the obstacles, the years of frustration, but I
think the fact that this Prime Minister, who
became a hero as a warrior, is doing what he
can and risking significantly to promote peace,
is a good beginning. And I think there are other
good indications in the region. And I'm prepared to personally do what I can to facilitate
that.
Helen [Helen Thomas, United Press International].
West Bank and Gaza Strip
Q. Do you support the transitional-[inaudible]-policy of self-determination for the people
on the West Bank and Gaza who have been
living for years under military occupation? Mr.
Prime Minister, do you think that during your
regime there will be any measure of self-rule
for the Palestinians while you are a leader?
Prime Minister Rabin. I don't want to give
you a lengthy answer, but allow me to say, in
1967 we did not want war. It's more than that.
Even when we found ourselves in a clash with
the Egyptians, we offered to the Jordanians, stay
out of the war and we'll keep your line with
us without any change.
If you'll follow the history, we were always
for compromise. U.N. decision, partition of Palestine to two states: We accepted; they rejected.
They went to war to destroy us. It's bad luck
to the Arabs. Whenever they go to war, they
lose. We offer them this time, to the Palestinians
in the territories, what no one offered them
when the Arab countries were in occupation,
Jordan of the West Bank, Egypt of the Gaza
Strip, self-rule-run your own life by yourselfas an interim agreement for a transition period
of not more than 5 years. Not later than the
third year, we are ready to enter negotiations
with them about a permanent solution based
on Resolution 242 and 338.
What else can we do? By violence and terror
no one will make us run. The solution should
be around the negotiation table, by talks, not
by weapons.
The President. The answer is the United
States position has not changed. As I said in
my statement, we support a solution based on
the governing United Nations resolutions. But
the important thing is that everything we say
or do today sends a clear message, particularly
to the other parties in the Middle East, that


the time has come to negotiate peace. And the
United States is prepared to be involved all the
way through the process.
Wolf [Wolf Blitzer, Cable News Network].
Syria
Q. [Inaudible]-both of you have addressed
the question of bilateral arrangements between
Israel and Syria. It seems that the Prime Minister in recent statements has backed away from
some earlier statements that Israel would never
go down from the Golan Heights. Is there a
change? Would Israel be prepared to accept a
complete withdrawal from the Golan Heights
in exchange for complete peace with Syria, along
the lines of the Israeli-Egyptian peace agreement? And would the United States welcome
that kind of separate Israeli-Syrian agreement
even in advance of a Palestinian agreement?
Prinme Minister Rabin. Well, first, we are serious in our negotiations with every one of the
Arab partners for the peace negotiations. We
are ready to negotiate and reach agreement with
every one of the partners that sit around the
negotiation table with us.
Second, peace has to be negotiated not between me, as the Prime Minister of Israel, and
you. After all, you don't represent Syria. We
made it clear that we accept the principle of
withdrawal of the armed forces of Israel on the
Golan Heights, to secure the recognized boundaries, but we'll not enter negotiations on the
dimension of the withdrawal without knowing
what kind of peace Syria offers us. Is it a fully
fledged peace, open boundaries for movement
of people and goods, diplomatic relations including embassies, normalization of relations? Will
they let that peace treaty stand on its own two
feet, will not be influenced by what happens
or doesn't happen in the negotiations with the
other Arab partners?
Before we know that, why would I have to
say how much we will withdraw once it is an
issue to be agreed on between Syria and ourselves, with the assistance of the United States?
The President. The answer to your question,
from my point of view, is that the United States
believes that the full peace process should resume. We hope very much that the Palestinians
will come to the table. We would like to see
all the bilaterals go forward. But if the parties
could reach an agreement consistent with security interests and the governing United Nations
resolutions that was their genuine agreement,


306




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Mar. 15


would I welcome that and be prepared to support it? Yes, I would.
The Peace Process
Q. Mr. President, the Arabs think that you
favor Israel against them. What are you doing
to balance this situation? We know that Secretary Christopher has gone there, but what specifically has been offered to them, and how
would you see a confederation of Jordan with
the Palestinians? And also I would like to ask
the response to that from Prime Minister Rabin.
The President. Secretary Christopher went to
the Middle East, and I can assure you, one
of the things that he did was to say the same
thing to everybody in every capital that he visited, to say that the United States wanted to
be a partner in this process, but that we recognize we had to be a mediator, and that, in
the end, the only thing that would make peace
possible was the assurance of security that would
come to the parties afterward.
I believe that the other nations involved know
that the United States has had an historic relationship of friendship with Israel, but also know
that we can be counted upon to keep our word
and to do what we can to support the security
of all the parties if an agreement can be
reached.
Do you want to answer that?
Prime Minister Rabin. I can speak only as
an Israeli, and in the name of Israel. I believe
that the government that I serve as its Prime
Minister is the first government that accepted
the principle or the Resolutions 242 and 338
as applicable to the achievement of peace. No
government in the past did so, which shows
that we understand that in peace, compromises
have to be made by both sides.
Security Issues
Q. Mr. President, Prime Minister Rabin today
spoke about raising the level of strategic dialog;
you spoke about strategic dialog. I was wondering if you could elaborate what that means
more, and does this mean greater coordination
between the two countries in terms of what
approaches to take to peace, and then bringing
that to the table? Are we talking about a whole
new approach here?
The President. No, we're not talking about
a whole new approach. Our two governments
have some very gifted people who work on a
continuous basis on security issues between us


and facing the region. Looking ahead 10 years
down the road, we know that we have to pay
greater attention to missile defenses; we know
that we have to pay greater attention to the
possibility of proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction; we know that in order for any
agreement in the Middle East to have lasting
impact, there will be significant, and must be,
significant security implications flowing out of
any kind of arrangements which might be made.
And we just want to make sure that beginning
now we give those matters the most careful attention at the appropriate level.
This will not supplant anything that is now
being done. We're very well satisfied with the
work being done by our people now. But these
three things, it seems to us, will shape a lot
of our deliberations for a decade to come.
Russia
Q. Mr. President, can you clarify your administration's views on the situation in Russia today?
In particular, do you believe that the Russian
Parliament is a democratically elected institution? And if it is not a democratically elected
institution, why would you object to its dissolution by Mr. Yeltsin-the rewriting of a new Russian Constitution-would that not be helpful?
The President. Mr. Friedman [Tom Friedman,
New York Times], those are great questions.
But I think any answer I'd give to them might
only complicate the decisions I might have to
make in the days ahead.
Q. It would be a great story. [Laughter]
The President. It will be a wonderful story,
and I must say those are questions I have, we
have all posed to ourselves. But let me say this:
I hope that everybody in America, I hope everybody in Israel, is pulling for the triumph of
freedom and market reform in Russia. Democracy is an uncertain process. The Prime Minister
and I have been in and out of office. We know
that. And I don't pretend to know everything
that's going to happen in Russia in the days
and weeks ahead, and I don't want to say anything now which might constrict my field of
decision in ways that would not be in the interest of the United States or of freedom and market reform in Russia.
So I wish I could say more, but I can't. All
I can tell you is I'm working like crazy to get
ready for that meeting with President Yeltsin.
I'm going to do what I can and mobilize what
forces I can, public and private, in the United


307




Mar. 15 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


States to support the march of progress in Russia. And I'm going to hope and pray that all
those who want the same thing will be in there
pushing with us.
Last question.
North Korea
Q. Can you give us any more insight into
what the situation is in North Korea, whether
you believe they do have nuclear capability? If
so, where did they get it from, and what leverage the United States might have in addressing
this issue?
The President. I cannot answer your exact
question. I can tell you that I, personally, and
speaking for the Government, the United States
is very concerned and very disappointed that
North Korea has at least for the time being
chosen to eject the IAEA inspectors and to withdraw from the international regime of which
they are part.
The board of directors of the IAEA is meeting
on Wednesday. They will make a statement at
that time, and I will make a response. There
are 3 months still to go, and as you know, any
country that wants to withdraw is bound for


3 months. I hope that North Korea will reconsider its decision. I think there is a genuine
impulse among the peoples of North Korea and
South Korea, among the peoples to see a reduction in tensions and an increase in commerce
and communication and contact. And I'm very
disturbed by this turn of events. But I'm hoping
that it will not be a permanent thing. There
are several weeks ahead when North Korea
might reverse its decision. I hope they will do
so, because we simply cannot back up on the
determination to have the IAEA inspections proceed there.
The answers to your questions could only be
found in complete and thorough and ongoing
investigations by the IAEA, either in North
Korea or any other country where these questions are asked. And I'm hoping very, very much
that they will reconsider their decision and permit the inspectors to come again.
Thank you very much.
NOTE: The President's sixth news conference
began at 2:02 p.m. in the East Room at the White
House.


Nomination for Posts at the Office of Management and Budget and the
Department of Veterans Affairs
March 15, 1993


The President announced today his intention
to nominate Sally Katzen to be Administrator
of the OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, and James Allen, Yvonne Santa
Anna, and Victor Raymond to be Assistant Secretaries of Veterans Affairs for Human Resources and Administration, Public and Intergovernmental Affairs, and Policy and Planning, respectively.


"Each of the individuals I am calling on today
has had a distinguished career in which they
have proven themselves in both private and public enterprises," said the President. "I am proud
that they are joining me in the Federal Government."
NOTE: Biographies of the nominees were made
available by the Office of the Press Secretary.


Exchange With Reporters Prior to a Meeting With Congressional Leaders
March 16, 1993


Q. Mr. President, do you think you can really
afford to cut the defense budget with what's
happening in Russia? Cut it as much as you


want to?
The President. Well, I think we're going to
have hearings about it. We're going to have to


308




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Mar. 16


see. We'll have to cut it some. We can't meet  of choosing Al Gore to reinvent Government,
the deficit reduction targets if we don't.  you should have chosen Ross Perot. What do
What's happening in Russia may or may not  you think of that?
present an additional threat to our security, but  The Vice President. I can't believe he'd say
what we hope we can do is to keep democracy  that. [Laughter]
and economic reform going. And I think there's  The President. If I said what I thought, it
an almost unanimous feeling in the Congress  would be a story. I don't want to do that.
that we ought to do that. We're bipartisan, and  [Laughter]
that's one of the issues I want to discuss here
today.                                      NOTE: The exchange began at 9:47 a.m. in the
Q. Senator Dole said last night that instead  Cabinet Room at the White House.
Remarks With President Jean-Bertrand Aristide of Haiti and an Exchange
With Reporters
March 16, 1993


President Clinton. I'd like to make a brief
statement and then invite President Aristide to
make a statement. And then we'll answer questions.
It's been a great honor for all of us to have
President Aristide and members of his government and the Ambassador from Haiti to the
United States here in the Oval Office today.
And we wanted to have the opportunity to speak
to the American people and to the people of
Haiti from the Oval Office to emphasize how
important it is to me personally and to the United States to restore democracy in Haiti and
to restore President Aristide as the elected leader of that country.
To those who have blocked the restoration
of democracy, I want to make it clear in the
strongest possible terms that we will not now
or ever support the continuation of an illegal
government in Haiti and that we want to step
up dramatically the pace of negotiations to restore President Aristide under conditions of national reconciliation and mutual respect for
human rights with a program of genuine economic progress.
The Secretary of State has named an experienced diplomat, Mr. Lawrence Pezzullo, who
is here now, to be his special representative
in Haiti, to work with the Caputo mission
through the United Nations and the Organization of American States to push forward with
a rapid settlement of these issues. I would urge
the de facto government of Haiti and the military officials in that country and police officials


to support this process. Any opposition, any
delay will only result in stronger measures taken
by the United States and more difficulty and
hardship for the people of Haiti, who have been
the innocent sufferers in this whole sad saga.
I look forward to working with President
Aristide. I look forward to the success of Mr.
Pezzullo. And I want to make it clear that the
United States is committed strongly to a much
more aggressive effort to restore Mr. Aristide
to his Presidency and to, over the long run,
work with the people of Haiti to restore conditions of economic prosperity.
I am prepared to commit the United States
to its fair portion of a 5-year, multinational $1
billion effort to rebuild the Haitian economy.
And we are going to begin on this project in
earnest now.
I'd like to now invite President Aristide to
make whatever remarks he would like to make,
and then open the floor for your questions.
President Aristide. Mr. President Clinton, we
are delighted to be here with you, with the
Vice President, Secretary of State, Ambassador
Pezzullo. We want to thank you on behalf of
the Haitian people for your support. We want
to thank you for what you just said. That went
directly to the heart of the Haitian people working peacefully for the restoration of democracy.
I grasp this opportunity to thank the American people for their solidarity, because with
our American brothers and sisters, since 18
months we realize how beautiful it is to work
in a nonviolent way for the restoration of de

309




Mar. 16 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


mocracy. The Haitian people today hear your
voice, and on behalf of them, I can say, in
the past we wanted to be with you; we are
with you; in the future, we will be with you,
and you will be welcome in Haiti when I will
be there after the restoration of democracy.
We have a lot of people suffering since 18
months. And today I'm sure they are happy because they realize finally that day for the restoration of democracy will come, and since today
they can continue to build but in a strongest
way that democracy, always in a nonviolent way.
The refugees can feel happy. Those who are
in Guantanamo can feel happy. Those who are
in Haiti working peacefully for that democracy
can feel happy because that day is coming because of you, because of the American Government, because of the U.S., because of the OAS.
Thanks once again for that, and you are welcome to our land.
Q. Mr. President, in the past few days, President Aristide has called for a date certain for
his return. He's called for tougher sanctions,
a tougher enforcement of the embargo, a naval
blockade, and for some action to relieve the
suffering of those in Guantanamo. Are you prepared to take any of those steps?
President Clinton. Let me respond, if I might,
to each in turn. And let me start with the middle suggestion, the question of whether the
United States would take tougher action on the
embargo. I wouldn't rule that out, but I think
you shouldn't underestimate the impact of this
diplomatic initiative, sending Mr. Pezzullo to
Haiti, making the statements we're making
today, sending the clear and unambiguous signal
we're sending.
And I might note that just a few moments
ago the person we had approved for refugee
status who had been held illegally by the Haitian
de facto Government was released to come to
the United States as a refugee.
I think that the message we're sending out
there is clear. So I think what we would like
to do is to give Mr. Pezzullo a chance to go
to Haiti, communicate strongly and directly to
the appropriate people there what our position
is and where we're going before we take actions,
which at least in the short run will make life
even more difficult for the Haitians. I wouldn't
rule them out, but I think we ought to have
it in an appropriate sequence of events.
As to the question of a date certain, I certainly think that we ought to return President


Aristide in the near future. But I think that
the date for the conclusion of the negotiations
ought to come out of Mr. Caputo and his mission. And I think we ought to, in fairness, let
him do that. It is a very grave thing for the
United States alone to be setting a date certain
in an endeavor that involves the United Nations
and the Organization of the American States.
So I think a date may well come out of the
efforts of the Caputo mission, but we don't feel
at this time it is the wisest thing for the longterm interests of President Aristide or Haiti for
us to set the date on our own.
With regard to the refugees in Guantanamo,
I'm going to do the following things: First of
all, I'm going to send someone from our White
House staff to Guantanamo to review the situation personally. Secondly, I'm going to take up
the legal and human conditions of the refugees
with the Attorney General, who has jurisdiction
in these areas, now that we have a new Attorney
General confirmed. I wanted to wait and have
the opportunity to discuss that with her.
And then we will review the whole question
and see whether or not there's anything else
we should do. I expect all this would be done
in the near future. I don't expect to take a
good deal of time on this.
Q. President Aristide, is that satisfactory to
you?
President Aristide. Totally.
Q. Can we expect or can any Haitian in Cap
Haitien or elsewhere expect the early return,
constitutional return of the constitutional President of Haiti?
President Aristide. Every Haitian should be
extremely happy about what has happened
today. I think that all Haitians can look with
joy at the cooperation of myself and President
Clinton, working hand in hand for all Haitians,
looking forward to peace, to nonviolence, to economic development. I think everyone can feel
great contentment and happy anticipation.
Q. Is there going to be a real celebration
of the Constitution, the anniversary of the Constitution of Haiti?
President Aristide. Yes, with the help of President Clinton, all Haitians can feel comfortable
and happy about celebrating March 29th as an
anniversary for peace and respect of the law,
the Constitution as a basis for the law, and for
its respect for all Haitians.
Q. Mr. Clinton, would it be acceptable to
you if the coup leaders left without being pun

310




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Mar. 16


ished?
President Clinton. Well, it would be acceptable to me to restore President Aristide to
power in Haiti under conditions which were safe
for him and for all Haitians. He has spoken
in the past about what his policies would be
in that regard, and I presume that a lot of
the details of this would be the subject of negotiations. And those are negotiations of which
I do not believe I should engage, although I
would say that I was very impressed with what
President Aristide said today about the need
for national reconciliation. And perhaps you'd
want him to make a comment.
Q. Mr. President, you criticizedPresident Clinton. Could we give him a
chance to answer, please.
President Aristide. In Haiti we don't have an
institution giving justice to people but unfortunately selling that justice. After 200 years, we
realize we still have an army of 7,000 military
and 40 percent of the national budget. So I
used to ask the Haitians, do not go to any kind
of violence or retaliation or vengeance. I will
continue to do the same, because what we need
is nonviolent reality, not violent.
That's why I'm not saying we want to see
the coup leaders in jail and then to feel happy
because we punished them. I'm saying, asking
to all the Haitians to not go to vengeance, to
wait for justice instead of doing justice for themselves out of institution. We can work peacefully
to remove the coup leaders from the army and
that way to free the army and let justice be
done; not then to feel happy because we put
them in jail, no; happy because we can that
way make a balance in a country where we
don't have yet institutions who give justice.
I would add this point: We want reconciliation. We want justice. We want peace. That's
why through this process, by a dialog, we can
reach that level where, finally, the Haitians will
feel so happy to not go to vengeance and to
not see the symbol of the coup in the same
place, with the same weapons, doing the same
repression. That's the way we are trying to go.
[At this point, President Aristide repeated his


answer in French, and it was then translated
by an interpreter as follows. ]
President Aristide. There is no institution in
Haiti which is in a position or able to give
justice in Haiti at the present time. Justice is
sold, and that has been the case for the last
200 years. We in Haiti are opting now for nonviolence, for peace for all the people of Haiti.
Therefore, we must free the army from those
who were responsible for the coup, asking at
the same time all Haitians not to engage in
vengeance, but rather to devote themselves to
justice and to feel happy in the knowledge that
justice will be done.
It is in that sense that we have asked for
the departure of the coup leaders, that they
no longer be the heads of the army, not necessarily that they either be in jail or have to
leave the country, but that a solution be found
via dialog which will lead to a truly balanced
situation so that all can work together in this
nonviolent context which will bring about a feeling of deepest joy in the hearts of all Haitians.
Q. Thank you.
President Clinton. I know we have to go. Let
me just reaffirm two points, and I'm glad you
said it the second time because that's exactly
what came out of our meetings. That sort of
attitude on the part of President Aristide is the
very thing that should enable us to resolve this
in a peaceful way. If the people of Haiti can
live in peace and security, subsequent to an
agreement, and begin once again to work for
their own prosperity instead of living in everdeepening misery, then I think that we will be
well on the road to alleviating literally centuries
of oppression in that beautiful country that has
been so misgoverned for so long.
And I applaud his statement. It is in that
spirit that I undertake this initiative. And I want
to close by reaffirming the determination of the
United States to restore democracy and President Aristide as soon as possible.
Thank you very much.
NOTE: The President spoke at 5 p.m. in the Oval
Office at the White House.


311




Mar. 16 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


Exchange With Reporters Prior to a Meeting With the Hispanic Caucus
March 16, 1993


Q. Mr. President, what are you doing in this
meeting tonight, or this afternoon? Some
special
The President. Well, we're going to talk about
a lot of things of interest to the caucus, and
I'm going to listen. We're going to talk about
the economic program, and they're going to talk
about some things that they're interested in in
the administration. And they can talk about it
when the meeting is over. I'm listening today.
Surgeon General
Q. Mr. President, could you tell us why Dr.
Novello is being asked to step down as Surgeon
General before her term expires?
The President. I don't know what arrange

ments-she's going to continue in the Department of Health and Human Services, and I have
a very high regard for her. And I told Donna
Shalala when I appointed her Secretary of HHS
that I had a very strong feeling about wanting
my health department director from home to
be the Surgeon General, but that I very strongly
approved of the record Dr. Novello has made
and I hoped that we could persuade her to
stay on. And this is an arrangement they all
worked out. I don't know the details and the
timing. I can't comment on it. I just don't know
anything about that.
NOTE: The exchange began at 5:51 p.m. in the
Roosevelt Room at the White House.


Remarks at the American Ireland Fund Dinner
March 16, 1993


Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for once
again participating in the great American charade designed to convince people that the President has more authority than the Speaker of
the House. Now, if I were a prime minister,
I wouldn't have to worry about that. [Laughter]
Mr. Prime Minister, it's a delight to welcome
you to our Nation's Capital, and I look forward
to our visit tomorrow. I want to congratulate
Chairman O'Reilly. Let me ask you: Do you
like the purple? [Laughter] I want you to understand that is not royal purple. That is a substitute, because he made the ultimate sacrifice;
he gave his President the green.
I want to thank all those who worked so hard
to make this dinner successful. It's often remarked that on St. Patrick's Day we're all Irish,
or we wish we were. I am actually part Irish,
and I have often been accused of having a certain gift for blarney-[laughter]-although those
were not the words used last year when that
was said. I'm glad to see Senator Kennedy and
Congressman Kennedy and Mrs. Smith in the
audience. But, you know, President Kennedy
was the first Irish Catholic to become President.
But though a Baptist from Arkansas, I'm the


first graduate of a Catholic university to become
President. I'm glad to see Father O'Donovan
out there, my president, of Georgetown. Thank
you.
As a younger man, I went through a period
of intense uncertainty about whether I should
pursue a career in music or a career in politics.
I was happy to learn that the Prime Minister,
whom you affectionately called the Taoiseachyou know, I want the Members of the Congress
to learn that. I like that, the chieftain. It has
a good feeling. [Laughter] He's been an exponent of one of Ireland's most popular forms
of native music, country and western. I'm glad
he pursued his political career in Ireland, because if he had chosen to come to Arkansas,
he might have defeated me with that sort of
background. [Laughter] You know, Irish music
has made almost as much of a contribution to
modern life as Irish politicians, from the Chieftains to Phil Coulter to Van Morrison to that
wonderful group U-2 that played such a major
role in trying to get the young people in America to go and vote. The first time I heard that
their lead singer was named Bono, I asked what
his last name was. Then I found out he didn't


312




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Mar. 16


have a last name. Then, after I spent an hour
with him, I discovered he didn't need one.
[Laughter]
You know, there are 44 million Americans
of Irish descent, that is, those who are telling
the truth and those who lie, which qualifies
them-[laughter]-who have contributed immeasurably to every sphere of our life. In fact,
the house that I now live in, which either makes
me the resident of America's finest public housing or, as some of my critics say, the crown
jewel of the Federal penal system, was designed
by James Hoban, a famous Irishman who designed the White House based on a model of
a magnificent house in Ireland.
I thought I would tell you this, for those
of you who don't know, since President Kennedy
once said at a dinner of Nobel laureates that
it was the most distinguished array of brainpower ever gathered in the White House since
Thomas Jefferson dined there alone. [Laughter]
James Hoban defeated Thomas Jefferson for the
design of the White House. Jefferson submitted
anonymously a design for the White House, and
the people making the decision, basically George
Washington and a few of his friends, concluded
that Hoban was superior to Jefferson. [Laughter]
President Kennedy said that "Here on Earth,
God's work is truly our own." Whenever I'm
asked to speak in a church I say that. It captured for me, more than anything else, what
the essence of public service is about. The
American Ireland Foundation embodies that
phrase as well as any group of Americans: offering hope and opportunity to all the people of
Ireland; promoting peace, reconciliation, and
common enterprise between Catholics and
Protestants, nationalists and unionists; and promoting cultural activities, community development, employment opportunities in health care
and counseling. I am absolutely delighted, I


must say, that the Government of Ireland is
now providing a site, an historic castle, for the
new Hole in the Wall Gang Camp for children
with life-threatening diseases. I'm glad to see
Paul Newman and Joanne Woodward here tonight, and I can tell you that Hillary and I
visited the Hole in the Wall Gang Camp in
Connecticut a couple of years ago, and I was
moved beyond words by what I saw there. And
I thank everyone who is responsible for giving
the children of Ireland this remarkable opportunity.
The American Ireland Fund is doing in Ireland what we are trying to do here in the United
States: to offer opportunity, to encourage responsibility, to reknit the social fabric badly
frayed by the pressures of modern life, and to
restore a sense of community without which it
is difficult for people to proceed with their individual and family lives. I'm proud to support
your work because it's important, it's an inspiration, it's a lesson for all of us, not only for
those who are Irish all year long but for those
who are just Irish for 24 hours a year.
I thank the Irish Americans who have worked
with me, particularly in the last 16 months, to
try to help me learn more about Ireland, as
well as about the problems and promise of Irish
Americans here at home, and I look forward
to working with all of you in the days and weeks
and years ahead. I hope that we will always
be able to bring to our labors the remarkable
spirit I sense in this room tonight, and never
lose the sense of humor which has become so
associated with this wonderful holiday.
Thank you very much.
NOTE: The President spoke at 6:43 p.m. at the
Capital Hilton. In his remarks, he referred to
Anthony J.F. O'Reilly, chairman, American Ireland Fund.


Nomination for Five Ambassadorial Posts
March 16, 1993


The President named five career Foreign
Service officers to ambassadorial positions today.
The President announced his intention to nominate Alvin Adams to be Ambassador to Peru;
Harry Gilmore, Ambassador to Armenia; Mark


Johnson, Ambassador to Senegal; Marilyn
McAfee, Ambassador to Guatemala; and Allan
Wendt, Ambassador to Slovenia.
"Secretary Christopher and I have pledged
to name Ambassadors who meet the highest


313




Mar. 16 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


standards of excellence," the President said. NOTE: Biographies of the nominees were made
"With these announcements today, we have available by the Office of the Press Secretary.
done just that."
Nomination for Small Business Administrator
March 16, 1993


The President today announced his intention
to nominate North Carolina businessman Erskine Bowles to head the Small Business Administration.
"Small business is the engine that runs the
American economy. We need to give a hand
up to the new businesses and traditional momand-pop stores that provide the jobs in our cities


and small towns," the President said. "Erskine
Bowles will do an excellent job of making SBA
a more efficient operation that works to
strengthen the backbone of small business in
this country."
NOTE: A biography of the nominee was made
available by the Office of the Press Secretary.


Remarks at a Saint Patrick's Day Ceremony With Prime Minister Albert
Reynolds of Ireland and an Exchange With Reporters
March 17, 1993


The President. Good day, ladies and gentlemen. On this St. Patrick's Day, I am delighted
to welcome Prime Minister Reynolds, called
Taoiseach in his country, to the White House.
We both share a love of music and a love of
Ireland, and I'm looking forward to working with
him in the years ahead. I accept with honor
this beautiful bowl of shamrocks he has presented from the people of Ireland to the people
of the United States. And it will be proudly
displayed in the White House as a symbol of
our shared values and common heritage.
The Prime Minister's visit is an opportunity
not only to recall our kinship but also to work
together on issues of critical importance to both
our nations. We just concluded a good meeting
which covered many issues, and I benefited
greatly from the Prime Minister's advice and
counsel.
We discussed the importance of bringing the
Uruguay round to a successful conclusion. We
reviewed the humanitarian relief effort in Somalia, including the generous contributions of Irish
citizens working in such organizations as CON

CERN and UNICEF.
Let me take a moment here, Mr. Prime Minister, to extend to the families and friends of
Valerie Place and Sean Devereux the heartfelt
condolences of the American people over their
tragic deaths and our gratitude for their service.
Their dedication to the relief efforts in Somalia
will serve as an inspiration to us as we seek
to extend the hand of comfort to victims of
strife.
The Prime Minister and I also discussed the
continuing tragic conflict in Northern Ireland
that has cost 3,000 lives over the last 2 decades.
I congratulate both the Irish and the British
Governments for their joint efforts to promote
the necessary dialog to bring about a just and
lasting peace. And I want to underscore my
strong support for that important goal. We agree
that such an outcome cannot be coerced or imposed, and that those who resort to violence
must not be tolerated. Violence condemns generation to harvest the seeds of bitterness, not
peace. Nor can the problem be resolved by the
language of victories or defeats. It must be re

314




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Mar. 17


solved in the language and spirit of compromise
and conciliation.
I told the Prime Minister that the United
States stands ready to do whatever we can to
help in bringing peace to Northern Ireland. We
are a nation of diversity. We are prepared to
help in any way that we can. I think that it
is important to say that the most significant
thing I should be doing now is to encourage
the resumption of the dialog between the Irish
and the British Governments, which I think is
a critical precondition to any establishment of
a lasting peace. Our support for the International Fund for Ireland is an important demonstration of our commitment to encourage investment and economic growth and to advance
the cause of peace and tolerance.
My discussions with Prime Minister Reynolds,
as with Prime Minister Major, were the first
of many that I think you will see our governments having as we offer our assistance in trying
to end the troubles.
Let me close by saying that the ties of culture,
history, and friendship between the United
States and Ireland mean a great deal to me.
Last night the Prime Minister and I joined together in singing "When Irish Eyes Are Smiling." He did a slightly better job than I did.
[Laughter] Today we pause to renew our ties
to Ireland and the challenges ahead. Let me
add that Ireland will have a friend in the White
House, Mr. Prime Minister, not just on St. Patrick's Day but on every day of the year.
I also want to take advantage of the Prime
Minister's visit here to announce my intention
to nominate as Ambassador to Ireland a distinguished individual, as Irish as Americans can
be, Jean Kennedy Smith. I can think of no one
who better captures the bonds between Ireland
and the United States or who will work harder
to advance our relationship. In many ways she's
already been an unofficial international ambassador. Since she founded Very Special Arts two
decades ago, she has traveled tirelessly throughout the United States and the world. Very Special Arts provides opportunities for the disabled
in creative arts in all 50 States and over 50
countries, including Ireland. As a testament to
her success, a play from her young playwrights
program in Dublin will open shortly off Broadway.
I know firsthand Jean's achievements from the
Arkansas Very Special Arts program and remember well when Hillary joined her in our State


for the competition to commemorate the 200th
anniversary of the White House.
The people of the United States will be proud
of our new Ambassador. I am proud of her,
and I'm glad to have a couple of her relatives,
the Senator from the State of Massachusetts and
Congressman Kennedy, to join with us today.
And Mr. Ambassador, let me say again how very
grateful we are to you and offer you the opportunity to make a few remarks and then offer
Mrs. Smith.
Ambassador-Designate Smith. Thank you very
much. It is a great honor for me to be nominated as Ambassador to Ireland. And I'm extremely grateful to President Clinton for his
confidence in me. I will do all I can to repay
this confidence. It's a wonderful St. Patrick's
Day. Thank you.
Prime Minister Reynolds. Thank you, President. And first of all, may I take the first opportunity of saying-[at this point, Prime Minister
Reynolds spoke in Gaelic]-which is congratulations to Jean Kennedy Smith to be the U.S.
Ambassador to Ireland. The U.S. is proud of
her. We are more proud still to welcome home
Jean Kennedy Smith. She has been a regular
visitor to our shores. She has done marvelous
work throughout the world, as the President has
just said, in relation to her work for the disabled
arts. And I know she'll get plenty of opportunity
to continue that creative work in Ireland.
Thank you, President. St. Patrick's Day, Mr.
President, is an occasion which bonds and brings
together our two communities and peoples in
a uniquely meaningful way. It is not simply
about shamrock and symbols, important though
these are; rather does it have as its core a deep,
abiding, and shared belief in democracy and
freedom and in the protection and extension
of human rights.
It was because these values were incorporated
in the foundation of the American republic that
Thomas Jefferson could proclaim in his first Inaugural Address what might then have seemed
a paradox, and I quote: "I believe this...
the strongest Government on earth."
It is a day and this is a unique occasion,
standing as we are here in the house which,
as President Clinton remarked last night at that
very enjoyable function, that this house was designed just over 200 years ago by an Irishman,
James Hoban. That's one of the reasons why
we are contemplating the extraordinary success
of Irish America. You will have no difficulty,


315




Mar. 17 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


Mr. President, if on this day I characterize you,
you yourself, as reflecting on that Irish American
success story. Like John F. Kennedy, Ronald
Reagan, Andrew Jackson, Ulysses S. Grant, and
other Presidents of Irish extraction before you,
you have risen to the highest position in the
land adopted by your ancestors and demonstrated again that the great American dream
which inspired so many of your forbears is alive
and well and in very good hands.
The success story that is Irish America today
began as one of political, economic, and social
struggle in the home country. It should not be
surprising therefore that when the earlier waves
of our immigrants reached these shores, they
were to the forefront in the American War of
Independence and in the drafting and promulgation of the American Declaration of Independence, and that later waves of immigrants quickly
and enthusiastically embraced that declaration,
to quote just one historian, "not as a tired formula, but as an ideal to be reached out for
and grasped."
It is against that background, Mr. President,
that I have always believed that the constructive
interest and support of the United States has
the potential to be uniquely helpful in finding
a solution to the situation in Northern Ireland,
that last residual problem of a long and often
sad history between Ireland and Britain.
My government are determined not to allow
another generation to suffer the scourge and
savagery of violence or its demeaning and related manifestations: disadvantage, harassment, and
discrimination.
There are no immediate answers, no simple
solutions, but there is a way forward. It involves
courage, commitment, and imagination. It will
require, above all, the letting go of all vestiges
of triumphalism on every side and replacing it
with a willingness and a determination to work
together in partnership within new structures
which will embrace and seek to reconcile the
two conflicting rights and aspirations in our
small country.
We warmly welcome your concern, Mr. President, your commitment, and your active support
as we take on this daunting but vital challenge.
If we can succeed, Mr. President, in establishing
in Ireland structures that achieve these goals,
the benefits may not just be for Ireland alone.
In a world where deeper ethnic divisions have
assumed a new and violent prominence, it may
well be that the model we create in Ireland


will have application in similar conflict situations
around the world.
So in conclusion, Mr. President, may I thank
you again for the hospitable American reception
you have given us here today at the White
House. In so doing, you acknowledge and honor
the contribution of the millions of fellow Irish
who have made their homes and built their
dreams in this great land. You make us all
proud.
As we travel together now for a gathering
on Capitol Hill hosted by another outstanding
Irishman, Speaker Foley, may I extend to you,
Mrs. Clinton, and your family our warmest best
wishes on this very special day for all of us
and convey our sincerest wish for the success
of your administration.
I hope Americans of all ethnic backgrounds
have a wonderful St. Patrick's Day. And what
a day in which to celebrate it here with one
of us as President, another, Albert here on my
right, and the Kennedy family that are a legend
in Ireland, the United States, and throughout
the world.
The President. That was such an outstanding
performance, I think the Prime Minister should
have to answer all the questions.
Northern Ireland
Q. Have you decided, Mr. President, whether
or not to send a peace envoy or to send a
fact-finding mission to Northern Ireland? And
could you give us some idea of a timeframe
for that action, please?
The President. No, I discussed it with the
Prime Minister. And we decided after our consultations that that is certainly an option that
I should leave open, both of those options, and
have under serious consideration.
As you know, talks began last year and then
were suspended. I'm very hopeful that the British and the Irish Governments will get back
together and begin a serious dialog soon. I think
that is a precondition, as I said, for the other
talks proceeding. And I'm going to stay in touch
closely with Prime Minister Reynolds. We're
going to talk frequently, and I expect to have
an Ambassador in Ireland pretty soon. And I'll
make those decisions at what seems to me to
be the appropriate time. I have not made them
now, and I don't think it would be appropriate
to make a final decision on that at this time.
Q. Can we ask the Prime Minister if he likes
the idea of a special envoy, opposes it, or would


316




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Mar. 17


like toPrime Minister Reynolds. I think we had a
very long and fruitful discussion, both the President and myself. I gave him a fairly quick synopsis of the whole situation: the relationship between the two Governments that are excellent,
between Dublin and London; the talks that took
place last year; the progress that was made
there; the suspension of the talks. And I think
the objective of both of us, and indeed, the
British Government included, would be to get
those talks resumed at an earlier stage.
We fully appreciate the keen interest and support of President Clinton in this regard and
of his burning desire to have those talks
recommenced. And he will keep in close consultation with all parties concerned so that we
can get those talks resumed at the earliest possible date.
Q. You don't think that a special envoy at
this point would be helpful?
Prime Minister Reynolds. As you have heard,
the President just confirmed that both of those
options are left open, and he will consult widely
in the days and weeks and months ahead in
relation to that. At the end of the day, it will
be his decision.
Q. Mr. President, have you taken on board
the unionists' concerns about-in Northern Ireland-the suggestions that you might send
somebody who would attempt to mediate the
peace situation?
President Clinton. Well, I don't think the
United States can make peace in Northern Ireland, and I don't think that the unionists, the
nationalists, anyone else would expect that. I
think that we have a deep concern about the
future of Ireland. We have a deep concern
about ending the violence and the abuses of
humanity which have been there. And I want
to do whatever I can to support that process.
I do believe, I'll say again, I do believe that
the dialog that was opened not all that long
ago between these two Governments in Ireland
and Great Britain offer the real chance of producing a framework within which peace could
occur. And I am going to continue to stay on
top of the situation, involved in it. I'll make
those decisions at a later time when I think


they are appropriate. I think it is inappropriate
now for me to do more than just to say that
I think the Governments should in earnest embrace the opportunities that are before them.
And I will be as supportive as I can. And whenever there seems to be something else I can
do by taking further action, then I will do it.
I don't want to do anything to undermine the
peace process. I want to do something that will
support it and reinforce it.
Secretary of Defense Les Aspin
Q. Mr. President, what about Secretary Aspin's health? Do you have to now consider, at
least consider, having a new Secretary of Defense?
The President. No, people get pacemakers all
the time. No. As far as I know he's just doing
fine.
Northern Ireland
Q. Mr. President, do you still support the
McBride principles which you said in your meeting with Irish leaders in New YorkThe President. Yes, I do.
What did you say about Ray Flynn?
Mayor Raymond Flynn of Boston
Q. Aren't you concerned the country may be
losing one of its better mayors?
The President. Yes, I am. [Laughter]
Press Secretary Myers. Thank you.
The President. It was a difficult decision for
that reason. I think he's one of the best mayors
to serve in the United States in my lifetime.
Q. Why did you offer him the job?
The President. Because I need him and because I think he'll do a great job in a whole
wide range of areas. And he was willing to serve,
and I want him in the administration.
Thank you.
NOTE: The President spoke at 12:07 p.m. in the
Roosevelt Room at the White House. In his remarks, he referred to Valerie Place and Sean
Devereux, Irish citizens who were killed in Somalia. He also referred to his intention to nominate
Raymond Flynn to be Ambassador to the Holy
See, which was formally announced on April 22.


317




Mar. 18 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993
Remarks to Treasury Department Employees
March 18, 1993


Thank you very much. Secretary Bentsen and
ladies and gentlemen, thank you for that wonderful reception.
I have looked forward to this day when I
might come to the Treasury for some time, and
with somewhat mixed feelings. I read about this
building since I was a boy. I remember, in the
periods of my life when I was absolutely absorbed in the Civil War, reading about the trips
that President Lincoln used to make across the
street to come to the Treasury Department. I
learned today from the Secretary that in 1830
the employees burned this building down. You
know, I've done a lot to increase people's sense
of empowerment, but I hope I didn't overdo
it. [Laughter] I've also, quite frankly, heard that
I would be humbled to the point of embarrassment if I walked into the offices of either the
Secretary or the Deputy Secretary of the Treasury, that they would make the White House
look like public housing. [Laughter] So I
thought I'd show up and see.
Years ago, the whole Government used to be
within walking distance of the White House,
and I'm glad the Treasury still is. I'm glad that
so many of you have worked so hard to help
to put together the economic program that is
now making its way through the Congress. And
I want to thank you for that, and to echo what
Secretary Bentsen said: that most Americans literally would have no idea, they would be staggered to know the hours that were put in by
public servants in the preparation of this program and in the historic speed with which it
was put together. I hope that you did it not
only because you were here and it was your
job but because you know what Americans feel,
and that is that our national security today is
tied as never before to our economic security,
and that if we do not regain control of our
economic destiny, we will soon lose the ability
not only to provide for a future for our children
but to lead the world that has come to look
to us. That's why I asked the Secretary of the
Treasury to serve on the National Security
Council as well as on the National Economic
Council; and why, when he met to meet with
the leaders of the other G-7 nations and found
himself treated with such respect, he helped


us in the conduct of American foreign policy
as much as in the conduct of American domestic
economic policy.
Our policy is a team effort. I tried to convince
the White House staff and all of my Cabinet
of that, and I say that to you. In Lloyd Bentsen,
I think we have a Secretary of the Treasury
with the unique capacity to command respect,
not only in the halls of this building and among
the financial leaders of the country but also in
the Congress and in the world's financial and
political capitals. And that is an invaluable asset.
He's been my neighbor for a long time. I've
known him for nearly 20 years and admired
him for a long time. And when we were riding
the bus on one of my numerous bus trips, this
one across Texas, I made up my mind then
that if the people elected me President of the
United States that I would ask him to become
Secretary of the Treasury. I think it's been a
pretty good decision.
He has sought here in Deputy Secretary Altman, an old and trusted friend of mine of many,
many years. We went to college together. He
made money; I went into politics. [Laughter]
Until I was elected President, my mother was
absolutely convinced he had made the right decision. [Laughter] In Under-Secretary-designate
Newman and Under-Secretary-designate Summers and so many others, I think we have a
rare combination of intellect and experience, of
people who are committed to making this country into the high-wage, high-growth nation that
it ought to be.
In all the employees of the Treasury Department I have seen, I've noticed a rare commitment to serve this Nation conscientiously. And
I must say, with the recent tragedies freshly
in our minds, I think that we should all once
again honor the plaque on the 4th floor of this
building that notes more than 160 Treasury
agents who have been killed in the line of duty
in our Nation's history. From the Secret Service
agents who protect our Presidents and who have
a particular chore in me because I like to get
out and see the people who put me in this
job, to Customs agents who wage war on drugs,
to the agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
and Firearms, many of the employees of this


318




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Mar. 18


Department risk their lives to protect the lives
of the rest of us. My prayers and I'm sure
yours are still with the families of all four of
the Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms agents who
were killed in Waco: Todd McKeehan and
Conway Le Bleu of New Orleans, Steve Willis
of Houston, and Robert Williams from my
hometown of Little Rock. Three of those four
were assigned to my security during the course
of the primary or the general election. My gratitude is also with the Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms agents who helped to evacuate the World
Trade Center in New York in the aftermath
of the explosion and later, who helped to find
the identification number of the van that led
to the arrest of the first suspect in the bombing.
I know that all of you join with me in praying
for a peaceful and sure and quick conclusion
to the events in Waco.
Here in this building, Treasury employees
made extraordinary efforts-this has already
been noted-in the preparation of the economic
plan. And you are continuing to tackle some
of the most important issues facing our country.
I want to reemphasize what Secretary Bentsen
said: The agenda that I have laid before the
American people cannot be effective without the
confident, committed, intense, consistent, and
long-lasting efforts of the employees of the Department of the Treasury. From our efforts to
find ways to control health care costs and provide coverage for every family, to our plan to
ease the credit crunch on small businesses, to
the plan to extend the earned-income tax credit
to lift every working family out of poverty, to
the proposal to create community development
banks in the communities of this country where
the poor are willing to work if they can access
the free enterprise system, to our efforts to negotiate Russian debt relief and promote free
institutions and free markets there and around
the world, and to our effort to create a comprehensive strategy for global economic growth;
all these things depend upon you and the employees of the Department of the Treasury. And
every one of you, whether you consider your
job large or small, is making an inestimable contribution to our efforts to adjust to the changes
in the world that have dealt so much grief to
the American people over the last several years
that can bring so much hope and prosperity
to the American people in the years ahead, if
we can find a way to make these changes our
friends and not our enemies. Indeed, I think


you could make a very compelling case that
the central challenge of this time is the challenge of making the changes that we cannot
control, that are inevitably going to come anyway, the friends of the average American people
instead of their enemy.
Even as we speak, the Congress is debating
and deciding on the economic program, especially on the immediate jobs package. This economic stimulus will create a half a million jobs.
It will create some jobs immediately that will
build a foundation for more prosperity in the
future. We have to start immediately investing
in our children's schools, our workers' skills, our
families' health, the transportation and communications networks that will make our communities more productive, our companies more
profitable, and our people more secure over the
long run. If we make these investments, we
will create more jobs today and have a stronger
economy tomorrow. Every element of this plan
is designed to help Americans do better, to get
the economy moving whether by generating jobs
or increasing income, investing in the future or
reducing the deficit that has so paralyzed our
ability to control our own destiny. If we give
the plan's elements a chance to work all together, we can make the changes we need. We
can create a half a million new jobs in the
short run, eight million during the term of this
economic program, and make our next 20 years,
most important of all, the best in our history.
There are those who still resist these changes,
who prefer the status quo. They say we don't
have to change anything. I say, just look around
the world. Look at what happened in Europe
for the last decade when they had two major
economic recoveries that generated no new jobs.
Look at what happened just last month, where
our trade deficit went up, even though the
American dollar went down because our trading
partners, gripped in recession and without any
new jobs and any incomes, couldn't buy any
more of our products. Look at what has happened in this country, where the unemployment
rate is higher today than it was at the depths
of the recession, even though we just reported
the biggest increase in productivity in 20 years
in this country. It is clear that there needs to
be a partnership between the private sector and
the Goverument to get the economy going again
in ways that generate incomes and jobs as well
as show good economic statistics at the end of
every month.


319




Mar. 18 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


There are some who say, well, this program's
all right, but we ought to do a little less of
it. They are known affectionately as the "status
quo lite" crowd over at the White House.
[Laughter] Frankly, I think that if we do a little
less of everything, we have a little less deficit
reduction, a little less spending cuts, a little less
tax increase, a little less investment, we'll get
a lot less in results.
It is clear that the time has come to make
a fundamental change in policy and direction
in this country. We know that the things that
we're doing will work. This plan contains an
enormous incentive to increase private investment in the near-term in ways that will generate
jobs. We know it contains a permanent investment incentive for small business, which until
just a couple of years ago, had been the main
generator of new jobs in this economy.
Indeed, you can make a compelling case that
the recession we have endured in jobs is almost
totally tied to the fact that the small business
engine, that created more jobs than big business
lost in the 1980's, came to a screeching halt
in the last 2 years in the face of a recession,
a credit crunch, the incredible burden of health
care costs, and other costs on small business
in adding new employees to their enterprises.
We also have proposed some special incentives
for new companies in high technology areas that
will create the high-wage jobs of the future.
All of these things should not be compromised.
If you just take the last issue alone, the economist Lester Thurow has written a book called,
"Head to Head," which estimates that most of
the new high-wage jobs in the future will be
created in seven areas of high technology, and
that there is a limit to the total number of
jobs the world can absorb in those areas, and
that many of our competitors have planned for
what will happen 10 years from now much better than we have.
We are playing catch-up in some areas where
we appear to enjoy the lead. This program is
designed to insure that we can keep that lead
for 10 or 20 years, and that our economy and
your future as public employees will be supported by that kind of technologically based job
growth in the future. I believe that these things
are critically important to our future. And I
hope that the United States House of Representatives will vote today for new jobs and
deficit reduction.
Let me also say that there are a lot of people


programs that some question the value here of.
But look at the plan for immunization. We know
that if we immunize all children against the preventable childhood diseases, we would save over
the course of their lives $10 in health care and
lost economic benefits for every $1 we spend
on immunization today. It works. We know that
if we expand college opportunities to families
of middle class people and low income people
who otherwise couldn't afford to go to college
or stay in college, we'll get more money back
because of the earning power of college graduates and how much greater it is than the earning power of college dropouts or high school
dropouts. We know that. And so when we invest
in people in a world where what you earn depends so much on what you can learn, we know
there will be a direct return to the taxpayers
and to the rest of the people in this country.
These things are unobjectionable, but we've
always found excuses not to make a full commitment. The toughest thing about this economic
program is it requires so many difficult decisions, if you want to increase investment and
reduce the deficit at the same time. That's never
been done. We've reduced the deficit in times
past, we've increased investment in times past,
and we've had years where all we did was just
let the present spending patterns spiral out of
control, but we have never had a disciplined
plan to reduce the debt and increase investment
at the same time.
Look what this plan has produced in the markets. Look how much lower interest rates are
just since the last election. I bet there are people in this room today who have refinanced a
house or gotten the benefit of a variable interest
rate on a credit card or gone out and bought
a car at a lower interest rate because of the
interest rates going down. There are Americans
who have literally already gotten as much back
in lower home mortgage payments, already, than
they're going to pay in the energy tax for the
next year or two. Because if you make real
changes that are tangible, that people can see,
they have real results.
So many times our Government has been burdened by blurring everything around the edges.
I hope that today the House will make a clear
statement to the American people that we're
not going to blur this around the edges. We're
going to have 150 and now, more cuts in specific
spending programs. We're going to raise some
taxes, even though they're tough, and make over


320




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Mar. 18


half of the money come from people who benefited most in the 1980's, those with incomes
above $200,000. We're going to have a balanced
program that also increases investment. And
we're going to say there really is a difference
in Government spending, that immunizing a
child or sending somebody to college is not the
same thing as spending more money every year
on the same health care. There is a real difference. There is a difference, and it matters.
Let me say, finally, that I appreciate, more
than I can say, the work that you have done
and the sacrifices that you will have to make
to make this economic program work. The Vice
President has been asked by me to head a program on reviewing the entire performance of
the Federal Government, trying to find ways
to, in effect, reinvent the way Government operates. And he told me right before I came over
here that he was well aware that Treasury had
been among the leading Departments in installing quality management techniques and doing
other things that would modernize the operations of Government. We have some money
in the stimulus package that will help you to


modernize the operations of Government further. And when he comes back I hope you will
be willing to meet with him and work with
him and, in the meanwhile, remember we have
6 months to try to get the best ideas we can
from all the Federal employees in the country
about how to save more money and increase
our ability to serve our customers, the American
people. So if you have those ideas I ask you
to give them to the Vice President.
Finally, let me say that the end result of all
of this has to be to help our country work better, has to be to improve the lives of the American people. I hope that by my coming here
today millions of Americans who never thought
about the Treasury Department will know that
you're here working for them. And I hope you
will know how very grateful I am for all you
have done and all you must do if this program
to turn America around is to succeed.
Thank you very much.
NOTE: The President spoke at 11:48 a.m. in the
Cash Room at the Treasury Department.


Nomination for Deputy Secretary of Transportation
March 18, 1993


The President today announced his intention  Mortimer Downey," said the President. "I am
to nominate Mortimer L. Downey, the Execu-   very pleased that he is joining Secretary Pefia
tive Director and Chief Financial Officer of the  at a Department that will play a key role in
Metropolitan Transit Authority of New York  implementing my economic plan, as well as in
City, to be the Deputy Secretary of Transpor-  improving our Nation's transportation system."
tation.
"There are few people in this country who  NOTE: A biography of the nominee was made
can match the experience or the expertise of  available by the Office of the Press Secretary.
Nomination for the Office of the United States Trade Representative
March 18, 1993


The President announced today his intention
to nominate Rufus Yerxa and Charlene
Barshefsky as Deputy U.S. Trade Representatives, and his approval of the appointment by
Ambassador Mickey Kantor of the following:
Ira Shapiro, General Counsel


Nancy LeaMond, Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Congressional Affairs
Anne Luzzatto, Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Public Affairs
Debbie Shon, Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Intergovernmental Affairs and


321




Mar. 18 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


Public Liaison
Ellen Frost, Counselor
Howard Reed, Special Counsel for Financial
and Investment Policy
Tom Nides, Special Counsel for Congressional
and Intergovernmental Affairs


"Rufus Yerxa, Charlene Barshefsky, and the outstanding team that Ambassador Kantor has put
together will work hard to make sure that we
do not miss the opportunities that lay ahead
of us."


"We are at a key moment in the history of NOTE: Biographies of the nominees were made
American trade policy," said the President.  available by the Office of the Press Secretary.
Remarks at a Breakfast for Members of the House of Representatives
March 19, 1993


Last night I went to bed early-at 1:15 a.m.for you, and I was taking odds on how many
of you would actually be here this morning at
8:30 a.m. [Laughter] This may be a greater test
of loyalty than the votes yesterday. [Laughter]
I want to say to you, Mr. Speaker, a special
word of thanks, and in his absence, to Mr. Gephardt, to whom I talked last night sometime
after midnight. I want to thank you, David
Bonior, for your work. And I want to say a
special word of thanks for the southern-drawled
discipline of Butler Derrick, the fine job he
did. I love to listen to Butler talk. He makes
me sound like a Yankee. [Laughter] I'd also
like to thank the other leaders up here on the
platform but especially the two chairs who are
here, Mr. Natcher and Mr. Sabo, for the work
they did.
And I want to thank, of course, most of all,
all of you for what you did yesterday. And I
want to thank your constituents, the people who
made this possible. If it hadn't been for the
American people voting for a change in direction in this country, communicating that to you,
and telling you that they would stay behind you
if you made the tough decisions, none of this
would have been possible.
Yesterday was a great day of victory for ordinary Americans and for the proposition that this
Government can work for them again, that we
don't have to be mired in gridlock, that we
don't have to spend all of our time posturing
and dividing and running for cover instead of
moving into the future. It was a wonderful beginning. I think it's important to remember that
it's just a beginning, that you now have to encourage your colleagues on the other side of


the Capitol to act and that we all have to continue to stay in touch with the people who sent
us here. When I leave you today, I'm going
to Atlanta to try to continue my dialog with
the American people and to say we still have
a great deal of work to do to create the jobs
and invest in our people and reduce the deficit.
But people know that it's working.
You know, this last week I have had to take
a good deal of time off to deal with the foreign
policy responsibilities of the President. But one
of the most interesting things that happened
during the last week is that every world leader
with whom I met at some point during the
conversation said that America seems to be on
the move again, that it's exciting to see so much
happening here.
I just want to say on behalf of all of you
who were working last night, who missed the
White House correspondents' dinner, I'll give
you a list of my jokes on the way out-[laughter]-but you won't have to endure them again.
We are looking forward, the Vice President
and I and all of our family, to working with
you as we complete this work. This can be a
historic year for this country. You acted with
unbelievable dispatch. I don't think that a budget resolution has ever been passed so quickly
and one has ever been this comprehensive and
acted on this quickly. It is a wonderful beginning but is just the beginning. And let's, all
of us, determine that we're not going to quit
until our job is done. Let's urge the people,
as I said, in the Senate to join hands with us
and move forward quickly now. And let's stay
in touch with the folks back home and tell them
what we're really doing is giving the Govern

322




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Mar. 19


ment back to them.                        NOTE: The President spoke at 8:55 a.m. in the
Thank you very much, and God bless you. East Room at the White House.
Remarks on the Retirement of Supreme Court Justice Byron R. White and
an Exchange With Reporters
March 19, 1993


The President. Let me say, as all of you know,
I received a letter not long ago from Justice
White expressing his intention to resign from
the Court at the end of this term and saying
that he wanted to give me this much notice
so that hopefully I could announce my intention
to nominate someone and all the hearings could
be concluded in time to really prepare someone
to serve at the beginning of the October term
of the Court.
I called Justice White just a few moments
ago and had a fine conversation with him. I've
known him for nearly 20 years, and I thanked
him for his service to our country. He's had
a truly remarkable life. And I appreciate the
fact that he cared enough about the Court as
an institution to offer me a significant period
of time to deliberate and still to have plenty
of time to have a nominee considered by the
Senate and then confirmed well in advance of
the beginning of the Court's next term.
So I will begin work on this tomorrow in
earnest. And I will attempt to be faithful to
my Constitutional duties and appoint a truly outstanding American in a timely fashion.
Potential Supreme Court Nominees
Q. [Inaudible]-you once mentioned Governor Cuomo before.
The President. I don't want to get into personalities now. This is Mr. Justice White's day. And
as I said, I never will forget sitting in the Supreme Court as a young attorney general and
having had him already tell me that the quality
of representation by the States was pretty poor.
And then I had worked very hard with a lawyer
from my State who was making the argument,
and he sent me a note, which I still have in
my personal files 16 years later, saying that we


were doing better. So that's what I'm going to
try to do every day.
Q. Do you have a long list of possible nominees?
The President. No. The list may get longer;
it may get shorter. I did not anticipate having
the opportunity to make an appointment at this
early stage, so we don't have a big bank of
potential nominees. I'll go to work on it tomorrow. I don't want to discuss any individuals at
this point. I will do my best to pick a truly
outstanding person just as soon as I can.
Bosnia
Q. [Inaudible]-is to get people out of Bosnia.
Are you going to be able to comply with that
request?
The President. President Mitterrand and I
talked the other day, and he told me he was
going to give some helicopters, which, as you
know, he's done. And this morning was the first
I have been informed of that. So we're going
to discuss that today and make a decision.
Abortion
Q. Is abortion a litmus test for a Supreme
Court nominee? Is that the whole issue?
The President. Now, the question as you ask
it contains a thousand questions. And I wouldn't
say no, and a thousand questions no. Do I believe that there is a constitutional right to privacy? Yes, I do.
Thank you.
NOTE: The President spoke at 9:55 a.m. on the
South Lawn at the White House upon departure
for Atlanta, GA. In his remarks, he referred to
President Frangois Mitterrand of France.


323




Mar. 19 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


Statement on the Retirement of Supreme Court Justice Byron R. White
March 19, 1993


This morning I received a letter from Justice
Byron White informing me that he intends to
retire at the end of the current Supreme Court
term.
He is a living example of the American dream
fulfilled. He came from humble beginnings, was
a star college and professional athlete, a Rhodes


scholar, a prominent private attorney, and Deputy Attorney General at one of the most important times in our history before joining the
Court in 1962. In his 31 years on the Supreme
Court, Justice White served his country and our
Constitution well. We are all more fortunate
that he devoted the great portion of his life
to public service.


Remarks at the Downtown Child Development Center in Atlanta, GA
March 19, 1993


Well, first of all, I would like to thank Cheryl
and all the people at this wonderful center for
giving me a few minutes' break out of my normal schedule. The Mayor and I talked about
business on the way in from the airport, and
then I got to help put a puzzle together and
play a drum and do some things that are more
fun than what I do most days. [Laughter]
Let me begin by saying that last night the
House of Representatives cast an historic set
of votes. Among those in the leadership was
your Congressman, John Lewis, who is here with
me now, a longtime friend of mine. The House
voted to do something that our country, as far
as I can tell from my reading of history, has
never done before at the same time. They voted
to make a drastic cut in the Federal deficit
and at the same time to invest some new money
in the children of the country, through preschool
programs and nutrition programs and education
programs, and in new jobs for the American
people. And I wanted to come here to Atlanta
today to talk about it and to try to help to
keep the American people informed of what
the House has done and what the Senate must
now do and what we still have to do to pass
this budget. I wanted to come here to this child
care center because the children who are here,
the children of working parents, desperately
need the kinds of opportunities that are provided here and that we're trying to provide


there.
Just on the way in something happened that
we couldn't have organized, Cheryl, neither you
nor I, if we tried to do this. A man was standing
outside this center with a child in his arms saying, "If I could afford to get my child in a
good center like this, then I could take a job
even at minimum wages and support my child."
It was very touching. He just happened to be
in the crowd outside.
So I guess what I'd like to do is just to ask
all of you to tell me what I, as President, can
do to help to continue to support these kinds
of projects, maybe get Federal Agencies in other
cities to do the same thing you've done, perhaps
work on enhancing the child care incentives in
the Federal program. But I'd like to know what
you think I can do to help to deal with this
problem. Because as I go around the country,
next to the cost of health care and the fear
of losing health insurance, the availability and
quality and affordability of child care are the
things that working parents most often mention
to me, after health care. So I just wanted to
come here and listen for a while.
NOTE: The President spoke at 1:05 p.m. at the
center. In his remarks, he referred to Cheryl
Smith, director of the center, and Maynard Jackson, Mayor of Atlanta.


324




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Mar. 19


Exchange With Reporters in Atlanta
March 19, 1993


Potential Supreme Court Nominee             or can have a greater impact on more Americans
Q. Mr. President, excuse the interruption, sir, than an appointment to the Supreme Court.
but could you give us some feel for what you'll  And I'm going to try to pick a person that has
be looking for in a replacement for Justice  a fine mind, good judgment, wide experience
White?                                     in the law and in the problems of real people,
The President. I already said that in Washing-  and someone with a big heart.
ton. I used to teach constitutional law, and I
think that there are few decisions the President  NOTE: The exchange began at 1:10 p.m. at the
makes which are more weighty, more significant,  Downtown Child Development Center.
Remarks to the Business Community in Atlanta
March 19, 1993


Thank you very much. Virgil, I'm glad I let
you introduce me. [Laughter] I'm delighted to
be here with so many distinguished Georgians,
the people here on the platform with me today,
including Virgil Williams, who really did do a
good job. And there are some days I wish I
were called Governor again. [Laughter]
People ask me all the time, is it different
being President? And the truth is, it is, in ways
that are wonderful and ways that aren't so good.
But I had an encounter the other day which
describes, better than any words I could say,
what's right and what's wrong with it. I was
up in the White House in the Residence part,
and I had to go back down to the first floor
to a big meeting. And my wife had been having
a meeting there that I didn't know anything
about. It wasn't public, you know. [Laughter]
And anyway, so I got down to the first floor,
and these throngs of people were there. And
I just walked right out of the elevator into them,
which was nice. They were people I didn't
know, and I stopped, shook hands with them
all, and talked to them. And this young man
I was with, who had come to work at the White
House during a previous administration, was just
aghast. He said, "Oh, Mr. President, I'm so
sorry that I got you in the middle of all these
people." And I said, "That's okay, I used to
be one." [Laughter]
I want to thank John Portman and Sam Williams and Peg Canter and Doug Miller for
hosting me and welcoming me here to the At

lanta Apparel Mart. I want to say a special word
of thanks to these distinguished business leaders
who are up here on the platform; thank my
good friend Governor Miller-I'm glad to see
Governor and Mrs. Miller here-for meeting
me outside; and for Mayor Jackson, who rode
in with me and asked me to do more for Atlanta. [Laughter] You know, I don't know what
I'd ever do if I came to Atlanta without a suit
coat because I always have the Maynard Jackson
memorial list. [Laughter] And I actually got
gigged today in the office before I left the White
House; they said, now be sure and remember
to leave Maynard's list on the desk tonight when
you get back so we can go to work on it.
[Laughter]
I flew down here with a number of members
of your congressional delegation who had a
great, great night last night. I thank them for
their presence here. And I'm glad to see many
others in the audience, Andy Young and Max
Cleland and others who are here. I thank you
all for being here.
It was just a few days ago that I celebratedand I did celebrate; I wrote Zell a note about
it-the first anniversary of the Georgia Democratic primary, when all the experts were saying
that if I didn't receive 40 percent of the vote
here, I would have to pack up my tent and
go home. And thanks to you, some of you, anyway, who voted in the primary, I got-[laughter]-57 percent, and I didn't have to pack up
my tent and go home.


325




Mar. 19 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


This is the first opportunity I've had to come
back to Georgia since your State gave your electoral votes to the Clinton-Gore ticket in November. I want to tell you how very grateful I am
for that and how much I enjoy working with
your Representatives and how dedicated I think
the people in Washington are now to break the
gridlock that has gripped our country for too
long. Not only did the folks in the House delegation who flew down with me today cast some
historic votes last night, but there were also
some attempts to derail our program in the
United States Senate last night. And they too
fell short, even though they were very carefully
developed to be as attractive as possible. And
I thank Senator Nunn for his help in maintaining the integrity of the program yesterday in
the Senate, too.
When the House of Representatives acted last
night to pass the budget resolution and to pass
the emergency jobs program, they did something that our country, as nearly as I can tell
from my study of our history, has never before
done. They actually voted at the same time to
reduce the national debt and to increase our
investment in jobs and in education, in the new
technologies of the future, and helping us to
adjust to the defense cutbacks and to the rigors
of the global economy. Reduce the deficit; increase investment. In order to do it, they had
to take some very tough positions. They had
to vote to reduce spending in very specific ways,
not just general rhetoric but real specific commitments to reduce spending. They had to vote
to raise taxes after more than a decade of being
told that that was always a bad thing to do.
And they had to draw clear distinctions between
different kinds of Government spending.
As Virgil said in the introduction, here at the
grassroots level of America, if you're running
a business or if you're running a city or if you're
running a State government, you know there
is a difference between investing in education
and job growth and infrastructure and the things
that will increase productivity and wealth and
employment, and just expanding programs that
may or may not work or taking more people
to do the same thing. For too long in Washington there has been no distinction, so we've had
this unbelievable irony for 12 years in which
the deficit has gone up, but our investment in
the future has gone down. And we have paid
a terrific price for it.
I hope and believe that the process of real


renewal has begun, but only begun. On the 57th
day of this administration, our economic plan
is almost halfway home. The new direction is
designed to meet the needs of the broad middle
class of America again for jobs and for schools,
for bringing a college education back within the
reach of ordinary people, and bringing down
the cost of health care and extending its reach.
It's about giving the poor a chance to work
their way out of poverty and welfare and dependence, about investing wisely again in our
future, about helping all Americans and especially our children to be stronger and healthier
and smarter so that they can realize their full
potential and our country can maintain its economic superiority, without which we cannot
hope to lead the world in this new era.
At the same time, we're actually wasting a
lot less of the taxpayers' money. We've cut 150
specific programs, and there are more on the
way. Tens of billions of dollars in spending have
been cut. And under this budget resolution, not
one penny in taxes can be raised unless we
also cut spending in the amounts prescribed.
The new direction is also about changing the
nature of the way Government works. The Government that I inherited, through no particular
person or party's fault perhaps, is too large, too
slow, too distant, and often too old in its approach to solving problems. I am committed
to changing the way the Government operates,
starting at the top with my own budget and
taking a look at every program and every Agency. I have asked the Vice President to take 6
months to take advantage of the best talent we
can find and to review the operations of every
single Government Agency and program with
a view toward not just cutting unnecessary
spending but literally changing the whole way
Government works: relying more on markets
and incentives, eliminating unnecessary layers of
management, pushing decisions down to the
lowest possible level, taking full advantage of
technology.
I discovered that in the White House alone,
if we could invest $4.7 million in new technology, in communications technology and other
technology, we could save over $10 million a
year in payroll. And we could do it in spite
of the fact that we are now getting 34,000 letters
a day. And we are trying to set up a system
where we can actually answer them. The White
House operation historically has been so antiquated that at least two-thirds of the letters that


326




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Mar. 19


came in never got answered at all. And usually
they were those that, to keep faith with the
American people, perhaps should have been answered first. Often letters that were critical were
just thrown away as negative mail, because literally there was no capacity to handle it. Thousands of people every day want to call the White
House, but the switchboard was put there when
Lyndon Johnson was President, and people still
pick up wires and plug them into holes when
the calls are made. When I became President,
I walked into the Oval Office and found the
telephone system that President Jimmy Carter
had operated with. And I found that I couldn't
have a conference call, but when the light came
on on my phone, anybody in the central office
of the White House could push their lighted
button down and have a conference call I didn't
want. [Laughter]
Now, that's funny, but it says something about
the tendency of Government to add layer upon
layer upon layer to the way things used to be,
when new things have to be done, rather than
stopping old things while you start new things
and changing the way things work. The longer
you've got a monopoly on money and a monopoly on customers, there is very little incentive
out there to change. But there is no real monopoly anymore because there's a limit to how
much the Government can take out of the economy and we are constrained by what we have
to spend on defense, on health care, on interest
on the debt, and other things. So the Government is compelled to reexamine the way we
do our business. And I think we're going to
have some very exciting things to show for our
efforts in the weeks and months ahead.
The plan I ask the American people to embrace and to support the Congress in embracing
is a thoughtful one, built piece by piece, a strategy that looks at the entire picture of America
and asks what we have to do to ensure growth.
It's a plan for short-term job creation and longterm prosperity, a chance to invest and prosper
in a free market system, to improve education
and training for a lifetime, to make health care
more affordable and accessible, to make our
streets safer, and more importantly, to give our
people a chance to be involved in the large
work of keeping our country moving forward.
One of the most frustrating things to me
about the year and a half that I crossed this
country in the campaign was the number of
people I met who had simply given up on the


system. Now if we get 34,000 letters a day and
half of them are critical, I count that as a good
day, because it means that people believe they
can write their President and somebody will be
there listening and paying attention. People believe the system will work again. There was a
poll in New Jersey last week-one of two States
that have elections for Governor in this offyear-saying that 18 percent of the people who
are going to vote in this election this year voted
for the very first time in the Presidential election in 1992. The Los Angeles Times poll said
that 70 percent of the American people had
actually discussed the economic plan I presented
to the Congress and to the people with one
of their friends or neighbors or family members.
That means democracy is on the march again
in America, and people believe the system can
be made to work for them. And that is in itself
a victory for the efforts that we are all making.
Make no mistake. I know that there are many
roadblocks ahead. I know that I'll make some
mistakes along the way. And I know, too, there
are still guardians of gridlock in Washington who
will fight fundamental change. There are those
now who say that we ought to cut the investments that I propose to make in families and
children, in jobs and education and health care,
make them vulnerable, and then we won't have
to ask as much from others in either tax increases or spending cuts in older programs.
There are about 80,000 lobbyists in and
around Washington. By some estimates, they
spend nearly $1 billion a year protecting the
various interests they're hired to protect. They
get a tax deduction to do it, for a while. But
the kind of children I saw today in the joint
public-private child care center I visited before
coming over here don't have much of a lobby
in Washington. Pregnant mothers or out of work
or hard-working parents don't have a lot of time
to hire people to roam the halls of Congress
to stick up for them. Those who are neither
wealthy nor organized, no matter what they're
doing, are very often the most voiceless and
powerless in our system, even though they may
carry the day in whether our free enterprise
system actually works or not. That's why it's
the President's job to try to speak and fight
for them. It's why we have to encourage those
in Congress to stand ready to vote for change.
Yesterday's vote in the House is really a huge
step in that direction. You ought to talk to John
Lewis or the others who are here, Nathan Deal


327




Mar. 19 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


and Buddy Darden or Cynthia McKinney or
Don Johnson, and ask them what it was like
last night-Sanford Bishop-ask them what it
was like when we get 218 votes and all of a
sudden people say, "My God, we actually did
something here for a change. We've got something to go home and talk about. Even if somebody jumps on us, at least they'll jump on us
for doing something instead of for not doing
something."
A few weeks ago I went with Senator Moynihan of New York to New York. We flew into
an Air Force facility, and then we drove for
about 50 minutes to Franklin Roosevelt's hometown in Hyde Park. There were hundreds of
people along the way-8, 10 degrees outside,
people standing outside holding their signs up.
One person had a sign that I thought was pretty
reflective of the American public mood. It said,
"Just do something." [Laughter] Just do something.
Well, the Congress has acted in a fundamental
departure from the status quo. They proved that
change is possible. And let me just give you
one example that has already taken place. Last
year when this recession started going way, way
too long and no new jobs were being created,
the Federal Reserve Board began to lower the
Government's rediscount rate in an earnest attempt to bring interest rates down. And interest
rates came down some. But there was still a
huge gap between the rate that the Government
charged bankers and the long-term interest rates
in this country. Just since the election, since
this deficit reduction plan has come out, interest
rates have been down between.8 percent and
one full percentage point, floating back and
forth more or less in that range.
I'll bet you if I ask for a show of hands
in this room, there are a lot of people in this
room that, in the last 4 months, have refinanced
a house or have benefited from a changing interest rate on a business loan or a car loan
or credit card purchases. There are millions and
millions of Americans who, in the first 6 months
of this year, will save more money in interest
payments than they'll pay in the energy tax I
propose for the full 4 years of this administration. That is what happens if you gain control
of your economic destiny, if you keep interest
rates down, if you bring this deficit down, and
if you have a plan for long-term growth.
I've had to put on my foreign policy hat a
little bit in the last 10 days, meeting with leaders


around the world. I've seen in the last several
weeks the Prime Ministers of Canada and Great
Britain and then recently the President of
France and the President of Haiti and the head
of the European Community and the Prime
Minister of Israel. And sooner or later, it always
gets around to a conversation where they say,
you know-particularly the Europeans sayAmerica is on the move again. You've restored
people's feeling that the Government can actually work with the people in a country and get
something going again. It can make a difference
again. And that is what I came here to ask
for your support for today: Not to agree with
everything I say or do; I'm sure I've made some
mistakes, and I'll make some more. But I think
we ought to get up and go to work every day,
and I think we ought to make a difference.
We're working hard first to fix this economy,
to bring the deficit down, and then to face the
other problems ahead of us. We need to pass,
and I want to emphasize this, we need to pass
what is a modest but important stimulus program to create a half a million jobs in the short
run. We need to do it for a couple of reasons.
First of all, the program is targeted to give businesses that are creating jobs more incentive to
invest to create more jobs, and secondly, to target public spending programs into projects that
are ready to go and designed to be guaranteed
to produce new jobs. And, secondly, in a larger
sense, we need to do it because all the wealthier
countries in the world, not just the United
States, all of them are having great difficulty
now, even in times of economic recovery, in
creating new jobs. In the last decade, Europe
had two big economic recovery periods, created
virtually no new jobs, even though incomes were
going up, profits were going up, new jobs were
not coming into the economy.
In the last 2 or 3 years, that's started to happen in the United States. All during the 1980's,
the largest companies in America downsized,
just the way I'm trying to downsize the Federal
Government. They had to do it to be more
competitive. But in every year of the eighties,
small business created more jobs than larger
businesses lost. Then, the last couple of years,
that whole trend came to a screeching halt.
There were a lot of reasons: the recession, the
cost of health care, the credit crunch, the enormous cumulative cost of adding a new employee
to a small business work force.
In the last month, we had 365,000 new jobs.


328




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Mar. 19


That's the good news. The bad news is that
more than half of them were part-time jobs,
jobs that didn't contain a full income and
couldn't provide for health care coverage for
the family. Every month now, because of the
changing mix in our economy, 100,000 Americans are losing their health insurance. So there
are severe problems in this economy that we
have to address to create the jobs. Let me just
mention a couple of things that we're trying
to do, particularly to focus on small business.
We have announced a Governmentwide program with every Agency that regulates our financial institutions to try to end the credit crunch
on small business and give banks the flexibility
they need to make good loans to worthy customers in the small business sector and to drastically, and I mean drastically, cut the paperwork
required to access Government programs and
to comply with the regulatory requirements.
We have proposed a program that would give
small businesses-90 percent of the employers
employing 40 percent of the people but providing way over half the new jobs-a permanent
investment tax credit so that they'll always have
more incentives to plow money back into the
business.
We have taken steps to pass a budget which
will contain billions of dollars in funds to help
to deal with these terrible, terrible economic
problems caused by defense cutbacks and base
closings by not only retraining workers at very
high levels but also providing joint ventures in
new technologies so that defense contractors will
have a fighting chance to get into technologies
that have both civilian and defense uses, or entirely civilian uses, to create the jobs of the
future.
These are just some of the things that have
to be done to keep our eye on the ball. The
purpose of bringing the deficit down is to make
the economy work, which means we've got to
both bring the deficit down and focus on these
investments. We've got to change the nature
of Federal spending: less consumption, more investment.
And finally, in order to get that done, we're
going to have to face the health care crisis in
America. It is projected that if we do nothing
to change Government spending patterns on
health care, listen to this, in 5 years, adding
no new benefits-adding no new benefits-in
5 years, your tax bill for paying for Medicare
and Medicaid will go from $210 billion to $350


billion, a 67 percent increase in 5 years with
no new benefits, because of the explosion of
health care costs and the explosion in the number of people who will be forced onto the public
health care rolls as people cannot afford anymore to insure their employees.
This is a devastating blow to our efforts to
reduce the deficit. If you want us to bring the
budget into balance, you must insist that after
we pass this budget, we move on to find a
way to bring health costs in line with inflation
and provide a basic package of health care to
all of our people. Every other country in the
world, except the United States, has figured out
a way to do that. Let me tell you what will
happen if we don't. By the end of the decade
we'll be spending 20 percent of every dollar,
20 cents on the dollar, on health care. And
none of our competitors will be over a dime,
and we will be in a serious hole in terms of
trying to be competitive. We also cannot balance
the budget.
The flip side of that is if by working in partnership with providers, employers, and employee groups, we can bring health costs in line
with inflation without sacrificing quality, we can
emphasize preventive and primary care, we can
provide a way for everybody to have basic coverage, we can guarantee people that they won't
lose their health insurance if somebody in their
family's been sick, or if their own business goes
down, if we can do that, we can free up hundreds of billions of dollars.
If you look at the projected increases in
health care costs, bringing health costs in line
with inflation would do more to stimulate the
private economy, even in keeping interest rates
down, and much more than any tax cut or any
Government spending program we can hope to
put out there. So that is the next big challenge
for us. But first we've got to pass the economic
program.
So I ask all of you today to bring to your
views of the National Government the spirit that
I see in Atlanta: the idea that the Government
and the business sector ought to be in a partnership, the idea that there's a difference between
investment and consumption, the idea that you
can't run from your problems so you might as
well face them and try to do something about
them and make progress on them. Those are
the things that I saw in that child care center
here today. That is the spirit that brought the
Olympics to Atlanta. That is the spirit behind


329




Mar. 19 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


the old motto you had when my State had its
misfortune in the racial crisis in 1957 and Atlanta called itself "the city that was too busy
to hate."
That is what you have to do as a citizen
of the United States: Support the Members of
the Congress that are up there trying to get
something done. Support the idea that we can
reduce the deficit and increase investment and
create jobs. Support the idea that gridlock is
not good for anybody except people who like
to hear the gears squeal. Support the idea that
we have to change in order to renew the American dream.
We are moving in the right direction. Last
night was an exhilarating first step. But believe
me, you can ask any Member of the United
States Congress, they did not count that a victory for themselves last night: It was a victory


for you. They know that they will do only what
they believe you want them to do. The people
of this country are back in the driver's seat;
it's time to put your foot on the accelerator
and stay in the middle of the road.
Thank you, and God bless you all.
NOTE: The President spoke at 2:02 p.m. at the
Apparel Mart. In his remarks, he referred to Virgil
R. Williams, president and chief executive officer,
Williams Communications, Inc.; John Portman,
chairman, Portman Companies; Sam Williams,
president, Atlanta Market Center; Peg Canter,
general manager, Apparel Mart; Doug Miller,
general manager, Atlanta Market Center Trade
Shows; Zell Miller, Governor of Georgia; Andrew
Young, chief executive officer, Law International,
and former Mayor of Atlanta; and Max Cleland,
Georgia Secretary of State.


Nomination for Posts at the Departments of Veterans Affairs, State, and
Housing and Urban Development
March 19, 1993


The President announced today his choices
for four senior positions at the Departments of
Veterans Affairs, State, and Housing and Urban
Development. He expressed his intention to
nominate the following:
Jerry Bowen, Director, National Cemetery
System, Department of Veterans Affairs
Mark Catlett, Assistant Secretary for Finance
and Information Resources Management,
Department of Veterans Affairs
Daniel Tarullo, Assistant Secretary for Economic and Business Affairs, Department of
The President's Radio Address
March 20, 1993
Good morning. Today I want to give you a
progress report on our plans to get the country
moving again. With the support of so many
Americans, including many of you listening
today, we won an important victory on Capitol
Hill this week. The House of Representatives


State
Susan Gaffney, Inspector General, Department of Housing and Urban Development
"I am very pleased with the pace of the nominations that we have been making," said the
President. "This week alone, I have named more
than 30 people to fill important positions in
the day-to-day operations of the Federal Government," he added.
NOTE: Biographies of the nominees were made
available by the Office of the Press Secretary.


approved the economic package and with it an
immediate crucial investment program to create
jobs that will be like a booster rocket for our
economy.
It was a week that reaffirmed why I came
to Washington: to deliver the kind of change


330




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 1 Mar. 20


you demanded when you cast your ballots last
November. It's significant, I think, that I can
bring you this news on the first day of spring.
It may be gloomy or even cold where you are
right now, but the signs of the season are unmistakable. In Washington the snow is melting,
trees are budding, and outside the window of
the Oval Office birds are announcing their return. And there's something else in the air. Exactly 2 months ago at my Inauguration as your
President, I said that together we could force
a season of growth and renewal. I'm happy to
tell you today that we're on our way to that
kind of spring, too.
We thank all the Congressmen and Congresswomen who carried the day for all of us. But
mostly the credit goes to you, the American
people, because after all, you issued the challenge and demanded the change. Your message
was loud and clear. You said no more status
quo. And that message must continue to ring
in the ears of all our lawmakers. It should drown
out the drone of special interests who would
decimate the plan bit by bit until we're back
to where we began.
I know you don't want that. You didn't vote
for half measures or excuses or business as
usual. Because you demanded change, we've
begnn to turn our back on the long winter of
trickle-down economics, moving toward investing in people and their jobs and education and
health care and in the future. The price of doing
nothing is too high. You've already seen what
more than a decade of neglect can do. We're
losing our competitive edge in the world. At
home, our highways and mass transit systems
were falling into disrepair; cities deteriorating;
rural areas suffering; and most important, families, especially middle income families, were
feeling enormous strains.
On all these fronts there is ground to be
regained and advances to be made. Every part
of our program is aimed at making lives better
across the Nation. And it does it with investments paid for dollar by dollar by cuts in spending.
With our plan, we'll build up our job base.
Small businesses, the source of more than half
the jobs held by Americans, will get the help
with freer access to credit, with investment tax
credits and urban enterprise zones and special
capital gains for new enterprises. At the same
time, we'll invest more in research and development for new technologies and to convert de

fense technology. And that will help us stay
competitive globally. With our investment in
lifelong learning, we'll give Americans the tools
they need to stay sharp in the changing job
market.
Our plan takes care of our children, too. We
want to immunize every child against infectious
diseases, to get them off on the right foot with
Head Start, to help mothers and infants to get
the nutrition they need. It's the smart thing
to do and the right investment to make. Every
dollar we invest today will give us back many
more dollars tomorrow. just yesterday I saw
what investments in children can bring. I was
in Atlanta where parents, teachers, and business
leaders have joined forces to create a Downtown
Child Development Center. In every direction
I looked, I saw small faces with big smiles. It's
a nurturing environment that produces happy
kids, productive parents, and satisfied employers.
In many ways, it's a microcosm of what we
want for America.
Our economic recovery package may be the
boldest economic plan that Congress has ever
seen. In addition to the investments, the plan
passed by the House will reduce the Federal
deficit by $510 billion in the next 5 years. If
we can make these changes, our children will
live better, more prosperous lives.
Make no mistake about it, this is a bold plan,
because we need bold change. You know it;
that's what you asked for. The American people
are, by their very nature, people of action. It's
been very frustrating to have more than a decade of policies that run up the deficit and ran
down morale and investment. And it's been
more frustrating still to see Government in
gridlock where nothing profoundly important
ever happens.
Our plan to cut spending and increase investment in the future of our country is now being
considered in the United States Senate. In
Washington, your voices are being heard, so I
urge you to raise them. We need to enlist the
Senators now in our cause to break gridlock
and get the economy moving. Please encourage
your Senators to support the economic plan,
to create jobs and boost incomes and reduce
our national debt.
The sooner our plan becomes a reality, the
sooner we'll be shifting the gears of our economy out of neutral and into drive. You're in
the driver's seat now. I urge you, make sure
your foot's off the brake, step on the accelerator,


331




Mar. 20 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


and help move this country forward.
Thanks for listening.


NOTE: The President spoke at 10:10 a.m. from
the Oval Office at the White House.


Letter to Congressional Leaders Reporting on Iraq's Compliance With
United Nations Security Council Resolutions
March 22, 1993


Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)
Consistent with the Authorization for Use of
Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public
Law 102-1) and in an effort to keep the Congress fully informed, I am reporting on the status of efforts to obtain Iraq's compliance with
the resolutions adopted by the U.N. Security
Council.
Under my Administration, the United States
will continue to lead international efforts aimed
at ensuring that the Iraqi regime does not
threaten international peace and security and
at ending the Iraqi Government's brutal repression of its people. To that end, we will maintain
our insistence on full Iraqi compliance with
U.N. Security Council resolutions. We will work
with the international community to ensure the
integrity of the U.N. sanctions regime, which
is the best means to promote Iraqi compliance.
In accordance with U.N. Security Council
Resolution 687, the U.N. Special Commission
on Iraq (UNSCOM) and the International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) have continued
to investigate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction
(WMD) programs and to verify the destruction
of relevant facilities, equipment, and weapons.
Destruction of chemical munitions at Al
Muthanna has continued.
UNSCOM      #48,  a  missile  team,  and
UNSCOM #49/IAEA #17, a nuclear team, arrived in Iraq just a week after the cruise missile
attack on the Al Zaafaraniyah nuclear-related facility. The nuclear team inspected the Al
Zaafaraniyah site, confirmed that only buildings
with technical functions had been hit, and verified the destruction of many highly sensitive machine tools. After initial resistance, Iraqi officials
have permitted baseline inventories of the Ibn
Al Haytham Research Center; this is an important but limited step in enabling UNSCOM to
move toward comprehensive evaluation and
long-term monitoring of Iraqi WMD capabilities.


The inspections were successful in eliciting new
details of Iraqi WMD programs and an admission from Iraqi officials that they attempted to
deceive a previous UNSCOM team.
A missile team designated as UNSCOM #50
discovered a small discrepancy in the inventory
of missile propellant at one site. During this
inspection, the Iraqi side argued that UNSCOM
should not be permitted to use Global Positioning System equipment to identify the precise
locations of sites visited. Iraq alleges inaccurately
that such readings were used by the U.S. military  to  target the  Al Zaafaraniyah  site.
UNSCOM rejected this argument. On February
22, the team was redesignated as UNSCOM #51
and searched for possible SCUD sites west of
Baghdad.
Iraqi harassment of inspectors and interference with UNSCOM and IAEA activities
have resumed, after a lull immediately following
the attack on Al Zaafaraniyah. Iraqi authorities
also threatened to shoot down a helicopter performing support for a ground inspection that
UNSCOM #51 was carrying out. In early February, an Iraqi, possibly an official "minder" for
the inspectors, threw a rock through the window
of an UNSCOM vehicle.
Iraq continues to refuse to provide the United
Nations and IAEA with a comprehensive list
of the suppliers for its WMD programs. Moreover, it refuses to accept U.N. Security Council
Resolution 715, which mandates the creation of
a long-term monitoring regime for Iraq's WMD
infrastructure. The international community
must insist on such long-term monitoring.
The United Nations has continued its work
to settle the Iraq-Kuwait border. The Iraq-Kuwait Boundary Demarcation Commission continues its work, without Iraqi participation. At its
December meeting, the Commission agreed to
begin to demarcate the offshore section of the
boundary "with the principal purpose... being


332




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Mar. 22


navigational access for both parties."
In response to continued Iraqi violations of
the border and the demilitarized zone (DMZ),
the U.N. Security Council adopted Resolution
806 on February 5. The Resolution clarified that
the United Nations Iraq-Kuwait Observer Mission (UNIKOM) can take any necessary actions
to prevent such violations and authorized a potential increase in UNIKOM forces from 250
to 3,600 troops. The United Nations is seeking
to identify countries willing to contribute an
armed battalion for this purpose.
Evidence continues to mount concerning the
massive extent of the Iraqi Government's human
rights violations, both before and after the Persian Gulf War. Max van der Stoel, Rapporteur
of the U.N. Human Rights Commission, has
produced compelling evidence of Iraqi atrocities
against the civilian population in southern Iraq.
We support the Rapporteur's proposal to place
human rights monitors throughout Iraq.
Iraq's campaigns of repression against its own
people underline the importance of international
actions to protect Iraq's civilian populations.
Acts of violence and terrorism continue at the
behest of the Government of Iraq in violation
of U.N. Security Council Resolutions 687 and
688. The "no-fly zones" over northern and
southern Iraq seek to monitor Iraq's compliance
with U.N. Security Council Resolution 688.
Since the no-fly zone was instituted in southern
Iraq last year, Iraq's use of aircraft in aggression
against its population in the region has stopped.
The no-fly zone in the north has also prevented
use of fixed or rotary wing aircraft against the
local population there. Other acts of repression
continue, however, underscoring the need for
U.N. monitors.
The international community has continued
its efforts, consistent with Security Council resolutions, to alleviate suffering in Iraq. The United
States is working closely with the United Nations and other organizations to provide humanitarian relief to the people of northern Iraq, in
the face of Iraqi Government efforts to disrupt
this assistance. We support new U.N. efforts
to mount a relief program for persons in Baghdad and the south, but the United Nations must
be able to prevent the Iraqi Government from
diverting supplies.
The U.N. sanctions regime exempts medicine
and requires only that the U.N. Sanctions Committee be notified of food shipments. In accordance with paragraph 20 of Resolution 687, the


Committee received notices of 17 million tons
of foodstuffs to be shipped to Iraq through January 1993. The Sanctions Committee also continues to consider and, when appropriate, approve
requests to send to Iraq materials and supplies
for essential civilian needs.
The Iraqi Government, in contrast, has for
months maintained a full embargo against its
northern provinces, in violation of U.N. Security
Council Resolution 688, and has acted to distribute humanitarian supplies only to its supporters
and to the military. It has also refused to utilize
the opportunity under Resolutions 706 and 712
to sell up to $1.6 billion in oil, proceeds from
which could be used by Iraq to purchase foodstuffs, medicines, materials, and supplies for essential civilian needs of its populations; the distribution of these supplies would be monitored
by the United Nations. (These proceeds could
also be used to finance essential U.N. activities
concerning Iraq.) The Iraqi authorities bear full
responsibility for any suffering in Iraq that results from their refusal to implement Resolutions 706 and 712.
The United States has recently transmitted
to the United Nations a report on Iraqi violations of international humanitarian law committed during the Gulf War. This report provides
the international community with a documented
record of Iraqi crimes. We encourage others
to transmit whatever information they have on
Iraqi violations of international humanitarian law
to the United Nations in accordance with U.N.
Security Council Resolution 674.
Since January 19, the U.N. Compensation
Commission has continued to prepare for the
processing of claims from individuals, corporations, other entities, governments, and international organizations that suffered direct loss
or damage as a result of Iraq's unlawful invasion
and occupation of Kuwait. The Commission has
received about 400,000 claims to date. The next
session of the Governing Council of the Commission is scheduled to be held in Geneva
March 29 to April 2, 1993, with another meeting
in July 1993.
Iraq has not met its obligations concerning
Kuwaitis and third-country nationals its detained
during the war. The Government of Kuwait has
compiled over 600 files on missing individuals.
Although Iraq has received this information
through the International Committee of the Red
Cross (ICRC), it has taken no substantive steps
to comply with Security Council Resolution 687,


333




Mar. 22 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


which requires that Iraq cooperate fully with
the ICRS. Regional organizations have also been
engaged-thus far to no avail-in trying to obtain Iraqi compliance on the issue of detainees.
We continue to work for Iraqi compliance and
the release of all those detained in Iraq.
The United States and out allies continue to
press the Government of Iraq to return all property and equipment removed from Kuwait by
Iraq. Iraq continues to withhold necessary cooperation on these issues and to resist unqualified ICRC access to detention facilities in Iraq.
We will continue to seek to maintain Iraq's
territorial integrity. A future government that
represents all the people of Iraq and that is
committed to the territorial integrity and unity
of Iraq would be a stabilizing force in the Gulf
region. In this regard, we are encouraged by
Nomination for Posts at the Treasury
March 22, 1993
The President announced today his intention
to nominate George Weise, the staff director
of the House Ways and Means Committee's
Subcommittee on Trade, to be Commissioner
of the U.S. Customs Service, Department of
the Treasury; and Stephen Kaplan, the former
city attorney of Denver, to be General Counsel
for the Department of Transportation.
"George Weise," said the President, "is one
of this country's leading experts on customs matThe President's News Conference
March 23, 1993
Russian Reforms and U.S. Economy
The President. Good afternoon. Before taking
your questions today I would like to speak very
briefly about some foreign and domestic issues.
First, I want to reiterate that the United
States supports the historic movement toward
democratic political reform in Russia. President
Yeltsin is the leader of that process. He is a
democratically elected national leader, indeed,


recent efforts of the Iraq National Congress
(INC) to develop broad-based, indigenous opposition to the Baghdad regime. A democratic and
pluralistic government would be the best guarantor of the future of the Iraqi people.
My Administration does not seek to use force,
but we will not shrink from using force in selfdefense or as authorized by U.N. Security Council resolutions to compel Iraq's compliance with
their terms. I am grateful for the support of
the Congress for these efforts.
Sincerely,
BILL CLINTON
NOTE: Identical letters were sent to Thomas S.
Foley, Speaker of the House of Representatives,
and Robert C. Byrd, President pro tempore of
the Senate.
and Transportation Departments
ters, with experience that few can match. I am
confident that he will work to make the Customs
Service a model of effectiveness and efficiency."
"As Denver's city attorney," the President
added, "Stephen Kaplan served Federico Pefia
with unparalleled dedication and professionalism. He will, I am sure, do no less here in
the Federal Government."
NOTE: Biographies of the nominees were made
available by the Office of the Press Secretary.


the first democratically elected President in a
thousand years of Russian history. He has United States support, as do his reformed government and all reformers throughout Russia. At
this moment, Russia is in a constitutional and
political crisis. President Yeltsin proposes to
break the logjam by letting the people of Russia
decide on April 25th. That is an appropriate
step in a democracy. Our interest is to see that
this process unfolds peacefully.


334




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Mar. 23


We're encouraged that President Yeltsin is
committed to defend civil liberties, to continue
economic reform, to continue foreign policy cooperation toward a peaceful world. Russia is,
and must remain, a democracy. Democratic reform in Russia is the basis for a better future
for the Russian people, for continued United
States-Russian partnership, and for the hopes
of all humanity for a more peaceful and secure
world.
The United States has great responsibilities
abroad and at home. To meet these responsibilities, we must not only continue to support reform and change abroad but also the revitalization of our economy here at home. We need
to fundamentally change as our times require
it. On February 17th, I offered an economic
plan to provide for that kind of fundamental
change. Just 5 days ago, the House of Representatives took a giant step toward breaking
the logjam and the gridlock here in Washington
in approving the economic plan. And in just
1 or 2 days, the Senate will have the opportunity
to demonstrate that it too has heard the people's
call for change. Make no mistake about it, our
people too have demanded a new direction in
our economy: cutting the deficit, investing in
our people, and creating high-skill, high-wage
jobs for working men and women and for our
children.
Our plan does reduce the Federal deficit now
by about $500 billion over the next 5 years.
And just as important, it will grow the economy
by investing in our people, their skills, their
technological future, their health, and by offering new incentives for businesses to create jobs.
In helping the economy to create millions of
new jobs, the great majority of them in private
business, we are building the foundations of a
future prosperity, from world-class transportation and communication networks to safer
streets and smarter schools. Each of these elements, reducing the deficit, asking the wealthy
to pay their fair share, investing in the future,
and creating jobs, will work as a package, and
Congress should pass the package.
Just as the best social program is a job, the
best deficit reduction program is a growing
economy. This plan sets our country on a new
course that honors our oldest values, moving
away from gridlock to action; away from a Government that serves only privileged interests to
a Government that serves the public interest;
away from paying for the mistakes of the past


and the expediencies of the present toward investing in the needs of the future.
The work has only begun. The Vice President
is heading our effort to reinvent Government.
Cutting back programs that don't work or whose
work is already done, we're going to do what
the smartest companies have already done in
our country: streamline our operations, eliminate
wasteful levels of management, and empower
our frontline workers to take initiative and to
take us on a better course. We're going to make
Government less expensive and more effective.
And as we pursue fundamental change in our
economy, our health care system, and our
schools, we will ask all our people to do their
part.
The change the American people voted for
is now beginning. We have a rare moment in
Washington's history when people's voices are
being heard and a rare opportunity to get things
done. With the continued involvement of our
people and the support of Congress, we can
deliver the changes the people demand here
at home. We can give the country the best years
it has ever had, and we can have the United
States still on the side of freedom and democracy and market reform around the world. Those
are the objectives of this administration.
And I'll be glad to answer your questions.
Helen [Helen Thomas, United Press International].
Russia
Q. Mr. President, would you be willing to
hold the summit meeting in Moscow if it would
be best for President Yeltsin's political health?
Have you spoken to President Yeltsin? And
don't you think that if you did go to Moscow,
it would engage the U.S. too closely in the
power struggle in the capital?
The President. You've got me on both sides
of the issue before I even started. Well, let
me say, first, I have not talked to President
Yeltsin, but I have sent him two letters, one
in response to his statement and the other, of
course, a letter of condolence on his mother's
death. I am going to meet in the morning with
Foreign Minister Kozyrev to get a direct firsthand appraisal of where we are, after which
it might be appropriate for us to have a telephone conversation. But I thought I should have
the Kozyrev meeting first.
As of this time, we have not received any
indications that the Russians, specifically Presi

335




Mar. 23 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


dent Yeltsin and his government, have any desire to change the site of the meeting or the
time. So we are working very hard; indeed, I'm
going to have a long session tonight to try to
prepare for the summit at the appropriate date
in Vancouver. I expect to spend a good deal
of time this week consulting with the congressional leaders of both parties and others who
might have ideas about what we ought to put
in our package. And I intend to go there with
an aggressive and quite specific plan for American partnership. So that's where we are now.
Q. Would you go to Moscow if it was called
for?
The President. Well, let me say this. If they
were to express an interest in that, then it's
obviously something that we would have to consider. But that has not been done yet. There
were some conversations this morning between
the Secretary of State and Mr. Kozyrev-that
has not been done yet. If that were to happen,
then we would cross that bridge when we come
to it.
Q. Mr. President, what would the U.S. policy
be if the Soviet legislature votes to impeach
Mr. Yeltsin, as appears increasingly likely?
Would you continue to view Mr. Yeltsin as the
duly elected leader of Russia?
The President. Well, I view him as such now.
He is the only person who has been elected.
The others are proceeding under a constitution
that goes back to the Communist era. What
I would do under those circumstances, I don't
want to speculate about.
First of all, let me say, we have to appreciate,
I think, the unique character of the events going
on in Russia. It is a Russian experience. I myself
have been, I think, in a way, most interested
by the television interviews of the people in
the street in Russia. You know, just talking about
it, they sound almost like our people might
sound talking about some fight we were having
here. They've been remarkably level-headed
about it and of different opinions, obviously. I
think we just have to let this play out. I don't
want to speculate about what the position of
the United States would be in a hypothetical
situation.
Yes.
Q. Mr. President, have you received any assurances about the command and control of
Russian nuclear weapons in this crisis?
The President. We are monitoring that very
closely, and we will continue to monitor that


very closely. At the present time, we have no
reason to be concerned that the command and
control procedures that are appropriate have
been interrupted or face any imminent threat
of interruption. We feel good about it at this
time, and we will continue to monitor it closely.
Brit [Brit Hume, ABC News].
Q. Mr. President, I wonder what your view
of the American possibilities are. How do you
see the U.S. role? Can the U.S. play a decisive
role, or are we really just ultimately bystanders?
The President. I think somewhere in between.
I think in the end the Russian people will have
to resolve this for themselves, and I hope they'll
be given the opportunity to do that in some
appropriate fashion. I have only the same access,
in a way, that you do in terms of all the possible
developments that are in the air. I do not believe that we can be decisive in the sense that
we can determine the course of events in Russia
or, frankly, in the other Republics of the former
Soviet Union, with which we also have a deep
interest. But I do believe that we are not bystanders. For one thing, I don't think that this
country can do what it needs to do in any acceptable timeframe in moving to a successful
economy unless we move to act across a whole
broad range of areas. And over the next few
days, I should have more to say about that as
I work hard on this package.
Wolf [Wolf Blitzer, Cable News Network].
Defense Budget Cuts
Q. Mr. President, the former Secretary of
State, Dick Cheney, and the chairman of the
Senate Armed Services Committee, Sam Nunn,
have both suggested that your proposed Pentagon budget cuts would perhaps be inappropriate
at this time of uncertainty in Russia and elsewhere around the world. Are you taking another
look at all of those cuts to perhaps revisit the
whole issue?
The President. I'm not taking another look
at the cuts at this time. Let me remind you
that basically I think we have still presented
a responsible defense budget. But what I am
doing is trying to make sure that we can fulfill
the missions that we have to fulfill based on
any projected developments within the confines
of that budget as it's staged over the next 5
years. And we'll be able to constantly review
that. Obviously, these budgets are passed every
year for 5 years in the future. And I expect,
to whatever extent the world is uncertain, we'll


336




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Mar. 23


have to be more vigilant in reviewing what our
commitments are.
Russia
Q. Mr. President, you've made clear that you
support both Russian reform and Yeltsin as the
embodiment of that reform movement. But if
President Yeltsin is removed either constitutionally or unconstitutionally, would it affect the
package of aid, both the size and the specific
package that the United States would offer Russia, without a President Yeltsin? Should the conservatives, the nationalists in the Parliament be
on notice that it could affect the kind of aid
we'd contribute?
The President. Well, let me say again, I don't
want to get into hypothetical situations because
I don't want anything I say or do to either
undermine or rigidify the situation there. I
mean, this is something the Russians are going
to have to develop.
The United States has three interests in our
cooperation with Russia. One is to make the
world a safer place, to continue to reduce the
threat of nuclear war and the proliferation of
nuclear weapons. Two is to support the development of democracy and freedom for the people
of Russia-it is a vast and great country-and
indeed, for all of the Commonwealth of Independent States. And three is to support the development of a market economy. At every step
along the way, with or without President Yeltsin
in authority, from now, I suppose, until the end
of time or at least for the foreseeable future,
the United States will have those interests, and
we will be guided by those interests.
Homosexuals in the Military
Q. Mr. President, you seem to be having
some difficulty with the Pentagon. When you
went to the U.S.S. Theodore Roosevelt, the sailors there were mocking you before your arrival,
even though you are the Commander in Chief.
The services have been undercutting your proposal for permitting gays to be in the military.
There's been no Pentagon creation of the task
force that was supposed to be created. The
hearings are to start a week from now, and
Congress has not gotten any advice from the
Pentagon or from the services as to what to
propose. Do you have a problem, perhaps because of your lack of military service or perhaps
because of issues such as gays in the military,
in being effective in your role as Commander


in Chief, and what do you propose to do about
it?
The President. No. No, I don't have a problem being Commander in Chief. You knew that
a lot of the service officers disagreed with the
position on gays in the military before I ever
took office. The Secretary of Defense has not
been in the best of health; I think he is either
fully recovered now or on the verge of it. And
I asked him to give me a report on June 15th.
Senator Nunn said back in January that he
would have hearings sometime probably in
March, so I think we're at the outer limits of
the time that he was going to have hearings.
And his schedule to have hearings, in my view,
has nothing to do with the fact that I asked
the Secretary of Defense to present to me on
June 15th a report, which I expect to receive.
Q. Can I follow, sir? The task force was supposed to be created by now. The Pentagon has
not created the task force, and there has been
no report to the Hill. And in fact, Senator Nunn
has indicated that he thinks some of the compromises that might have been possible, such
as not having gays go to sea or be in combat,
are not constitutional. Does that give you pause?
The President. Not constitutional?
Q. Would not pass constitutional muster.
The President. Well, I don't want to get into
a constitutional debate, but if you can discriminate against people in terms of whether they
get into the service or not, based on not what
they are but what they say they are, then I
would think you could make appropriate distinctions on duty assignments once they're in. The
courts have historically given quite wide berth
to the military to make judgments of that kind
in terms of duty assignments.
Yes.
Potential Supreme Court Nominee
Q. Mr. President, on another topic, you've
laid out some of the criteria you're going to
use to choose the next Supreme Court Justice:
a fine mind, experience in the law, experience
dealing with people, and a big heart. Does Governor Mario Cuomo fit that criteria, and do
you think that he would make a good Supreme
Court Justice?
The President. Well, I'm on record on that,
but the last time I said it, he wound up in
the midst of a lot of conversation that I don't
think either he or I intended. I will stay with
my criteria. I will make the appointment as soon


337




Mar. 23 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


as I reasonably can. Justice White, I think, tendered his letter at this time, before the end
of this term of Court, in order to give me a
significant amount of time to make a judgment.
This is a very busy time around here, as you
know, because of all the foreign and domestic
activities, but I intend to spend a lot of time
on that.
Yes?
FBI Director Sessions
Q. Mr. President, aides suggest that you've
made a preliminary decision to remove William
Sessions, the FBI Director, from office; you're
only waiting for a recommendation from Janet
Reno. Can you deny that?
The President. Yes, that's not correct. I've not
had a decision about that. I have asked Janet
Reno to look at it. My review of the Director
and the issues surrounding his appointment is
largely confined to what has already been in
the press. I wanted to wait until I had an Attorney General and until she could make a review.
I have not made a decision, and I am going
to wait for her judgment on it.
Yes, Susan [Susan Spencer, CBS News].
Health Care Reforn
Q. Americans are eagerly awaiting May 1st
to find out what you have in mind for health
care reform. Are you ready to stand here now
and make a pledge that by the end of your
first term all Americans will have health insurance? And how much latitude do you think you
have politically to raise taxes to be sure that
that happens before the end of your first term?
And I have a followup.
The President. Well, I'm ready to tell you
that I will present a plan which would provide
the American people the opportunity to have
the security of health care coverage by the end
of my first term. Whether or not that plan will
pass the Congress in the form I will propose
it, you know, that's a matter for conjecture. But
I think we've got an excellent chance of passing
it. In terms of how it will be paid for, let me
say that no decision has been made on that.
All the surveys show lopsided majorities of the
American people willing to pay somewhat more,
a little more, if they were guaranteed the security of health care coverage when they change
jobs, when someone in their family's been sick,
when other things happen, when their company
can no longer afford it under present cir

cumstances.
But what I'm trying to do now is to reconcile-the key financial conflict in the health
care issue is this: We've got to give the American people the right to know they're going to
be covered with health insurance, that they're
not going to have their costs going up 2 or
3 times the rate of inflation, and they're not
going to lose the right to pick their doctor. And
we know that if we do it in any one of three
or four ways, it will save literally hundreds of
billions of dollars, between now and the end
of the decade, of tax money and more importantly of private money. Massive amounts of
money will be saved. So the question is: How
much do you have to raise now in order to
save all that money later? Those are the judgments we'll be making in the next month. We've
still got about 5 weeks to make the decisions.
You had a followup.
Q. I did. I wanted to ask you if long-term
care would absolutely be included in that package of benefits that you're talking about everybody having by the end of the first term.
The President. To what extent it will be hasn't
been resolved because of the cost questions
there.
Mark [Mark Miller, Newsweek].
Homosexuals in the Military
Q. Are you prepared to support restrictions,
to follow up on Andrea's [Andrea Mitchell, NBC
News] question, prepared to support restrictions
on the deployment of homosexual members of
the service? And if you are, do you think that
fulfills the criteria that you laid out that discrimination should be on the basis of conduct, not
orientation?
The President. That depends on what the report says. That's why I'm waiting for the Secretary of Defense to issue the report. But I
wouldn't rule that out, depending on what the
grounds and arguments were.
Yes.
Health Care Reform
Q. Mr. President, your own advisers have said
that your health care reform might cost from
$30 billion to $90 billion more a year, cost the
Government more. That's in addition to the tax
hikes you proposed for your economic program.
Are you saying you cannot tell the middle class
and working people that you will not seek higher
taxes for health care reform?


338




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Mar. 23


The President. I'm saying that I have not
made a judgment yet about how to recover what
monies it would take to provide the security
to all families that they would have some health
insurance. That's right, I have not made that
decision yet. I have sat through now probably
10, 12 hours, maybe, of intense staff briefings
on the health care issue, and I would say we
have 12 to 15 hours to go before I will be
in a position to make some of these calls.
I can tell you this: I will not ask the American
people to pay for a health care plan until the
people who will be making money out of the
changes that we propose are asked to give back
some of the money they will make. Keep in
mind, these changes will save massive amounts
of money immediately to some of the health
care providers.
Yes.
Russia
Q. Thank you, sir. Mr. President, if I may
return to Russia for a moment. As your spokespersons have told us over the past few days,
there are other reformers there. Is there a danger in putting too much American weight behind Boris Yeltsin?
The President. I don't think so. Some people
say, well, what's the difference in this and the
Gorbachev situation before, and is this the same
sort of problem? I tried to answer that question
earlier about what the United States interests
are and how we would pursue them. And I've
tried to be supportive of reformers throughout
Russia and, indeed, throughout all the former
Communist countries and the former Republics
of the Soviet Union. But he is, after all, the
first elected President in a thousand years. He
has the mandate of having been voted on in
a free and open election where people were
free to vote and free to stay home, something
that was not true previously. And that is something you would expect me to do.
Let's put it in a different context. Well, we
just had the Prime Minister of Great Britain
here, right? And the United States and Great
Britain have had historic ties and shared values.
You expect me to work with the Prime Minister
of Great Britain, even if he is of a party that
was openly supportive of my opponent in the
last election. [Laughter] Boris Yeltsin is the
elected President of Russia, and he has shown
a great deal of courage in sticking up for democracy and civil liberties and market reforms, and


I'm going to support that.
Yes, in the back.
Economic Program
Q. Mr. President, you congratulated the
House of Representatives for a speedy action
on your economic plan last week, but you face
some tougher hurdles in the Senate in part because some members of your own party, like
Senator Breaux, are not on board with you. Why
haven't you been able to get some of these
Democratic Senators on board, and are you prepared to make some compromises in breaking
the gridlock there?
The President. Well, let me just answer you
this way. There were two big problems that
we confronted when we got here in terms of
how the people's money was being spent. One
problem was the deficit had exploded. It had
gone from $1 trillion, the debt had, to $4 trillion
in 12 years. The other problem was we'd managed to explode our national debt while reducing our investment in the future.
Now, there are a block of people in the Senate, including some Democrats, who believe that
the only thing that matters is to reduce the
deficit. Now, believe me, that's a big improvement over the past, but I just disagree with
them. I don't think that's the only thing that
matters. I believe that investing in the future
matters, too. And I believe if we don't change
the spending patterns of the Government and
invest and put some of the American people
back to work to create millions of jobs, that
we're not going to have an economic recovery.
So we just have a difference of opinion.
Now, Senator Breaux is much closer to me
than many others are in the sense that he basically wants to phase in this spending. But the
problem with phasing it in is if you delay the
investment, you also delay the impact of the
investment, which means you put off the effective date of the jobs being created. That's my
only argument with him. He, to be fair to him,
has said, "This is an acceptable stimulus package
and an acceptable level of investment, but I
think we should, in effect, slow down the rate
of spending until we have the whole package
passed." And my position is, if the United States
Senate will adopt a budget resolution like the
House did, the American people will know we
are not going to raise their taxes until we cut
spending, and we are going to create jobs. And
this is a plan where 70 percent of it's paid


339




Mar. 23 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


by people with incomes above $100,000, $500
billion of deficit reduction, but millions of jobs
over the next 4 years, including a half a million
in this program. So that's my argument, and
I hope I'll be able to persuade enough to get
the vote.
Yes.
Russia
Q. Mr. President, could you explain, please,
the situation on nuclear weapons in Russia?
The President. This is self-selection over here.
It's impressive. [Laughter] Go ahead.
Q. Mr. President, given the fact that both
the START I and the START II treaties are
hostage to the political outcome in Moscow, and
given also the potential for conflict, armed conflict between Russia and Ukraine, are you prepared to draft contingency plans, at least, that
would either restore funding or add funding to
the Strategic Defense Initiative, if not the spacebased part, at least the ground-based element,
as a hedge against the worst possible outcome?
The President. Well, we're not in a position
to make a judgment about the worst possible
outcome now. Let me say, I've talked to President Kravchuk twice about the Ukraine's position on START I, and I'm very concerned about
the very issues you raised. But let me say that
even as we speak I'm not ready to say that
there is a strong likelihood that we can't proceed
with both START I and START II and that
we can't resolve the conflicts between Russia
and Ukraine. If that becomes apparent that we
can't, then we will obviously assess our position
and all of our options.
North American Free Trade Agreement
Q. Mr. President, on April 2, the Free Trade
Agreement negotiators are going to meet again
to talk about the additional agreements. Now,
there has been a lot of talk that your administration plans to be very tough. How do you characterize being tough? Do you agree with that
statement, and is there any room for compromises? How are you seeing those negotiations?
The President. Well, I wouldn't call it being
tough. I would say that I intend to try to get
a trade agreement that will be in the best interest of both the United States and Mexico. And
keep in mind, this is not simply a trade agreement, this is also an investment agreement. And
the issue is whether, when we make it much


more attractive for the United States to invest
in Mexico and much more secure, shouldn't we
also, in the interest of both the economies of
Mexico and the United States, see that basic
environmental standards and labor standards are
observed, and shouldn't we have some protections greater than those embodied in the present
agreement in the event that there is severe economic dislocations because of unintended consequences? I believe that we should. And I believe that's in Mexico's interest. And I would
just point you to a much smaller example. We
had examples in our aid program where the
United States spent taxpayers' money to encourage American companies to invest in Central
America, who then went down there and actually lowered wages instead of raising them in
the host country. So what I'm trying to do is
to promote market reforms and the benefits of
them to both countries.
Second thing, let me say, I have enormous
admiration for President Salinas and for what
he's doing. I want to support that. And I want
to remind all of you that insofar as to the trade
portion of the NAFTA agreement goes, just look
at the unilateral reductions by the Salinas government in trade barriers; took the United
States over the past 5 years from a $6 billion
trade deficit to a $5 billion-plus trade surplus
with Mexico. So I have no quarrel with the
trade provisions. But the investment provisions
need to be used in ways that will raise wages
on both sides of the border instead of lower
wages on both sides of the border and pollute
the environment. That's what I want to avoid.
Cuba-U.S. Relations
Q. Among the people you have charmed, it
seems you have charmed President Fidel Castro
because-[laughter]-in a recent interview with
a TV network, he wanted to meet with you.
Would you be willing to meet with him? And
a Democratic administration might change the
approach towards Cuba, versus a Republican?
The President. I have no change in Cuba policy except to say that I supported the Cuban
Democracy Act, and I hope someday that we'll
all be able to travel to a democratic Cuba.
Debra [Debra Mathis, Gannett News Service]
Q. Would you meet with President Castro?
The President. I said "democratic Cuba"elections.
Go ahead.


340




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Mar. 23


Deaths in Mississippi Jails
Q. A totally different subject, although it is
south of here. I wonder about, in Mississippi,
where as you know, civil rights and human rights
groups are asking for your help in investigating
the 40-plus hangings, suicides supposedly, in
Mississippi jails. Some of the civil rights groups
say that they are asking you, in fact, to order
a Justice Department investigation. Have you
heard from them directly, and are you amenable
to that request?
The President. Well, I'm very much concerned
about the deaths in the jails. I have not had
a-if they have communicated with me directly,
my staff has not yet discussed it with me, although they may have done so. What I would
always do in a situation like that is to first discuss it with the Attorney General after an assessment of the facts and to see whether it is appropriate. But obviously, if we were asked to look
into it, I would certainly at least discuss it with
the Attorney General.
Japan-U.S. Trade
Q. Mr. President, on another trade issue, during your campaign last year in Michigan and
other States, you criticized a Bush administration decision which allowed foreign-made
minivans, MPV's to come into the country at
low tariff rates. This led the auto industry and
auto workers to believe that you would take
action early in your administration to do something about this. Have you changed your mind
on that subject, or do you still intend to take
action?
The President. No, I haven't changed my
mind on that subject. That issue is now under
review, along with a number of others relating
to our trade relations with Japan. And let me
just say this: I had hoped, and still hope, to
engage the Japanese Government in an ongoing
dialog across a whole broad range of these issues. If you look at the history of American
trade relationships, the one that never seems
to change very much is the one with Japan.
That is, we're sometimes in a position of trade
deficit, but we're often in a position of trade
surplus with the European Community. We
once had huge trade deficits with Taiwan and
South Korea, but they've changed now quite
a bit; they move up and down. But the persistence of the surplus the Japanese enjoy with
the United States and with the rest of the devel

oped world can only lead one to the conclusion
that the possibility of obtaining real, even access
to the Japanese market is somewhat remote.
And I will say again, I was astonished that the
Bush administration overruled its own customs
office and gave a $300 million a year freebie
to the Japanese for no apparent reason. And
we got nothing, and I emphasize nothing, in
return. So, no, I haven't changed my position
about that. I did hope to put it in the context
of a larger set of trade issues to be raised first
with the Japanese Government before acting
unilaterally. But my own opinion about that has
not changed.
Yes, Randy [Randy Lilleston, Arkansas Democrat-Gazette], go ahead.
Q. Mr. President, you've beenThe President. I'm going to come back to
the right. I'm left-handed, you know, and I[laughter]-sometimes  discriminate. No, go
ahead.
Potential Supreme Court Nominee
Q. Mr. President, during the campaign you
gave some pretty strong indications that your
Supreme Court nominee-you would certainly
consider their position on abortion. Is that still
the case?
The President. Thank you for asking, because
I want to emphasize what I said before. I will
not ask any potential Supreme Court nominee
how he or she would vote in any particular
case. I will not do that. But I will endeavor
to appoint someone who has certain deep convictions about the Constitution. I would not, for
example, knowingly appoint someone that did
not have a very strong view about the first
amendment's freedom of religion, freedom of
association, and freedom of speech provisions.
And I strongly believe in the constitutional right
to privacy. I believe it is one of those rights
embedded in our Constitution which should be
protected.
Yes.
Q. Mr. President, on the issue of the Supreme
Court, is your commitment to a Government
that looks like America, does that also extend
to the Supreme Court to the extent you can
influence that through your appointments? Will
you be taking age into consideration? And given
what you just said about the right to privacy,
do you think it's appropriate and will you or
members of your administration be asking potential nominees if they support the right to


341




Mar. 23 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


privacy and whether they think that right includes the right to abortion?
The President. I'll answer the question. I will
not ask anybody how they will vote in a specific
case. I will endeavor to appoint someone who
has an attachment to, a belief in a strong and
broad constitutional right to privacy. And on the
age issue, I will not discriminate against people
who are older than I am. [Laughter] Yes. I
won't discriminate against people who are of
a different gender, of a different racial or ethnic
group.
Q. How about a Government and the Court
that looks like America, sir-on diversity?
The President. I don't know how many appointments I'll get to the Supreme Court; I
don't know what will happen there. I'm going
to appoint someone I think will be a great Justice.
Go ahead.
Campaign Finance Reform
Q. Mr. President, on campaign finance reform, could you tell us how you plan to end
soft money contributions to State and national
parties?
The President. First let me say that I intend
to come forward with a proposal that will end
the use of soft money in Presidential campaigns
in the next few days. We're working on it now.
We're working on trying to hammer it out with
the friends of campaign finance reform in both
Houses of the Congress. I will attempt to do
it in a different way that will at least enable
the parties to raise sufficient funds to involve
grassroots people and empower people to participate in the political process, but I think that
we should do away with this soft money issue
and make a lot of other changes as well, and
we're working on it. We should have a bill out
that has the support of the administration quite
soon. We've been working very hard now for
the last couple of weeks on it.
Press Secretary Myers. Last question.
Forest Conference
Q. Mr. President, you're going to the forest
conference in a couple of weeks, looking for
a solution to an issue that has dragged on for
a long time partly because both sides are unwilling to compromise or share the pain and, some
say, the previous administration's unwillingness
to obey the law of the land. How do you propose to find a solution where so many have


failed or been unwilling to find a solution?
The President. Let me say, I would like to
begin by having the United States have one
position, and let me come back to the larger
issue. The forest summit involves, as you know,
what will happen to the old growth forest and
to adjacent forests in the Pacific Northwest
which are the habitat of the spotted owl, but
which also are now a very small part of what
once was a massive old growth forest up there.
Thousands of jobs are at stake, but the very
ecostructure of the Pacific Northwest is also at
stake. The parties on both sides have been paralyzed in court battles, and all timber sales have
been frozen, including many timber sales that
virtually all environmentalists think should go
forward, because of the impasse. One of the
problems has been that the United States itself
has taken different positions across the Agencies.
So the first thing I hope to do is to be able
to at least adopt a uniform legal position for
the United States.
The second thing I want to do is go out
there along with the Vice President and listen,
hammer out the alternatives, and then take a
position that I think will break the logjam. The
position-it may be like my economic program-it'll probably make everybody mad, but
I will try to be fair to the people whose livelihoods depend on this and fair to the environment that we are all obligated to maintain. And
let me say, I live in a State that's 53 percent
timberland. I have dealt with a lot of these
timber issues for many years. The issue is, in
this case, what is the right balance, given some
facts that are inevitable about what's going to
happen. And I think we can hammer out a
solution. And as I said, everybody may be somewhat disappointed, but the paralysis now gripping the lives of the people out there is totally
unacceptable.
Stimulus Package
Q. Sir, did you screen those projects in the
economy stimulus package before you sent them
to the Hill? The Republicans are saying there
are so many things in there that are totally unnecessary. I can't believe that you sent those
up there; and maybe somebody did it for you.
[Laughter] But there are-[inaudible]-in there
and swimming pools and copying statuesThe President. No.
Q.     and even a project on studying the
religion in Sicily.


342




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Mar. 23


The President. No-[laughter]-let me say,
you will read those bills for years in vain and
not find those projects. The
Q. Well, the
The President. Let me say, I have a letter
here, dated on March 22d, to Senator Byrd from
Leon Panetta about those alleged projects. What
Mr. Panetta points out is to say that none of
the specific projects referenced are actually in
the legislation proposed by me. What they have
done is to go to these Departments and say,
if you had this much more money, give me
every absurd thing you could possibly spend the
money on. I am not going to let those things
be done.
The other thing they have done is to go to
some isolated parts of the country and pick


atypical examples of community development
block grant funds. I would remind you that it
was the Republicans who've always supported
the community development block grant proposal on the theory that we ought to rely more
on the States and local governments to make
judgments about how best to create jobs. So,
I will do everything I can to keep undue waste
and abuse from coming into this process. I do
not support it.
We've got to quit. Thank you. We'll do it
again sometime. I like this. [Laughter]
NOTE: The President's seventh news conference
began at 1:02 p.m. in the East Room at the White
House.


Remarks to Democratic Governors Association Members and State and
Business Leaders
March 23, 1993


Thank you very much. Governor Walters,
thank you for that introduction. That was spoken
with a fervor that could have only been mustered by someone who, a year and a month
ago, was freezing to death in the Super 8 Motel
in Manchester, New Hampshire. [Laughter]
I also want to tell you that we just had a
press conference at the other end of the hall,
and I was upstairs on the telephone, and I didn't
know you were here yet. And I was told that
I had been introduced, so I rushed downstairs,
only to find that I would be introduced twice
or thrice. [Laughter]
I'm delighted to see you all. I thank you for
being here. I thank the leaders of business and
labor and State and local government for coming
along with my colleagues in the Democratic
Governors group to endorse this program.
Last week was a remarkable week here in
this Capital. The House of Representatives took
a strong stand for the most credible deficit reduction program in anybody's memory. At their
request and based on the Congressional Budget
Office estimates and based on what the Governors asked, we took another $60 billion-plus
in deficit reduction spending cuts so that now
we'll have $500 billion in deficit reduction over
5 years; a significant amount of tax increases,


most of them on upper income people whose
incomes went up the most in the 1980's, but
a broad-based Btu tax that we think will both
preserve the environment, promote energy conservation, and raise money in a fair way; big
spending cuts; and finally, some very significant
but very targeted investment increases.
The debate moves to the Senate this week,
and I want to tell you a little about that, because
there is an honest philosophical debate going
on, as well as an underlying political one that
I need your help on. In the last 12 years I
think you could argue that your Government
had two big problems: one is that the deficit
literally exploded, and the public debt quadrupled. We started the decade of 1980 with
a $1 trillion debt; we in 1992 had it up to
$4 trillion, with huge projected annual operating
deficits. That is a massive problem. It led to
a big gap between short- and long-term interest
rates, and it clearly had a major contributing
impact on our trade deficit, our ability to save
and invest, and our long-term economic growth.
We had to do something about it.
The other big problem was that we were actually seeing reductions in investment by the National Government even as all of our competitors were increasing their investment. And that


343




Mar. 23 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


may seem inconsistent. I mean, how could we
be making a relatively smaller contribution at
the national level to the education, for example,
of people who graduate from high school but
don't go to college and need apprenticeship programs? How could we be retrenching in our
commitment to the education of our young children and to dealing with the problems of poor
children? How could we be retrenching in our
commitment to develop new technologies and
new partnerships in the public-private sector
and new partnerships for dual-use technologies
between defense and domestic technologies?
Well, the answer is pretty clear. We're spending more and more money every year, first on
defense in the first part of the 1980's. And then
the latter half of the 1980's, while we have cut
defense, we spend even more on interest on
the debt and more money for the same health
care. And then as all of you know, those of
you who are employers in particular, about
100,000 Americans a month are actually losing
their health insurance; and many of them, the
lower wage working people, are coming onto
the public rolls.
So that's what's happened to us. So we run
the deficit up. We run investment down at the
same time. That is a huge problem. Our plan
seeks to address both of these.
There are those who really don't want a
change. They don't want any tax increases, or
they don't really want the cuts that I have offered. And they're going to maneuver this process for political paralysis.
But underneath that or over that, if you will,
there are a group of people who do want to
reduce the deficit but just don't agree that an
investment strategy is important. And they are
the people that I urge you to reach out to,
because it is important to reduce the deficit.
But it's also important to increase investment.
And if you do one without the other, you won't
get the full benefits of this plan.
I would argue to you that we have gotten
a major benefit out of deficit reduction. Look
what has happened to long-term interest rates:
down almost a full point since the election. You
have millions of Americans refinancing business
debt, consumer debt, home mortgages, getting
the benefit of variable interest rates on various
kinds of debt payment. That will unleash billions
of dollars, tens of billions of dollars into this
economy this year, which in turn will be reinvested, which will create new jobs. That is very


important. I don't think the marginal amount
of deficit reduction you would get by killing
this investment package or killing our emergency
jobs program would bring interest rates down
any more. You just can't get them down much
more. But we would, if we killed it, forgo the
chance to jumpstart the job engine of this economy by half a million jobs. And that is a serious
thing. That's about a half a percent on the unemployment rate. That's a very substantial impact.
Now, let me make one other comment that,
again, the employers here as well as the employees will not find surprising. There has been a
dramatic restructuring of our economy and of
the global economy which has been going on
for the better part of 20 years, and we've been
clearly aware of it for a decade now, where
the biggest companies in America have been
forced to restructure their operations here, either because they're going global and they have
to put production overseas or because they just
have to increase productivity and do more with
less through technology. But many of them have
also provided for outsourcing or contracts with
smaller businesses, and the American entrepreneurial economy for the entire decade of the
1980's was able to create more jobs in the small
business sector and the medium-size business
sector than big business lost.
Two years ago, it stopped. And it started slowing down about 4 years ago, so that over a
4-year period we had almost no net job growth
in the private sector. Virtually all, not quite all
but almost all the net job growth for the previous 4 years was, believe it or not, in State,
local, and national government.
Job growth was canceled out by job reduction
in the private sector. Now, why did that happen?
The truth is, no one knows all of the answers.
It's an international phenomenon. In Europe
during the 1980's, where they didn't have the
vital small business sector that we had and all
the entrepreneurial culture, there were two
major economic recoveries where the economy
was growing like crazy and no new jobs were
created. So this is a global phenomenon.
But we also know that part of the problem
here has been the credit crunch, the general
recession, the cost of hiring new workers because of the back-breaking costs of health care
as well as other attendant costs. So more and
more people are relying on part-time workers
or asking their existing work force to work over

344




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Mar. 24


time.
I say that to make this point: We have gotten
the maximum short-term benefits we can get
now out of a very, very tough and vigorous
deficit reduction program. We are going to get
long-term benefits out of it. The time has come
to put in the other piece to create jobs and
to lay the foundation for an educated work force
and for a high-technology future. And that is
what the rest of this program does.
So I ask those of you who are living out
there at the grassroots, in the private sector
Nomination for Ambassador to France
March 23, 1993
The President announced today his intention
to nominate Pamela Harriman to be Ambassador
to France.
"Anyone who has been involved with the
Democratic Party for any length of time is certainly familiar with Mrs. Harriman's talent for
diplomacy," said the President. "Her many years


or at the State and local level, to go make that
honest policy argument in the United States
Senate. We've done our work on deficit reduction. Let's do our work on investing in our people and putting them back to work, too.
Thank you very much.
NOTE: The President spoke at 2:38 p.m. in the
State Dining Room at the White House. In his
remarks, he referred to Gov. David Walters of
Oklahoma, chairman, Democratic Governors Association.


of dedicated service to the United States and
her unceasing devotion to the cause of world
peace are only two of the many qualifications
that she will bring with her to Paris."
NOTE: A biography of the nominee was made
available by the Office of the Press Secretary.


Exchange With Reporters Prior to Discussions With Foreign Minister
Andrey Kozyrev of Russia
March 24, 1993


Russia
Q. Will you answer a couple of questions?
Do you have any reaction to what Mr. Kozyrev
suggested this morning as to the future economic relations between us and Russia?
The President. Well, we haven't had a conversation about it yet. Let me just say that I'm
delighted to have him here. I'm glad to have
a firsthand account of what's going on in Russia.
And I want to reaffirm my support for democracy and for reform and say I'm looking very
much forward to the Vancouver summit with
President Yeltsin.
Q. Mr. President, apparently you seem to oppose aiding Russia. What will you do to try
to sell your program for Russian aid?
The President. Well, I would tell the American people what I've been saying for well over
a year now, that it is very much in our interest


to keep Russia a democracy, to keep moving
toward market reforms, and to keep moving toward reducing the nuclear threat. It will save
the American people billions of dollars, in
money we don't have to spend maintaining a
nuclear arsenal, if we can continue to
denuclearize the world. It will make the American people billions of dollars in future trade
opportunities. And it will make the world a safer
place. So, I think this is a good investment for
America. I've always believed that. And I hope
I can persuade the American people and the
United States Congress that it is.
Q. Do you think there's still a chance for
a compromise in Russia?
The President. That's something the Russians
will have to work out among themselves. I presume there is, but that's obviously something
that has to be decided by the Russian people.


345




Mar. 24 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


The United States can't dictate that.
Q. Mr. Kozyrev, can you tell us, did the meetings go poorly this morning, because it seems
as though the line was harder when they came
out from those meetings?
Foreign Minister Kozyrev. [Inaudible]-well,
I think the people will pass final judgment. As
President just said, it is for Russians and Russian
people to pass final judgment, and President
calls for vote, popular vote. And I think this
will be the decisive event. But on the-President, as always, is open to compromise where
there are those political forces who are not apt
to just reverse the reform and advance the deExchange With Reporters on Russia
March 24, 1993
Q. Mr. President, did you and Mr. Kozyrev
reach any kind of agreement on the type of
aid package that might be most helpful for Russia?
The President. No, we discussed what I was
thinking about and what our people are working
on. And I told him it would be a good and
specific package, and I was looking forward to
having the opportunity to discuss it with President Yeltsin.
Q. Did he give you any encouragement, sir,


mocracy.
Q. Will you support the idea of Russia joining
C-7 as soon as possible?
The President. I wouldn't rule out or in anything particular. We're going to be dealing with
a whole broad range of issues between the United States and Russia and with the C-7. And
let's just see what happens.
NOTE: The exchange began at 1:10 p.m. in the
Oval Office at the White House. A tape was not
available for verification of the content of this exchange.


that the current political crisis could be resolved?
The President. I think he's hopeful.
Q. Any specifics as to how it might be resolved, sir?
The President. No, he's been here with me.
NOTE: The exchange began at 3:50 p.m. in the
State Dining Room at the White House, prior to
a meeting with members of the National Council
of Churches. A tape was not available for verification of the content of this exchange.


Interview With Dan Rather of CBS News
March 24, 1993


President's Schedule
Mr. Rather. How's your golf game?
The President. Not very good. I've only played
twice. The first time it was about 35 degrees
with a whipping wind, and the second time,
I had a very good second nine holes. But I
haven't gotten to play very much.
Mr. Rather. We were talking about your sleep
or lack of same over in the Oval Office. You
mentioned something about a nap. Are you trying to nap these days?
The President. If I can take a nap, even 15
or 20 minutes in the middle of the day, it is


really invigorating to me. On the days when
I'm a little short of sleep, I try to work it out
so that I can sneak off and just lie down for
15 minutes, a half an hour, and it really makes
all the difference in the world.
The White House
Mr. Rather. We're in the Library now, where
President Roosevelt made his fireside chats. Is
this among your favorite rooms?
The President. I love this room. And this is
a highly public room. It is actually a lending
library. People who work around here can come
in here and check out these books just like


346




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Mar. 24


any other library. It's also a public room that's
open to everyone who comes in the White
House on a tour. So people get to see this
wonderful library of America, great old portrait
of George Washington, and as I was telling you
a moment ago, the little-known anonymous design for the White House by Thomas Jefferson.
He tried to become the architect of the White
House anonymously, and his design was rejected
in favor of this one.
Mr. Rather. You were mentioning that certain
Presidents dominate this house, as opposed to
how they may be viewed in history. What did
you mean by that?
The President. What I meant was most of
the Presidents who are dominant here were very
important Presidents, or all of them. Lincoln
is plainly the dominant presence here: a bedroom named for him, the room where he signed
the Emancipation Proclamation, his statues and
portraits everywhere. But Andrew Jackson is
very important here. He put both of the round
porches on the White House and changed the
front to the back of the White House and the
back to the front. Theodore Roosevelt built both
the wings, and his portraits are everywhere and
his vigor and youth. Franklin Roosevelt lived
here longer than everyone else, but he has just
a couple of portraits here in the house and
a very modest presence, considering the fact
that he was plainly the dominant personality in
terms of the length of time that he dominated
here. So it's just sort of interesting who dominates, because of the contributions they made
to the house itself, I think.
Mr. Rather. What are the chances that Bill
Clinton can be one of those dominant Presidents
in this house?
The President. Well, I don't know. Probably
not much. I think this house is in good shape;
I don't know that I can do anything to it that
would improve it. I imagine that I will enjoy
living here and that I will revere the responsibility about as much as anybody who's ever been
here.
The Presidency
Mr. Rather. What's been your biggest disappointment so far?
The President. How hard it is to do everything
I want to do as quickly as I want to do it,
that the pace of change, although they say we're
keeping quite a brisk pace-the House of Representatives adopted the budget resolution and


my jobs stimulus package last week in record
time-but I still get frustrated. I have a hard
time keeping up with everything and keeping
it going forward. I'm an impatient person by
nature, and I want to do things. That's been
disappointing.
But I've been pleased that my staff has
worked like crazy, my Cabinet's worked hard.
We've had a minimum so far of the kind of
backbiting and factionalism and all that you hear
about.
Economic Program
Mr. Rather. What would you count as your
biggest success so far?
The President. I think moving the economic
program as quickly as possible and developing
a big consensus for the idea that we need to
make a serious attempt to both reduce the deficit and increase investments in jobs and education and technology. We've got to do both
at the same time.
I've been very worried that I wouldn't be
able to convince the American people or the
Congress to do both at the same time because
we've never done it before in the history of
the country. But the competition we're in in
the world and the problems we've had for the
last 12 years absolutely require us to invest in
our people and their jobs and to reduce the
deficit at the same time, I believe.
Stimulus Package
Mr. Rather. Now, it's my information, I want
to check it with yours, that what you call the
job stimulus part of your economic plan is in
trouble in the Senate. One, you may not have
the votes. Senator Byrd said this afternoon that
he saw trouble on the horizon. Does that match
your information?
The President. We plainly got the votes to
pass it as it is or with very minor modifications.
What most Americans don't know is that of the
100 Members of the Senate, if you have one
more than 40 you can shut everything down.
And you know, there's been some discussion
that the Republicans may try to filibuster the
stimulus program and may try to stop us from
trying to create any new jobs. They have 43
Republican Senators, and they may be able to
hold 41 of them. And if they do, you know,
they can indefinitely postpone a vote. Well,
there's some speculation about that. I would
hate to see that happen, and I think it would


347




Mar. 24 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


not serve them well. The American people did
not elect any of us to perpetuate the kind of
partisan gridlock we've had for the last several
years, and particularly to have a minority of one
House do that. So, I'm hopeful that that won't
occur. I do hear that.
You know there's some argument around the
edges among the more pro-deficit reduction
Democrats that we should make some minor
changes in the jobs stimulus program, but
they're not great, I don't think.
Mr. Rather. Two things strike me, not just
about what you said but the way you said it.
Correct me if I'm wrong, it sounds to me like
you're really worried about the possibility that
it will be slowed if not stopped, the stimulus
part.
The President. I think in the end we will
pass it because, first of all, I think the public
would just be outraged at the thought that we
have a chance here to create half a million new
jobs and to do things that are good that need
to be done and that it would be slowed up.
I'm just pointing out that if the minority in
the Senate can get 40 votes plus one, they can
stop anything from happening.
And that's what happened when they tried
to gut the motor voter bill last week. That would
have really been a big-it's a major piece of
political reform, makes it easier for all kinds
of people to register and vote. And they were
willing to pass the motor voter bill, which allowed people to register when they license their
car but not allow people, low-income people,
to register when they pick up their Medicaid
or Social Security benefits or something else.
I've seen it. It can happen. All I'm saying is
it can happen. I hope it won't, and we'll do
our best to avert it.
Mr. Rather. Mr. President, let me come to
what I and, I think, a lot of Americans perceive
to be the gut of this. The economic indicators
are looking good. Do we really need this, what
you call stimulus package now? Doesn't it or
does it present a real threat to inflation and
increasing the deficit? Why not either reduce
it or call it off since the economy seems to
be moving?
The President. Because we're not producing
jobs and because it doesn't present a threat to
inflation, nor does it present a threat to the
deficit. I agreed over the next 5 years to reduce
the deficit by 4 times as much as the stimulus
package over and above the deficit reduction


that I've proposed, $500 billion of deficit reduction. So, we have blown away the amount of
the stimulus package over the next 4 years in
extra deficit reduction. So, we're not adding to
the deficit.
Secondly, the financial markets have already
discounted the prospects of this being inflationary.
Third, and most important of all, unemployment in America is too high. Unemployment
in all the rich countries except Japan is too
high. We have to prove that we can generate
jobs in America again. And there is no indication
that we are doing that. Now, last month we
had a lot of new jobs, but way, way over half
of them were part-time jobs with no health care
benefits and no security of lasting. So, we need
this to create jobs. This program invests in community, invests in people and their education.
I think it's very important.
Mr. Rather. Mr. President, I want to talk to
you about Russia. Time for us to take a break.
Stay here with us for our special edition of
48 Hours, an interview with President Clinton.
We'll continue with conversation about Russia
in just a moment.
[At this point, the television stations took a commercial break.]
Russia
Mr. Rather. Mr. President, just right off the
top of your head, what percentage of this day
have you spent dealing with the problems in
Russia?
The President. Probably 30 percent today.
Mr. Rather. That's a lot.
The President. A lot.
Mr. Rather. Why? And let me ask a specific
question. If I'm a trying-to-do-right American,
lost my job, trying to support my wife and kids,
tell me why I should pay for spending foreign
aid to help the Russians?
The President. Because it's in your interest.
And let me tell you why it's in your interest.
For one thing, America needs good customers
for its products. And Russia, a free Russia with
a free economy, would prefer to do business
with America over any other country. And they
prefer to buy our farm products and other products, and we have to look ahead. Every year
we have to be looking ahead to find more and
more markets for our products because as we
get drawn into the global economy, we've got


348




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Mar. 24


to sell more to other people to keep our incomes high.
Secondly, we have a real interest in keeping
Russia democratic and keeping them committed
to reducing their nuclear arsenals. Why? Because otherwise we have to turn right around
and rebuild our defenses at very high levels,
spend huge amounts of taxpayers' money on nuclear arsenals, raise our children in a more dangerous world, and divert needed resources
which ought to be spent on education and training and investment here at home.
So a safe, a democratic, a free market-oriented Russia is in the immediate economic interest of every working American and very much
in the interest of those folks and their children
over the long run. If we let Russia revert to
a country which will never be able to do business with us, that's bad business. If it reverts
to a nationalist, even if not a Communist, a
highly nationalist nuclear power that forces us
to spend more of our money keeping our guard
higher, then that's money that will be diverted
from the future of the working families and
their children.
Mr. Rather. What about the theory that whatever money we try to give to the Russians, it
would be money down a black hole, just disappear because chaos and pandemonium are
hour by hour?
The President. First of all, we don't have
enough money to, on our own, affect the course
of events. Ultimately the Russian people will
have to work out their own future. But there
are some specific things we can do which will
not hurt us; in fact, will help us, and which
will send a clear signal to the forces of freedom
and democracy and market economics in Russia
that we and the rest of the West will help them.
You know, for example, if we provide more
food aid, that helps our farmers, and we can
do it at relatively low cost to ourselves. If we
can find a way to help to privatize more businesses and to make those work, that helps us.
If we can find a way to help them run their
energy business better so they don't lose as
much of their oil or their gas in the pipeline,
that helps them without hurting us. It gives us
a market for our pipeline products. If we can
find a way to help them convert their nuclear
power plants that are built on the Chernobyl
model to a different energy source, that could
put a lot of our folks to work, put a lot of
their people to work, and make them safer envi

ronmentally and economically. So there is a
zillion things we can do.
Now, over the long run, they're going to have
to do some things for themselves. They're going
to have to get control of their rampant inflation.
They're going to have to make sure that they
can get out of the bureaucracies that don't work
anymore, that clog up all reforms. They're going
to have to make a lot of decisions themselves.
But there are some targeted, limited commitments we can make that, no matter what happens, won't hurt us very much and carry the
potential of helping us a great deal while helping
to keep good things alive in Russia.
Mr. Rather. Now you've met with the Russian
Foreign Minister this afternoon.
The President. I did.
Mr. Rather. Did you come out of that with
increased confidence that Boris Yeltsin will survive?
The President. He's a very resilient fellow,
you know. He's like all of us in public life;
he's not perfect. I'm not perfect; we all have
our problems. But he is a genuinely courageous
man, genuinely committed to freedom and democracy, genuinely committed to reform. And
I think now he is more open perhaps than in
the past at trying to work out some kind of
accommodation with others who would negotiate
with him to keep reform going, even though
they may have some different ideas. Well, that's
what I have to do here. I have to work with
the Senate and the House, the Democrats and
the Republicans. I think he's got to work on
all that. But I think he's got a fair chance to
survive. And I think not only the United States
but I think the major Western countries ought
to do what they can to be supportive of his
elected Presidency now because he represents
the ideals and the interests of our Nation and
our way of life.
Mr. Rather. Mr. President, correct me if I'm
wrong, but you've said a couple of times, I
think, recently that Boris Yeltsin is the only
democratically elected leader in Russia. In fact,
his Vice PresidentThe President. That's right.
Mr. Rather.     Aleksandr Rutskoy is also
democratically elected. I just want to go over
that. If Boris Yeltsin is impeached because he's
tried to suspend the constitution and Aleksandr
Rutskoy, who has now broken with Yeltsin and
is also committed to democratic reform, comes
into power, would you, would the United States


349




Mar. 24 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


Government consider him a democratically
elected leader and swing in behind him?
The President. First of all, it is true that he
was elected on the ticket with Yeltsin. But when
Yeltsin was elected, he won an overwhelming
popular victory. If you go back and look at the
distribution of votes, there's no question that
that's what happened.
I don't want to get into what might happen
or what-if questions. The constitution under
which these proceedings might take place was
one that came in 1978 under the Communist
government. The only popularly elected President ever is Yeltsin. Yeltsin and Rutskoy were
elected together on a ticket. And we'll just have
to see what happens. I think in the end the
Russian people will resolve this one way or the
other by what they do or don't do in the referendum in April.
Mr. Rather. Mr. President, I would love to
spend hours talking foreign policy. We have
such a short time here. Let me try to do something reasonably brief, and that is mention some
countries and potential problems out on the horizon and just have you respond briefly.
The President. Sure.
Iran
Mr. Rather. Iran: Particularly if it is proven
that Iranian-sponsored terrorists had anything to
do with the World Trade Center bombing,
would you be prepared to retaliate?
The President. First, let's note that even as
we speak, we were just given notice that another
major arrest was made and someone brought
to the United States from Egypt where the apprehension was made. That's very good news.
I don't want to speculate about who was behind
it until I know. That would be a very dangerous
thing to do.
Let me say that I'm more concerned about
the Iranian government maintaining its militance, perhaps supporting, in general, terrorists
organizations or engaging in unsafe proliferation
of weapons of mass destruction for its own use
or for the benefit of others. I wish Iran would
come into the family of nations. They could
have an enormous positive impact on the future
of the Middle East in ways that would benefit
the economy and the future of the people of
Iran. I am very troubled that instead of trying
to contribute to alleviating a lot of the problems
of the Islamic people to the region, they are
seeming to take advantage of them. I hope that


they will moderate their course.
Mr. Rather. I want to move on, but I want
to make sure that I understand. I asked the
question, should it be proven they had anything
to do with the World Trade, would you be prepared to retaliate? So far, you're on the record
as not answering.
The President. That's right. I want to be on
the record as not answering. I want to maintain
all options in dealing with terrorists, but I want
to be on the record as not answering because
I don't want the inference to be there that I'm
accusing them of something that I have no
earthly idea whether they did or not.
Iraq and Saddam Hussein
Mr. Rather. I understand.
Iraq and Saddam Hussein: Just before you
came into office, you were quoted as saying
words to the effect, well, if Saddam Hussein
goes a certain way, I, Bill Clinton, could see
relations getting better. Do you regret having
said that, or is that a fair quotation?
The President. I think the inference was
wrong. What I said was, I cannot conceive of
the United States ever having any kind of normal relationship with Iraq as long as Saddam
Hussein is there. I can't conceive it. What I
said was that I did not wish to demonize him;
I want to judge him based on his conduct. And
in that context, I will be very firm, and the
United States will remain very tough on the
proposition that he must fully comply with the
United Nations requirements, which he has still
not done, in order for us to favor any kind
of relaxation of the restrictions now on him
through the U.N. That's my position.
Bosnia
Mr. Rather. What used to be called the Balkans, what once was Yugoslavia, is now referred
to in shorthand as Bosnia. You seem-and I
say this respectfully, but I want to say it directly-you seem to have been all over the place
in terms of policy toward Bosnia. One, tell us
exactly what U.S. policy toward Bosnia is at the
moment and what we can expect in the future.
The President. Well, first, let me respond to
your general comment. And like most Americans, I am appalled by what has happened there;
I am saddened; I am sickened. And I know
that our ability to do anything about it is somewhat limited. I'm convinced that anything we
do would have to be done through the United


350




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Mar. 24


Nations or through NATO or through some
other collective action of nations. And I am limited also not only by what I think the United
States can do or should do but by what our
allies are willing to do.
Now, against that background, we have done
a number of things. We have been instrumental
in tightening the embargo against Serbia. It's
much tighter than it was when I took office.
We have pushed for enforcement of the nofly zone against the Serbians. I think we will
get that in the United Nations sometime in the
next couple of weeks. We have begun the airlift
operation, which was initially criticized and is
now universally recognized as having done an
awful lot to alleviate severe human suffering and
to meet profound needs. We have determined
that we should support the Vance-Owen peace
process to try to bring an end to hostilities
there. But we've also been very clear that if
the Bosnians will sign off under the VanceOwen plan and the Croatians sign off on it,
and the Serbs don't, that we think that we're
going to have to look at some actions to try
to give the Bosnians a means to at least defend
themselves. I'm very concerned about this.
But my view is that we ought to try to get
the Vance-Owen peace process working. If the
parties will good-faith agree to a peace process,
then I would be willing to have the United
States participate with other nations in trying
to keep the peace in Bosnia.
[At this point, the television stations took a commercial break.]
North Korea
Mr. Rather. Mr. President, before I get away
from foreign policy, very quickly-North Korea,
nuclear proliferation: one of those things people's eyes glaze over. Important, of course, but
is it something that consumes a lot of your time?
The President. Well, it's caused me a lot of
concern in the last few days. Just for the benefit
of our viewers, the North Koreans have refused
to allow the International Atomic Energy Agency's inspectors to look into sites where they
might be illegally producing nuclear weapons
under the nonproliferation regime. And because
they wouldn't allow our inspectors in and because the United Nations continued to insist
that they do so, the North Koreans have now
given us notice that they are going to withdraw,
which means they're going to put themselves


outside the family of nations seeking to contain
nuclear weapons. That would be a great mistake,
and I hope they don't do it.
It's deeply troubling to us and to the South
Koreans. You know, Seoul, which is now a teeming city of well over 8 million people, is very
close to the 38th parallel, very close to North
Korea. And over the last few years, relations
between those two nations have been warming,
and people began to dream of reunification in
the same way that it happened in Germany.
So this is a very sad and troubling development.
I don't want to overreact to it. The North Koreans still have a couple of months to change
their mind, and I hope and pray that they will
change their mind and return to the family of
nations committed to restraining nuclear proliferations.
Health Care Reform
Mr. Rather. There's no easy transition to
make to health care, but we need to move on.
So, if I may. As I understand it-correct me
if I'm wrong-you are telling the American people that their health care coverage will be increased, that the deficit at the same time will
be cut. The translation of that is that there's
going to be yet another significant increase in
taxes, isn't it? How can it be avoided?
The President. Not necessarily. And we're
looking at the options to do it. If I might, let
me try to describe the problem. And I know
we don't have a lot of time, but let me be
as brief as I can.
There are the following problems in health
care: The average person who has health insurance is pretty satisfied with the quality of health
care, but terrified of losing the health care coverage. They're just afraid that either through
higher deductibles, higher copay, or just outright
loss of the insurance, or they had to change
jobs but they've had somebody in their family
that's sick, they won't be able to keep their
health insurance. That's one big problem. The
average business is terrified about the cost of
health care. We're spending 30 percent more
than any other country and getting less for it.
So more and more people lose their health insurance every year. And then there are a lot
of people who don't even have access to health
care. They never see doctors or dentists or go
to a medical clinic.
So we've got the most expensive health care
system in the world. For the people that can


351




Mar. 24 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


afford it and stay with it, you get to choose
your doctor, choose your providers of all kinds,
and it's good stuff. But millions of people live
with insecurity, and the cost of it is really breaking the economy.
Now, here is the dilemma. In order to fix
this cost problem and the security problem, you
know, to tell people you can still choose your
doctor but you're never going to have to worry
about losing your health insurance, you have
to find a way to pay, to cover everybody who
doesn't now have health insurance, and to stop
the loss of coverage for people that have it.
That costs money.
But if you do it, that permits you to cut
out literally tens of billions of dollars of excess
paperwork and administrative cost, stop a lot
of other things that are driving up costs in the
system. And you literally save, between now and
the end of this decade, hundreds of billions
of dollars, of both private dollars and taxpayer
dollars. So the issue is, how do we make people
secure so you can still pick your doctor; you're
never going to lose your health insurance, you're
always going to have it, no matter whether you
change jobs or lose your job; you're always going
to have access to health care. It's going to be
good. How do we do that? Bring the cost down,
and do it within a time that is acceptable.
Mr. Rather. How are you going to pay for
that?
The President. We are looking for a lot of
different options, but the last thing I think we
ought to do, the last place we ought to look,
is to ask the employers and the employees of
America who are paying too much for their
health care right now to pay more to solve this
short-term problem.
But the dilemma is this, quite simply-100
percent of the people who studied this problem
say this-you may have to pay some more in
the short run or find some more money in the
short run, but over the long run it's going to
save a massive amount of money. I can do more
to save money on the Government deficit and
to free up money in the private sector by bringing health costs in line with inflation and solving
this problem than any other single thing I can
do.
What we're trying to find a way to do is
to cover all the people who don't have coverage
and to guarantee the security to the working
people who are afraid of losing it without raising
their taxes. And we're looking for ways to do


it. And there may be some options. We've got
400 people, including doctors, nurses, health
economists, experts from all over America working on this, and they've done good work. I think
we've got a chance. And I've got another month
to do it.
[At this point, the television stations took a commercial break.]
Homosexuals in the Military
Mr. Rather. Mr. President, at your news conference yesterday, correct me if I'm wrong, but
I thought you got a little testy when you were
asked about gays in the military, respect for
you in the military. Am I wrong about that?
The President. No, I didn't feel testy. I
thought it was an unusually worded question,
but that's all part of it. No, I don't mind talking
about it. Let me say, I talk on a regular basis
with General Powell. I have met with the Joint
Chiefs. I have a whole schedule of things that
I'm working through now to continue to work
with the military. This is a very difficult time
for them.
Mr. Rather. Well, is it correct that you have
reversed your position? You say we now —
The President. Absolutely wrong.
Mr. Rather. Did you misspeak yourself?
The President. No, I didn't misspeak myself.
Nothing I said yesterday is in any way inconsistent with anything I've ever said before about
this.
First, let's review this issue. Half the battle
is over. Half the battle is over. The Joint Chiefs
agree that they should stop asking enlistees
whether or not they're gay. So they have already
said, we won't ask you to lie, and we won't
use your forms against you. And if you get in
and you perform well, that's fine.
I agree and everybody else agrees that any
kind of improper sexual conduct should be
grounds for dismissal or other appropriate discipline. There's no difference in opinion on that.
There is a very limited argument here, which
is if you do not do anything wrong but you
do acknowledge that you are gay, should you
be able to stay in the military and, if so, should
you be able to do anything anyone else can
do?
The question I was asked yesterday was as
follows: Would you consider any restrictions on
duty assignments? And the answer is, I am waiting for the report of the Secretary of Defense


352




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Mar. 24


made in conjunction with the joint Chiefs. I
think they're divided among themselves on this
issue. Other nations which admit gays into the
military, some of them have no differences in
duty assignments, and some do. What I said
was, if they made a recommendation to me,
would I review it and consider it? Of course
I would. I mean, I asked them to study this.
I can't refuse then to get the results of the
study and act like my mind's made up. This
is not an area where I have expertise. I have
to listen to what people say. I will consider
the arguments. I have a presumption against
any discrimination based on status alone, but
I will listen to any report filed.
Potential Supreme Court Nominee
Mr. Rather. Mr. President, time is running
out on us here. I want to give you an opportunity on this program before this tremendous
audience to indicate who your choice on the
Supreme Court is going to be. This is a great
opportunity for you to do it. I want to give
you an opportunity.
The President. I thought you'd never ask.
[Laughter] I must tell you I have not reached
a final decision. The problems in Russia and
just the stuff I've been doing on the economy
have kept me from spending quite as much time
on it as I would have. But justice White, to
his everlasting credit, gave me his letter now
for his resignation in June, and his successor
can't take office until October, so he gave us
some time.
I love the Constitution of the United States,
and I believe in the Supreme Court as an institution. I used to teach constitutional law. There
will be few things that I will do in this job
that I will take more seriously, few responsibilities I will cherish more. And I will try to appoint someone that I think has the potential
of being a magnificent justice, someone who
will be a defender of the Constitution, but
someone who has good values and common
sense and who understands the real life experiences of Americans as well as the law.
Mr. Rather. Let's talk about this for a moment. I think you were just starting college
when the last Democratic President had a
chance
The President. That's right.
Mr. Rather. ~to choose someone for the
Supreme Court. If you think about it, it's been
a long time.


The President. A long time. President Johnson
put Thurgood Marshall on the Court, and I just
went to his funeral. It was a long time ago.
Mr. Rather. If you're not going to reveal who
it's going to be-I'll give you another opportunity to do that-tell us in what directions you
hope to take the Court? I mean, you make
an appointee hoping that he will at least bump
the Court in some other direction. Let's talk
philosophically about the Court.
The President. Well, there was a lot of talk,
as you know, during the last 12 years when
the Republicans held the White House, about
trying to move the Court in a sort of a rightward
direction. Indeed, the political platforms of the
Republicans were repeatedly filled with litmus
tests and specific requirements and everything,
and pushing the Court to the right. In fact,
as has always been the experience with Presidents, some of the appointees did, in fact, move
to the right. Others turned out to be much
more complicated people. You know, they had
different views. I would like to put someone
on the Court who would make sure that there
was a certain balance in the debate, that there
was a real feeling for the rights of ordinary
Americans under the Constitution, but that also
someone who was hard-headed, who understood
that the criminal law had to be enforced, that
you didn't want to over-legalize the country.
There's a nice balance to be formed.
I'd also like to put someone on there who
was a very cogent and powefful arguer and who
could show respect for the other justices, who
could be a good colleague, and who could engage people in honest dialog. I mean, I think
the Supreme Court is no different, really, in
that sense from a lot of other units. I can't
help but believe that when they're all talking
together and working together and honestly trying to pick each other's brains, that they're not
only free to act on their own convictions but
they'll learn from one another and maybe make
better decisions.
Mr. Rather. During the campaign, you campaigned as one who would be a President tough
on crime. There became this opening on the
Supreme Court. You talked about wanting to
appoint a justice with a "big heart." What do
you mean "big heart"? Does that mean trouble
for prosecutors and law enforcement officers?
The President. No, not at all. As a matter
of fact, I think-there may be differences about
capital punishment, for example. I've supported


353




Mar. 24 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


capital punishment, and I still do. And I
wouldn't necessarily make that a litmus test, because there's a big majority on the Supreme
Court that support capital punishment. So whatever my appointee turns out to do on that, it
won't change the majority. The majority agree
with me on that issue.
But I think that being big-hearted is not the
same thing as being soft-headed. I mean, we
need an administration that takes an aggressive
approach to the crime issue. But we need to
be smarter about it. I mean, we can't talk tough
on crime and make sentences tougher and
refuse to pass the Brady bill and make people
wait 7 days before criminals can buy handguns.
We ought to take automatic weapons out of
the hands of kids in the streets of our cities.
If we're really going to be tough on crime, we
ought to be not only tough in the traditional
ways but also to change the environment some.
Academy Awards
Mr. Rather. Mr. President, it's my unfortunate
duty now to ask the tough questions you don't
want to hear. Number one, do you have a favorite in the Oscar race for the Academy Awards?
Have you seen these movies? Which one do
you favor?
The President. I haven't seen them all, so
I can't say. The ones I have seen I enjoyed.
I thought Clint Eastwood's western was very
good, "The Unforgiven," and a remarkable departure from a lot of his past movies. I thought


Jack Nicholson was brilliant in "A Few Good
Men." I try to see all the Oscar movies every
year. I still haven't seen "Scent of a Woman."
I'm working on that. I'm trying to have that
brought into the White House. And when I
see them all, then I'll have my favorite, but
I don't think it's fair until I give them all a
shot.
NCAA Basketball Championships
Mr. Rather. I know you don't follow basketball, but I'm willing to make you an offhand
wager that North Carolina slaughters Arkansas.
The President. I bet they don't. I don't think
they can slaughter them. We haven't lost too
many games by a lot of points. Arkansas doesn't
have any tall players. As you saw in the St.
John's game where they played an incredibly
talented, well-disciplined team, they often win
by never quitting, a philosophy that I try to
follow myself.
Mr. Rather. Mr. President, you're very generous. We appreciate your hospitality. Thank you
very much.
The President. Thank you.
NOTE: The interview began at 5:25 p.m. in the
Library at the White House, and it was broadcast
nationwide at 10 p.m. In his remarks, the President referred to Gen. Colin Powell, Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff. A tape was not available
for verification of the content of this interview.


Nomination for Posts at the Housing and Urban Development and
Transportation Departments
March 24, 1993


The President intends to nominate his longtime adviser Rodney Slater as Administrator of
the Federal Highway Administration, San Francisco port executive Michael Huerta as Associate
Deputy   Secretary  of  Transportation  for
Intermodalism, and investment banker Aida Alvarez as Director of the Department of Housing
and Urban Development's Office of Federal
Housing Enterprise Oversight, the White House
announced today.
In addition, the President announced his approval of the appointments by Transportation


Secretary Pefia of Jane Garvey to be Deputy
Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration; by Energy Secretary O'Leary of John
Kehiher to be Director of the Office of Intelligence and National Security; and by Health
and Human Services Secretary Shalala of four
officials: Wendell Primus, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation; Kimberly
Parker, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Legislation (Congressional Liaison); Karen Pollitz, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Legislation (Health);
and James O'Hara, Associate Commissioner for


354




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Mar. 25


Public Affairs, Food and Drug Administration.  that we need in public service. I am  very
"Rodney Slater has been one of my most      pleased that they and the people chosen by Sectrusted advisers for many years and played a  retaries Pefia, O'Leary, and Shalala are joining
major role in getting me to this position," said  me here in Washington."
the President. "Rodney, Michael Huerta, and
Aida Alvarez are the kind of innovative leaders NOTE: Biographies were made available by the
Office of the Press Secretary.
Remarks in a Telephone Conversation With Senators George Mitchell and
Jim Sasser and an Exchange With Reporters
March 25, 1993


Russia
Q. Does the situation now appear to have
eased in Russia to you, Mr. President?
The Vice President. I don't think this is a
press conference.
The President. I don't know. I hope so.
[At this point, the telephone conversation began.]
Senator Mitchell. Hello?
The President. Senator?
Senator Mitchell. Yes.
The President. How are you doing?
Senator Mitchell. We're doing fine. How are
you doing?
The President. Well, I'm doing a lot better,
thanks to you.
Senator Mitchell. No, thanks to Jim Sasser,
who is sitting right here with me and on the
line, too.
Senator Sasser. Hey, Mr. President, I'm on
this party line, also.
The President. Hello, Senator Sasser.
Senator Sasser. How are you doing? We're
doing terrific here.
The President. The Vice President's here with
me, and we just wanted to thank you for the
work you've done. This is a great, great day.
Senator Sasser. It certainly is. And we want
to thank you, I do, particularly, for the help
that you gave us in moving this resolution
through the committee and off the floor. We
had 56 amendments, and the truth is that not
a single number changed in that budget resolution on any of those amendments. And we
couldn't have done it without your help.
The President. Well, we were glad to do it.
I believe, and I think the American people believe, that this is really an historic moment. Fi

nally, we've done something to break the
gridlock and to bring the deficit down and to
create new jobs through investment. It's a remarkable achievement. And I know we've got
a lot of work still to do, but the fact that the
Senate and the House have both passed these
budget resolutions, it's really astonishing this
early. And I'm just amazed, because we all know
what a hard road you had to hoe. I can't tell
you how much I admire you and how grateful
I am to both of you.
Senator Sasser. You're very kind to say that,
and I very much appreciate it. I might say that
this is the earliest time in my memory-the
majority leader may know another time-but
this is the earliest time in my memory that we
passed a budget resolution here in the Senate.
And we're proud of that and proud of your
help on getting it done.
And tell the Vice President we sure appreciate
him coming over here and giving us encouragement.
The Vice President. Well, I'm on the line,
Jim, and thank you very much. You did a fantastic job. George, I think Jim is right. This is
the earliest in history that a new budget has
passed. And I've been hearing from a lot of
people about how effective you all were in the
caucus meeting in the conference a couple of
days ago. The unity among Democratic Senators
has been just remarkable and has made this
whole thing possible. So, Mr. Leader, congratulations to you, and to you, Jim.
Senator Mitchell. Thank you very much, Mr.
Vice President. We really do appreciate your
help, not just your physical presence but the
leadership you gave in talking to Democratic
Senators. I know many of them were impressed


355




Mar. 25 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


with the fact that you took the time to come
up here, meet with them, talk with them, express support for and explain the President's
position. I think that was extremely helpful in
getting that kind of unity. So we're very grateful
to both of you.
And now, of course, there's no rest for the
weary. I'll have a list of people for you to call
on the supplementalThe Vice President. I'm ready.
The President. We're ready to go. Give us
our next assignment.
Senator Mitchell. Well, that's it. We've already
started on it, and we'll be in touch with you
on that later today.
The President. Thank you very much, George.
Senator Mitchell. Thank you. Bye, Mr. President.
[At this point, the telephone conversation ended,
and the President took questions from reporters.]
Stimulus Package
Q. Do you feel you now have the votes on
the stimulus package, Mr. President?
The President. Well, I haven't gotten a late


count, but I feel good about it. We worked
hard on it, and I feel good about it.
Q. What does it do to your package if Breaux
and Boren were to prevail? Is that a killer
amendment?
The President. All I can tell you is, we're
going to try to pass it. Let's just see what happens. I feel pretty good about it. We're working
hard
Russia
Q. Mr. President-contact of Boris Yeltsin
today? Have you heard anything?
The President. No. I would say I've gotten
reports and I've spent about, oh, I don't know,
an hour and half on it this morning, working,
trying to get ready for Vancouver and trying
to make sure we know what's going on. But
I don't have anything to add to what you already
know.
NOTE: The President spoke at 2:22 p.m. in the
Oval Office at the White House. A tape was not
available for verification of the content of these
remarks.


Exchange With Reporters Prior to a Meeting With Dorsey High School
Students
March 25, 1993


Ukraine
Q. Mr. President, did anything come out of
your meeting with the Ukrainian Foreign Minister as far as the START Treaty?
The President. I just told him how important
it was to us, that I realize that there was some
opposition at home in Ukraine because of uncertainty in Russia, but we had to have them sign
on. And I would encourage them to go ahead
and do it, while I realize there are some implementation issues that we would have to work
with them on. And I was glad to work with
him on that but that the United States wanted
very much to be close to the Ukraine. We have
a big stake in their success, and we've got a
lot of commercial potential there and they here,
as well as a lot of ties. We have a lot of Ukrainian-Americans, as you know.
But I think this START Treaty is a precondition to a long-term, successful relationship.


And I think they should go into the nonproliferation regime and give up nuclear weapons. We don't need any more nuclear states.
The United States is trying to reduce our nuclear arsenals, and we need to continue to push
in that direction.
It was a very good meeting. And I think over
the long run, the United States will have a good
relationship with Ukraine if we get the START
issue resolved.
Q. Mr. President, did he say the crisis in
Moscow is having repercussions back home for
him?
The President. Well, he said it was adding
to a sense of uncertainty in this country, which
you would expect it would. I mean, they're right
next door there. But I hope, of course, as every
day goes by there seems to be an attempt by
President Yeltsin and others, frankly, to confine
the dimensions of the process, to regularize it


356




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Mar. 25


and to let it play itself out in a vote of the
people on April 25th. Of course that's the most
democratic way you could do that to resolve
that crisis.
Q. Did you get a senseThe President. I don't know that. I know what
you were going to say. I don't know that. I
hope so. I feel better about it, but I don't know
that for sure.
U.S. Attorneys
Q. Are you afraid that firing all the U.S. attorneys at once will be seen as political?
The President. Absolutely not. We waited
longer than most of our predecessors have. Go
back and look and see when they tried to replace them under Bush, under Reagan, underparticularly under Reagan. Anytime when you
change parties-it took us longer to begin the


process because of the delay in getting an Attorney General confirmed. But all those people
are routinely replaced, and I have not done anything differently. The Justice Department is just
proceeding from essentially a late start. And I
think the blanket decision is less political than
picking people out one by one.
Q. Do you think Jay Stephens should stay
on at least to the end of the Rostenkowski
The President. I support the Attorney General. She made the decision about what the best
way to handle this was, since we were behind.
And I support her decision.
NOTE: The exchange began at 4:10 p.m. in the
Oval Office at the White House. Jay Stephens was
the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia.
A tape was not available for verification of the
content of this exchange.


Remarks on Signing the Greek Independence Day Proclamation
March 25, 1993


I just wanted to ask Mr. Stephanopoulos to
come up here so I could remove all doubt about
how I know what to do. [Laughter] Please sit,
ladies and gentlemen, Archbishop.
I have a few remarks, but before I do, I
want to formally sign this proclamation for
Greek Independence Day and present it to the
Archbishop.
[At this point, the President signed the proclamation. ]
Thank you. Please be seated. I'd like to welcome all of you here to the White House and
say a special word of welcome to Archbishop
Iakovos, the spiritual leader of the Greek American community, with whom I have just had
a wide-ranging discussion of many of the issues
that I know that concern you. I'd also like to
welcome the political leader of the Greek American community, my friend Senator Paul Sarbanes of Maryland, and to say how delighted
I am to sign this proclamation recognizing Greek
Independence Day and celebrating the democracy that we share in the United States with
Greece.
It is particularly timely that we celebrate democracy today at the very moment that our
friends around the world who have been de

prived of democracy are working hard against
great odds to bring it to full flower. And I
know, Archbishop, that our prayers are with the
people in Russia today and throughout the world
who are working hard to preserve and enhance
their own democracy.
Greece, the birthplace of democracy, and the
United States have long had a history of friendship and cooperation. The authors of our Nation's Declaration of Independence and our
Constitution were inspired by Greece's commitment to liberty, to freedom, and to democracy.
Indeed, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton
wrote in the Federalist Papers, and I quote,
"Among the confederacies of antiquity, the most
considerable was that of the Grecian republics."
Today, those ideas continue to strengthen the
United States. And working together, Greece
and the United States have worked to advance
the cause of freedom around the world.
It is against that backdrop of longstanding
and close cooperation between the United States
and Greece that I want to say a brief word
about two issues that I know concern this audience greatly: Cyprus and the former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia.
On Cyprus, I want to give you my personal


357




Mar. 25 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


assurance that I and my administration will stay
fully engaged in the U.N. process of negotiations, that we will give our full energies to helping reach a fair and permanent solution to the
Cyprus dispute, and that we will not rest until
a solution is found. Already, in the first 2
months of my Presidency, I have had the opportunity to raise the issue of Cyprus in serious
discussions in person with President Ozal of
Turkey and by a long telephone conversation
with Prime Minister Demirel. You can count
on the United States to be there until this issue
is resolved.
On Macedonia: Here, also, I take seriously
the concerns that have been raised by Greece.
Like Athens, we believe that a solution to the
dispute over the name of the former Yugoslav
Republic must be found rapidly to avoid the
spread of further instability. I have admired the
steady hand of Prime Minister Mitsotakis, and
I want to work closely with him to find an
appropriate solution to this problem. Progress
has already been made on this issue, as I'm
sure you know, and I believe we can find a
just solution with broad vision and flexibility.
Again, you can be sure that the United States
will not allow the security of such a close friend
and ally as Greece to be threatened in any way.
You know, I come from a State where Greek
Americans make up only one-tenth of one percent of our population, and about half of them
are in this room today. [Laughter] But their
contributions to our State and to my life have
been enormous.
Last night, my good friend from the time
I was 9 years old, David Leopoulis, spent the
night with me in the White House. He campaigned with me all over America. He became
the symbol of an ordinary American who was
for me. Think of it: Here I was, a WASP, not
ordinary, supported by a Greek American who
was ordinary. [Laughter] He appeared on television all over the country and worked with our
campaign basically to talk about a lifetime of
friendship and shared values. And our relationship, in that sense, is a mirror image of the
relationship between the United States and
Greece.
My personal health for many years has been
in the hands of Dr. Drew Kampuris, whose father, Dr. Frank Kampuris, is an appointee of
mine to the University of Arkansas board of
trustees. There are others here in this audience
and back home in Arkansas without whom I


would not be here today.
My campaign and my administration have
gained much from the talents of Greek Americans, including my close assistant and Director
of Communications, George Stephanopoulos,
who came up here a moment ago, who has
become the heartthrob of the teen set of America. George's parents are in the audience today,
and they did such a good job raising him I
would like to ask them to stand up.
We did a little search for Greek Americans
on the President's staff, and we discovered, notwithstanding some of their last names, the following fully qualify: my staff secretary, John Podesta; Sylvia Mathews, on the National Economic Commission staff-she hails from a little
town in West Virginia, which just proves that
you really are everywhere; Peter Pappas, my
Associate Counsel; and George Tenet, my Special Assistant and Senior Director for Intelligence Programs at the National Security Council. Indeed, you might argue that I could have
a reverse affirmative action suit for the overrepresentation of Greeks on the White House
staff. [Laughter]
My good friend from New Jersey, Clay
Constantinou, is here, who was with me from
the beginning. There are others here in the
audience who helped so much in the election.
I want to note the presence of Angelo
Zicapulous and many others who worked in the
campaign for whom I'm very, very grateful.
And I also would like to ask us all to remember in our prayers my most formidable opponent
in the Democratic primary, Paul Tsongas, as
we pray for his recovery.
American politics has benefited greatly from
the involvement of Greek Americans. In the
Democratic Party, we had last year two great
State party chairmen: Phil Angelides in California and Chris Spirou in New Hampshire. They
each played an integral part in that election.
And I can't help but say, and I hope the Republicans in the audience will forgive me, that it
was rather unusual for a Democrat to carry either California or New Hampshire, and at least
they think it was the Greek influence that put
us over the top.
The Greek American community has always
taken pride in and has been known for its commitment to the values that our country desperately needs more of today: commitment to
family and neighborhood, to education and hard
work, to freedom and the rule of law. These


358




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Mar. 26


are the values that built America, shared still
by the vast majority of Americans. But we know
that for America to go where it needs to go,
all Americans will have to embrace them again.
And so even as we look beyond our Nation's
borders to the problems around the world, I
ask those of you here in this wonderful house
and those whom you represent throughout the
country to lead our Nation in a re-embrace of
these values born in the democracy of Greece,
nourished in the democracy of the United
States, now desperately needed in every city and
hamlet in this country.


To Greece, the Nation that first shaped the
political ideals we cherish, and to Greek Americans who help us every day, we are greatly indebted. And as I turn to the Archbishop for
his remarks, let me say, courtesy of my distinguished     language    instructor,   Mr.
Stephanopoulos, Zeto e Hellas.
NOTE: The President spoke at 4:38 p.m. in the
East Room at the White House. A tape was not
available for verification of the content of these
remarks. The proclamation is listed in Appendix
D at the end of this volume.


Nomination for Posts at the Council of Economic Advisers and the
Commerce and Housing and Urban Development Departments
March 25, 1993


The President added five senior members to
his administration today, announcing his intention to nominate Alan Blinder and Joseph
Stiglitz as members of the Council of Economic
Advisers, Kathryn Sullivan as Chief Scientist at
the Commerce Department's National Oceanic
and    Atmospheric   Administration,  Arati
Prabhakar as Director of the National Institute
of Standards and Technology at Commerce, and
Marilynn Davis as the Assistant Secretary for
Administration at the Department of Housing
and Urban Development.
"I am asking these people today to fill roles


which are absolutely essential for the effective
workings of this Government," said the President. "Providing sound economic advice, developing better models to understand environmental change, working to ensure an American
edge in high technology, and finally bringing
the operations of HUD under control are the
kinds of actions that the American people need.
The people that I am nominating will get the
job done for them."
NOTE: Biographies of the nominees were made
available by the Office of the Press Secretary.


Exchange With Reporters Prior to Discussions With Chancellor Helmut
Kohl of Germany
March 26, 1993


Russia
Q. Mr. President, are you going to brief Mr.
Kohl about your aid package, what your plans
are?
The President. Well, we're going to discuss
Russia and what we might both do. But we
haven't met yet, so I can't say any more.
Q. Mr. President, have you received any word
from Moscow how Yeltsin is doing? Are you
further encouraged today, sir?


The President. Things look pretty good today.
I think-they seem to be making progress
towardQ. Are you comfortable speaking in German,
Mr. President?
The President. No, but I understand a lot
of what the Chancellor says. Perhaps not as
much as what he understands what I say.
Bosnian Peace Agreement
Q. Mr. President, how long should the Serbs


359




Mar. 26 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


be given before you push to lift the embargo?  NOTE: The exchange began at 10:40 a.m. in the
The President. Well, let me say I just hope  Oval Office at the White House. A tape was not
the Serbs will sign the agreement now.        available for verification of the content of this exchange.
The President's News Conference With Chancellor Helmut Kohl of
Germany
March 26, 1993


U.S. S. "Theodore Roosevelt"
The President. Good afternoon, ladies and
gentlemen. Before we begin the press conference, I have a sad announcement to make.
I have just been informed that five United
States servicemen on a routine training flight
with the United States ship Theodore Roosevelt
have crashed at sea within a mile of the carrier.
I want to express my deep concern over the
accident. Just 2 weeks ago, I visited the U.SS.
Theodore Roosevelt and met the fine sailors and
marines serving their Nation at sea there. I was
profoundly impressed by their commitment,
their dedication, and their professionalism. They
made America proud. And I want to say that
my thoughts and prayers are with the relatives
and the shipmates of those five servicemen who
are missing at sea.
Discussions With Chancellor Kohl
I want to begin by extending a warm welcome
to Chancellor Kohl. We have had a wonderful
visit. The personal chemistry between us, I
think, was quite good. Helmut Kohl, over more
than a decade of service in his present position,
has proved himself time and again to be a true
friend and staunch ally of the United States.
Our peoples are closely linked with longstanding
ties and common values. Our common bonds
ensure that our two federal systems can learn
much from each other. And indeed, I told the
Chancellor that notwithstanding the persistent
problems of cost in the German health care
system, my wife had found a lot to learn from
Germany.
We are working, our two countries, on the
establishment of a project conceived by Chancellor Kohl and very close to his heart, the German American Academic Council, which will
promote exchanges of people in the areas of
science and technology and about which he


might want to speak more in a moment.
During the cold war our two nations stood
shoulder to shoulder in the common effort to
contain communism in Europe. Today we must
be leaders in the great crusade of the postcold-war era to foster liberty, democracy, human
rights, and free market economics throughout
the world. If the world is to progress and prosper, the United States and Germany must work
closely together. Our bilateral relationship is invaluable. Our relations are at the same time
important in the context of the North Atlantic
Alliance, the European Community, and the
Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe. In these three institutions, Germany serves
as both an anchor of stability and a source of
fresh initiatives to meet the challenges of our
changing world.
A paramount challenge for the West in our
generation is helping to ensure the survival of
democracy and economic reform in Russia and
the other republics of the former Soviet Union.
Germany, as the largest single donor of assistance to Russia, has demonstrated its firm commitment to this historic cause. The United
States and Germany must now strengthen our
partnership on this effort and work both bilaterally and multilaterally to support Russian reform. The Chancellor and I discussed this issue
at great length today.
I discussed with him the approach that I plan
to take in the meeting with President Yeltsin
at Vancouver. And I believe we are in agreement on the general approach. I know that we
are committed to doing everything we possibly
can to keep alive democracy and reform in Russia, and we believe it is in the immediate interests and the long-term interest of all of our
people.
We also believe that the rest of the G-7 countries must cooperate with us and with each other


360




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Mar. 26


to vigorously produce a program of support for
Russia. We discussed in depth the troubling situations in Bosnia and elsewhere, and we conferred on trade and economics. We agreed that
we must work hard to conclude the Uruguay
GATT round this year, and we committed to
work closely together in this endeavor.
As two of the world's leading exporting nations, the United States and Germany have a
powerful interest in expanding global trade. I
assured the Chancellor that the United States
intends to remain politically and strategically engaged in Europe and to maintain a significant
military presence on the Continent. The budget
that I am fighting for in the Congress now
would permit us to maintain a troop contingent
on the, order of 100,000 troops in Europe. We
believe that American and European securities
remain indivisible, and that the common threads
of the post-cold-war era require common action.
At the same time, we also recognize that each
of us are reducing our defense budgets and
must be increasingly responsible for our own
defense needs.
Thirty years ago during his famous trip to
Germany, President Kennedy toasted another
great leader of the Christian Democratic Union
and the German people, Konrad Adenauer, saying, "These are critical days." The President's
pronouncement reflected his concern then for
the survival of freedom and even humankind
at the height of the cold war.
Today, thankfully the nuclear shadow is
receeding from both our lands. And the wall
that divided the German people is gone. But
I would say again, these are critical days, for
the actions we take together now will help to
determine the fate of democracy, the prosperity
of our people, and the peace of the world. In
that work I could not ask for a better partner
than Chancellor Kohl or the German people.
And I want to say to him, I am delighted with
this first visit, and I look forward to working
with you in the days ahead.
Chancellor Kohl. Mr. President, ladies and
gentlemen. First, Mr. President, allow me to
express my heartfelt sympathy on the loss and
the fear, because we don't have any detailed
information about the loss of life of five American officers. I hope very much that these soldiers may be able to return to their families
safe and sound, because they serve the freedom
and the security of their country, the United
States of America. And without that service,


there would be no freedom and peace and no
reunification for Germany. And this is why I
am very sad about the things that you have
just had to present to us. And I should like
to ask you to convey to the families of the
people concerned my feelings of sympathy.
Ladies and gentlemen, today I had my first
meeting with the President of the United States
of America. It was a friendly exchange of views.
It is something that can be easily said in English; the chemistry is right. You said so, and
I am pleased to take it up, indeed, the chemistry
is right. We touched. upon many issues, issues,
many of which are very close to our hearts,
at an important point in time of international
politics, of European politics. And I was also
able to present many things that are important
to German politics.
American-German relations, to put it in a nutshell, are for us, Germans and for me personally,
today equally important if not more important
than 30 years ago. More than 30 years ago,
when I was for the first time elected to the
German Parliament, the alliance between the
Americans and Germans, the European-American alliance, was much more matter of fact,
because we lived under the threat and in the
fear of the war. Remember the Berlin blockade,
the Berlin Wall, many challenges that we had
to master together, down to the things that happened under John F. Kennedy in Cuba.
Today, many of these people have been released. They're free again. But in Europe and
in Germany, too, there are quite a few who
believe that there were no dangers existent anymore now that the times are changed. For these
reasons, American-German relations have become ever more important. The psychological
environment has changed.
I said to you, Mr. President, and I should
like to repeat this here and now, in this house
of Europe that we are in the process of building
right now-and I should like to go into greater
detail on that later on-it is of existential importance for me, a German, that the Americans
have a flat in this house; that the American
soldiers and troops, the presence in Europe and
in Germany, documents that they're not there
for decorative purposes but to defend freedom
and security of people. The fact that we can
further develop the relations in the economic
field, and that includes that despite the problems that we have, we bring about a speedy
and successful conclusion of the GATT round.


361




Mar. 26 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


This is something that we touched upon, too.
We agreed on that we want to work on this.
You were so kind, Mr. President, to mention
that in the cultural and scientific field, we have
the intention to intensify relations between both
our countries. You mentioned the German
American Academic Council which is to be
founded this year. I am very happy that you
have agreed that once the necessary decisions
have been taken in the next few weeks, we
will found this economic council. This is important for the public in both our countries. It
is for me very important that young Americans,
that young Germans visit the other country, vice
versa, that they get to know the people and
their culture. To put it differently, Mr. President, that we plant many young trees so that
we have a forest later on of things that we
share, that we have in common.
I should also like to add for those who might
have heard different reports on this here in the
United States, there is no alternative for the
Germans to a policy that makes progress with
European unification-and we are the engine
of this development-and at the same time,
places great care and value on American-German relations. This is never an either-or; it has
to be a this-as-well-as-the-other. Both include
each other and do not exclude one another.
And I should like to say this. Because we
are now confronted with a common challenge
and major task, that is: We have to see to it
that the spirit of reform, the willingness to establish democratic structures and a pleuralist society, market economic structures in Russia and
the CIS, is continuing.
I'm very grateful to you personally, Mr. President, for the determination and the courage that
you have documented in the last few weeks
in standing by Boris Yeltsin. I underline and
subscribe to every single word that you said
on this one, that reforms are successful in Russia. And both of us are aware of the fact that
any type of setback will in the end turn out
to be much more expensive than any type of
assistance we have the intention of granting
right now.
We have discussed many issues and items on
our plate. The members of our staff will continue prior to the meeting with President Yeltsin
and the American President to continue to discuss these matters. Then we have the G-7 finance and foreign minister's meeting in Tokyo,
the 14th and 15th of April. We want to send


a message to the people of Russia that the West,
under the leadership of the Americans and the
American President, will do everything in its
power to see to it that Russia and other successor states to the Soviet Union stand a chance
to walk on their own path towards freedom.
We, the Germans, and I outlined this earlier
on to you Mr. President, as far as this question
is concerned, are very committed, not only because we are neighbors of the former Soviet
Union and the threat, if there was a relapse
to form a dictator structures, would effect us
first and foremost, but we do so because we
have made our own experiences.
We were standing in the Oval Office looking
at the sculpture of Harry S. Truman, and I
was reminded of the importance that the activities of George Marshall and Harry S. Truman
had for Germany when the zero hour when
we were outlawed in the world. These two stood
up, stood by us, and assisted us. These were
the fathers of the Marshall Plan, of a moral
gesture of coexistence and cooperation. And this,
to my mind, is fair to say: A flourishing industry
and country has developed, the former Federal
Republic of Germany.
And if the Americans at that point in time
had stood back and said, "Well what do we
care? The Germans shall see what will become
of it. And if something good comes out of it,
we'll be proud to say we assisted, and if not,
we will say, we've always told you so didn't
we, and therefore we stood back."
This kind of policy, a policy pursued by Harry
S. Truman and George Marshall rules a successful recipe for the whole of Europe, West Europe. And this is why I should like to tell my
American listeners here that you can learn lessons from history. And with a view to what
is happening right now in Moscow, I think the
message is what counts. The message indicating
in what way the big countries of the western
democracies and market economic systems feel
committed to assist.
Allow me also to say that we discussed in
extenso, Mr. President, the developments in the
former Yugoslavia. The Bosnian President happened to be here this morning, and we met
briefly in the White House. We would wish
to see that use is being made of all opportunities
to see to it that a cease-fire occurs, that then
peace can be reached. What is happening to
the people there, day-in, day-out, belongs in
numbers amongst the most terrible experiences


362




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Mar. 26


of this very century. And here again, I'm happy
and grateful, Mr. President, that you and your
administration have taken a clear position on
this.
Once again, thank you very much for this
friendly reception, for the friendly and open
talks that we had.
May I perhaps just briefly announce, Mr.
President, that I repeat my invitation to you
and to your wife to come and to visit in Germany, and that you were so kind, Mr. President,
to follow that invitation.
Russia
Q. Do you think that President Yeltsin
emerges from the constitutional crisis that seems
to be easing there, weakened or strengthened?
And how would that affect the aid that you
would propose to send to him?
The President. First of all, I think it's important that we not place too much importance
on the momentary event, the day-to-day events,
not because they're not heartening today, they
are, but because it's difficult to know what's
going to happen from day to day now. I have
said always that I am proceeding to the summit
with President Yeltsin with the firm intention
of working with him and trying to propose some
things that the United States can join with Germany and the other G-7 countries. And doing
that will be helpful in the short run and in
the long run in promoting democracy and market economics and an improvement in the difficult economic situation they face. So I feel
pretty good about where we are with it now.
Bosnian Peace Agreement
Q. Mr. President, how long would you give
the Serbs to respond to the peace overtures,
to the peace pact that's been signed by the
two other parties? Would you favor imposing
a deadline prior to lifting an arms embargo?
And given the carnage in this place and the
amount of arms that are there already, why
would you even consider that to be a good alternative?
The President. First, let me say that you heard
the Chancellor say President Izetbegovic was
here with us today. He met with the Vice President; then I went back to visit with him briefly.
The Chancellor wanted to see him, too, so we
just had an impromptu brief meeting.
This signing by the Bosnians has just occurred. We're going to do everything we can


now to put on a full-court press, first diplomatically, to secure the agreement of the Serbs. We
will do what we can if there is any delay whatever in trying to strengthen the embargo. The
embargo has already been quite effective in
causing some economic difficulty. We expect the
United Nations to take up the enforcement of
the no-fly zone within the next few days. We
will discuss a number of other measures, including the arms embargo, with our allies. As you
know, it's not simply a decision for the United
States. But I think that the main thing is that
we now have two of the three blocs having
agreed that we ought to have this. The Croats
have signed; the Bosnian Government has now
signed. We need to keep the pressure on, and
we will do what we can. I don't want to rule
in or rule out a specific timetable or a specific
action, because the developments are recent and
the decision has not been made on the specific
timetable.
Q. Mr. President, do you have any more reason to believe today than you might have earlier
that our allies, particularly those who have
troops on the ground there, would be more
willing than they've been to see the arms embargo lifted?
The President. I'll say this. Our allies are now
more eager to see the no-fly zone enforced.
And I think that the international impatience
is going to grow rather rapidly with the Serbs
if they want to continue the carnage in Bosnia,
when not very long ago they acted as if they
thought this was a pretty good deal.
Aid to Russia
Q. Mr. Chancellor, you've seen or you've
heard-the President presented his-or gave
you a good idea what's going to be included
in his Russian aid package. Do you see it as
being adequate, sir, or do you think it will make
a difference over there?
Chancellor Kohl. I think that indeed we have
a possibility to cooperate. You may know that
the Federal Republic of Germany has provided,
by far, more than 50 percent of financial assistance to the states of the former Soviet Union.
And I am very happy that the President has
again taken a new initiative in the framework
of the G-7, but going beyond that to wrap up
a package of assistance to Boris Yeltsin and the
reformist forces in the country.
And I believe that this package should contain
three to four elements to put it in a general


363




Mar. 26 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


matter: bilateral assistance, multilateral assistance, then questions to provide relief goods to
the country, but also specific types of assistance
by way of providing help towards self-help. Let
us think of the safety of civilian nuclear power
plants in the former Soviet Union. In Munich,
at the G-7 summit, we discussed that issue,
too. And I'm very happy that the American
President is taking up that idea to the question
of the safety, you know, based on the experiences of Chemobyl, has turned out to be a
central question touching each and every one
of us; not a question that is restricted to Russia
and the Ukraine but is addressed to all of us.
And if we take all these issues together and
wrap them up in a package, I think we stand
a good chance to be successful. And I would
like to express my support to the President on
this.
[At this point, a question was asked in German,
and a translation was not provided.]
Chancellor Kohl. Well, the only thing that
we did was that we exchanged the information
on that-the Federal Government in case a decision of the Security Council will be takingwhat the Federal Government will do.
German Constitutional Conflicts
Q. [Inaudible]-satisfied with that report to
solve the German constitutional conflicts that
way?
The President. I think he's been remarkably
deft in his dealing with the issue so far.
Aid to Russia
Q. Thank you, Mr. President. Will you go
further than President Bush did in your aid
package to Russia, such as including long-term
concessional financing or government guarantees? And can we expect the size of the package
to be larger or less than the $24 billion that
was attempted last year but not completed?
The President. Well, of course, the package
was not quite a $24 billion package. It was in
theory that, over a long period of years. But
if you go back and look at what was actually
released, the Congress specifically appropriated
$650 million in aid and an $800 million appropriation under the Nunn-Lugar bill to help to
denuclearize Russia and the other nuclear Republics. Most of that money has not been spent
yet. And I say that not as a criticism.
Let me back up and say one of the places


where we started this discussion, in-house here,
is to ask ourselves, what happened to the policy
that was announced last year? What money has
been appropriated and spent? What has been
approved, but not spent? What are the problems? Are there any problems where the United
States has not followed through? Are there
problems where there are bottlenecks or failures
in Russia? Are there problems because we said
in theory we would support a few billion dollars
in aid through international institutions, but
Russia can't comply right now with the eligibility
requirements for the IMF, for example? We
analyzed all that.
And so, when we finally put together this
package, which has not been done yet-I'm in
the middle of congressional consultations and
talking with people outside as well as inside
the Government-we will have made an honest
effort to assess what happened to the last proposal, what the problems were, how to get
around them. And I can't yet tell you-we've
not yet made a final decision on the dollar value,
but I expect it will be broadbased and comprehensive.
Bosnian Peace Agreement
Q. The sanctions so far have just about
wrecked the Serbian economy, yet there doesn't
seem to be any deterrent effect on the military
aggression. With the developments in Srebrenica
and related communities, what makes the administration think that further sanctions will
have any impact on Serbian behavior?
The President. I think the real issue is whether the cumulative impact of the events of the
last few days will bring the Serbs to the signing
table. That is, whether or not they really want
so desperately to cleanse the Bosnian Muslims
out of all their living space that they will defy
now what is now for the first time, for the
first time, the virtually unanimous opinion of
all the governments that they will be in the
wrong if they do not sign this agreement, which
they had previously complimented. I don't know
what's going to happen, Andrea [Andrea Mitchell, NBC News]. If I did, I would tell you.
But let me say I think we have a chance
to get a good-faith signing. I think we have
to try. We have to give that a few days before
we up the ante again.
Q. Mr. President, well, what if the Serbs do
sign this agreement? Are we still committed to
sending U.S. ground forces in to enforce the


364




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Mar. 26


agreement within 72 hours? And what happens
if there are some Serbs who don't honor the
agreement and U.S. troops and other troops,
peacekeeping forces, get in the way? That
sounds like it's a prescription for some potentially bloody fighting to continue.
The President. Well, all those decisions obviously would have to be made. We have not
made those decisions yet. All I have said is
that the United States would be prepared to
participate in a multinational effort to help keep
the peace. We believe that we'll be able to
tell whether there is or is not a good-faith signing and whether there is or is not a peace.
Of course, the whole reason you have peacekeeping forces is that from time to time the
peace may be broken, but you hope it will be
a general commitment to the peace. I still feel
that that is an appropriate approach.
Multilateral Trade Negotiations
Q. Mr. President, both you gentlemen mentioned the GATT agreement and voiced optimism that a solution could be reached fairly
shortly. As I recall, a little over a year ago,
Chancellor Kohl was here and had been optimistic that perhaps it would be resolved before
the Munich economic summit. Obviously that
didn't happen. Currently there seems to be
more tension between the U.S. and its trading
partners than there was a year ago. What is
it that makes you both optimistic that a breakthrough can be reached?
Chancellor Kohl. Well, for me, there's no
doubt about the fact that it was a mistake not
to conclude it prior to Munich. And then we
had many reasons after the summit had taken
place. But I said to the President today that
there is a convincing argument when we meet
in Tokyo and read to the public the final document of the G-7 meeting, and Prime Minister
Miyazawa stands up in front of 1,800 journalists
and reads to them that the G-7 participants'
countries are convinced that the successful conclusion of the GATT Uruguay round is an important precondition for fighting the recession,
there would be an uproar of laughter greeting
him. And some of you will take up the document from London and the document from Munich and hold it up in the air and wave it
at the gentlemen. And in describing this to you,
I think, and I said luckily so, luckily you know
in what position we find ourselves in.
But as I said, I have a serious argument in


favor of a successful conclusion which people
tend not to mention in the discussion. We all
believe in a free international trade, and we
need it if we want to get out of the recession.
The Americans luckily are, as is clearly visible,
on a good path out of it. But hardly ever do
we talk about the third world countries. The
economic situation in the third world countries
is miserable. It is devastating, and the present
recession affects the third world country far
more than it affects the industrialized countries.
And in the talks that I had with the President
and Vice President Gore, we talked about the
work that has to follow the conference of Rio,
the UNCED. One cannot expect from us that
in the question of the damage done to the tropical rain forest that we make progress on these
issues if countries who undergo recessionist development are not being assisted by opening
up the GATT Uruguay round and bringing it
to a successful conclusion.
I, however, do not believe that things have
improved in the course of the last 2 years, and
they will be even worsened if we wait another
year for a conclusion. Therefore, I think that
the Tokyo meeting and the threat of having
about 2,000 journalists standing there laughing
at us is quite a positive thing.
The President. Let me make one other point.
It is true that there have been a couple of
points of contention since I became President.
Both of them arose out of cases which developed well before I took office. But I also think
you have to look at the upside in terms of the
last 10 years. Just take our relationship with
Europe: We have an agreement now on agriculture, if it can be held. We have an agreement
on airline manufacturing and to what extent subsidies can be permitted and what is it not, if
it can be held. We have experience now of
the last 2 years of what happened without a
GAFT agreement when we've had very low economic growth in Europe and a very persistent
and lagging recession in the United States. And
now with the United States making an effort
to come out of this recession but the projected
growth rates in Europe low, I think that there
is an understanding that it is very difficult for
one country to grow without more general
growth throughout the world; and that Europe,
the United States, and Japan, all in different
ways, have a big stake in getting a GATT agreement that will set a framework that will permit
us to promote global growth. That's why I think


365




Mar. 26 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


we ve got a good chance to make it, and I hope
we do.
Thank you very much.


NOTE: The President's eighth news conference
began at 2:31 p.m. in the East Room at the White
House. Chancellor Kohl spoke in German, and
his remarks were translated by an interpreter.


Nomination for Three Ambassadorial Posts
March 26, 1993


The President named three senior Foreign
Service officers to key Latin American ambassadorial posts today, announcing his intention to
nominate John Maisto to be Ambassador to
Nicaragua, James Cheek to be Ambassador to
Argentina, and William Pryce to be Ambassador
to Honduras.
The President's Radio Address
March 27, 1993
Good morning. Last November you demanded a new spirit of action and an end to
gridlock in Washington. Well, what you demanded is finally taking hold. The House and
the Senate are now completing work on the
heart of our bold economic plan for new directions: to create jobs, to increase incomes, to
bring down our terrible national debt.
The actions taking place in Congress are a
welcome departure from the status quo of the
past. For 12 years, our Government was paralyzed by partisan gridlock, our economy caught
in the grip of powerful special interests who
bent the system so that they could win at our
expense. Our deficits went up, and the creation
of high-paying jobs went down. And good families found themselves working harder, paying
more in taxes, and bringing less money home.
When you sent me and our administration
here, you wanted a plan of action, and we've
provided it. Our plan is based on this simple
principle: The best social program is a good
job, and the best way to reduce the deficit is
by cutting spending and making smart investments to grow the economy.
Last week, the House of Representatives endorsed this plan. And this week, the Senate did
the same, approving our budget resolution in


"Our relationships with our Latin American
neighbors are among the most important we
have," said the President. "I am very glad to
be putting them into steady hands today."
NOTE: Biographies of the nominees were made
available by the Office of the Press Secretary.


record time, just 36 days after we took it to
you, the American people.
I salute our supporters on Capitol Hill for
their outstanding work. And also I want to thank
Vice President Gore, who's worked tirelessly to
enlist lawmakers in the cause of change. We
should all be pleased that we're on our way
toward putting this plan in motion.
Before the Congress goes home for Easter
recess, I'm counting on them to complete their
work on the plan, to finish the budget and pass
our proposals to create good jobs in the short
term. The progress we've made shows we're
beating the status quo. And you have given us
the clout to do it.
We've come a long way in 91/2 weeks. Interest
rates are down. The power of investment is returning to the economy. Confidence is strong.
But I won't rest until we right the economy
and guarantee for future generations the prosperity that should be the birthright of every
American.
We can begin with this program, because the
best way to build the economy and lay the foundation for the future is to create 8 million jobs
in the next 4 years and by adopting the immediate investments that will create a half a million
jobs in the near term. That's what this plan


366




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Mar. 29


does.
To create jobs and to make our economy
more productive, we're planning to build and
repair new roads and transit systems. We want
to place hundreds of thousands of Americans
in productive summer jobs and get young people
the education they need while they're working.
And we're challenging the private sector to create more and giving them the incentives to do
it.
We want to fund future-oriented research and
equip our Nation's young scientists and engineers with the skills to excel in high-technology
fields. We want to convert military technology
for peaceful uses that will benefit all of us and
help communities hard hit by base closings and
cutbacks on defense contracts. We want to retrain the defense workers put out of work by
the end of the cold war. These people are patriots, and they deserve nothing less than a chance
to work in civilian jobs that will earn them the
kind of money they earned protecting our national defense.
Some people say these investments are unnecessary and costly. Their only alternative is to
do nothing, accept things just the way they are,
and hope, with no Government action in partnership with the private sector, somehow things
will get better. These friends of the status quo
have tried everything in recent days to show
that we don't need new investments. But they've
forgotten: We tried cutting investments for
years. We forgot about the human equation, the
necessity to train and educate people. And guess
what? We didn't get jobs.
We still have a jobless economic recovery.
If this were even an average recovery, we'd have
3 million more Americans working today. Many
of the jobs that were created last month were


part-time jobs. And the unemployment rate is
still higher today than it was at the bottom of
the recession.
This job drought has put individuals and families under great stress. Americans don't want
handouts; they just want a hand up, a chance
to work and to provide for their own. And our
plan does just that. In doing so, we'll be on
our way to a real job-creating recovery that gets
the incomes of American workers growing again.
We have to raise the living standards of our
people now and in the long run. To keep our
preeminence in the world economy, we have
to create a smarter work force, with lifelong
learning that trains all our people for better,
higher paying jobs. And we need to develop
the new technologies that are farsighted, that
will create the high-wage jobs of today and tomorrow. If we're shortsighted today, we'll be
blindsided tomorrow.
That's why I'm working hard, not just on this
economic plan, although it is the centerpiece
of our efforts, but on other fronts too: from
controlling health care costs and providing the
security of health care to all Americans, to moving people from welfare into jobs, to correcting
the way we finance campaigns to bring the people in and move the special interests out. Each
step of the way, I'm trying to listen to you.
What happens on the short stretch of road between 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and Capitol
Hill is only meaningful if we're acting for you
and with you. This is the promise of our new
plan for new directions.
Thanks for listening.
NOTE: The President spoke at 10:06 a.m. from
the Oval Office at the White House.


Exchange With Reporters in Little Rock, Arkansas
March 29, 1993


Aid to Russia
Q. Sir, three-quarters of Americans say we're
already giving enough aid to Russia.
The President. We give a lot more money
than we give to Russia to smaller countries.
We've got a big interest there. And I realize
that the responsibility is on me to communicate


to the American people any kind of pay package
I propose and to justify it. That's my responsibility, and I intend to assume it.
Q. Where would you get another billion dollars, sir?
The President. We're working on the details
of it. We'll be able to announce something
Q. Are you concerned by these latest poll


367




Mar. 29 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


figures, sir, that many Americans, 75 percent
of the Americans, think we already give the Russians enough?
The President. Well, foreign aid is unpopular
in every country in the world, and it's always
been unpopular here. And I haven't really had
a chance to talk much directly to the American
people about what's going on there, what our
stake in it and what their stake in it is, what
the American people's stake in it. The American
people are smart enough to know that we can't


determine the course of events in Russia all
by ourselves. They know that. But we can have
an impact on it. And my job as President is
to convince the citizens of this country that they
have an immediate and personal interest in the
outcome of events. I think I can do it, and
I'm going to do my best.
NOTE: The exchange began at 11:05 a.m. outside
the U.S. Male barbershop. A tape was not available for verification of the content of this exchange.


Nomination for Administrator of the Agency for International Development
March 29, 1993


The President announced his intention today
to nominate Brian Atwood as Administrator of
the Agency for International Development, U.S.
International Development Cooperation Agency.
"Secretary Christopher and I have concluded
that the skills that Brian Atwood brings to the
State Department are greatly needed at AID,"
said the President. "I am confident that he will


be the kind of effective administrator that our
foreign assistance programs need at this time.
His proven effectiveness and his commitment
to democratic change make him an ideal
choice."
NOTE: A biography of the nominee was made
available by the Office of the Press Secretary.


Nomination for Assistant Secretaries of Education
March 29, 1993


The President named two national education
leaders to key positions at the Department of
Education today, expressing his intention to
nominate Colorado education official David
Longanecker to be Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education and education innovator
Sharon Porter Robinson to be Assistant Secretary for Educational Research and Improvement.


"I have pledged to make the Department of
Education a center for innovative policymaking,"
said the President. "David Longanecker and
Sharon Porter Robinson will join with Secretary
Riley and the rest of his team to bring the
leadership that will make that happen."
NOTE: Biographies of the nominees were made
available by the Office of the Press Secretary.


Nomination for Administrator of General Services
March 29, 1993


In a move designed to cut waste and promote
efficiency in the Federal Government, the President today announced his intention to nominate


Roger Johnson, chairman an CEO of Western
Digital, to head the giant General Services Administration. The first Republican named to a


368




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Mar. 31


top post in the new administration, Johnson
served as an outspoken advocate for the ClintonGore ticket during the Presidential campaign,
joining with other Orange County, CA, Republicans to endorse the Clinton-Gore plan to reinvest the Government and make it work for the
American people.
"Roger Johnson's skills as a business leader


and strong commitment to Government change
will ensure that economy and efficiency are
standard rule at the new GSA," said the President. "Partisan politics have no place at this
crucial juncture of our history. We must all work
together to get our Government back on track."
NOTE: A biography of the nominee was made
available by the Office of the Press Secretary.


Nomination for President of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation
March 30, 1993


The President today announced his intention
to nominate Ruth Harkin, a top corporate attorney with expertise in international trade and investment, as President of the Overseas Private
Investment Corporation, U.S. International Development Cooperation Agency.
"Ruth Harkin has the experience, know-how


and new ideas to make OPIC an innovative
Agency that will work aggressively to increase
American investment overseas while protecting
jobs at home," the President said.
NOTE: A biography of the nominee was made
available by the Office of the Press Secretary.


Nomination for Assistant Secretaries of Defense
March 30, 1993
The President announced his intention today  of the most outstanding people working on deto nominate Edward Warner to be Assistant    fense issues today," said the President. "I am
Secretary of Defense for Strategy and Resources  extremely pleased that they are joining Secretary
and Charles Freeman to be Assistant Secretary  Aspin at the Pentagon."
of Defense for Regional Security.
"Ted Warner and Charles Freeman are two NOTE: Biographies of the nominees were made
available by the Office of the Press Secretary.
Exchange With Reporters Prior to a Cabinet Meeting
March 31, 1993


Budget Resolution and Stimulus Package
Q. Mr. President, are you going to get a $1
billion package for the Russians in aid?
The President. I'll have more to say about
that tomorrow in Annapolis. I'm going out there
to speak.
Let me say in front of the whole Cabinet
here, it was just 6 weeks ago that I presented
my plan to the United States Congress. They


are on the verge of adopting the budget resolution, which will drastically reduce the Federal
deficit. The Senate, I believe, is on the verge
of passing the jobs program to put a half-million
jobs into this economy. Things are going well.
We are moving with remarkable speed.
I do want to make one point, which was obscured a little in the news stories today. I say
that not out of criticism, but on the issue of


369




Mar. 31 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


the drop in consumer confidence, the Wall
Street Journal had a very detailed article which
showed that the principal reason for it is the
continuing worry of the American people that
this economy is not producing jobs. And consumers without jobs don't have confidence because they don't have money with which to
consume. So it is very important that this week,
before the Congress goes home, that we pass
the budget resolution to reduce the deficit and
the jobs program to create jobs. If we can do
that, this will be an historic 6 weeks in which
we are moving at a very rapid pace.
Q. Do you think, Mr. President, that the Republicans will seek to filibuster against the stimulus package? And if they do, what's your strategy?


The President. Well, we're going to try to
win. I don't think so. I believe some of the
Republicans support this. As a matter of fact,
I think a lot of them support it. Some of them
may never vote for it because of partisan divisions. But I think they know that the American
people will be very disappointed to find out
that a half a million jobs went by the wayside
because 41-not even a majority, but 41 Senators stopped a vote from occurring. I don't
think that's going to happen. I would be very
surprised.
NOTE: The exchange began at 10:12 a.m. in the
Cabinet Room at the White House. A tape was
not available for verification of the content of this
exchange.


Nomination for Posts at the Department of Defense
March 31, 1993


The President will nominate Dr. Anita Jones
to be Director of Defense Research and Engineering and Graham Allison, Edwin Dorn, and
Morton Halperin to be Assistant Secretaries of
Defense for Plans and Policy, Personnel and
Readiness, and Democracy and Human Rights
respectively, the White House announced today.


"At this time of change and uncertainty, it
is imperative that we have a topflight team at
the Pentagon," said the President. "These four
people have what it takes to keep the Defense
Department moving forward."
NOTE: Biographies of the nominees were made
available by the Office of the Press Secretary.


Exchange With Reporters Prior to a Meeting With Congressional Leaders
April 1, 1993
Q. Mr. President, is your stimulus package  working on it.
in trouble? That's what we hear.                We're here talking about Russia today.
The President. Well, we just passed the budget, but I'm celebrating that right now. I think  NOTE: The exchange began at 10:30 a.m. in the
we can pass it. We'll keep working on it. We  Cabinet Room at the White House. A tape was
have to have 60 votes to pass it, but we'll keep  not available for verification of the content of this
exchange.


370




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Apr. 1


Remarks to Midshipmen at the United States Naval Academy in Annapolis,
Maryland
April 1, 1993


Thank you very much, Admiral Lynch, men
and women of the brigade. I'm delighted to
be here. They say there's no such thing as a
free lunch, but I thought as President I'd come
here and test the theory.
In a few moments I am going to deliver a
speech, as Admiral Lynch has already said, to
the newspaper editors of our country about our
Nation's purposes in the world and specifically
about what we should be doing now to promote
democracy in Russia and in the other Republics
of the former Soviet Union. The struggle to
build free societies in those new nations is probably the great security challenge of our age,
one of the greatest opportunities the United
States will have. And how we do this job, in
many ways, will shape the future that you will
have in our Armed Forces.
I believe we must do what we can to support
the reform movement and to support democracy, a precious commodity anywhere in the
world. And that is why my first trip out of
the United States as President will be to Vancouver, Canada, this weekend to meet with the
Russian President Boris Yeltsin.
The success of the changes that he and the
other reformers are advancing will ultimately
have an impact on the life of every American
but especially an impact on your lives. If Russia
can continue to be a partner with us addressing
global concerns and dousing the flames of regional crises, then it is less likely that you and
the men and women under your command will
have to be sent into harm's way during my term
or under some future President.
I respect the difficulty and the danger of the
work that the men and women of our armed
services perform. I understand that in a new
way now, because last month I watched the
flight operations on the deck of the United
States ship Theodore Roosevelt. And I was deeply saddened a few days after I was there to
learn that five naval aviators lost their lives returning to the TR from operations in support
of our presence in the former Yugoslavia.
The conflict in that region and those we see
elsewhere remind us that we have entered a
new world that will test us in new ways. Our


Navy will play an important role in getting us
past those tests, as it has throughout our history.
To help the men and women in our Navy perform effectively and safely, we will need talented, committed leadership as never before.
Leadership can take many forms. It can be
command of a ship or a submarine, of an aviation squadron, or of a naval base. It can show
itself in training commanders by teaching leadership to the next generation of midshipmen as
your instructors are doing here at the Academy.
Whatever form it takes, your leadership will
make an important contribution not only to the
Navy but to the security of our great Nation.
This is a new and a hopeful world but also
one where there is still danger. I want you to
know that I'm proud of you and the work you
do, and so is the Nation you have chosen to
serve.
Finally, although I'm sure this doesn't apply
to any of you here, I read this little sign. As
you might imagine as I travel around the country, I'm used to seeing such signs. [Laughter]
Some of them are not altogether favorable.
That's a good part of our democracy, that people
feel free to express their views.
One of the most compelling signs that I saw
was on the way from the airport the other day
in New York State to the home of President
Franklin Roosevelt in Hyde Park. And there
were hundreds of people standing along the
road in 8 degree temperature, and one person
was holding a sign that said, "Just do something." So that's what I'm going to do.
In the tradition followed by Commanders in
Chief in visits to the service academy, I hereby
grant amnesty to the members of the brigadethe last thing the Superintendent said before
I got up here was to finish the sentence so
that it would not be a total and complete amnesty-from all punishments for all 4000-level
conduct offenses. And even though this is April
Fools' Day, that's not April fools.
Thank you very much, and God bless you
all.
NOTE: The President spoke at 1:03 p.m. in Bancroft Hall at the U.S. Naval Academy. In his re

371




Apr. 1 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


marks, he referred to Rear Adm. Thomas C. Academy.
Lynch, USN, Superintendent of the U.S. Naval
Remarks to the American Society of Newspaper Editors in Annapolis
April 1, 1993


Thank you very much, Mr. Topping, distinguished guests at the head table, ladies and gentlemen. I want to say a special word of thanks
and acknowledgement to the Superintendent of
the Naval Academy, Admiral Lynch, who's here
with us and who came up with me. He just
gave me something I was told even a politician
couldn't get in this country anymore, a free
lunch. [Laughter]
I just had lunch with 4,000 of the finest young
men and women in this country or in any country, who are here at the Naval Academy. I went
around the table, the table where I was sitting,
and I asked every one of the young men and
women who were seated at my table why they
decided to come to the Naval Academy. And
I wish every one of you could have heard their
answers. It would have moved you immensely.
And as I go now to meet with President
Yeltsin in Vancouver, I will be even more freshly
reminded about what the stakes are, because
as much as any group of Americans, those young
people about to enter our Nation's Armed
Forces have a very great stake in what will
occur.
I'm delighted to be here with all of you who
do so much to shape what our people think
and even to give them access to what they need
to know about these and other important issues.
Had we met last year, if my voice had been
in full flower, we doubtless would have talked
almost exclusively about the economic issues facing America. And I am quite mindful of the
fact that I am the first member of my party
for a very long time who received a majority
of the editorial endorsements of America's newspapers. That is something that I took very seriously. I was honored to receive them. And I
can only hope that a year or so from now, those
of you who did it will still be glad you did.
In my heart of hearts, I hope that those of
you who didn't will be sorry you didn't. [Laughter] But today, in this magnificent place in this


wonderful State, I might also say I'm delighted
to be joined here by my former colleague in
the Governors' Association and my friend Governor Don Schaefer, the Governor of Maryland.
Thank you for being here.
I want to talk to you about the events in
Russia, about our policies toward the newly
independent states of the former Soviet Union,
and about my meetings with President Boris
Yeltsin this weekend. But first, I wish to speak
about America's purposes in the world. That
is not something we often examine, for it is
human nature to focus on daily affairs most of
the time. In our own lives, we do our jobs,
we raise our children, we nurture our relationships, we struggle with the dilemmas of the moment one day at a time. Yet we are each guided
by some sense of purpose, drawn from our families and our faith, which shapes the millions
of small events of our life into a larger work
that bears the imprint of our character.
And so it is in the life of a nation. Decisions
command attention. Crises drive action. But it
is only with an overriding sense of purpose,
drawn from their history and their cultures, that
great nations can rise above the daily tyranny
of the urgent to construct their security, to build
their prosperity, to advance their interests, and
to reaffirm their values.
A clear sense of purpose is most essential,
yet most elusive, at times of profound global
change. A half a century ago, our Nation
emerged victorious from the Second World War
to discover itself in wholly unfamiliar terrain.
The old empires of Europe and Asia were gone.
A new Communist empire loomed. Ours was
the only economy in the world still strong and
dominant.
Former Secretary of State, the late Dean Acheson, later described it as a time of "great obscurity." Yet in that dim obscurity, he and
George Marshall and President Harry Truman
and other leaders in both political parties saw


372




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Apr. 1


the stakes clearly enough. They acted decisively.
They accepted the mantle of leadership. Their
sense of purpose helped to rescue Europe, to
rebuild Japan, to contain aggression, and to foster two generations of unprecedented prosperity
and peace.
And now thanks in large measure to their
vision, carried forward through succeeding generations, and thanks, too, to the enormous courage of the people of Russia and the other Republics of the former Soviet Union and the people of Eastern Europe, freedom has once again
won a very great victory.
Over the past 4 years, the Berlin Wall crumbled. The cold war ended. The Soviet Union
gave way to 15 sovereign states. Millions threw
off the constricting yoke of communism so they
could assume instead the ennobling burdens of
democracy.
Yet these victories also confront us with a
moment of profound change, a challenge. The
collapse of the Soviet Union changed the international order forever. The emerging economic
powerhouses of the Pacific are changing the financial order forever. The proliferation of demonic weapons of mass destruction threaten to
change the distribution of military power forever. Resurgent ethnic conflict is challenging the
very meaning of the nation state. The rise of
a global economy has changed the linkages between our domestic and our foreign policies
and, I would argne to you, has made them indivisible.
In a time of dramatic global change we must
define America's broader purposes anew. And
part of that purpose clearly consists of reviving
economic opportunity and growth here at home,
for the opportunity to do well here at home
is the ultimate basis of our influence abroad.
Congress is acting this week to break the
gridlock, to build our prosperity. just today, the
Congress passed the heart of my economic program, a long-term plan to drastically reduce the
deficit and increase investment in our Nation's
economic future. After years of policies that
have diminished our future, Washington has finally realized that the best social program is
a good job, and the best route to deficit reduction is a growing economy founded on a bold
plan of change that will both cut spending and
increase investment to empower the working
people of this country.
Our program invests in people by changing
the Tax Code to reward work and investment;


by working to ensure that anybody who works
40 hours a week and has children in the home
won't have to live in poverty anymore; by providing our children with education and nutrition
and the immunizations they need to start life
successfully; by reinvesting the way we educate
and train our workers to make it properly adequate for the new global economy; and by creating jobs now through investment in infrastructure and safe streets and community development in communities large and small all across
this land.
The American people had the courage to call
for change last November and gave me the awesome opportunity and responsibility to try to
implement that change. I am hopeful that Congress will now have the courage to vote for
all those changes this week. As I said, today
they voted for a plan that both reduces the
long-term deficit and increases our investment
in the things that will grow this economy, in
new jobs and new technologies and new education strategies.
I hope now they will adopt the short-term
jobs program that will add a half a million new
jobs to this country over the next 2 years. Let
me say parenthetically that one of the great
challenges of every wealthy country in the world
today is not only to promote growth but to create jobs. There are many, many examples in
the 1980's, when in Europe and elsewhere countries had great growth but produced no new
jobs. That is what has happened here in the
last year or so. And we must prove that we
can do better.
As I have said so often over the last year
and a half, in the global village, with this kind
of global economy, there is simply no clear dividing line between domestic and foreign policy.
We can't be strong abroad unless we're strong
at home. And we cannot be strong at home
unless we are actively engaged in the world
which is shaping events for every American.
There is a sense in which every one of the
young people in this country today will live a
life which is shaped by events beyond our borders as well as events within our borders.
And so today I say again we must have a
clear sense of our purposes around the world.
Everyone knows the world remains a dangerous
place. And our preeminent imperative is to ensure our own security. That is why we're working to ensure that our military is not only the
finest in the world but also specifically tailored


373




Apr. 1 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


for the challenges of this new era, for the
central fronts of our fight for a safe world have
moved from the plains of northern Europe to
our efforts to stem weapons of mass destruction,
to relieve ethnic turmoil, to promote democracy,
to expand markets, and to protect the global
environment.
During the cold war our foreign policies
largely focused on relations among nations. Our
strategies sought a balance of power to keep
the peace. Today, our policies must also focus
on relations within nations, on a nation's form
of governance, on its economic structure, on
its ethnic tolerance. These are of concern to
us, for they shape how these nations treat their
neighbors as well as their own people and
whether they are reliable when they give their
word. In particular, democracies are far less likely to wage war on other nations than dictatorships are.
Emphatically, the international community
cannot seek to heal every domestic dispute or
to resolve every ethnic conflict. Some are simply
beyond our reach. But within practical bounds
and with a sense of clear strategic priorities,
we must do what we can to promote the democratic spirit and the economic reforms that can
tip the balance for progress well into the next
century.
From the first hours of my administration,
several critical situations have demanded our attention, in Iraq, in Somalia, in Haiti, in the
Middle East, in the former Yugoslavia, and elsewhere. We have sought to develop strategies
to address these and other immediate challenges. And I'm encouraged by the progress
which has been made in most of the areas of
challenge.
Yet all of us must also focus on the larger
questions that this new era presents. For if we
act out of a larger sense of purpose and strategy,
our work on the crises of the late 20th century
can lay the basis for a more peaceful and democratic world at the start of the 21st century.
The end of the long, twilight struggle does
not ensure the start of a long peace. Like a
wise homeowner who recognizes that you cannot
stop investing in your house once you buy it,
we cannot stop investing in the peace now that
we have obtained it. That recognition was a
triumph of President Truman's era. But unlike
then, we lack the specter of a menacing adversary to spur our efforts to engage other nations.
Now, not fear but vision must drive our invest

ment and our engagement in this new world.
Nowhere is that engagement more important
than in our policies toward Russia and the newly
independent states of the former Soviet Union.
Their struggle to build free societies is one of
the great human dramas of our day. It presents
the greatest security challenge for our generation and offers one of the greatest economic
opportunities of our lifetime. That's why my first
trip out of the country will be to Vancouver,
to meet with President Yeltsin.
Over the past month, we have seen incredibly
tumultuous events in Russia. They've filled our
headlines and probably confused our heads.
President Yeltsin has been at loggerheads with
the People's Congress of Deputies. Heated political standoffs have obstructed economic
change. Meanwhile, neighboring states, such as
Ukraine and the Baltic nations, have watched
Russia anxiously while they grapple with their
own reforms and while they deal with economic
problems equally severe.
For most Americans, these events, while dramatic, are still very remote from their immediate
concerns. After all, in every community we have
our own problems. We've got our own needs.
We face a stagnant economy and dislocations
brought about by the end of the cold war and
the downsizing of the military budget. We've
got all these big companies restructuring themselves. And for the last 2 years small business
has not created enough new jobs to offset that.
It's projected that two-thirds of the growth of
our income in the next 5 years, two-thirds, will
be absorbed by health care cost increases. And
100 percent of the wage increases for the next
5 years will be absorbed by health care cost
increases unless we act. We're worried about
our cities, like Los Angeles, coming up on the
anniversary of the disturbances there a year ago.
And many people say, in the face of all this
and with a huge budget deficit, why in the world
should we help a distant people when times
are so tough here at home?
Well, I know that we cannot guarantee the
future of reform in Russia or any of the other
newly independent states. I know and you know
that ultimately, the history of Russia will be
written by Russians and the future of Russia
must be charted by Russians. But I would argue
that we must do what we can. We must act
now, not out of charity, but because it is a
wise investment, a wise investment building on
what has already been done and looking to our


374




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Apr. 1


own future. While our efforts will entail new
costs, we can reap even larger dividends for
our safety and our prosperity if we act now.
To understand why, I think we must grasp
the scope of the transformation now occurring
in Russia and the other states. From Vilnius
on the Baltic to Vladivostok on the Pacific, we
have witnessed a political miracle, genuinely historic and heroic deeds without precedent in all
of human history. The other two world-changing
events of this century, World Wars I and II,
exacted a price of over 60 million lives. By contrast, look at this world-changing event. It has
been remarkably bloodless, and we pray that
it remains so.
Now free markets and free politics are replacing repression. Central Europe is in command
of its own fate. Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia
are again independent. Ukraine, Armenia, and
other proud nations are free to pursue their
own destinies.
The heart of it all is Russia. Her rebirth has
begun. A great nation, rich in natural and
human resources and unbelievable history, has
once again moved to rejoin the political and
economic cultures of the West. President Yeltsin
and his fellow reformers throughout Russia are
courageously leading three modern Russian revolutions at once to transform their country: from
a totalitarian state into a democracy; from a
command economy into a market; from an empire into a modem nation-state that freely let
go of countries once under their control and
now freely respect their integrity.
Russia's rebirth is not only material and political; it is genuinely spiritual. As the Librarian
of Congress James Billington said, "Evil has
been transcended by repentance without revenge. Innocent suffering in past gulags has
been given redemptive value. And the amazingly
nonviolent breakthrough of August 1991, which
occurred on the Feast of the Transfiguration,
was indeed a miracle through which ordinary
people rediscovered a moral dimension to their
own lives." Across what was the Soviet Union,
the freedom to pray has been met by a resurgence of worship.
Nothing could contribute more to global freedom, to security, to prosperity than the peaceful
progression of this rebirth of Russia. It could
mean a modem state, at peace not only with
itself but with the world. It could mean one
productively and prosperously integrated into a
global economy, a source of raw materials and


manufactured products and a vast market for
American goods and services. It could mean a
populous democracy contributing to the stability
of both Europe and Asia.
The success of Russia's renewal must be a
first-order concern to our country because it
confronts us with four distinct opportunities.
First, it offers us an historic opportunity to improve our own security. The danger is clear
if Russia's reforms turn sour, if it reverts to
authoritarianism or disintegrates into chaos. The
world cannot afford the strife of the former
Yugoslavia replicated in a nation as big as Russia, spanning 11 time zones with an armed arsenal of nuclear weapons that is still very vast.
But there is great opportunity here. Across
most of our history, our security was challenged
by European nations, set on domination of their
continent and the high seas that lie between
us. The tragic violence in Bosnia reminds us
again that Europe has not seen the end of conflict within its own borders.
Now, we could at last face a Europe in which
no great power, not one, harbors continental
designs. Think of it: Land wars in Europe cost
hundreds of thousands of American lives in the
20th century. The rise of a democratic Russia,
satisfied within her own boundaries, bordered
by other peaceful democracies, could ensure
that our Nation never needs to pay that kind
of price again.
We also face the opportunity to increase our
own security by reducing the chances of nuclear
war. Russia still holds over 20,000 strategic and
tactical nuclear warheads. Ukraine, Belarus, and
Kazakhstan have nuclear weapons on their own
soil as well. We are implementing historic arms
control agreements that for the first time will
radically reduce the number of strategic nuclear
weapons. Now, by supporting Russia's reforms,
we can help to turn the promise of those agreements into a reality for ourselves and for our
children, and for the Russians and their children, too.
Second, Russia's reforms offer us the opportunity to complete the movement from having
an adversary in foreign policy to having a partner in global problem solving. Think back to
the cold war. Recall the arenas in which we
played out its conflicts: Berlin, Korea, the
Congo, Cuba, Vietnam, Nicaragua, Angola, Afghanistan. We competed everywhere. We battled the Soviets at the U.N. We tracked each
other's movements around the globe. We lost


375




Apr. 1 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


tens of thousands of our finest young people
to hold freedom's line. Those efforts were worthy. But their worth was measured in prevention
more than in creation, in the containment of
terror and oppression rather than the advancement of human happiness and opportunity.
Now reflect on what has happened just since
Russia joined us in a search for peaceful solutions. We cooperated in the United Nations to
defeat Iraqi aggression in Kuwait. We cosponsored promising peace talks in the Mideast. We
worked together to foster reconciliation in Cambodia and El Salvador. We joined forces to protect the global environment. Progress of this
kind strengthens our security and that of other
nations. If we can help Russia to remain increasingly democratic, we can leave an era of standoff
behind us and explore expanding horizons of
progress and peace.
Third, Russia's reforms are important to us
because they hold one of the keys to investing
more in our own future. America's taxpayers
have literally spent trillions of dollars to prosecute the cold war. Now we can reduce that
pace of spending, and indeed, we have been
able to reduce that pace of spending, not only
because the arms of the former Soviet Union
pose a diminishing threat to us and our allies.
If Russia were to revert to imperialism or were
to plunge into chaos, we would need to reassess
all our plans for defense savings. We would have
to restructure our defenses to meet a whole
different set of threats than those we now think
will occur. That means billions of dollars less
for other uses: less for creating new businesses
and new jobs; less for preparing our children
for the future; less for the new technologies
of the 21st century which our competitors in
Germany, Japan, and elsewhere are pouring
money into right now, hoping they can capture
the high wage jobs of the future. Therefore,
our ability to put people first at home requires
that we put Russia and its neighbors first on
our agenda abroad.
Fourth, Russia's reforms offer us an historic
opportunity. Russia, after all, is in a profound
economic crisis today. But it is still an inherently
rich nation. She has a wealth of oil and gas
and coal and gold and diamonds and timbers
for her own people to develop. The Russian
people are among the most well educated and
highly skilled in the world. They are good people sitting on a rich land. They have been victimized by a system which has failed them. We


must look beyond the Russia of today and see
her potential for prosperity. Think of it: a nation
of 150 million people able to trade with us in
a way that helps both our peoples. Russia's economic recovery may be slow, but it is in the
interest of all who seek more robust global
growth to ensure that, aided by American business and trade, Russia rises to her great economic potential.
The burning question today is whether Russia's economic progress, whether Russia's democratic progress will continue or be thwarted. I
believe that freedom, like anything sweet, is
hard to take from people once they have had
a taste of it. The human spirit is hard to bottle
up again, and it will be hard to bottle up again
in Russia. Yet if we cannot be certain of how
Russia's affairs will proceed, we are nonetheless
certain of our own interests. The interest of
all Americans lie with efforts that enhance our
security and our prosperity. That's why our interests lie with Russian reform and with Russian
reformers led by Boris Yeltsin.
America's position is unequivocal. We support
democracy. We support free markets. We support freedom of speech, conscience, and religion. We support respect for ethnic minorities
in Russia and for Russian and other minorities
throughout the region.
I believe it is essential that we act prudently
but urgently to do all that we can to strike
a strategic alliance with Russian reform. My goal
in Vancouver will be that. And that will be my
message to the man who stands as the leader
of reform, Russia's democratically elected President, Boris Yeltsin. I won't describe today all
the specific ideas that I plan to discuss with
him. And of course, I don't know all those that
he will discuss with me. But I want to tell you
the principles on which our efforts to assist reform will rest.
First, our investments in Russian reform must
be tangible to the Russian people. Support for
reform must come from the ground up. And
that will only occur if our efforts are broadly
dispersed and not focused just on Moscow. I
plan to talk with President Yeltsin about measures intended to help promote the broad development of small businesses, to accelerate privatization of state enterprises, to assist local food
processing and distribution efforts, and to ease
the transition to private markets. Our goal must
be to ensure that the Russian people soon come
to feel that they are the beneficiaries of reform


376




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Apr. I


and not its victims. We must help them to recognize that their sufferings today are not the
birth pangs of democracy and capitalism but
the death throes of dictatorship and communism.
Second, our investments in Russian reform
must be designed to have lasting impact. Russia's economic vessel is too large and leaky for
us to bail it out. That's not what's at issue here.
Our challenge is to provide some tools to help
the Russians do things that work for themselves.
A good example is Russia's energy sector. Russia
is one of the world's largest oil producers; yet
millions of barrels of the oil Russia pumps each
month seep out of the system before ever reaching the market. Just the leakage from Russia's
natural gas pipelines could supply the entire
State of Connecticut. The Russians must make
many reforms to attract energy investments. And
by helping to introduce modern drilling practices and to repair Russia's energy infrastructure,
we can help Russia regain a large and lasting
source of hard currency. Over the long run,
that effort can help to protect the environment
as well and to moderate world energy prices.
We have a direct interest in doing that.
Third, our people must do what we can to
have people-to-people initiatives, not just government-to-government ones. We have entered
a new era in which the best way to achieve
many of our goals abroad is not through diplomats or dollars but through private citizens
who can impart the skills and habits that are
the lifeblood of democracy and free markets.
We intend to expand efforts for retired American business executives to work with Russian
entrepreneurs to start new businesses. We intend to work so that our farmers can teach
modem farming practices; so that our labor
leaders can share the basics of trade unionism;
so that Americans experienced in grassroots activities can impart the techniques that ensure
responsive government; so that our Armed
Forces can engage in more exchanges with the
Russian military; and so that thousands and
thousands of young Russians who are reform's
primary beneficiaries and reform's primary constituency-so that they can come to our country
and study our government, our economy, and
our society, not because it's perfect but because
it's a great example of a democracy at work.
Fourth, our investments in reform must be
part of a partnership among all the newly independent states and the international community.


They must be extended in concert with measures from our allies, many of whom have at
least as much stake in the survival of Russian
democracy as we do. Working through the international financial institutions, we can do great
things together that none of us can do by ourselves.
This principle is especially important as we
help Russia to stabilize its currency and its markets. Russia's central bank prints too many rubles and extends too many credits. The result
is inflation that has been nearly one percent
a day. Inflation at such levels gravely imperils
Russia's emerging markets. In Vancouver, I plan
to discuss the progress we are making among
the major industrialized nations to help Russia
make the leap to a stable currency and a market
economy. While we cannot support this effort
alone in the United States and while we must
insist on reciprocal commensurate Russian reforms, American leadership to curb inflation and
stabilize the currency is essential.
Fifth, we must emphasize investments in Russia that enhance our own security. I want to
talk with President Yeltsin about steps we can
take together to ensure that denuclearization
continues in Russia and her neighboring states.
We will explore new initiatives to reassure
Ukraine so that it embraces the START Treaty,
and to move toward the goal of the Lisbon
Protocol agenda, which was intended to ensure
that Russia is the only nuclear-armed successor
state to the Soviet Union. Ukraine will play a
special role in the realization of these objectives,
and we recognize our interest in the success
of reform in Ukraine and the other new states.
I'll talk with President Yeltsin about new efforts
to realize the two-thirds reduction in United
States and Soviet strategic nuclear arsenals envisioned under START. And I'll suggest steps both
of us can take to stem the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, something that will be
a major, major cause of concern for years to
come.
Sixth, we must recognize that our policies toward Russia and the other states comprise a
long-term strategy. It may take years to work
completely. That was the key to our success
in the cold war. We were in it for the long
run, not to win every day, not to know what
every development in every country would be.
We had clear principles, clear interests, clear
values, a clear strategy, and we were in it for
the long run. As the Soviets veered from the


377




Apr. 1 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


terror of Stalin to the thaw of Khrushchev, to
the gray days of Brezhnev, to the perestroika
of Gorbachev, our purpose always remained
constant: containment, deterrence, human freedom.
Our goals must remain equally fixed today:
above all, our security and that of our allies
but also democracy, market economies, human
rights, and respect for international law. In this
regard, I welcome President Yeltsin's assurance
that civil liberties will be respected and continuity in Russia's foreign policy maintained as Russia strives to determine her own future.
The path that Russia and the other states
take toward reform will have rough stretches.
Their politics may seem especially tumultuous
today, in part because it's so much more public
than in decades past, thanks to the television
and to the other mass media. Then, the ruler
of the Kremlin had only subjects; now, the ruler
of the Kremlin has constituents, just like me,
and it's a lot more complicated. We must be
concerned over every retreat from democracy
but not every growing pain within democracy.
Let me remind you of our own early history.
It was marked by revision of our governing charter and fistfights in Congress. Vaclav Havel has
noted, "Democracy is not a destination, but it's
a horizon toward which we make continual
progress." Just remember how long it was from
the signing of the Declaration of Independence
to forging a real new Constitution to the election
of the first President, and then you can't be
so impatient about what's happened in the short
stretch of time from Gorbachev to Yeltsin to
the present crisis. As long as there are reformers
in the Russian Federation and other states leading the journey toward democracy's horizon, our
strategy must be to support them. And our place
must be at their side.
Moreover, we and the Russian people must
not give up on reform simply because of the
slow pace of economic renewal. Recall for a
moment how many of the world's economic success stories were written off too soon. Western
visitors to Japan in 1915 dismissed its economic
prospects as dismal. Korea's economy was described as a "hopeless case" by American experts
in 1958, and look at them now. Many Germans
after World War II anticipated decades of national poverty. A German Minister of Economic
Affairs noted after the war, "Few realized that
if people were allowed once more to become
aware of the value and worth of freedom, dy

namic forces would be released." The miracle
of prosperity that Japan, Korea, and Germany
have discovered awaits those who are willing
to sustain democratic and economic reforms in
Russia and in her neighboring states. I believe
that, and I hope you do too.
Despite today's troubles, I have great faith
that Russian reform will continue and eventually
succeed. Let me here address directly the Russian people who will read or hear my words.
You are a people who understand patriotic
struggle. You have persevered through an unforgiving climate. Your whole history has been
punctuated with suffering on a scale unknown
to the American people. You heroically withstood murderous invasions by Napoleon and
Hitler. Your great literature and your music,
which has so enriched our own culture, were
composed with the pen of longing and the ink
of sorrow. Your accomplishments of education
and science speak to your faith in progress. And
now, as you seek to build a great tomorrow
for Russia upon a foundation of democracy and
commerce, I speak for Americans everywhere
when I say, we are with you. For we share
this bond: The key to each of our futures is
not in clinging to the past but in having the
courage to change.
As we look upon Russia's challenges, we
should remember, all of us, that the American
and Russian people have in common so much.
We are both rooted deeply in our own land.
We are both built of diverse heritage. We are
both forever struggling with the responsibilities
that come with vast territory and power. We
both have had to deal with the dilemmas of
human nature on an immense scale. That may
be why there has been so little real hatred between our people, even across the decades when
we pointed weapons of nightmarish destruction
at each other's lands.
Now, as in the past, America's future is tied
in important ways to Russia's. During the cold
war, it was tied in negative ways. We saw in
each other only danger. Now that the walls have
come down, we can see hope and opportunity.
In the end, our hope for the future of Russian
reform is rooted simply in our faith in the institutions that have secured our own freedom and
prosperity. But it is also rooted in the Russian
people. The diversity of their past accomplishments gives us hope that there are diverse possibilities for the future. The vitality of Russian
journalism and public debate today gives us


378




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Apr. 1


hope that the great truth-seeking traditions of
Russian culture will endure and that Russia's
antidemocratic demagogs will not, indeed, must
not in the long run prevail. And the discipline
of Russia's military, which has proved itself anew
in August of 1991 and since, that discipline gives
us hope that Russia's transition can continue
to be peaceful.
Fifty years ago, in a different period of historic challenge for Russia, the great Russian poet
Anna Akhmatova wrote, "We know what lies
in the balance at this moment and what is happening right now. The hour for courage strikes


upon our clocks, and the courage will not desert
us.
The opportunity that lies before our Nation
today is to answer the courageous call of Russian
reform, as an expression of our own values, as
an investment in our own security and prosperity, as a demonstration of our purpose in a new
world.
Thank you very much.
NOTE: The President spoke at 1:26 p.m. in Dahlgren Hall at the U.S. Naval Academy. In his remarks, he referred to Seymour Topping, president
of the society.


Question-and-Answer Session With the American Society of Newspaper
Editors in Annapolis
April 1, 1993


Bosnia
Q. Mr. President, I support your vision and
am grateful to be here for this historic speech.
As a journalist and a citizen I am deeply anguished over the reports from Bosnia: deliberate, premeditated rape, the shelling of innocent civilians, families forced from their homes,
children crushed to death in desperate attempts
to escape. I'd like to ask two brief questions.
Do we have a national interest in checking the
spread of greater Serbian ethnic cleansing in
the Balkans? And are we losing our credibility
as a nation as this horrifying aggression in a
sovereign state continues without your unrestrained, forceful, and public condemnation of
it?
The President. Yes, we have a national interest
in limiting ethnic cleansing. I disagree with you
that I have not given a forceful and public condemnation of it. I think the issue is whether
you think the United States is capable of doing
what Europe has not in somehow forcing its
will upon Bosnia and the former Yugoslavia.
Since I have become President we have dramatically stiffened the embargo on Serbia. We have
hurt them very badly economically, but the war
continues. We do not have the votes in the
United Nations at the present time to lift the
embargo on arms to the Bosnians. If we did,
it would endanger the humanitarian mission
there carried on by the French and British, who


oppose lifting the embargo, and they have kept
many people alive.
I decided that I would support the VanceOwen peace process when it was clear that that
was what our European allies wanted to do and
that that was the best vehicle for a potential
peace. Now, the Bosnians and the Croats have
signed on to that, the Muslims and the Croats
in Bosnia. We are waiting to see whether the
Serbs will. If they do not, we will then have
to contemplate where we go from there. But
I would remind you that when I became President the situation there was already grave. We
had a policy through the United Nations which
I think was of limited effectiveness, which I
have tried to stiffen as well as I could.
But the United States has many commitments
and many interests, and I would just remember
that the thing that I have not been willing to
do is to immediately take action the end of
which I could not see. Whatever I want to do,
I want to do it with vigor and wholeheartedly.
I want it to have a reasonable prospect of success. And I have done the best I could with
the cards that I found on the table when I
became President. If you have other ideas about
what you think I ought to do that would minimize the loss of life, I would be glad to have
them.
Q. Sir, do you condemn it here today?
The President. Absolutely. I condemn it, and


379




Apr. 1 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


I have condemned it repeatedly and thoroughly.
And I have done everything I could to increase
the pressure of the international community on
the outrages perpetrated in Bosnia by the aggressors and to get people to stand up against
ethnic cleansing. The question is what are we
capable of doing about it from the United
States. If you look at the responses that have
been mustered so far from the European states
that are even closer and that have a memory
of what happened when Hitler, who was not
shy about using his power, had hundreds of
thousands of people in the former Yugoslavia
and even then was unable to subdue it entirely.
I think you have to look at what our realistic
options are for action. The question is not
whether we condemn what's going on. Ethnic
cleansing is an outrage, and it is an idea which
should die, which should not be able to be
expanded. The question is, what can we do?
Now, I have said that the United States would
be prepared to join with a United Nations effort
in supporting a peacekeeping process that was
entered into in good faith. If the Serbs refuse
to do that, then we will all have to reassess
our position. But we must be careful not to
use words that will outstrip our capacity to back
them up. That is a grave error for any great
nation, and one I will try not to commit.
Freedom of the Press
Q. This is-[inaudible]-he is one of the leading editors at Izvestia, Moscow-[inaudible]
I hope you will take a question from him. My
question, Mr. President: His newspaper in Russia has had deep trouble because of its criticisms
of Parliament and Parliament's reaction to that.
You in this country have taken some hits, some
heavy hits in the campaign and as President
from a critical, probative, intrusive, at times abusive press. I wonder if you could give us your
feelings, perhaps, words of philosophy as to how
you view press freedom given its critical and
at times abusive nature?
The President. If you have in a democratic
society any freedom enshrined in the Constitution, it is as certain as the Sun rising in the
morning that the freedom will be abused. Think
of any freedom enshrined in the Constitution.
They are all capable of abuse, some in different
ways than others. The freedom of speech is
abused every day in the country. The freedom
of the press, of course, can be abused. Other
freedoms can be. People can claim to be practic

ing religion when perhaps they aren't. That is
the price we pay for freedom, and we are
stronger because of it.
I think that no one has done better for 200
years than Thomas Jefferson did when he saidand Thomas Jefferson got a pretty rough press,
too, from time to time if you go back and read
how people worked on him. My consolation is
no one remembers the people who falsely blasphemed him in print. [Laughter] But Thomas
Jefferson said that if he had to choose between
maintaining the Government and the freedom
of the press, he would choose the freedom of
the press because democracy could not exist
without it. And I agree with that. And Government restraint in the face of criticism is in some
ways the most important test of a true democracy.
Trade Negotiations and Russia
Q. I wish to welcome you to the Free State
of Maryland. Four times during the term of
your predecessor the leaders of the Group of
Seven industrial democracies assembled in early
July, and each time they pledged their personal
prestige to a GATT agreement, the new world
reform of trade regulations. Each time they
failed. My question is this: When you go to
the Group of Seven summit in July, are you
going to renew that pledge? And secondly, and
this is pertinent to what you've been talking
about, if we don't have a new GATT agreement,
is there any way Russia will be able to enter
the world trading system in a way that will lead
to its evolution from its present situation?
The President. Well, as you know-first let
me answer the first question. Yes, I will renew
the pledge, and I will hope to do it without
having the international press corps laugh since
they've now heard it four times. We got an
agreement on agriculture, so-called Blair House
accord, which I hope will stand up in the wake
of the recent elections in Europe. If it does,
I am frankly optimistic that we will be able
to proceed to a GATT agreement. There are
other outstanding issues, but on balance the
United States would be much better off with
it.
We need to maintain a commitment to global
economic growth in ways that are good for the
wealthy countries of the world. As I said in
my speech, one of the great challenges is for
a wealthy country not only to maintain its technological lead and its capacity to generate


380






Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Apr. 1


growth but also its capacity to generate jobs.
In the 1980's Europe had at least two significant economic recoveries and generated no jobs.
That's the thing that's bothering me now. This
recovery allegedly started a long time ago, but
the unemployment rate is higher than it was
at the depth of the recession, and that's because
we are now finding some of the same difficulties. So, I think the GATT agreement can help
that, and I will do what I can to get it.
The answer to your second question is not
so simple. I believe Russia would be better off
if it could be brought into the international trading system with a new GATT agreement, but
the leaders of the G-7 this year obviously are
the Japanese. This is Japan's turn to lead, and
the Government of Japan has issued an invitation to President Yeltsin to attend the G-7
meeting. And as you know, on April 14th and
15th the foreign ministers and finance ministers
of the G-7 are meeting in Tokyo to talk about
what we can do in multilateral ways to help
the process of Russian reform.
So, I believe a lot can be done even if there's
no new GATT agreement. Indeed, I would
argue that for the kinds of things which need
to be worked out for Russia to really benefit
from trade and for the rest of us to benefit
from it, involve more either ad hoc relationships
between businesses and governments dealing
with Russia or changes within Russia itself relating to property rights, privatization, the reliability of contracts, the freeing up of the ability
to contract in the energy area, and things of
that kind.
I should have let you answer that question.
Q. Mr. President, I am absolutely sure that
millions and millions of Russians would be really
proud to listen to the words you have just said
about my country. Unfortunately, we have not
a lot of politicians who are able to do the same.
Let me just add one thing. Russians are not
just settling from new changes. There are millions and millions of young people who don't
care about communism at all, and they enjoy
new freedom and new situations. Many of them
don't know who was Stalin or who was Lenin,
but they do know who is William Clinton. And
so here is my question: If a future friend shows
once again that the great majority of Russians
are committed to democracy and free market
economy, can we expect this year your visit to
Russia?
The President. If I gave you the answer that


I want to give you, half of my Cabinet would
have a heart attack-[laughter]-simply because
I haven't discussed it with anyone. Let me say
that I think I should follow the same practice
I always do. I can't commit to a specific date,
but if the process of reform stays alive in Russia,
I want very much to go back there.
I had the honor to be in your country, briefly,
3 days before Boris Yeltsin was elected, as a
completely anonymous citizen who was invited
to come just for a few days. So I was able
to walk the streets, to talk to people, to observe
what was going on. I was immensely impressed.
I had not been in Russia for over 20 years.
Everybody in America now knows I went to
Russia. We found that out in the Presidential
campaign. I enjoyed that trip, too. [Laughter]
I would very much like to go back, very
much.
Ross Perot
Q. I'd like to head back to the domestic front,
if I could. Ross Perot spoke to us yesterday,
and he said as he travels around the country
he finds his supporters asking him about and
upset about two recent events in Washington.
I'd like to ask you about both of them. One
is the dismissal of Jay Stephens as District attorney as he was pursuing the Rostenkowski case
in the postage stamp for cash case. And the
other was the story about the general who was
supposedly told at the White House that he
should leave quickly because the White House
staff was not comfortable with uniformed military personnel. Could you comment on both
of those?
The President. I will, and then I want to ask
you a question. First of all, the United States
attorney in Washington, DC, was not dismissed.
They were all replaced, and they will all be
replaced just like the Republicans replaced them
all when President Carter was defeated by President Reagan. And in fact, many of them got,
including the United States attorney in Washington, DC, got to serve extra time because of
the difficulty in getting a new Attorney General.
We did not replace any of them until we had
a new Attorney General.
There is a provision now for appointing interim U.S. attorneys from people who are of
long service within each office. There is no reason to believe that any particular case will be
pursued in a different manner. But I think you
could make a very compelling case that that


381




Apr. 1 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


United States attorney and others served longer
than they would have normally because there
was not an Attorney General confirmed on the
day I became President. Everybody else in my
Cabinet was confirmed. So to say that that person was singled out is absurd.
The real flip side is some of the people in
the other party are saying, why didn't we leave
him in there all by himself because this is the
most important case in America and no one
else can pursue it. I just dispute that. I just
don't agree with that. There is no evidence to
support that. We followed a uniform policy that
was exactly like the one followed by previous
administrations, except we started later in time.
Secondly, the other story, like all those military stories, was an abject lie. And thank God
some people in the press have finally started
pointing it out and have even expressed some
shame that they were guilty of printing those
kinds of rumors. Some of the press have begun
to print letters from people at the Pentagon
who have been disputing some of these specific
stories like the lieutenant general that was allegedly told by someone on the White House staff
that she didn't speak to people in the military.
Those kinds of stories, they are all just made
up out of whole cloth. And people who run
them based on gossip or people who talk about
them from podiums ought to be ashamed of
themselves, without knowing they're true.
You know, Mr. Perot came to Washington
the other day and attacked my Chief of Staff
as not being a real business person, and he
had to call him on the phone and personally
apologize the next day. I mean, people can say
anything from the podium. I'd be more interested in why my economic program, which is
85 percent what Ross Perot recommended in
the campaign, except we raised taxes less on
the middle class, more on the wealthy, and don't
have unspecified health care savings, hasn't been
endorsed since it's almost identical to the one
he ran on.
I don't think we ought to be out here
rumormongering myself. I think it does very little to support the public interest.
Public-Private Partnership
Q. Mr. President, in your speech you alluded
to a global economy and also to the Marshall
plan in the days in which this country stood
alone as an economic power without competition. What, sir, do you feel is your responsibility


and that of the Federal Government in assuring
that this country's industrial might remains competitive in an intensely competitive environment
in which competitors enjoy a different and more
supportive relationship with their government?
The President. Well, I'm trying to change that
in this country, as you know, by changing the
whole nature of the relationship between Government and business. I want to have a Tax
Code which rewards investment more. I want
to have a strategy of partnership in the new
technologies which will produce the lion's share
of the jobs for the 21st century.
I think that it is imperative. If you look at
what works, if you look at the high-wage, highgrowth economies, Government must be a partner with the private sector. There should be
limitations on the partnership. The Government
can't pick winners and losers, but there are
plainly some functions that if not embraced by
Government will not be done properly.
And I might point out that most of the countries of the world with advanced economies are
governed by what would be called their Republican Parties, if we used the Democratic-Republican parlance in other countries. And yet, every
one of them has a more aggressive public-private partnership than we do when it comes to
educating and training the work force, when
it comes to investing in civilian technologies for
jobs for the 21st century, when it comes to
maintaining competitive policies that will guarantee at least that they'll have a chance to generate high-wage, high-growth jobs. And I think
my responsibility is to try to implement an
American version of that kind of policy.
Media Coverage
Q. Mr. President, how would you assess the
coverage of your administration by the Nation's
news media, particularly newspapers?
The President. Good. [Laughter]
Q. It doesn't have to be that short an answer.
[Laughter]
The President. Well, first of all, it's different
in different places, but let me say on balance
I think it's been remarkably fair and thorough.
The only frustrations that I feel since I've been
President relate far more to what I would call
almost the commercial imperatives that are on
the press that have nothing to do with anybody
trying to be unfair in their coverage. If I might,
let me just give you one example.
I saw a survey recently that was reported


382




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Apr. 1


somewhere, I'm embarrassed I don't remember
where. They were asking the American people,
this survey, is the President spending enough
time on the economy, is the President spending
enough time on health care, and a bunch of
other questions. Only half the people said I was
spending enough time on the economy even
though that's what I spend all my time on. By
two to one the people said I was spending
enough time on health care. Why is that? Because the effort of the health care task force,
chaired by my wife, to come up with a health
care program is the subject of intense speculation because it hasn't been presented yet. So,
given the propensity of people in Washington
to leak, there's a new story every day about
some little paper or another that's come out
and all that. And then they have these public
hearings, so there's a lot of anticipation.
The economic program was announced one
month into my Presidency, and then I went
to work on it in Congress. And what really is
news is sort of around the edges; is he losing
this or winning that or whatever. It becomes
a process debate, and the American people tend
to lose sight of what is the major focus of my
every day, which is how to pass that jobs pro

gram and the economic program. That is simply
a function of the way the news works.
The other thing I think is different about
the news today than maybe 20 years ago, particularly for the coverage around Washington,
is this: Because of CNN and others who now
give virtually continuous direct access to the
facts of whatever is going on to wide numbers
of people, there is even more pressure than
there used to be on everybody in the media
to find an angle to the story, a unique angle,
an insight, you know, a twist. And sometimes
that's good, and sometimes it's not. But it always
presents a different challenge to me than perhaps the President might have had 20 years
ago in trying to keep the focus of the public
on the big issues that I'm trying to deal with.
But I say that not as a criticism but simply
as an observation. That is simply the way things
are. On balance we're better off. People are
getting more information more quickly than ever
before, but it's changed the dynamics of how
we relate to each other.
Thank you very much.
NOTE: The President spoke at 2:07 p.m. in Dahlgren Hall at the U.S. Naval Academy.


Message to the Congress Transmitting Proposed Child Immunization
Legislation
April 1, 1993


To the Congress of the United States:
I am pleased to transmit for your immediate
consideration and enactment the "Comprehensive Child Immunization Act of 1993". Also
transmitted is a section-by-section analysis.
This legislation launches a new partnership
among parents and guardians; health care providers; vaccine manufacturers; and Federal,
State, and local governments to protect our Nation's children from the deadly onslaught of infectious diseases. The legislation is a comprehensive initiative to remove existing barriers to immunization. It will ensure that all children in
the United States are immunized against vaccine-preventable diseases by their second birthday. Because of the importance of this initiative
to the health of our children, I am transmitting
this legislation in advance of my proposal for


comprehensive reform of the Nation's health
care system, which I expect to submit to the
Congress in May.
Beginning in fiscal year 1995, the bill would
authorize the Secretary of Health and Human
Services to purchase and provide childhood vaccines in quantities sufficient to meet the immunization needs of children in the United States.
It would also institute a national immunization
tracking system through grants to the States to
establish State immunization registries. In addition, the bill contains provisions to ensure that
the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, an essential link in our Nation's immunization system, remains operational. Funding for
the program of vaccine purchase and distribution will be identified in my legislation for
broad-based reform of the national health care


383




Apr. 1 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


system and made available beginning in fiscal
year 1995 from the Comprehensive Child Immunization Account in the United States Treasury.
Immunizations are cost-effective. For example, the measles vaccine saves over $10 in health
care costs for every $1 invested in prevention.
We know that children are most vulnerable before their second birthday and that approximately 80 percent of vaccine doses should be
given before then. Many children, however, do
not receive even their basic immunizations by
that age. We must remove the financial barriers
to immunization that impede children from
being vaccinated on time, and facilitate development of a national tracking system to ensure
children are immunized at the earliest appropriate age.
The problem posed by soaring vaccine costs
is exacerbated by a deteriorating immunization
infrastructure. This legislation continues the rebuilding of our capacity to deliver vaccines and
educate parents started in my economic stimulus
package.
This proposal would direct the Secretary to
purchase and provide vaccine without charge to
health care providers who serve children and
are located in a State that participates in the
State registry grant program. In nonparticipating
States, free vaccine would be distributed to Federal health care centers and providers, including
those serving Indian populations. Health care
providers could not charge patients for the cost
of the vaccine. They could, however, impose


a fee for its administration, unless such a fee
would result in the denial of vaccine to someone
unable to pay. The authority of the Secretary
established under this legislation, to purchase
and provide vaccines, shall cease to be in effect
beginning on such date as may be specified in
a Federal law providing for immunization services for all children as part of a broad-based
reform of the national health care system.
In addition, the bill would provide for a collaborative Federal and State effort to track the
immunization status of the Nation's children. It
would authorize the Secretary to make grants
to States to establish and operate State immunization registries containing specific information
for each child in the State. Entering infant birth
and immunization data into registries will enable
identification of children who need vaccinations
and will help parents and providers ensure that
children are appropriately immunized.
A keystone of the Nation's vaccine immunization effort is the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. This legislation would authorize payments from the Vaccine Injury Compensation Trust Fund for compensable injuries
from vaccines administered on or after October
1, 1992, and would reinstate and permanently
extend the vaccine excise tax.
I urge the Congress to take prompt and favorable action on this legislation.
WILLIAM J. CLINTON
The White House,
April 1, 1993.


Nomination for Inspector General of the Department of Health and
Human Services
April 1, 1993
The President announced today that he will  as possible. That is one of the central tasks
nominate June Gibbs Brown, a former Inspector  that Secretary Shalala has taken on, and I am
General at the Department of Defense, NASA,  very pleased to be nominating someone of June
and the Department of the Interior, to be In-  Gibbs Brown's stature as Inspector General."
spector General of the Department of Health
and Human Services.                          NOTE: A biography of the nominee was made
"HHS is the biggest civilian Agency of the  available by the Office of the Press Secretary.
Federal Government," said the President, "and
it is imperative that it be managed as efficiently


384






Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Apr. 2


Remarks on Opening the Forest Conference in Portland, Oregon
April 2, 1993


Good morning. I want to thank every one
of you who are in the room today and also
all of those who are outside-and there are certainly many who have come here-for caring
enough to be here. We're here to discuss issues
whose seriousness demands that we respect each
other's concerns, each other's experiences, and
each other's views. Together we can move beyond confrontation to build a consensus on a
balanced policy to preserve jobs and to protect
our environment.
I want to say a special word of thanks to
Governor Roberts and Mayor Katz for hosting
this conference, and Governors Lowry, Wilson,
and Andrus for attending.
As you can see, the Vice President and I
are here with representatives from our administration who deal every day with virtually every
issue which will be discussed. With us here
today are the Interior Secretary, Bruce Babbitt;
the Agriculture Secretary, Mike Espy; Labor
Secretary Bob Reich, all of whom have been
meeting with people here in the Northwest in
recent weeks. We also have the Commerce Secretary, Ron Brown; Environmental Protection
Administrator Carol Browner; the Deputy Budget Director, Alice Rivlin; and our Science and
Technology Adviser, Dr. John Gibbons.
We're all here to listen and to learn from
you. We're here to discuss issues about which
people feel strongly, believe deeply, and often
disagree vehemently. That's because the issues
are important and are related and intrinsic to
the very existence of the people who live here
in the Pacific Northwest.
We're discussing how people earn their livelihoods. We're discussing the air, the water, the
forests that are important to your lives. And
we're addressing the values that are at the core
of those lives. From the trailblazers and the
pioneers to the trapper and the hunters, the
loggers and the mill workers, the people of the
Northwest have earned their livings from the
land and have lived in awe of the power, the
majesty, and the beauty of the forests, the rivers,
and the streams.
Coming from a State, as I do, that was also
settled by pioneers and which is still 53 percent
timberland-we have an important timber in

dustry and people who appreciate the beauty
and the intrinsic value of our woodlands-I've
often felt at home here in the Northwest. I'll
never forget the people I've met here over the
last year-and-a-half whose lives have been
touched by the issues that we're here to discuss.
I remember the timber industry workers with
whom I spoke at a town hall meeting in Seattle
last July who invited me to come to their communities and learn about their problems.
I remember the families from the timber industry whom I met last September in Max
Groesbeck's backyard in Eugene, Oregon. I was
moved beyond words by the stories that people
told me there and by their determination to
fight for their communities and their companies
and their families.
I was also inspired by Frank Henderson, who
had lost his job as a timber worker and gone
through retraining to learn thermoplastic welding and now owns a plastics welding business
of his own. He was a guest of mine at the
Inaugural, and I'm glad to have him here with
us today.
And I remember Elizabeth Bailey of Hayfork,
California. She's 11 years old and she was one
of the girls and boys who visited me at the
White House a few Saturdays ago to participate
in our televised townhall meeting for children.
Her parents, Willie and Nadine Bailey, have had
to close their timber business because, in the
past, politics seemed to matter more than people
or the environment. And I'm glad that Nadine
Bailey, a dedicated spokesperson for loggers, is
also here with us today.
As I've spoken with people who work in the
timber industry I've been impressed by their
love of the land. As one worker told me at
our meeting in the Groesbecks' backyard, "I
care about Oregon a lot, the beauty of the country."
We're fortunate to have people with us today
who bring not only a variety of experiences but
a variety of views to the questions before the
conference: How can we achieve a balanced and
comprehensive policy that recognizes the importance of the forests and timber to the economy
and jobs of this region? And how can we preserve our precious old-growth forests which are


385




Apr. 2 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


part of our national heritage and that, once destroyed, can never be replaced?
For too long, the National Government has
done more to confuse the issues than to clarify
them. In the absence of real leadership, at least
six different Federal Agencies have hooked their
horses to different sides of the cart, and then
they've wondered why the cart wouldn't move
forward. To make things worse, the rhetoric
from Washington has often exaggerated and exacerbated the tensions between those who speak
about the economy and those who speak about
the environment.
Not surprisingly, these issues have very often
ended up in court while the economy, the environment, and the people have all suffered.
That's why it's so important that the people here
today are meeting in a conference room, not
a courtroom. Whatever your views, everyone
who will speak today comes from the Northwest
and will have to live with the results of whatever
decisions we all make.
We're here to begin a process that will help
ensure that you will be able to work together
in your communities, for the good of your businesses, your jobs, and your natural environment.
The process we begin today will not be easy.
Its outcome cannot possibly make everyone
happy. Perhaps it won't make anyone completely
happy. But the worst thing we can do is nothing.
As we begin this process, the most important
thing we can do is to admit, all of us to each
other, that there are no simple or easy answers.
This is not about choosing between jobs and
the environment but about recognizing the importance of both and recognizing that virtually
everyone here and everyone in this region cares
about both. After all, nobody appreciates the
natural environment more than the working people who depend upon it for fishing, for boating,
for teaching their children to respect the land,
the rivers, and the forests. And most environmentalists are working people and business peo

ple themselves, and understand that only an economically secure America can have the strength
and confidence necessary to preserve our land,
our water and our forests, as you can see in
how badly they're despoiled in nations that are
not economically secure.
A healthy economy and a healthy environment
are not at odds with each other. They are essential to each other. Here in the Northwest, as
in my own home State, people understand that
healthy forests are important for a healthy forest-based economy; understand that if we destroy our old growth forest, we'll lose jobs in
salmon fishing and tourism and, eventually, in
the timber industry as well. We'll destroy recreational opportunities in hunting and fishing
for all and eventually make our communities
less attractive.
We all understand these things. Let's not be
afraid to acknowledge them and to recognize
the simple but powerful truth that we come
here today less as adversaries than as neighbors
and coworkers. Let's confront problems, not
people.
Today I ask all of you to speak from your
hearts, and I ask you to listen and strive to
understand the stories of your neighbors. We're
all here because we want a healthy economic
environment and a healthy natural environment,
because we want to end the divisions here in
the Northwest and the deadlock in Washington.
If we commit today to move forward together,
we can arrive at a balanced solution and put
the stalemate behind us. Together, we can make
a new start.
Thank you very much.
NOTE: The President spoke at 10:38 a.m. at the
Oregon Convention Center. In his remarks, he
referred to Gov. Barbara Roberts of Oregon,
Mayor Vera Katz of Portland, Gov. Mike Lowry
of Washington, Gov. Pete Wilson of California,
and Gov. Cecil D. Andrus of Idaho.


Remarks Concluding the First Roundtable Discussion of the Forest
Conference in Portland
April 2, 1993
I'm going to refrain until the afternoon ses-  ought to do. But I'd like to say something to
sion from getting into the specifics of what we  the people who were on this panel that talked


386




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Apr. 2


about the human impact of the present conditions.
Mr. Espy and I are neighbors, and we share
a border of the Mississippi River. For almost
all the history of this country our two States
were the poorest States in America. When agriculture collapsed there in and after the Great
Depression, the people who loved my State
more than life were forced to leave in huge
numbers. As a matter of fact, it's the only way
I got elected President. Every third voter in
Illinois and Michigan and in the inland empire
in California was from Arkansas. [Laughter] But
it bespoke a terrible inability to manage a process of change so that people could stay with
their roots and their culture and their lives.
Then we got everything going again. And then
when he and I came of age in the early eighties
and began to assume positions of responsibility,
we had another horrible structural collapse in
the rural areas and the small towns along the
Mississippi River because agriculture and the
labor-intensive, low-scale, low-wage industries
both collapsed at the same time. And our little
towns were turued into ghost towns. We had
whole counties, county after county after county,
with 20, 25 percent unemployment.
What we found was when we talk about managing the process of change, it was like a lot
of what Nadine and others have said. Mike,
you showed us those pictures. You had people
who knew they had to change or they ought
to change, but they had a relatively low skill
level. They had limits on what kind of opportunities you could immediately put in the small
towns, what the Mayor talked about, and they
had a horrendous aversion to moving because
their life was more than their livelihood. And
then it Al became complicated by the incredible


pressures on family life, which led more and
more families to disintegrate under the burden.
And Mike and I literally began our careers dealing with the broken pieces of people's lives
against that background.
I say that only to make this point: I cannot
repeal the laws of change. In every State in
every area of this country the average 18-yearold will change the nature of work seven or
eight times in a lifetime now, in a global economy. People who take jobs as bank tellers, for
example, even if they keep working for the
banks, 10 years after they started what they do
will be different because of technology and because of the changes in the economy.
But what we have to find a way to do is
to try to make it possible for more people to
be faithful to their cultural roots and their way
of life and to work through this process in a
human way. And if you look at it, there's a
lot of analogy here to all these defense workers
that are on the food lines in southemn California
now. I mean,. they did what they thought they
were supposed to do. They won the cold war,
and then we just cut back on defense spending.
There they were in the street; nobody had even
a theory about how they might go through the
kind of process Larry described and be given
the opportunity to reclaim their own destiny.
I don't pretend that any of this is easy, but
I want you to know that at least some of us
have a feel for what this must be like in those
little towns. And we'll do what we can.
Thank you very much.
NOTE: The President spoke at 12:57 p.m. at the
Oregon Convention Center. In his remarks, he
referred to Secretary of Agriculture Mike Espy
and timber business owner Nadine Bailey.


Remarks at the Conclusion of the Forest Conference in Portland
April 2, 1993
I want to thank all of you for being here   One of the things that has come out of this
and for sitting through this long day, and all  meeting to me loud and clear is that you want
of the participants for everything you've done.  us to try to break the paralysis that presently
I'd like to thank the Cabinet for coming and  controls the situation, to move and to act. I
participating and the Vice President and our  hope that as we leave here we are more comstaff for all the work they did to put this meet-  mitted to working together to move forward
ing together.                               than perhaps we were when we came.


387




Apr. 2 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


I tell you, I'll never forget what I've heard
today, the stories, the pictures, the passion from
all of you. In a funny way, even when you were
disagreeing, every one of you was a voice for
change. Every one of you was saying we can't
possibly do any worse than to stay within the
framework which has now undermined our ability to work together and to build a sense of
common community. Too many people are
being hurt, and too many resources are being
threatened. And we're going to do our best to
turn this away from at least the short-term politics of just trying to avoid the tough decisions.
I intend to direct the Cabinet and the entire
administration to begin work immediately to
craft a balanced, a comprehensive, a long-term
policy. And I will direct the Cabinet to report
back to me within 60 days to have a plan to
end this stalemate.
In the meanwhile, I want each of our Cabinet
to look within the departments to determine
which policies are at odds with each other. It
is true, as I've said many times, that I was
mortified when I began to review the legal documents surrounding this controversy to see how
often the departments were at odds with each
other, so that there was no voice of the United
States. I want the Cabinet members to talk with
each other to try to bring these conflicts to
an end, which at their extreme have had our
own agencies suing one another in courts, often
over issues which are hard to characterize as
monumental. I want everyone to examine his
or her approach to existing legal and administrative proceedings to see if inadvertently any of
us are hampering the march toward a solution
of the larger issues or even toward the particular
ones now in litigation.
Regardless of what we are doing, our efforts
must be guided, it seems to me, by five fundamental principles: First, we must never forget
the human and the economic dimensions of
these problems. Where sound management policies can preserve the health of forest lands, sales
should go forward. Where this requirement cannot be met, we need to do our best to offer
new economic opportunities for year-round,
high-wage, high-skill jobs.
Second, as we craft a plan, we need to protect
the long-term health of our forests, our wildlife,
and our waterways. They are, as the last speaker
said, a gift from God, and we hold them in
trust for future generations.
Third, our efforts must be, insofar as we are


wise enough to know it, scientifically sound, ecologically credible, and legally responsible.
Fourth, the plan should produce a predictable
and sustainable level of timber sales and nontimber resources that will not degrade or destroy
our forest environment.
And, fifth, to achieve these goals, we will do
our best, as I said, to make the Federal Government work together and work for you. We may
make mistakes, but we will try to end the
gridlock within the Federal Government. And
we will insist on collaboration, not confrontation.
We will do our best -to do our part. We will
act with a single purpose and a single agenda
once we have a chance to get all these departments working on their respective responsibilities.
But I want to say, too, that all of you have
demonstrated to me today your willingness to
do your part. I ask you not to let this be the
end of it. This conference has established a dialog. Even when it was somewhat funny between
Mr. Kerr and Miss Mater, it was still a dialog.
And it's got to continue between us and you,
and among yourselves. You have got to be a
part of this solution. Even if we make the most
enlightened possible decisions under the circumstances, they will be all the more resented
if they seem to be imposed, without a continuing mechanism for people whose lives will be
affected here to be involved.
So when you leave here today, I ask you to
keep working for a balanced policy that promotes the economy, preserves jobs, and protects
the environment even as you may disagree, as
Mr. Thomas said, over how the word "balance"
should be defined. When you hit an impasse,
I plead with you not to give up. And don't
turn against your neighbors. You don't have to
fight in a court of law anymore. You can work
with us to try to have a long-term solution.
If you feel frustrated at times-all of us willI ask you to stay at the table and to keep talking
and keep trying to find common ground. I don't
want this situation to go back to posturing, to
positioning, to the politics of division that has
characterized this difficult issue in the past. I
hope we can stay in the conference room and
stay out of the courtroom. If we don't give up
or give in to deadlock or divisiveness or despair,
I think we can build a more prosperous and
a more secure future for our communities and
for our children. And I think we'll be proud
years from now that we were here today.


388




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Apr. 3


I thank you for caring and for coming, for
speaking out and for reaching out. And I ask
you to continue to work with us so that this
Forest Conference is the beginning, not the end,
of a solution. But we will move. We will move.
And I will do my best to assume the responsibility the American people have given me to try
to break this deadlock in a responsible way.
I just ask you to remember that this listening
cannot be a one-shot deal. We've got to con

tinue to work together. And I think, if we do,
we'll all be pleased with the results.
Thank you very much.
NOTE: The President spoke at 6:10 p.m. at the
Oregon Convention Center. In his remarks, he
referred to Andy Kerr, conservation director, Oregon Natural Resources Council, and Jack Ward
Thomas, scientist, U.S. Forest Service Pacific
Northwest Research Station, La Grande, OR.


Nomination for Posts at the Department of Justice
April 2, 1993


The President announced his choices today
for several senior positions at the Department
of Justice. He intends to nominate Philip
Heymann to be Deputy Attorney General. He
is nominating Webster Lee Hubbell to be Associate Attorney General and Drew S. Days III
to be Solicitor General.
"The team that Attorney General Reno and
I are putting together at the Justice Department
is talented, strong, and ready to move forward
The President's Radio Address
April 3, 1993
Good morning. There's much wisdom in these
words from the Scriptures, "Come, let us reason
together." This week we've seen a good example
of what happens when people talk to each other
instead of shout at each other. And unfortunately, we've also seen what happens when some
people go to unreasonable lengths to prevent
reasonable discussion and decisionmaking.
I'm speaking to you from the Pacific Northwest where we've just concluded the Forest
Conference. For years, the good people of the
Northwest have been divided by a difficult argument over important values: how best to preserve jobs and protect the forests in this beautiful and productive region of our great Nation.
Yesterday in Portland, Oregon, timber workers, business people, environmentalists, and
community leaders sat down together in a con

quickly to tackle the many difficult issues the
Department faces." said the President. "With
this core group in place, we can move forward
to make an independent, aggressive force working to achieve justice for all Americans and safe
streets across our country. I hope that the Senate will quickly confirm these outstanding individuals."
NOTE: Biographies of the nominees were made
available by the Office of the Press Secretary.


ference room, not a courtroom. We discussed
how to achieve a healthy economy and a healthy
environment. And I directed my Cabinet to
come back within 60 days with a plan for a
balanced policy.
Grassroots Americans want to end the
gridlock and get the economy moving. They
want to follow the same practice that we followed in Oregon yesterday. Unfortunately, some
people in Washington, DC, haven't gotten the
message that the people want fundamental
change. Yesterday the minority party in the Senate used procedural tactics to prevent the entire
Senate from voting on our jobs and economic
recovery package, which has already been passed
overwhelmingly by the House of Representatives.
Yesterday we also learned why our jobs pack

389




Apr. 3 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


age is even more urgent than ever. After 3 years,
when America lost one million jobs in the private sector, the unemployment rate remained
unchanged in March, and the total number of
jobs in our economy actually declined. Now,
some folks in Washington may think everything
is fine, but all across America the people understand there won't be a real recovery until our
working men and women can look forward to
a secure, high-wage future for themselves and
their children. The people know that America
needs our plan to put 500,000 Americans back
to work by beginning the investments we need
in a stronger, smarter economy.
It's time to move beyond the old politics of
partisanship, posturing, and procedural delays
and start working together to solve problems.
Good things can be accomplished when we reason together. And just as this works in our own
country, so too can it work between ourselves
and other nations.
That's why I'm taking my first trip out of
the country today to meet with Russia's democratically elected President, Boris Yeltsin. Nowhere is progress toward democracy and free
markets more important to us than in Russia
and the new independent states of the former
Soviet Union. Their progress presents a great
security challenge and offers great economic opportunities. Russia's rebirth is in the economic
interests of American taxpayers, workers, and
businesses and the security interests of all of
us.
We spent over $4 trillion to wage the cold
war. Now we can reduce that spending because
the arms and armies of the former Soviet Union
pose a greatly reduced threat to us and to our
allies. If Russia were to revert to its old ways
or plunge into chaos, we would need to reassess
our plans for defense savings. That could mean
less money for creating new businesses and new
jobs, less for preparing our children for the future, less for education. Our economic program
at home, more jobs and greater incomes for
Americans, could be jeopardized if the reforms
in Russia fail.
My discussions with President Yeltsin involve


measures intended to help the Russian people
make the difficult transition to a market economy by helping themselves. I want America to
act, but America cannot and should not act
alone. Just as we mobilized the world on behalf
of war in the Gulf, we must now mobilize the
world on behalf of peace and reform in Russia.
Most of this effort will have to come from the
Russian people themselves. They will chart the
path to their own future. These efforts to offer
an historic chance to improve our own security,
however, require some action by ourselves, too.
Russia still holds over 20,000 strategic and
tactical nuclear warheads. We are implementing
historic arms control agreements that for the
first time will actually reduce the level of strategic nuclear weapons. By supporting Russia's reforms we can help turn the promise of those
agreements into reality for ourselves and for our
children and for the Russian people and their
children as well. And we can make life in America more safe and prosperous.
For too long, work in Washington on issues
like economics, the environment, and foreign
policy took place in isolation. The interests of
the American people weren't amply protected
because their voices weren't adequately heard.
The change we want is this: to bring men and
women of good will together so that we can
put people, the American people, first. We need
you to stay active and informed and involved.
Now, I ask you to call or write your Senators.
Ask them to take action on our jobs and economic recovery package. I ask for your best
wishes as I go into this meeting with President
Yeltsin and your understanding that here there
is no clear line between our interests at home
and our interests abroad. We cannot withdraw
from the world even as we work to make America stronger. Together we can change America
and change the world.
Thank you for listening.
NOTE: The address was recorded at 8 p.m. on
April 2 at the Benson Hotel in Portland, OR, for
broadcast at 10:06 a.m. on April 3.


390




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Apr. 3


Remarks and an Exchange With Reporters in Vancouver, Canada
April 3, 1993


The President. Thank you very much. I want
to begin by thanking the Prime Minister and
Canada for hosting this meeting between President Yeltsin and me. I want to thank also the
Prime Minister for his leadership in support of
the process of democracy and reform in Russia
and the Canadian effort to support that process,
which has recently been announced. We have
worked together very, very closely in the last
few weeks to mobilize support among the G7 for the process of democracy and reform. And
he deserves a good share of credit for many
of the positive actions which will be taken in
the days and weeks ahead. I thank him for that
and for hosting this. And I look forward to the
meeting with President Yeltsin.
Aid to Russia
Q. Mr. President, there's some concern that
any U.S. aid or any Western aid that may pour
into Russia now could be wasted. Is there a
danger at this point that you could actually give
Russia too much Western aid?
The President. Well, I guess there are two
concerns that you might have. One is that any
aid itself might not be well spent. The other
is that future political events might undermine
the impact of the aid. As far as the second
risk is concerned, that is there, it is clear. But
you could say that about any effort we might
make anywhere, including in our own country,
that future events might undermine the impact
of present action. We are proposing to take action to support democracy and to support economic reform.
Now, in terms of making sure the money
is spent properly, that it's the right kind of aid,
I have spent a significant amount of time on
this. We have put together a very good team.
I will be consulting in significant detail with
President Yeltsin about this. I think that the
kinds of things we propose to do are likely to
have lasting and tangible impact, and the way
we propose to do it will minimize the chance
that the money will be squandered.
Q. Does that mean control, sir, control on
how the money is spent?
The President. No. You'll see. We're working
on it. I think you'll like it.
Q. Mr. President, on the way over here, Presi

dent Yeltsin mentioned a figure of $100 billion
in connection with the cost that Germany had
to pay for East Germany. Is that a realistic figure in your mind?
The President. Well, he didn't mention it. I
know what he said when he got here, and he
went out of his way to say that the amount
of money wasn't as important as the kind of
support. Germany had to spend a lot of money
on Germans to integrate their country. It's a
different and I don't think entirely analogous
situation.
I believe what you will see building up over
the next few weeks is a very significant effort
by the G-7 and perhaps by other countries as
well to support a long-term process of development in Russia. To go back to the first question,
it is important that the efforts that are made
be targeted and be designed to produce and
support reform and lasting and tangible benefits
to the people in Russia in ways that help the
security and the economy of all the countries
that are helping. So I think I look at this as
a long-term effort, and I think it would be a
mistake to put a short-term dollar figure on
it.
Yes, Mark [Mark Miller, Newsweek].
Q. How much pressure do you feel under
going into this 2-day event? And what are the
big unanswered questions in your mind, the
things that, despite all your preparation, you still
don't know the answers to?
The President. I don't feel under any pressure.
I'm glad that this day has arrived. I welcome
the chance that the United States has to support
the millions of courageous people in Russia who
have stood up for democracy and have had the
courage to go through some very difficult times
and, I might add, to support the people in the
other newly independent states of the former
Soviet Union who are going through equally difficult economic times and striving hard for democracy. I welcome that opportunity.
The only unanswered questions I have are
the same ones that you have. I don't know
what's going to happen. None of us do. But
I think that, I would just remind you all-it's
something I said in my speech at Annapolisin 1776 the United States adopted the Declara

391




Apr. 3 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


tion of Independence. It was well over a decade
before we actually settled on a Constitution and
got around to electing a President.
And the Russians are trying to undertake
three fundamental changes at once: moving
from a Communist to a market economy; moving from a tyrannical dictatorship to a democracy; and moving to an independent nation state
away from having a great empire. And these
are very difficult and unsettling times. But I
think that the direction is clear, the direction
that they ought to take, and I think we ought
to support the direction. And I'm not troubled
by the fact that I can't control that process
or that I don't know the outcome of it. We
just need to weigh in and do what we can to
do what's right.
Q. Mr. President, why don't the majority of
Americans think we should be sending more
aid to Russia?
The President. I think there are probably two
or three reasons. First of all, historically in our
country, foreign aid has never been popular.
And that's why I have gone out of my way
to show that this is the establishment of a partnership which will be mutually beneficial. This
is not in any way an act of charity that we
are engaged in. It doesn't have anything to do
with that.
Secondly, the American people are preoccupied with their own problems. We've got


one million fewer jobs in the private sector than
we had 3 years ago. Unemployment is high.
Incomes have been stagnant for years. We have
serious challenges at home, and they want to
know that we're putting those first.
Then I think the third thing is the question
that you asked in the beginning. They want to
know that if we are going to do something,
they want us at least to go to extra efforts to
make sure that the money is well spent and
is in the long-term benefit of both countries.
Yes.
Japan
Q. Are both of you confident that you can
get Japan on side with some big bucks for this
venture and to ignore the Northern Islands
issue?
The President. Well, let me say this. I had
a very good talk with Prime Minister Miyazawa
last night. The Japanese have been very forthcoming as the leaders of the C-7. This is their
year to lead, and they are leading. They are
hosting this meeting of the finance and foreign
ministers on the 14th and 15th, and I believe
that they will fulfill their leadership role. I'm
encouraged.
Thank you very much.
NOTE: The President spoke at 11:39 a.m. at the
Mackenzie House at the University of British Columbia.


Exchange With Reporters With President Boris Yeltsin of Russia in
Vancouver
April 3, 1993


Russia-U. S. Relations
Q. President Yeltsin, will American aid make
a difference to the political situation in Russia?
President Yeltsin. You know, it's always useful
to help a friend, especially if a friend goes
through a difficult period. And we are partners,
and we are friends.
Q. Go ahead, Mr. President, you can talk.
President Clinton. I just was going to say,
I don't view this as a-this is not a talk about
aid; this is a talk about a long-term partnership.
The United States has a great deal to gain from


a strong, successful, democratic Russia. It is in
our interest. And I'm very encouraged by the
things that President Yeltsin has stood for, and
the fight that he's waging now.
President Yeltsin. And the rest of the world,
too.
NOTE: The exchange began at 1:55 p.m. at the
MacKenzie House at the University of British Columbia. President Yeltsin spoke in Russian, and
his remarks were translated by an interpreter. A
tape was not available for verification of the content of this exchange.


392




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Apr. 4


The President's News Conference With President Boris Yeltsin of Russia
in Vancouver
April 4, 1993


President Clinton. Good afternoon. I have just
completed 2 days of intensely productive discussions with President Boris Yeltsin. I want to
join him in thanking Prime Minister Mulroney
and the people of Canada for their hospitality.
The beauty of Vancouver has inspired our work
here, and this weekend I believe we have laid
the foundation for a new democratic partnership
between the United States and Russia.
The heroic deeds of Boris Yeltsin and the
Russian people launched their reforms toward
democracy and market economies and defended
them valiantly during the dark days of August
of 1991. Now it is the self-interest and the high
duty of all the world's democracies to stand by
Russia's democratic reforms in their new hour
of challenge.
The contrast between our promising new partnership and our confrontational past underscores
the opportunities that hang in the balance today.
For 45 years we pursued a deadly competition
in nuclear arms. Now we can pursue a safe
and steady cooperation to reduce the arsenals
that have haunted mankind. For 45 years our
Nation invested trillions of dollars to contain
and deter Soviet communism. Now the emergence of a peaceful and democratic Russia can
enable us to devote more to our own domestic
needs.
The emergence of a newly productive and
prosperous Russia could add untold billions in
new growth to the global economy. That would
mean new jobs and new investment opportunities for Americans and our allies around the
world. We are investing today not only in the
future of Russia but in the future of America
as well.
Mr. President, our Nation will not stand on
the sidelines when it comes to democracy in
Russia. We know where we stand. We are with
Russian democracy. We are with Russian reforms. We are with Russian markets. We support freedom of conscience and speech and religion. We support respect for ethnic minorities.
We actively support reform and reformers and
you in Russia.
The ultimate responsibility for the success of
Russia's new course, of course, rests with the


people of Russia. It is they who must support
economic reforms and make them work. But
Americans know that our Nation has a part to
play, too, and we will do so.
In our discussions, President Yeltsin and I
reached several important agreements on the
ways in which the United States and the other
major industrialized democracies can best support Russian reforms. First are programs that
can begin immediately. I discussed with President Yeltsin the initiatives totaling $1.6 billion
intended to bolster political and economic reforms in Russia. These programs already are
funded. They can provide immediate and tangible results for the Russian people.
We will invest in the growth of Russia's private sector through two funds to accelerate privatization and to lend to new small private businesses. We will resume grain sales to Russia
and extend $700 million in loans for Russia to
purchase American grain. We will launch a pilot
project to help provide housing and retraining
for the Russian military officers as they move
into jobs in the civilian economy.
Because the momentum for reform must
come upward from the Russian people, not
down from their government, we will expand
exchanges between American farmers, business
people, students, and others with expertise
working directly with the Russian people. And
we agreed to make a special effort to promote
American investment, particularly in Russia's oil
and gas sectors. To give impetus to this effort,
we will ask Vice President Gore and Russian
Prime Minister Chernomyrdin to chair a new
commission on energy and space.
Second, beyond these immediate programs,
the President and I agreed that our partnership
requires broader perspectives and broader cooperative initiatives, which I will discuss with the
Congress when I return home. We expect to
do more than we are announcing today in housing and technical assistance, in nuclear safety
and cooperation on the environment, and in important exchanges.
Third, this challenge we face today is clearly
not one for the United States and Russia alone.
I have asked our allies in the G-7 to come


393




Apr. 4 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


forward with their own individual bilateral initiatives. Canada and Britain have already done so,
and I expect others to follow.
President Yeltsin and I also discussed plans
for the C-7 nations to act together in support
of Russia's reforms. The foreign and finance
ministers of the G-7 are meeting in Tokyo on
April 14th and 15th. Coordinated efforts are required to help Russia stabilize its economy and
its currency. The President and I agreed that
Russia and the C-7 nations must take mutually
reinforcing steps to strengthen reform in Russia.
And those will be announced on the 14th and
15th in Tokyo.
Beyond these economic initiatives, the President and I discussed a broad agenda of cooperation in foreign affairs. We reaffirmed our commitment to safe dismantlement and disposal of
nuclear weapons. We discussed the need to
strengthen the Non-Proliferation Treaty and to
assure that Ukraine along with Belarus and
Kazakhstan ratify the START Treaty and accede
to the NPT as non-nuclear-weapons states. I
stress that we want to expand our relationships
with all the new independent states.
We also agreed to work in concert to help
resolve regional crises, to stem weapons of proliferation, to protect the global environment, and
to address common challenges to international
peace, such as the tragic violence in Bosnia,
advancing the promising peace talks we have
cosponsored in the Mideast, and continuing our
cooperation to end the regional conflicts of the
cold war era.
Many of the dreams Americans and Russians
hold for their children and for generations to
come rest on the long-term success of Russia's
reforms and, thus, on the long-term partnerships
between our two nations. Our new democratic
partnership can make an historic contribution
for all humanity well into the next century. Both
of us know that it requires effort and vigilance
to make progress along the path toward democracy's ideal. And I believe we both see those
ideas as rooted deeply in the human spirit.
I think of the words of one of the great poets
of democracy within our own country, Walt
Whitman. In a poem about crossing the East
River in New York where the Brooklyn Bridge
now stands, he commands, "Flow on, river; flow
on." Of course, the river hardly required his
permission. It has flowed on for centuries and
will continue to, whether old Walt Whitman decreed it or not. Yet, he bellowed his enthusiastic


support for the river's timeless journey.
Russia's struggle for democracy and America's
support are much the same. We know that the
attraction to freedom that animates democracy
flows powerfully through the human spirit like
a river. Our words do not cause that river to
flow, and history has now proven that in the
long run no tyrant can cause the river to stop.
Yet, we bellow our support because it is right
and because democracy's river can carry both
our nations toward a better future.
As we have looked out across the Pacific to
the shores of Russia and its far east over the
last 2 days, we have committed ourselves anew
to that journey. I now return to the United
States with a reaffirmed commitment to that
course and a determination to engage Members
of Congress in both parties and the American
people in a rededication to the prospect that
a successful and strong and democratic Russia
is very much in the best interest of America
and the world.
President Yeltsin. First of all, I should like
to thank you, Mr. President, for your kind words
addressed to Russia. I should like to thank Canada's Prime Minister, Mr. Mulroney, for the excellent way in which this summit of two Presidents of two great powers was organized. I'd
like to thank the people of Vancouver for being
so hospitable, for having so warmly welcomed
our delegations and us personally, the Presidents. I should like to thank the journalists, who,
it seems to me, kept a round-the-clock watch
at their posts.
I am fully satisfied by the results and by the
spirit and atmosphere of my encounter with
President Bill Clinton. It was in all senses out
of the ordinary. But it was made extraordinary
by processes transpiring in the United States
and Russia, conditioned by very special relationships developing between ourselves and Mr. Bill
Clinton. We met for the first time but yesterday,
but became partners back at that meeting in
Washington.
When Bill Clinton became President, we rapidly established good working contacts over the
telephone. We candidly discussed the most intricate issues and stated at the outset that there
would be no pauses in our dialog and that we
would rapidly manage to find time to meet and
established that right at the beginning, as I say,
several months ago.
We had no right to further postpone personal
encounter in the face of this world emerging


394




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Apr. 4


from a wounded past, its thoughts preoccupied
by what has occurred in two great countries,
the United States and Russia. We immediately
found common language in Vancouver, probably
because we're both businesslike people and at
the same time, to some extent, idealists, both.
We also believe that freedom, democracy, and
freedom of choice for people are not mere
words and are prepared to struggle for our beliefs. We understand that everything that happens in the world is interlinked, that cooperation
is not concession-making but a vital necessity,
a contribution to our future.
At previous meetings, the nations' leaders discussed   primarily  the    disassembly   of
confrontational structures, but here in Vancouver, we talked about building the new, laying
the foundations of a future economy. This was
the first economically oriented meeting of the
meeting of the two great powers. We adopted
some signal decisions in the interests of the people of the Russian Federation, in the interests
of the people of the United States of America,
in the interests of the world's people.
We decided to eliminate discriminatory limitations on trade with Russia. We, in fact, said
that we were simply hurt. Russia had embarked
upon the path of democracy, whereas America
was still treating us as though we were a Communist country. In fact, we're struggling against
communism. I stated that quite clearly, and Bill
Clinton agreed. We are prepared to compete
but compete honestly. We decided to alter our
approach to trade in Russian uranium, space
technology, access to Russian military technology. We decided to do away with the Jackson-Vanik amendment and to resolve other legislative issues. There is considerably greater interest on the part of American investors in the
fuel sector, in Russia space technology. We decided to cooperate in this area and decided to
join forces, the U.S. and Russian administrations.
The economic package of Bill Clinton-this
is what it's going to be called from here on
in-Bill Clinton's economic package is predicated on the fact that America wishes to see
Russia prosper with a blooming economy. America intends to support Russian entrepreneurs,
particularly small and medium farmers, Russia's
youth. It's going to cooperate in housing construction for the military and in other areas.
All of this is in support of Russian reforms,
a part of the strategic form of cooperation be

tween us, stressed Bill Clinton. Now, that figure,
the figure that reflects that cooperation is a $1.6
billion. We're looking forward to other steps to
be undertaken by the United States of America
and other major industrial countries to support
real reform in Russia.
The linkage between that set of measures and
other political measures was avoided. Of course,
military and political problems could not be
skirted. We discussed what might be done to
see to it that all participants in the Bosnian
conflict support the U.N. position. Here, our
positions match as to the main points. We devoted quite a lot of attention to problems of
nonproliferation. We decided to extend our
agreements on the avoidance of accidents, such
as the near accident involving submarines very
recently. We decided to strengthen cooperation
between various areas of the military. All of
this is reflected in the Vancouver declaration,
some of the principal elements of that declaration.
Members of our delegation felt that the U.S.
side did appreciate that support for Russia had
to be timely. Our partners make it their goal
to support Russia's reforms, which are not yet
yielding major results as far as ordinary Russians
are concerned.
The meeting in Vancouver signals a shift from
general assurances of support to Russia to pragmatic, specific, nitty-gritty projects. What we see
dominating here are economic and not military
strategic issues dominant.
Another very important result is that we, with
President Bill Clinton, did establish some pretty
close personal contacts. Bill Clinton is a serious
partner. He is prepared to tackle the major
problems confronting our two countries in the
interest of our two countries, in the interest
of all free people throughout the world. I have
invited Bill Clinton to visit Moscow, to render
us an official visit at a time convenient to himself.
Thank you very much.
Nuclear Disarmament
Q. President Clinton, after 45 years of deadly
competition in nuclear arms and now a new
spirit of democratic partnership, in this new
spirit of democratic partnership, did you discuss
whether Russia and the United States-[inaudible]   -
President Clinton. We did discuss that, and
we discussed that within the framework of the


395




Apr. 4 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


START agreements and the timetables established-[inaudible]-and we agreed that we
would reexamine that at an early, early time.
We did not resolve that issue, but we agreed
to take it up again.
Aid to Russia
Q. A question, Mr. President, for you and
President Yeltsin. Much of Bill Clinton's economic package is old wine in new bottles, and
it's money that was previously authorized and
appropriated by Congress. Why will it make a
difference now, more of a difference now than
it would have when it was approved last year?
And what guarantees are there that it will be
delivered this time, when it was not, when originally approved?
President Clinton. I'd like to make two points.
First of all, the nature of this package is, I
think, somewhat different than the one which
was discussed last year. First, three-quarters,
three-quarters of this money will be distributed
not government to government but will go to
benefit the private sector, the emerging private
sector in Russia, and will go outside of the
central apparatus in terms of supporting privatization, helping to start new businesses, establishing a democracy corps at a really significant
level.
If you look at all the things that are down
here, they are very specific; they are tangible;
they are designed to develop concrete benefits
for the people who will be involved. And as
President Yeltsin reiterated to me in our last
meeting, in each of these categories we have
a proven mechanism for distributing the assistance so that we know how to get the money
to its intended purpose.
The second point I would like to make is
that we intend for this to be leveraged in two
ways: first, because I intend now to go back
to the Congress, to the leaders of both parties
with whom I met extensively before I came
here, and discuss a second package of bilateral
assistance which will be more aggressive in the
areas of energy and environmental cleanup,
areas which will be dramatically helpful in supporting the economy of Russia, and more aggressive in the whole issue of housing for returning soldiers, which is a very important issue
socially and politically as well as economically
in the country, and in several other areas. And
we have asked the other G-7 countries each
to do something on their own. And those mes

sages are coming in now.
And finally, I would remind you that we want
a different kind of multilateral agreement to
come out of Tokyo. That is, last year when the
figure $24 billion was floated all across the United States and the world and Russia, a lot of
it was contingent on all kinds of things which
never happened and could not reasonably have
been expected to happen. We are going to try
to make sure that anything we say will be done,
in fact, will be done. And that will be a big
difference.
President Yeltsin. I should like to stress a
major difference between that which was decided upon in the past and that which was decided upon, economically speaking, in Bill Clinton's economic package: first, a close linkage
to specific sectors in terms of sums earmarked,
which will enable us to monitor the expenditure
of each and every line item; second, a close
connection to deadlines, which had never been
done in the past. The figure of $24 billion was
moot at, say, by the year 2000, but now we've
stated the 25th of April, 27th of April, 1st of
May, the month of May, the month June, the
month of September, the month of October,
and throughout the remainder of 1993. That
is the principal set of differences.
Q. You somewhat anticipated what I had intended to ask. I see here a clear break in the
type of assistance being rendered to reform,
about which so much had been said by way
of lipservice in the past. So what do you expect
of the G-7 meeting in Tokyo, then?
President Yeltsin. Reform, of course, is proceeding, but it's a young reform process. It's
really only a year old. It's only for a year that
we have reform underway in Russia. Now, in
that one year we have had 60,000 private enterprises set up. In over 70 years not a single
one was established. We must remember that
over 50,000 major stockholding companies in
that one year. These are perhaps minor successes, but they are signal successes nonetheless.
But of course, certain quarters are putting
on brakes on the process. Russia tends to run
out of breath from time to time. It needs a
transition period, a breather of, say, 2 years.
And in that period of breather, we need this
kind of support; not aid, I would stress, not
in assistance but support, because in supplying
food, technologies, goods, et cetera, et cetera,
you do create additional workplaces, additional
jobs in the United States of America, additional


396




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Apr. 4


use of American industrial plant capacity, a
fuller use of U.S. economic potential. So these
are not Christmas presents, I put it to you,
not at all. This is policy and major policymaking,
I put it to you. Thank you.
Q. President Yeltsin, President Clinton, you've
all indicated your devotion to democracy, but
that you're both idealists at the same time. But
what we're hearing about right now is a very
pragmatic, a very down-to-earth set of measures,
a very down-to-earth program. Now, President
Yeltsin, how is this assistance to be rendered
to particular sectors? You've indicated that there
is a definite time, a place for delivery of the
assistance. Now, you've also indicated that jobs
will be created in America. But what will actually happen on the ground, so to speak, in Russia?
President Yeltsin. Let's say we're going to
spend 300 billion rubles on health in Russia,
that will reach every single Russian-100 million
in medicines that will reach every Russian.
Technology-after all, new technologies will
generate new consumer goods for each and
every Russian. Everything is people oriented.
This is Bill Clinton's policy. It is Yeltsin's policy.
That is, that we work for people's benefit, for
the benefit of each and every free individual.
Aid Coordination and Trade Restrictions
Q. What assurances do you have from President Yeltsin that this medicine, this food, these
housing guarantees, that any of this can really
be delivered through a system that we've been
told is very bureaucratic and somewhat corrupt?
What assurances have you given him that there
won't be logjams on the American side? And
could you tell us, do you agree with his opening
statement that there is agreement here between
the two leaders about ending the Jackson-Vanik
amendment and about the technology transfers
through COCOM?
President Clinton. Let me answer the first
question first. On the delivery systems, we have
reached a tentative agreement, pending the acquiescence by other G-7 countries-I say that
because I have not had a chance to discuss
this with any of them-that there were logjams
in the past, both within the government agencies
of the United States and other countries and
within Russia itself, and that we have now asked
in a very carefully coordinated fashion all the
0-7 to do two things: to commit to more bilateral assistance in terms of development and


partnership and to work for a multilateral development package.
So we have tentatively agreed, the two of
us have-but again, I say nobody else has
agreed to this-that we should establish a coordinating office in Moscow to make sure, number one, that each of us in the 0-7 does what
we promise to do on time, without delay, and
number two, that our efforts are coordinated
within Russia, both so that we are not in conflict
with each other and so that the money can
actually go where it's supposed to go. So we
devoted quite a bit of time to the whole business of implementation.
As to your second question, we discussed
Jackson-Vanik, COCOM, and a number of other
issues. And I told President Yeltsin that in my
meetings with the Congress before I left, we
agreed that certain Members of Congress with
an interest in this-I might add, in both parties-would actually compile a list of every one
of the cold war legislative and other restrictions
that are still being applied to Russia, even
though it is now a democratic state, that I would
listen to President Yeltsin on these issues, and
that I would then return home and we would
make as many changes as we could.
But with regard specifically to Jackson-Vanik,
I think the issue there is whether-it's a fact
question from my point of view: Are there any
more people who wish to emigrate who have
not been allowed to? The President says he
doesn't think so. He's going to look into that.
I'm going to go back and raise that issue with
Congress, along with the COCOM issue and
a whole range of others. And I would expect
within a matter of a few days, we'll be able
to give to the American press and public a comprehensive answer to what the position of the
administration on that will be.
Q. COCOM?
President Clinton. Including that. We are reviewing that, too.
Go ahead.
Areas of Cooperation
Q. My question is directed both to President
Yeltsin and to President Clinton. It goes as follows: The elimination of restrictions on trade
with Russia, if that does happen, what perhaps
should be the harbinger of the establishment
of those relations of partnership which we've
been talking about for so long. Now, I'd like
to ask you, gentlemen, what particular priority


397




Apr. 4 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


areas are up for partnership and cooperation?
And President Clinton, how do you feel? Are
there particular areas which the U.S. might like
to stress in building up business cooperation
with the Russians?
President Yeltsin. On that first point, I should
like to say that we discussed something like 50
issues yesterday and today, and practically all
of those issues had to do with partnership. We
would not manage to tackle any one of those
issues if we were not partners, if we were rivals
in each other's eyes, adversaries in each other's
eyes. No, we are partners and future allies. That
was the way our relationship unfolded. That's
the way the negotiations went. That's the way
we went about resolving issues. And in discussing those approximately 50 issues, we didn't
sweep anything under the table; we didn't set
anything aside. We decided either to pass them
on for further investigation and analysis, or else
we resolved them on the spot.
President Clinton. I'd like to answer the question also, and respond to what President Yeltsin
said. Among the areas in which the United
States sees real opportunities for joint activity
are energy, space, the environment, nuclear
safety. These are some of the areas that we
believe we can work together on in ways that
would benefit Russia economically in a very
short time and also be beneficial for the United
States. Over and above that, we discussed but
did not settle on a range of possible actions
that we could take to make private investment
in Russia more attractive to American investors
because, after all, in the end a market economy
is built by private investment and not just public
investment alone.
The second point I'd like to make in response
to the comment by President Yeltsin: We did
discuss a phenomenal number of issues. I think
it's fair to say we discussed more issues than
either one of us thought we would when we
came here. We did not agree on everything.
You would not expect the leaders of two great
nations, even in partnership, to have total agreement. But we did come to agreement on how
we would handle these issues, how we would
try to work through our disagreements, and what
we would do in the future. And I appreciated
the extreme candor with which President Yeltsin
treated all our discussions, including those areas
where there is still some gap between our two
positions.


Submarine Incident and Baltic States
Q. I have a two-part question, one for each
of you. Mr. President, on another irritant in
the U.S.-Russian relationship that was pointed
out to us yesterday by your Communications
Director, George Stephanopoulos, the patrolling
off the Russian coast by U.S. submarines: What
have you agreed to now to prevent these kinds
of accidents from recurring down the road? Is
this another case of old habits dying hard, that
the U.S. still finds a need to keep these kinds
of submarines off the Russian coast?
And for President Yeltsin: An irritant in the
U.S.-Russian relationship is the slow withdrawal
of Russian troops from the Baltic States and
from Eastern Europe. Are you committed to
withdrawing the Russian soldiers as quickly as
possible from those independent nations?
President Clinton. Let me answer first. I don't
mind saying to this whole assemblage that I
told President Yeltsin I very much regretted the
submarine incident, and that I had ordered a
thorough review of the incident as well as the
policy of which the incident happened to be
an unintended part, and that as soon as that
review was completed, I would engage Russia
at the appropriate levels to discuss whether the
policy should be changed and where we should
go from here. That was a regrettable thing, and
I don't want it to ever happen again.
President Yeltsin. On the first point I'd add
just a couple of words. We did agree that somewhere late in May or early in June the Minister
of Defense of the Russian Federation, Grachev,
would visit the United States of America to discuss the entire gamut of issues of this sort, including close passage of submarines, so that
such incidents might be avoided in the future.
Now, with regard to withdrawal of troops
from the Baltic States, we are adhering very
closely to the schedule on troop withdrawals
from Lithuania, and we are completing work
on that schedule since Lithuania does not violate
human rights and treats the Russian-speaking
population fairly. If Latvia and Estonia violate
human rights, if their laws are presently so
structured that in fact some national minorities
continue to be persecuted, and that involves basically Russians, we have, on the whole, adopted
a political decision, a policy decision to withdraw
troops from those states. We will be scheduling
the actual withdrawal in line with what they
decide in the human rights area.


398




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Apr. 4


Russian Referendum
Q. I have a question that I would like to
address to President Yeltsin and also to President Clinton.
President Yeltsin, you indicated that Bill Clinton's economic package lays the groundwork for
partnership between the United States of America and Russia and will provide considerable impetus to the reform process in Russia. In April,
we're going to have a referendum in Russia.
How, here today in Vancouver, would you forecast the situation unfolding on the basis of
agreements reached here in Canada?
Now, President Clinton, the personal factor
is a major element in politics. Now, what would
you indicate by way of your personal contact
with President Yeltsin in regard to the referendum?
President Yeltsin. That's our internal domestic
issue. Whether it will be impacted directly or
indirectly is another issue, but it's up to us to
deal with the referendum issue. It's up to us
to work with our people. It's up to us to persuade the citizens of the Russian Federation that
if they do not vote in favor of confidence on
the 25th of April, they will be dealing a major
blow not only upon Russia but also upon the
United States of America, upon the other countries of the world. This would be a loss to democracy, a loss to freedom, a rollback to the
past, a return to the Communist yokes, something which is entirely inadmissible.
President Clinton. My personal reaction to
President Yeltsin based on these 2 days is, first,
that he is very much what he seems to behe's a person who rose from humble beginnings,
who has never forgotten where he came fromand second, that his enduring virtue is that he
trusts the Russian people.
The great courage involved in all democracies
is that in the end you have to trust the people,
including you have to trust the people if they
decide to throw you out. You have to trust the
people.
Boris Yeltsin has put the fate of the Government of Russia into the hands of the people
of Russia. That is a unique thing in your history.
There are few nations in the world that have
the spirit, the culture, the richness that the Russian people can claim. And yet, for too long,
they were never given control over their own
destiny. My belief is that deep down inside he
actually does trust all the people who live in


those communities in the 12 time zones that
make up Russia. And that is a very great thing.
Yes.
Exchange Programs
Q. Mr. President and Mr. President, definitely
we are interested if there is any part of the
package which deals with Russia's far east and
Pacific Northwest of the United States of America as far as economic reform and development
is concerned and people-to-people relationships
in particular.
President Clinton. Yes, we agreed to have a
substantial increase in the exchanges of people,
particularly in the area of increasing the number
of people we might bring to this country for
training in business management, and big increases in student exchanges and a whole range
of other things, including agriculture and other
areas that we are still going to identify.
Let me say that it is easy to minimize such
things because they often do not cost as much
money as some other parts of a long-term development package. But no one who has lived
through the second half of the 20th century
could possibly be blind to the enormous impact
of exchange programs on the future of the countries.
You know, when I was a young man I worked
for the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Fulbright. There is
a scholarship program that carries his name that,
literally, in my judgment, has changed the whole
direction of policy in country after country after
country. So I believe this is a very important
thing, and I'm going to do everything I can
to see that there is a major, major increase
in the number of broad-gauged exchanges. And
I might say I think that has great support in
the United States Congress.
President Yeltsin. I'd like to add a few words
to that. This package, which I would like to
call a very large and wise package which is going
to make history, involves yet another question
mark, and that is that of assisting the native
populations in the northern reaches of Russia.
It's a very, very important issue to tackle that
one.
Russian Referendum
Q. I would like to know what is your deep
feeling, because everybody tries to help you,
and I think everybody is right to help you because you represent democracy. But the ques

399




Apr. 4 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


tion I will ask you is that, after you, do you
think there is an alternative that maybe our
American friends, President Clinton, has been
obliged to think about in case your enemies,
your adversary oust you from power after the
referendum on the 25th of April?
President Yeltsin. My first point to that would
be this: I intend to do everything I can in my
power-and, by the way, I do believe in the
Russian people making its proper choice on the
25th of April. At the moment, today I say there
is no alternative to Yeltsin. Perhaps there will
be one tomorrow, but certainly not one today.
President Clinton. If I were on the ballot,
I would make exactly the statement. The answer
to your question is simple, I think. I have made
it clear that the United States is committed to
democracy, to human rights, to market economics, to reducing the nuclear threat, to respecting
national sovereignty of the other newly independent states. We have interests and values.
They are embodied by the policies and the direction of President Yeltsin. They are enduring.
He is the duly elected President of Russia. And
as long as he is, I intend to work with him
and support him because he reflects those enduring values.
Aid to Russia
Q. I have a question to the President of Russia. The overall sum of this is that this is perhaps
not so great. For example, when we had the
Los Angeles riots we had a package twice that
size set up. Now, what sort of projects in Russia
do you think will yield the most immediate results and will have the greatest impact socially
in the short run?
President Yeltsin. I feel that we do not need
astronomical figures, headline-making figures.
What we need are real figures. These are real
figures  which   are  do-able,  which   are
implementable in terms of things that we can
do.
Q. Well, what specific projects would you regard as the most effective ones?
President Yeltsin. Well, the first priority would
be fuel, which would enable us to replenish,
to top off our hard-currency reserves. I'm talking
about oil and gas, its revitalization, and we addressed that topic in very specific terms. The
next issue would be immediate delivery of goods
to the people.


Cuba
Q. I have a two-part question, one for Mr.
Clinton and one for Mr. Yeltsin, please. Before
leaving the United States, Hispanic Congressmen requested that you talk about the nuclear
plant of Cienfuegos in Cuba, trying to get the
commitment of Mr. Yeltsin not to continue or
not to help in continuing the construction of
that plant. Did you get that commitment?
And for Mr. Yeltsin: I would like to know
if you have a timetable for finishing the withdrawal of troops, Soviet troops, from Cuba?
President Clinton. First of all, let me say that
the day of massive subsidies between Russia and
the Government of Cuba is over. The lion's
share of the trade which exists now between
Russia and Cuba is a market-based trade. There
is a nuclear facility being constructed there. The
United States is concerned about it. We've expressed our concern about it. That was basically
the extent of our discussions here at this meeting.
President Yeltsin. In regard to troop withdrawals, we have already initiated that withdrawal
and are now finalizing a schedule for the final
withdrawal of troops; nothing in terms of a specific timetable.
Characterization of Summit
Q. I have a question for President Clinton.
Mr. President, even today, I think we can foretell that President Yeltsin's opponents will certainly be accusing him of making unilateral political concessions in exchange for Clinton's package. Perhaps we could anticipate their commentary and respond to that question even
today.
President Clinton. First of all, I do not believe
it would be fair to say that President Yeltsin
made a lot of political concessions in return
for the commitments made by the United States.
We did clarify some positions on some issues.
And I felt better about it. But basically everything President Yeltsin said in our private meetings was consistent with the direction in which
he has tried to lead Russia since he has been
President.
Secondly, I would remind you that the United
States also has taken some steps that have nothing to do with money to try to reinforce the
fact that we consider this a partnership of two
great nations, that we want to work in partnerships. That's why I agreed to a comprehensive
review of all the cold war statutes and other


400




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Apr. 4


limitations on our relationships with Russia.
That's why I went out of my way to tell the
President in our very first meeting how much
I regretted the incident of the submarine bumping and how I was committed to reviewing our
policy and to getting back with him on that.
So I would say that President Yeltsin's opponents might want to characterize this meeting
in that way, but it would not be a fair characterization. In fact, it would be a distortion of the
conversation that we had.


President Yeltsin. I am not frightened of possible reprimands or reproaches from the opposition because I see no single matter upon which
it could hang such an accusation. There's nothing in any of the documents; there's nothing
in what was said between us.
President Clinton. Thank you very much.
NOTE: The President's ninth news conference
began at 1:45 p.m. at Canada Place. President
Yeltsin spoke in Russian, and his remarks were
translated by an interpreter.


Question-and-Answer Session With Russian Reporters in Vancouver
April 4, 1993


Aid to Russia
Q. I had two questions for both Presidents,
so you could probably answer for Boris, too.
[Laughter]
The President. I'll give you my answer, then
I'll give you Yeltsin's answer. [Laughter]
Q. The first is that this is the meeting of
the Presidents. So the money that's being promised is Government money, and naturally it's
going to be distributed through the Government. But you've indicated that three-quarters
are going to be going to businesses. So the question is how the Russian businesses themselves
are going to be consulted, if ever? What are
the priorities, because there are several association of Russian businessmen existing already. So
will they be invited to participate in setting up
priorities for investment? This is the first.
And second, to you: We know that polls, public polls in America do not show that Americans
are very enthusiastic about giving this aid. Like
Newsweek polls say that about 75 percent don't
approve it, and New York Times published that
52 percent support if it just prevents civil war,
42 percent if it fosters democratic reform, and
only 29 percent if it just personally supports
Yeltsin. How are you going to sort of handle
this problem that Americans themselves are not
very enthusiastic?
Thank you.
Q. I have a question. I'm sorry, is there going
to be a translation of everything into Russian?
No, just the answers. Just the answers. Okay.
The President. The answer to the first ques

tion is, it depends on what kind of aid we're
discussing. For example, the funds that will be
set up for financing new businesses will obviously go to those businesses who apply and who
seem to be good risks and make the application.
The privatization fund will be used to support
the privatization of existing public enterprises.
Then there are some other general funds in
the Democracy Corps and other things which
people in Russia will have some influence over
the distribution of.
With regard to your second question, let me
say that I would think that there would be people in both countries who would not feel too
warmly toward simply the American Government giving money to the Russian Government.
There's opposition to that in Russia. And in
our country, throughout our whole history, there
has been an opposition to foreign aid of all
kinds. That is, this has nothing to do with Russia. If you look at the whole history of America,
any kind of aid program has always been unpopular.
What I have tried to tell the American people
is, this is not an aid program, this is an investment program; that this is an investment in our
future. We spent $4 trillion, trillion, on armaments, on soldiers, and other investments because of the cold war. Now, with a democratic
government in Russia, with the newly independent states, the remainder of them, working on
a democracy and struggling to get their economies going, it seems to me very much in our
interest to make it possible to do whatever we


401




Apr. 4 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


can for democracy to survive, for the economy
of Russia to grow because of the potential for
trade and investment there, and for us to continue the effort to reduce nuclear weapons and
other elements of hostility on both sides, on
our side and on the Russian side. So I don't
see this as an aid program. This is an investment
for the United States. This is very much in
the interest of the United States. The things
I announced today, the second stage of the program which I hope to put together next week,
in my view are things that are good for my
country and for the taxpayers and workers of
my country.
Russia is a very great nation that needs some
partnership now, some common endeavor with
other people who share her goals. But it would
be a great mistake for anyone to view this as
some sort of just a charity or an aid issue. That's
not what it is. It's an investment for America,
and it's a wonderful investment. Like all investments, there is some risk. But there's far less
risk with a far greater potential of return than
the $4 trillion we spend looking at each other
across the barrier of the cold war.
Ukraine and Trade Restrictions
Q. Mr. President, first of all, thank you very
much indeed for coming here and talking to
us. In the memory of the living correspondents,
this is the first time an American President is
doing this to the Russian press corps, so it's
kind of a very measured breakthrough.
I have two questions. One, in your introductory remarks of the other press conference, you
mentioned in brief that you discussed the
START II and START I issues. Could you tell
us, did you reach an agreement with President
Yeltsin as to what might be done in order to
have Ukraine join the ratification of START I
and the NPT regime? And my second question
is, how confident you are that the United States
Congress would be eager to support you in lifting Jackson-Vanik and other restrictions inherited from the cold war?
The President. First, we discussed the issue
of Ukraine with regard to START I and NPT
and generally with regard to the need to proceed to have the other independent states all
be non-nuclear but also to have the United
States develop strong relationships with them.
We know that one thing that we could do that
would increase, I think, the willingness of the
Ukraine to support this direction is to success

fully conclude our own negotiations on highly
enriched uranium, because that would provide
not only an important economic opportunity for
Russia but also for Ukraine, and it would show
some reaching out on our part. But we agreed
that basically the people who signed off on the
Lisbon Protocol have got to honor what they
did, and we agreed to continue to press that.
I, myself, have spent a good deal of time
trying to reassure Ukraine's leaders, specifically
the President and the Foreign Minister, that
I want strong ties with Ukraine, that the United
States very much wants a good relationship with
Ukraine, but that in order to do what we need
to do together to strengthen the economy of
Ukraine and to have the United States be fully
supportive, the commitment to ratify START I
and to join the NPT regime is critical.
With regard to Jackson-Vanik and COCOM,
I would make two points: First, I have agreed
with the Republican and Democratic leaders in
the Congress that we will, as soon as I return,
have a list of all the legislative and other restrictions-some of them are regulatory in natureimposed on relations between the United States
and Russia, that are legacies of the cold war.
And we will see how many of them we could
agree to do away with right now, at least among
the leadership of the Congress.
With regard to Jackson-Vanik, I think there
will be an openness to change the law if the
Congress is convinced there are, in fact, no
more refuseniks, no more people who wish to
emigrate who are not being allowed to. If the
fact is that there is no one there who the law
was designed to affect, then I think that the
desire to keep the law will be much less.
With regard to COCOM, my guess is, and
it's nothing more than a guess, that the leadership of Congress and indeed my own advisers
might prefer to see some sort of phased movement out of the COCOM regime. But I think
they would be willing to begin it in the fairly
near future.
President's Interest in Russia
Q. Mr. Clinton, when I read your speech
in Annapolis, I got the impression that you have
a completely different personal-and I stress
that, personal, not political-approach towards
Russia, compared to the approach of Mr. Bush.
Could you formulate in a few words what is
the difference between you as a personality and
your approach, the difference between your ap

402




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Apr. 5


proach to Russia and the approach of Mr. Bush?
And why did you cite Akhmatova in the last
part of your speech?
The President. Let me say, first, I do not
wish to compare myself with President Bush
or anyone else. I can't say what was in his heart
about Russia. I can say that since I was a boy,
I have been personally fascinated with the history, the music, and the culture and the literature of Russia. I have been thrilled by Russian music since I was a serious student of
music, for more than 30 years now. I have read
major Russian novelists and many of your poets
and followed your ballet and tried to know as
much as I could about your history.
And I went to the Soviet Union, but it was
then the Soviet Union-you may know, it was
a big issue in the last Presidential campaign
that I spent the first week of 1970 alone in
Moscow-and did not return again until 3 days
before Mr. Yeltsin was elected President. But
all that time I was away, I was following events


there very closely and hoping for the day when
we could be genuine partners. So I have always
had a personal feeling about Russia.
I remember, for example-a lot of you know
I like music very much-one of the most moving experiences for me as a musician was when
Leonard Bernstein took the New York Philharmonic to Moscow and played Shostakovich's
Fifth Symphony to the Russians. And he played
the last movement more rapidly than anyone
had ever played it before because it was technically so difficult. That is something I followed
very closely when it occurred.
These are things that have always had a big
impact on my life. And I had just always hoped
that someday, if I ever had the chance to, I
could play a role in seeing our two countries
become closer partners.
NOTE: The question-and-answer session began at
2:46 p.m. at Canada Place.


Exchange With Reporters En Route to the Opening Day Baseball Game
in Baltimore, Maryland
April 5, 1993


Affirmative Action in Baseball
Q. Mr. President, what do you think of Jesse
Jackson's protest today?
The President. I think it's an informational
protest. I think it's fine. The owners put out
a statement a few days ago which they say was
the first step in, you know, efforts to increase
minority ownership and minority increases in
management. I think we should. I'm encouraged
by Don Baylor's appointment out in Colorado.
And I think it's time to make a move on that
front. So, I think it's a legitimate issue, and
I think it's, like I said, it's an informational picket and not an attempt to get people not to
go to the game. So, I think it's good.
Q. Do you think they're moving fast enough?
The President. Well, I think that it was a
good first step. And I think you'll see some
movement now. And I think it's an issue that
deserves some attention, and they're obviously
going to give it some. And I think that Reverend
Jackson being out there will highlight the issue.
So I think it's fine.


Stimulus Package
Q. Mr. President, how about the logjam in
the Senate on the economic stimulus plan? Do
you think they'll be able to break that and get
cloture?
The President. I don't know. We're working
at it. I mean, it's a classic-there was an article
in the paper today, one of the papers I saw,
which pretty well summed it up. They said, you
know, it's just a political power play. In the
Senate the majority does not rule. It's not like
the country. It's not like the House. If the minority chooses, they can stop majority rule. And
that's what they're doing. There are a lot of
Republican Senators who have told people that
they might vote for the stimulus program but
there's enormous partisan political pressure not
to do it.
And of course, what it means is that in this
time when no new jobs are being created even
though there seems to be an economic recovery,
it means that for political purposes they're willing to deny jobs to places like Baltimore and


403




Apr. 5 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


Dallas and Houston and Pittsburgh and Philadelphia and Portland and Seattle. It's very sad.
I mean, the block grant program was designed
to create jobs in a hurry based on local priorities, and it's one that the Republicans had always championed. Just about the only Democrat
champions of the program were people like me
who were out there at the grassroots level, Governors and Senators. I just think it's real sad


that they have chosen to exert the minority muscle in a way that will keep Americans out of
work. I think it's a mistake.
NOTE: The exchange began at 11:45 a.m. aboard
the MARC train en route to Oriole Park at Camden Yards. In his remarks, the President referred
to civil rights leader Jesse Jackson. A tape was
not available for verification of the content of this
exchange.


Message to the Congress Transmitting a Report on Hazardous Materials
Transportation
April 5, 1993


To the Congress of the United States:
In accordance with the requirements of section 109(e) of the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (Public Law 93-633); 49 U.S.C.
108(e)), I transmit herewith the Annual Report


on Hazardous Materials Transportation for calendar year 1991.
WILLIAM J. CLINTON
The White House,
April 5, 1993.


Nomination for Posts at the Departments of Defense and Labor
April 5, 1993


The President today announced his intention
to nominate two more Assistant Secretaries at
the Department of Defense and an Administrator at the Department of Labor. Additionally,
the President announced the nomination of five
other men and women to Defense and Labor
posts.
The President announced his intention to
nominate Lt. Gen. Emmett Paige, Jr., as Assistant Secretary for Command, Control and Communications at the Department of Defense,
Deborah Lee as Assistant Secretary for Reserve
Affairs at the Department of Defense, and
Maria Echaveste as Administrator of the Wage
and Hour Division at the Department of Labor.
In addition, the President announced the following appointments: Colleen Preston, Deputy
Under Secretary for Acquisition, Department of


Defense; Sherri Wasserman Goodman, Deputy
Under Secretary for Environmental Security,
Department of Defense; William Lynn, Director, Program Analysis and Evaluation, Department of Defense; Joyce Miller, Executive Director, Glass Ceiling Commission, Department of
Labor; and Charles Richards, Director, Office
of the New American Workplace, Department
of Labor.
"These men and women, with their collective
experience, intelligence, and commitment to
making Government work for the American people, will add to the excellent staffs already at
work with both Secretaries Aspin and Reich,"
the President said.
NOTE: Biographies of the nominees were made
available by the Office of the Press Secretary.


404




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Apr. 6


Exchange With Reporters Prior to Discussions With President Hosni
Mubarak of Egypt
April 6, 1993


World Trade Center Bombing
Q. President Mubarak, did you give the United States a specific warning about the World
Trade Center bombing?
President Mubarak. Let me tackle this problem in the press conference, if you don't mind.
Stimulus Package
Q. Mr. President, do you think you'll get your
stimulus package intact after the recess?
President Clinton. Well, let me say this: We're
going to give the Senate a chance to prove that
the stated objections to some of the programs
were their real objections. I mean, the American
people, I'm sure, are disappointed to find that
a program that would put a half-million people
to work and that has the support of a majority
of the United States Senate cannot be brought
to a vote in the Senate, because democracy and
the majority rule is being undermined.
The whole purpose of the Senate's debating
rules is to allow all amendments to be offered.
We've had amendment after amendment after
amendment after amendment, and the Republican minority is just trying to keep it from being
voted on. So we're going to give them a chance
to see if they were serious about their specific
concerns and if they really want to put the
American people back to work or not. This is
a big issue, and we'll just see what happens.
Q. You are going to have to compromise,
though, aren't you?
Q. [Inaudible]-frustrated about the delay?
President Clinton. Of course. I think that we
ought to be-I can't imagine how they could
be satisfied with the condition of this economy.
I can't imagine how they could be satisfied with
it. They were here, many of them, while we
increased the national debt by 4 times, while
we exploded the deficit, we drove down employment and drove up unemployment. And I've
given them a plan to bring down the deficit
and increase employment, put people back to
work, and I think they ought to be for it. And
we'll see if they will be.
Q. How much are you willing to cutPresident Clinton. As soon as the thing is
over-when they come back, we'll see whether


they really care about putting people to work
or whether this is all just political posturing to
prove that a minority can paralyze the Federal
Government. It's just more gridlock, and I think
the people will rebel against it.
You can count how many people they're going
to keep out of work. You will know job by
job how many they'll be responsible for not putting to work. We'll see.
Q. You sound pretty passionate on the subject.
Serbia
President Clinton. What did you say about
Milosevic?
Q. How   do you feel-[inaudible]-by his
message?
President Clinton. Oh, that was like the Iraqi
charm offensive. He's just trying to head off
tougher sanctions if the Vance-Owen plan is not
embraced.
Q. Is it going to work?
President Clinton. No, it won't. Of course not..Q. Do you think he's getting the wrong message, though, sir? I mean.
President Clinton. It's pure politics. He's trying to head off tougher sanctions in the U.N.
if the Serbs don't sign off on Vance-Owen.
That's all that's going on there. And it won't
work.
Q. Don't you think he's sending a message
saying it's actually-this is great, you're not
going to hound us?
President Clinton. Well, we are going to press
for tougher sanctions. We'll see.
Q. You don't want any compliments from him,
huh?
Q. [Inaudible]-are you rethinking the arms
embargo?
President Clinton. I'm always rethinking that.
There's never been a day when I haven't
rethought that. But I can't do that by myself.
[At this point, one group of reporters left the
room, and another group entered.]
Meeting With President Mubarak
Q. How about your first impression, Mr.
President?


405




Apr. 6 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


President Clinton. Very good. I'm glad to see
President Mubarak. He and I have talked on
the phone and worked on some things together,
but this is our first personal meeting. And we'll
have a press conference in a few minutesin a couple of hours, I guess. We'll answer your


questions.
NOTE: The exchange began at 9:45 a.m. in the
Oval Office at the White House. In his remarks,
President Clinton referred to President Slobodan
Milosevic of Serbia. A tape was not available for
verification of the content of this exchange.


The President's News Conference With President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt
April 6, 1993


President Clinton. Good morning. Today I
have the great pleasure of welcoming President
Mubarak to Washington and to the White
House. We have had an excellent meeting, and
I look forward to more in the coming years,
as well as to a successful conclusion of our first
meeting here at lunch after this press conference.
For nearly 2 decades, Egypt and the United
States have worked together in a special relationship to bring peace and stability to the Middle East. American and Egyptian soldiers have
served side by side in defeating aggression in
the Gulf and in bringing humanitarian relief in
Somalia. American and Egyptian diplomats have
worked side by side to pioneer peace with Israel
and lately to bring others to the negotiating
table. And after our discussions today, I am convinced that we share a common vision of a more
peaceful Middle East, and we are determined
to see that vision realized.
Egypt has long experience in peacemaking
and knows that only negotiations can resolve
longstanding grievances. The Egyptian-Israeli
treaty stands as a cornerstone of our common
efforts to attain a just and lasting and comprehensive settlement based upon U.N. Security
Council Resolutions 242 and 338. Our challenge
is now to broaden the circle of peace, recognizing the principles that underlie the peace process: territory for peace, realization of the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people, security
for all parties, and full and real peace.
As I have made clear, the United States is
prepared to assume the role of full partner when
the parties themselves return to the negotiating
table for serious discussions. We both feel deeply that there is an historic opportunity to achieve
real progress in the Arab-Israeli peace process


in 1993. This opportunity must not be missed.
And all parties must live up to their responsibilities for making peace.
We discussed the need to ensure stability in
the Gulf. We're determined that the hard-won
achievements of Desert Storm will be protected
and that Iraq will comply fully with all relevant
U.N. Security Council resolutions. We're also
determined to counter Iran's involvement in terrorism and its active opposition to the Middle
East peace process.
Both our nations have suffered from the tragic
consequences of terrorism. Both are absolutely
determined to oppose the cowardly cruelty of
terrorists wherever we can. We reviewed the
common danger presented by religious extremism which promotes an intolerant agenda
through violent means. We discussed ways of
strengthening our cooperation in countering this
and other forms of terrorism. We know that
all Americans, including Americans of all races
and all faiths, join us in strongly condemning
such terrorism.
Mr. President, I know that you have undertaken the difficult task of reforming and restructuring your nation's economy to provide for the
needs of tomorrow. We have a similar challenge
here in the United States. We appreciate the
gains that have been made in Egypt, as well
as the bridges that remain to be crossed. We
are impressed by your courage and your efforts.
We will continue to work together to stimulate trade, investment, and cooperation. Our
economic assistance will continue to support
Egypt's economic reform program, including privatization and Egypt's cooperation with international financial institutions.
We are fast approaching a new century. This
is perhaps less of a milestone for Egypt, which


406




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Apr. 6


has, after all, 7,000 years of recorded history,
than it is for our relatively young country. I
told the President on the way up that every
President of the United States since 1800 had
lived in the White House, and he looked at
me as if it were a drop in the bucket of time.
[Laughter]
But even taking the longest view, this is a
critical period for the Middle East, the crucible
of much of our common spiritual heritage. For
the Middle East, the year 1993 can determine
whether the new century is consumed by old
enmities or used to unlock the human and material potential of the people. Our historic mission
is to make this a year of peace. And I am
delighted to have President Mubarak as a partner in pursuing this mission.
The microphone is yours.
President Mubarak. Thank you, Mr. President.
I was very pleased to meet with President
Clinton today. Our meeting was very positive
and productive. In a spirit of friendship and
mutual confidence, we explored the problems
and opportunities our two nations are facing.
I emphasized to the President that it is of utmost importance to our region to reach a just
and comprehensive settlement between Israel
and all her Arab neighbors, including the Palestinian people.
Such a settlement should be based on Security Council Resolution 242 and 338 and the
principle of land for peace and realizing the
national rights of the Palestinians. We believe
that Egypt and the United States have a crucial
role to play in order to allow the peace negotiations to reach a successful conclusion. Together
we can make the ends meet and bridge the
existing gaps.
Equally important is the task of removing the
remaining obstacles, especially that of the deportees. I was pleased to hear from President
Clinton that significant progress has been on
this issue and that he recognizes the importance
of the Middle East peace talks. He is committed
to use the influence of the United States to
achieve meaningful progress in these talks when
they are resumed on April 20th. We are confident that the negotiations will proceed smoothly and successfully.
Beyond the peace process, we discussed a
wide range of regional issues of common concern to our two countries. We stressed our concern for the stability of the Gulf region and
the need for full compliance with the relevant


Security Council resolutions. No country of that
region should doubt our firm commitment to
help preserve the security, stability, and territorial integrity of all friendly states. Similarly,
we are doing all what we can to stop the spread
of weapons of mass destruction in the Middle
East. As you are certainly aware, Egypt has submitted a plan for making the area free of all
weapons of mass destruction. We shall pursue
this goal with vigor and determination.
On the global front, I offered to work closely
with the President for the purpose of making
the world more humane and equitable, a world
where opportunity and hope exist for all and
where people learn to accept divergences and
employ diversity for the benefit of mankind.
I am making this appeal because I am
alarmed by the refusal of some elements in the
different societies to accept the diversity and
the coexistence. This has resulted in unprecedented atrocities and suffering in Bosnia and
Herzegovina. The world cannot tolerate the savage practices which are committed under the
ugly slogan of ethnic cleansing and purification.
It is against all human values to see such claims
emerge at the threshold of the 21st century.
Unfortunately, violence is increasingly being
used by certain misguided elements in many
parts of the world, including the Middle East.
Acute social and economic problems are being
exploited in order to breed violence and anarchy. At the same time, foreign countries are
interfering in the domestic affairs of other nations under false pretexts. All civilized nations
are called upon to fight the spirit of violence
and terrorism everywhere, for this is a threat
to the existence and future of humanity. No
country is immune or distant from that danger.
In Egypt, we are coping with the phenomena
through a comprehensive program which deals
with the roots and the causes of the problem.
We have embarked on an ambitious economic
reform program. Parallel with this, we are enforcing our democratic system, solidifying the
protection of the human rights. Our goal is to
improve the quality of life for every Egyptian
with equal determination. We are confronting
foreign plots and attempted intervention.
Having said this, I would like to assure you
all that Egypt is not in danger. The image which
has been projected by the media lately is rather
exaggerated. As well as all know, violence makes
instant news, but the real story is our confidence, our unity, and our growing success in


407




Apr. 6 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


facing this problem. The Egyptian people will
not accept any challenge to their tradition of
friendship with other nations and hospitality to
our visitors. We will remain true to our culture
of resolving problems peacefully and defeating
the forces of violence and aggression. Let the
whole world know that Egypt is as strong as
ever and that its leadership is firm and confident.
Mr. President, as I told you, Egypt is a country which values its excellent relations with the
United States. Let me take this opportunity to
express our deep appreciation for the support
and assistance we are receiving from the United
States. This aid is crucial to the success of our
reform program.
We would like to assure a friendly welcome
to all Americans who visit us. We encourage
the American business community to invest in
our economy. The climate for investment has
become very favorable following the steps we
took in the past few years on the road to economic reform. Our budget deficit has been reduced from 18 percent of the GDP in 1990
to 3.5 percent this year. The foreign exchange
market has been deregulated, and our foreign
currency reserves have reached record levels.
Trade is being liberalized, and the balance of
payment is showing steady improvement. After
registering a deficit of $2.6 billion in 1990, it
now shows a surplus of about $3 billion.
President Clinton, our discussion today affirmed a broad identity of interest over a wide
range of issues. We have developed a full agenda of cooperation for the future. I want to thank
you for your understanding and your enthusiastic
response. I fully appreciate your warm welcome
and extend to the American people my best
wishes for success and fulfillment. I look forward to working closely with you during the
months ahead for our common goals. And I
extend to you an invitation to visit Egypt at
your earliest convenience.
Thank you.
President Clinton. Helen [Helen Thomas,
United Press International]?
Middle East Peace Process
Q. Mr. President, in view of the rising violence in the Middle East and elsewhere, what
is the cause of your optimism? And this question's for both of you: What can you both do
to promote peace this year, in the future?
President Clinton. The cause of my optimism,


in terms of peace in the Middle East, is the
extraordinary efforts that Prime Minister Rabin
is making and my belief that the peace talks
will reconvene in April, as well as some encouraging comments that have been made by Mr.
Assad, the leader of Syria, recently in Egypt
and publicly. He said he wanted a full peace,
peace in all of its aspects, I think on Egyptian
television. I think there is reason to believe that
we can make real headway.
President Mubarak might want to answer the
question.
President Mubarak. Really, I could tell you
very frankly, I have met so many leaders in
the area, not only the President of Syria, the
Palestinians and the other Arab leaders. All of
them want to reach peace as quickly as possible.
The Syrian leader, he said it publicly and clearly,
"I'm very keen on peace." Peace will help every
leader to raise the standard of the living of
the people in the area. The Palestinians also
are fed up from the present situation, being
denied from everything. So I think this is very
important, and I have great hopes that the negotiations will start on the 20th of April. And I
may say much more, I hope and we are going
to work closely on that to get an end to the
problem by the end of this year, if it is possible.
Terrorism
Q. [Inaudible]-what's new happening in
Egypt is Muslim and Muslim which is not really
Islam. What is your policy in confronting this
exported terrorism to Egypt and get Egypt back
where it was and where it is: love, peace, happiness, pleasure with Egypt?
President Mubarak. Look, the majority of the
Egyptian people are supporting me and any
measures I am taking to put an end to this
kind of terrorism. Copts, Muslims, any kind of
religion in Egypt, they are all Egyptians. We
expect that this small minority was trying to
make use of the economic problems. You know
we are going through economic reform in our
country; the reform has its side-effects. It makes
a burden on some groups of the people. Some
foreign forces, like the Iranians, let me mention
the name, making use of this to try to destabilize
the country. But be sure we are very firm with
that by law, and we are not going to violate
the law. And the Copts and the Muslims are
very good friends. And I could tell you, the
best friends I had all my life were all Copts.


408




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Apr. 6


Stimulus Package
Q. Mr. President, on another subject, the Republicans have been delaying action on your $1
billion jobs stimulus bill, and now the Senate
has gone out. Are there areas where you would
be willing to compromise, cut spending in order
to win Republican votes?
President Clinton. Well, I'm going to work
on a proposal that I think will address some
of the legitimate expressed objections. And we
will see when Congress comes back whether
the Republicans are committed to putting the
American people back to work or just playing
politics.
You know, we have a system in this country
where people, all of whom have jobs-a minority of the Senators, who all have jobs-can literally thwart majority rule; where a rule designed to guarantee that all possible amendments can be offered can be used to stop all
decisions. Now, the American people now are
learning that again, that-and if they want to
stop the Government, they can do it.
But I don't think that it's going to be very
defensible when they come back to say, "The
economy is fine in America. There are enough
jobs. We don't have to do this." And I'll give
them a chance to show their real motives, and
I trust that they'll do the right thing.
Andrea [Andrea Mitchell, NBC News]?
Palestinians
Q. Mr. President, President Mubarak has
been quoted as saying he wants you to press
Mr. Rabin on the issues of the deportees. When
Mr. Rabin was here, you said that you didn't
raise that issue with him. Are you now prepared
toPresident Clinton. We had discussed that in
great detail before he came here; that's what
I said.
Q. Are you now prepared to take more steps
to press Mr. Rabin? And Mr. Mubarak, I'd like
to know whether you feel that the President
is doing enough to resolve that issue.
President Clinton. I believe that Israel has
been quite forthcoming in trying to give the
reassurance that the Palestinians need to come
to the talks. President Mubarak is going to have
further discussions, I think, with all the parties
and certainly with Israel about it. We will see
what will be done. But President Rabin has
taken a very forthright and open stand in trying
to reach out to the Palestinians and to the other


parties, and I believe that it's enough to get
people back to the table. I hope it is.
President Mubarak. Really I didn't use the
word "press" on Mr. Rabin. We have good contacts with Mr. Rabin. I'm used to exchange
views with him, and where it was convenient
to help the peace process to start and the negotiations to continue, I am doing it. I sent him
a message when I was in London before I come
here and am intending to meet with him. And
I have discussed all these points with the President, and I am going to continue that with Mr.
Rabin whenever I go back.
Q. Is there anything more that the United
States should be doing regarding Israel?
President Mubarak. I think that the United
States is a full partner and she's doing its maximum in that sense. She has good dialog with
Prime Minister Rabin, and he was here. And
I'm going to continue with Mr. Rabin so as
to persuade the Palestinians to start negotiations
on the fixed date.
President Clinton. There is someone from the
Egyptian pressQ. I would like to address to President Clinton, please, the human rights President: How
far are you ready to go to help the human
rights of the Palestinians in the occupied territories? Would you like to comment on the ideas
expressed by President Mubarak to remove the
obstacles so that they can come to the table?
President Clinton. Well, the human rights issues obviously will be discussed as a part of
the peace process. They are very important to
me, and I think they will be at the forefront
of the process. And President Mubarak and I
have discussed that, and I think that there won't
be peace in the Middle East unless those issues
are addressed.
Tom [Tom Friedman, New York Times]?
Palestine Liberation Organization
Q. When the United States broke off the dialog with the PLO 2 years ago, it did so leaving
three conditions behind that if the PLO met,
the dialog would be resumed: that they forswear
terrorism, expel those involved, and condemn
the act involved. Does your administration stand
by those conditions? That is, if the PLO now
fulfills those conditions, would you be willing
to resume the U.S.-PLO dialog? And to President Mubarak: Do you think the resumption
of the U.S.-PLO dialog would be helpful to the
peace process at this time?


409




Apr. 6 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


President Clinton. Let me say this: There has
been no change in the policy of the United
States, but the focus of my efforts has been
toward getting the peace process started again.
I still believe that that is the best way to proceed.
President Mubarak. The PLO we consider in
the Arab world is the representative of the Palestinians. We have very good contacts with
them, and we convey whatever we needed to
President Clinton and even to the Israelis. I
think at this present time we are going to concentrate on the negotiations to start. And you
know, the PLO is everywhere. So many people
of the delegation are from the PLO. So I don't
think that there is any problem at the time
being for that.
Serbia
Q. [Inaudible]-the situation in Bosnia. I
know that earlier today you dismissed the comments of President Milosevic about your policy
there as a charm offensive. But I wonder, sir,
if you don't think, nonetheless, that he wouldn't
have said such things if he was finding the actions you've taken so far very bothersome and
perhaps whether you think now that they would
ever be sufficient to deter?
President Clinton. I don't know. I've done
everything that I know to do, consistent with
the possibilities we have for further action in
the United Nations with our European allies
and the members of the Security Council. As
you know, I think the sanctions should be
strengthened if the Bosnians don't sign the
Vance-Owen agreement. We obviously have
made life more difficult for the people in Serbia,
and I think there are other things that we can
do. I wouldn't rule out or in anything. But it's
plain that what Milosevic was trying to do was
to essentially head off further efforts to toughen
the sanctions or to take further actions. That
will not be successful.
Q. [Inaudible]-that he may not feel that,
not ruling out anything, that he may indeed
feel that the use, for example, of American military force has in effect been ruled out?
President Clinton. It's never been ruled in.
The United States is not capable of solving that
problem alone. I don't think anyone expects us
to do that. We have been, in many cases, more
aggressive in what we were willing to do than
the European neighbors of the former Yugoslavia. I still believe there is some chance that


we can make this peace process work, and I
still think there are lots of other things we can
do to make life more uncomfortable for the
Serbs. And I wouldn't rule those out.
Libya
Q. This is a question to President Clinton,
please. Owing to the new -
President Clinton. Oh, I recognized you hoping you would ask President Mubarak a question. [Laughter]
Q. Egyptians want to ask youPresident Clinton. Please, go ahead.
Q. Owing to the new liberal view that you
represent now in being the President of the
United States, to what limits have you arrived
to an agreement with Mr. Mubarak, President
Mubarak, about the cries of Libya with the
West?
President Clinton. The question was about our
policies with regard to Libya.
Well, as you know, we have one huge barrier
that overrides everything else right now, and
that is the determination of the United States
to see that the people who have been charged
with the Pan Am 103 disaster are released from
Libya and subject to a legitimate trial. And that
has to be resolved in a way that is legal and
appropriate before any other issues with regard
to Libya can be raised.
The President and I discussed this today. I
think that it is inevitable that we will press for
tougher sanctions if the Government of Libya
does not release the people that have been
charged. There's a lot of evidence against them.
They should go on trial. They should be punished if they're found guilty. It should be a
real and legitimate trial. It is an enormous issue
in the United States, and nothing else really
can be resolved with regard to Libya until that
issue is resolved.
World Trade Center Bombing
Q. Could the United States have made better
use of the information which was given to us
by Egypt before the bombing of the World
Trade Center? President Mubarak, why do you
believe, as you said in an interview, that the
bombing might have been prevented if the U.S.
had used the information differently?
President Clinton. The short answer to your
question is I don't know yet. I have ordered
a complete review of what the United States
was told last year and when we were told it.


410






Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Apr. 6


I think President Mubarak would support my
contention that we have tried to step up our
cooperation with the Egyptians in combating
international terrorism since I've been President.
In February we sent American officials to Egypt,
and they stayed there about a week working
on cooperative exchanges and information. And
we talked today about what we could do to
do more. Whether there was something given
to us that we could have acted on that might
have changed the shape of future events, I cannot answer that yet. But since the statements
that President Mubarak has made, I have ordered a review of what we knew, when we knew
it, what was done. And I don't know yet what
the answer to that is.
I think the important thing is we do know
that there was nothing specific related to the
World Trade Center bombing that was given
to the United States. We know we have stepped
up cooperation, and we know we intend to do
more in the future. And the United States has
to review a lot of its policies in view of what
happened at the World Trade Center to try
to make sure we are doing everything we can
to minimize the impact of terrorism in this
country.
President Mubarak. I would like, if the President would permit me, we had no definite information about what happened in the World
Trade Center. We were making good cooperation with the United States in the direction of
fighting terrorism. But nobody knows, or knew
beforehand that something was going to happen
to the World Trade Center.
We are exchanging information about any
kind of terrorism which takes place here or
there. But different information, of course, we
haven't. Otherwise, we would have told very
clearly to the Americans, there is something
going to happen in this or that place.
Iran
Q. Mr. President, it was mentioned the question of the threat of regional security in the
Gulf. Can you be more specific what these
threats are at present, and are you putting the
threats from Iran and Iraq on an equal footing?
President Mubarak. It's for me?
President Clinton. Both.
President Mubarak. Look, Iraq now is in a
position not to have the ability to threaten any
of the-[inaudible-that Kuwait is ours, but
there are so many measures being taken. But


Iran, Iran now, because it's the only country
on the theater-you know the Iranians and Kuwaitis were competing each other. Nowadays,
the Iranians are stronger. They are trying to
find a way to destabilize the security in some
countries, mainly Egypt. And we are working
hard for that. And this was the main cause of
making some explosions, some instance in our
country. I think Iran now is trying to create
problems. And we are very firm with them. We
are capable to do so many things, but we are
not a country to interfere in any internal affair
of any other.
Q. You mentioned that you and President
Mubarak were agreed on the need to counter
Iran's support for terrorism and its opposition
to the Middle East peace process. What specific
steps are you considering and have you discussed with President Mubarak?
President Clinton. I don't think it would be
appropriate for us to discuss that at this time.
Serbia
Q. I couldn't help but notice in your answer
to Brit's [Brit Hume, ABC News] question that
you sounded frustrated about the situation in
Bosnia and that if there is no change in the
position of European governments, that if they
can withstand sanctions, the Serbians will essentially be able to get what they want.
President Clinton. That is what I am concerned about. You got it. That's about as good
a statement as I could have made myself.
[Laughter]
Q. Are you putting, then, the onus on the
European governments to take this a further
step, or is there some other step the U.S.
can -
President Clinton. No. No, my point is,
though, that the United States-if you believe
that we should engage these problems in a multilateral way, if you believe, for example, in what
happened in a good way in Operation Desert
Storm, then the reverse has to be true, too.
The United States has got to work through the
United Nations, and all of our views may not
always prevail. Look how long it took us to
just secure the approval of enforcement of the
no-fly zone.
Also it is, frankly, a very difficult situation.
The Europeans remember how many German
troops were once in what became Yugoslavia
and then came apart. It is a difficult situation.
It is the most difficult, the most frustrating


411




Apr. 6 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


problem in the world today.
The only point I was trying to make is I
have proceeded all along on the assumption that
whatever we did and whatever we could do,
we would and should act through the United
Nations in a multilateral way. I have done my
best to continue to stiffen the sanctions, to continue to push for more action, to push for the
enforcement of the no-fly zone, to push all the
countries involved to do what we could to try
to bring this to a successful conclusion so that
the principle of ethnic cleansing is not rewarded
in Bosnia and, therefore, encouraged in other
countries.
I have not thought that the United States
should or could successfully take unilateral ac

tion. And I know that a lot of things that we
could do to inflict some pain might also entail
a great deal of cost and might not change the
ultimate outcome of how the Bosnian people
have to live.
So it is a very frustrating and difficult circumstance. And I can't really add to the way
you captured the question; you said it very well.
Thank you.
President Mubarak. Thank you.
NOTE: The President's 10th news conference
began at 11:35 a.m. in the Briefing Room at the
White House. In the news conference, he referred
to Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin of Israel.


Nomination for Posts at the Energy and Interior Departments and the
Office of Personnel Management
April 6, 1993


The President today named three deputies to
the Departments of Energy and the Interior
and the Office of Personnel Management. The
President announced his intention to nominate
William H. White as Deputy Secretary at the
Department of Energy and Lorraine A. Green
as Deputy Director of the Office of Personnel
Management. In addition, the President approved Allen P. Stayman as Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Territorial and International Affairs


at the Department of the Interior.
"The field experience, technical know-how,
and commitment to excellence these three individuals have demonstrated in the past will serve
them well as they join our teams already in
place at Energy, OPM, and Interior," the President said. "I have full confidence they will work
hard to reinvent the way Government works."
NOTE: Biographies of the nominees were made
available by the Office of the Press Secretary.


Remarks on Signing Enabling Legislation for the National Commission to
Ensure a Strong Competitive Airline Industry and an Exchange With
Reporters
April 7, 1993


The President. Good morning, everybody. As
you know, the bill I have just signed is the
aviation commission legislation. It enables us to
start planning the revitalization of one of our
country's most important industries, one of our
most important exporters, one of our most important employers: the aircraft manufacturers
and carriers that have been the pride of the


United States and the world's leaders since the
beginning of aviation.
But we're also here because our National
Government has failed to create the economic
climate necessary for this leading edge industry
to thrive at home and in an increasingly competitive global economy. The condition of the
domestic aviation industry has been spiraling


412




-


Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Apr. 7


downward for some time. Unemployment in the
industry has reached record levels over the past
few years. Recent layoffs have been severe. New
orders for aircraft have shrunk, along with the
demand for airline service, leading to unemployment in the aircraft manufacturing industry as
well.
When I visited with managers and employees
at the Boeing Corporation in Everett, Washington, they described for me in very personal
terms the devastating impact of these developments in their lives and the lives of their coworkers. The legislation I sign today, providing
for the creation of a National Commission to
Ensure a Strong Competitive Airline Industry,
commits us, on behalf of the industry and the
workers whose livelihoods depend on its health,
to search for real answers.
Some of the answers may lie in a more aggressive trade policy. Others may come from
keeping the global marketplace freer from unfair
competition. More may stem from the supporting role of aviation in preserving our national
security. In any case, I want to commend the
strong bipartisan effort that was shown in passing this legislation on such a fast track. This
bill creates the Commission that will enable me
and the House and the Senate leadership to
appoint a knowledgeable and diverse group of
people to review these complex issues and make
recommendations back to the President and the
Congress within 90 days of the appointment of
the Commission. This is a fast-track operation.
I've been working closely with both parties
in the House and the Senate, and I anticipate
that the Commission will be appointed very soon
after Congress returns from its recess. As I think
all of you know, the minority leader, Bob
Michel, is in Russia now on a mission. He has
two voting and two ex officio members who
he must appoint. We are, for our part, ready
to go here in the White House, and I think
the Commission will be appointed very soon.
I also want to make it clear that I will detail
whatever staff is necessary from the National
Economic Council, from the Council of Economic Advisers, from Commerce, from the
Trade Representative's Office, wherever we
need it.
The problems facing this industry are quite
complex, and it's important that we build a consensus as quickly as possible. I assure you that
when that is done, I will move rapidly with
Congress to take whatever action is appropriate


based on the recommendations of the Commission.
But ultimately, no industry in our country
flourishes in isolation. The health of each sector
depends at least in some measure on the overall
health of the American economy. And no one
can look at this economy and say that we are
satisfied with things just the way they are. We
are in the midst of the weakest recovery since
World War II. The March unemployment report
failed to show any improvement in the labor
market. Unemployment is stuck at 7 percent
of the labor force. While the economy supposedly has been in recovery for a year now,
manufacturing employment has continued to decline. This recovery is like a fire starving for
oxygen. Jobs, and the incomes, profits, and
consumer spending jobs produce, are the oxygen
this recovery needs.
Investment and deficit reduction are longterm ingredients for making the recovery durable, and we've gone a long way toward doing
that over the long run. Our economic plan addresses these objectives and addresses them very
well. Long-term help is on the way. The Congress has agreed to provide the broad outlines
of our budget package, paving the way for real
deficit reduction and a high-investment, highproductivity, high-wage economy. The plan also
increases investment by the Federal Government in our physical infrastructure and the
human capital of our citizens. This shift in the
spending priorities of the Government will help
make us competitive again in the global economy.
While the budget plan will provide long-term
benefits for the economy, the jobs plan now
is needed to ensure a sustained recovery. As
it is written, the job stimulus package will provide about 500,000 full-time jobs this year and
next year: real jobs, repairing and rebuilding
highways and bridges, creating new mass transit
and clean water projects, rebuilding our communities. Passage of the bill will mean youths in
our cities and rural communities can make their
passage from idleness to a meaningful work experience, boosting their incomes and educational
achievements, learning as they earn. The jobs
plan is carefully targeted and will be followed
by real and enforceable budget cuts, now more
than 200 specific budget cuts contained in the
investment and deficit reduction package Congress has approved.
In my view, the message of the last election


413




Apr. 7 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


was to break the gridlock and grow the economy, because Americans are tired of a system
that doesn't work and a recovery that doesn't
produce new jobs. We know what works. We'll
only be able to reduce the deficit and increase
investment in the long term if we guarantee
the strength of the recovery by building jobs
in the short run. Passing the jobs plan following
the adoption of deficit reduction and increased
investment by Congress is the best way to accomplish those objectives. This will strengthen
not only the aviation industry but every industry
at a time when workers, firms, and average citizens are looking to us here in Washington for
leadership.
I want to commend Secretary Pefia, the
House and Senate leadership, and all the others
who have supported this legislation. I look forward to announcing the Commission membership. I also hope very much that we can break
this deadlock and create some jobs for this economy beginning immediately.
Stimulus Package
Q. Mr. President, the Republicans have legitimate concerns about your stimulus package, and
what would they be?
The President. Well, the only legitimate concerns I cited were the ones that were cited
by the Democrats, too. What they did, and you
can see this in the amendment that the House
decided not to adopt and the amendment Mr.
Brown offered in the Senate, was to take
hypotheticals from what could be funded
through the community development block
grant program and in the Economic Development Administration, and come up in a multibillion dollar jobs package with a couple of hundred million dollars of things that they thought
were wrong. I had assured them that I would
take executive steps to stop that. That is not
what is going on here. The kinds of cuts the
Republican Senators are talking about are cuts
designed to keep people out of the work force.
And so that was a tempest in a teapot. That's
the only point I was making.
And I will say again, a lot of the things that
were cited amaze me. It was the Republicans
and the Democrats at the State and local level
all these years who came out for greater flexibility for the States and the localities. Now the
Republican Senators are saying they don't trust
Republican Governors to spend the money in
a way that will create jobs in their own States.


I find that an amazing argument and a 20-year
departure from their stated position.
Economic Initiatives
Q. Mr. President, you just named an airline
commission. You've asked for a timber report.
You've got the health care commission. You've
got the budget coming out tomorrow. Have you
too much on your plate? Some critics are saying
that you're spreading yourself too thin and missing what happened to Jimmy Carter.
The President. Well, if you look at what we're
doing, though, it all relates to the economy.
It all comes back to the economy. The health
care issue is an issue of personal security to
Americans and American families who've been
badly battered by the economic developments
of the last decade or more. But it also is critical
to the long-term deficit reduction, to balancing
the Federal budget, and to strengthening the
health of the American economy. The timber
issue is not just an environmental issue; it's an
economic issue. We have to resolve the deadlock
out there so people can get on with their lives.
Every other issue you've mentioned is an economic issue.
We may not get 100 percent of everything
we're trying to do in every area. But I do think
the American people will see that the focus of
all of this is to guarantee a healthy economy
and a growing jobs market to try to turn this
around. There are many things which need attention in the economic area, I think we have
to be active in all of them. I don't want to
spread myself personally too thin, but we have,
after all, a large number of people working in
this Government and a lot of work to do. And
I think I have to keep pushing on the economic
front.
Potential Supreme Court Nominee
Q. [Inaudible]-Cuomo decided not-no to
being a justice?
The President. Excuse me?
Q. Has Governor Cuomo decided not to be
a Supreme Court Justice?
Q. And are you disappointed about it?
The President. Well, you know, I think he's
terrific. I think you need to talk to him for
anything on that.
Q. Did he pull out?
The President. I'm not going to discuss the
appointments until I make them. Justice White
was kind enough to give me a considerable


414




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Apr. 7


amount of time. And given the economic issues
before the Congress and the summit I had with
President Yeltsin, I appreciated that because I
couldn't devote immediate time to it. But I don't
think I should comment on any individuals. You
know about my regard for Governor Cuomo.
He would have to say anything that would be
said on this.
Q. But you want someone like Governor
Cuomo, now that he has withdrawn.
The President. I didn't say he had. You'll have
to ask him about that.
Stimulus Package
Q. Mr. President, during your administration
the American people seem to be really engaged.
There were telephone calls flooding Washington
on various issues, yet they seem to be largely
silent on the deadlock over the jobs program.
To what do you attribute the gridlock in that
case?
The President. Well, I think first of all, I
don't think they've tuned out but, to go back
to Andrea's [Andrea Mitchell, NBC News] question, there's a lot going on here. And I think
that one of the things that I hope will happen
during the break here is that we can somehow
bring all these disparate activities back into
sharp focus. I also, to be fair, have not been
out in the country much in the last few weeks
discussing this. I've been here working at the
job. And one of the toughest decisions, when
you talk about spreading myself too thin, one
of the toughest decisions I have to make every
week is to balance between staying here and
meeting with the Congress and doing the job
that I have to do here, and going out into the
country and continuing to engage the people.
I think they know that the broad outlines
of the economic program have passed, and I
think there was an enormous amount of support
for that. I think a lot of people thought that
the whole thing passed when the economic program passed, and I have to just try to bring
this jobs program into sharp focus and explain
to everybody why I think we need to create
some jobs now and bring the unemployment
rate down now.
And as I have pointed out again and again,
this is not a uniquely American problem. Every
major economic power is facing this. The Japanese are about to adopt a much bigger stimulus
package than we have to drive their unemployment rate down and generate domestic eco

nomic development. And I think we ought to
do the same thing. It is going to be critical,
in my view, to try and keep faith with the American people, especially during the upcoming
summer.
Q. How much are you willing to cut on the
stimulus?
The President. All I can tell you is I'm going
to try to get action here. I think it is a shame
to rob anybody of the right to have a job. And
a lot of the objections which have been raised,
I think, are somewhat spurious. I mean, the
attack on building swimming pools, let's just take
that one, for example. You know, if you put
people to work in a city or a suburb or a small
town building a city park which gives people,
kids a chance to have recreational opportunities
in the summertime, and you create jobs doing
it, is that a waste of money? I don't really think
it is. I mean, the Senate's got a swimming pool,
doesn't it? [Laughter] Doesn't it? And, it was
built with taxpayers' money, and somebody
worked; somebody had a job building it. And
so, you knowQ. How much are you going to cut?
The President. No more than I have to, to
get the thing passed. I just-I want some action.
I want those kids in this country to have jobs
this summer. I want them to have the first summer jobs program that includes a strong educational component. I want these places where
they have not seen any jobs in years to have
a chance to have them. And I'm going to create
as many as I can, but I want to get some action.
I want to do something, and I'll do the very
best I can.
Q. Are you going to go to the country?
The President. Excuse me?
Q. Are you going to the country during the
recession on this issue?
The President. I haven't made a decision what
to do yet, about how to do it. I'm going to
reassess all that today. As you pointed out, I've
been dealing with a lot of different issues, and
this morning I've got to try to put it into focus.
Again, let me say, I think some of this is politics.
It's, you know, just pure gridlock politics. Some
of it is the continuing debate over what is the
best economic policy. But in terms of the minor
objections that have been raised to things in
this bill, those can be taken care of rather easily.
The real thing we've got to decide is whether
the United States Government has a responsibility to try to help start the jobs machine again,


415




Apr. 7 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


and I believe we do. There is obviously a difference in the United States and every other
wealthy country in the world between what
looks like an economic recovery and creating
jobs. That is the big idea we've got to come
to grips with. It goes way beyond sort of traditional politics. There is a difference now. This
is a problem that all these countries are having.
I do not want to see the United States go the
way of the European countries that are now
living with 10 percent unemployment. And by
the way, we can't afford to do it, because we
don't provide health care. We don't provide the
supports they do. It's tougher for people in this
country when they're unemployed than it is in
Europe or Japan. So we don't provide that kind
of support services. And the Japanese unemployment rate, I might say, is still about half what
ours is, actually slightly less than half.


We have got to do something to create the
jobs. And I'm just going to do the very best
job I can. And in terms of how to spend my
time and how to do it, I'm going to have to
assess that over the next couple of days.
Thank you.
Q. Speaking of cuts, what kind of razor are
you using?
The President. I got this playing with my
daughter, I'm ashamed to say, rolling around
acting like a child again. I reaffirm that I'm
not a kid anymore.
Thank you.
NOTE: The President spoke at 10:40 a.m. in the
Oval Office at the White House. H.R. 904, approved April 7, was assigned Public Law No. 103 -13. A tape was not available for verification of the
content of these remarks.


Statement on Signing Enabling Legislation for the National Commission to
Ensure a Strong Competitive Airline Industry
April 7, 1993


Today I am signing into law H.R. 904, a bill
providing for appointments to the "National
Commission to Ensure a Strong Competitive
Airline Industry." I am pleased to have the opportunity to join with the Congress so quickly
in the new session in this effort to gain a fuller
understanding of the difficulties facing the Nation's aviation industry-both airlines and aircraft manufacturing.
The recent experience of the aviation industry
has not been good. Unemployment in the airline
industry has reached record levels over the past
few years. The backlog of new orders for aircraft
has shrunk, leading to unemployment in the aircraft manufacturing industry as well. When I
visited the Boeing Corporation in Everett,
Washington, managers and employees alike described the personal impact of these developments.
The issues facing the industry have an international dimension. In recent remarks at the
American University here in Washington, I
stressed that our Nation is ready to compete
in the world economy fairly and squarely. In
our bilateral and multilateral aviation negotiations, my Administration will promote fair com

petition in international trade and airline routes.
I asked Secretary of Transportation Pefia to
join with the Congress to develop a process
for addressing the industry's problems, and I
am pleased by this strong bipartisan result. The
aviation industry is important not only to our
economy, but (as Operation Desert Storm demonstrated just 2 years ago) to our national defense as well. The information and recommendations developed by the Commission
will assist us in building a consensus from the
many competing views on how government and
industry can best work together to address the
aviation industry's current difficulties.
I am pleased that this legislation accelerates
the deadline for the Commission's report. I have
asked Secretary Pefia, working with the rest of
the Cabinet, to do everything possible to get
the Commission up and running quickly. I look
forward to receiving the Commission's report
within 90 days after appointments to the Commission are completed.
I note that the House Subcommittee on Aviation has already begun to assemble a record
of the relevant issues during its hearings in February. With concerted effort by all parties, this


416




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Apr. 9


Commission can provide valuable, timely answers.
WILLIAM J. CLINTON


The White House,
April 7, 1993.
NOTE: H.R. 904, approved April 7, was assigned
Public Law No. 103-13.


Nomination for Ambassadorial Posts
April 7, 1993
The President announced today his nomination of Marshall McCallie to be Ambassador to
Namibia, and his intention to nominate John
Schmidt to the rank of Ambassador during his
tenure of service as the Uruguay Round Coordinator. In that position, Mr. Schmidt will be the
chief U.S. negotiator for the Uruguay round of
the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.
"These are two key appointments," said the


President. "The Uruguay round of the GATT
talks is vital to our hopes for freer and fairer
trade in the world. Likewise, our relationship
with Namibia is key as we seek to promote
democracy in southern Africa. I am very happy
with the choices of John Schmidt and Marshall
McCallie to fill those roles."
NOTE: Biographies of the nominees were made
available by the Office of the Press Secretary.


Nomination for Posts at the Department of the Treasury
April 8, 1993


The President intends to nominate George
Munoz to be Assistant Secretary of the Treasury
for Management and Chief Financial Officer,
the White House announced today. The President also expressed his approval of Secretary
Bentsen's choices for three positions. Joyce Carrier, Joan Logue-Kinder, and Marina Weiss will
serve as Deputy Assistant Secretaries with responsibility for Public Liaison, Public Affairs,


and Health, respectively.
"George Munoz has excelled in a variety of
ways in both the private and public sectors,"
said the President. "I am confident that he and
the rest of Lloyd Bentsen's team at Treasury
will keep that key Department running smoothly."
NOTE: Biographies of the nominees were made
available by the Office of the Press Secretary.


Nomination for an Assistant to the Secretary of Defense
April 9, 1993


The President will nominate Harold Palmer  sector service, Harold Palmer Smith has distinSmith to be Assistant to the Secretary of De-  guished himself with sound scientific advice,"
fense for Atomic Energy. Mr. Smith, a trained  said the President. "I am glad to have him joinnuclear engineer, has advised the Defense De-  ing Secretary Aspin at the Pentagon."
partment in a variety of capacities since the late
1960's.                                      NOTE: A biography of the nominee was made
"Through his long career of public and private  available by the Office of the Press Secretary.


417




Apr. 12 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


Remarks on Preschool Immunization and an Exchange With Reporters
April 12, 1993


The President. This is a proclamation in support of Preschool Immunization Week. I'd like
to read a statement about it, and then I'll be
glad to answer some questions, along with Secretary Shalala who also has a few remarks to
make.
This proclamation in support of Preschool Immunization Week gives us all a chance to promote our best ideals in the Nation and to prove
that we can make a difference in the lives of
our children. In fact, the $300 million in our
stimulus program will help us to immunize one
million children this summer and to show that
this is a campaign of words and deeds.
Studies under all administrations have shown
that vaccines are the most cost-effective way
to prevent human suffering and to reduce the
economic cost that result from vaccine-preventable diseases. But because we've gotten away
from preventive care and because immunizations
have become unaffordable or unavailable, millions of infants and toddlers are at risk of completely preventable diseases like polio, mumps,
and measles; children like Rodney Miller, a 20 -month-old in Miami who had meningitis that
could have been prevented with a vaccine that
costs $21.48, instead had a hospital stay that
cost in excess of $46,000.
Through public investment and leadership we
can do better. It's a miracle of our system and
our ingenuity that we can prevent the worst
infectious diseases of children with vaccines and
save $10 for every $1 invested. But things started to go sour in the eighties. We had the third
worst immunization rate in this hemisphere. Ten
years ago, immunizations cost $23. Now they
cost $200. We're the only industrialized nation
that does not immunize all children, although
we develop and produce a majority of the vaccines. As a result, we've had thousands of new
cases of measles. Immunization rates have not
improved, and in the case of some, diseases
have actually gone down. We have seen and
predict what this will mean in terms of suffering
and human costs.
Our plan will allow us to purchase vaccine
and conduct outreach programs in the appropriate language and at the appropriate neighborhood venues, to reach those who'd been shut


out of this part of our system. It will allow
us to extend clinic hours, expand education efforts, create a national tracking system so that
we know what's happening to our children. It
will give us the resources to help those in the
public health system and in advocacy groups
who are already working heroically to bring this
simple technology to all of our children.
Today we will begin what will become, with
later legislation, a comprehensive program to
support community based immunization projects
and to lower vaccine costs with the goal of having the best, not the worst rate in the hemisphere. There are great coalitions working on
making this effort successful and fun and a
model of what we can do again to make this
Government work.
I just want to say that today we're having
the Easter egg roll on the White House lawn.
You can look out there at those kids. They are
the hostages of the Senate filibuster on the program. They are the hostages of the Senate filibuster on the stimulus program. All this hot
air rhetoric about how this money is being wasted and that money is being wasted. These people, most of them have been here for the last
12 years while we have run immunization into
the ground, while we have developed the third
worst rate in the hemisphere. And they've always got some excuse, some of them, for not
doing anything.
Now, what are we going to do for those children? That ought to be the question of the
week. When I go out there on the lawn, and
I think about those kids picking up Easter eggs,
I want to be able to think about them all being
immunized and all those children coming along
behind them being immunized. There is no excuse for this. And it is time that we broke the
gridlock and stopped making excuses for not
doing anything.
Secretary Shalala.
[At this point, Secretary of Health and Human
Services Donna E. Shalala spoke on the preschool immunization program.]
The President. Thank you.
Stimulus Package
Q. Mr. President, in order to save the $300


418




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 I Apr. 12


million immunization program, are you prepared
to compromise with the Republicans in the Senate to scale back the stimulus package to something a lot less than you had originally hoped
for?
The President. Well, I think, I'd like to know
how many more Americans they want to keep
out of work. I mean, what is their position?
That's basically what it amounts to. I mean, all
this business about there being the potential
for abuse in the community development block
grant program, that is a smoke screen, and this
is politics. So they're going to have to decide.
I want to put as many people to work as I
can. They're going to have to decide how many
people they're determined to keep out of work.
And I'll do everything I can to pass the best
bill I can.
But let's not talk about compromise. Let's
strip all this rhetoric away. This is about whether
you want to reduce the unemployment rate in
America by another half a percentage point for
a very modest amount. And they don't. For
whatever reason, they don't. They want more
people to stay out of work. So they just have
to decide, I guess, how many people we can
put to work and what we can do. And I'm
going to do the best I can to get the best
program I can. I'll be discussing it this week.
Whenever we use the word compromise, let's
talk about what's really at stake. The Republicans had 12 years in which unemployment
went down only when they were exploding the
deficit and increasing the defense budget. Now
we're reducing the defense budget. What is it
that we propose to replace it with? We must
have some investment. We must have some jobs.
We must have primarily the overall program
that we've already passed. But I think we need
to strike a match to the job engine in America,


and that's what I'm trying to do. And I'll do
the best I can. I'm going to create as many
jobs as I can.
Q. Well, Mr. President, what are you prepared to do to make sure that your program
gets through Congress?
The President. We're working-look, we've
got a majority in both Houses. The American
people, I think, are astonished to find out that
41 Senators, 41 percent of the Senate can shut
the whole place down. And they've just got to
decide, as I said, how many people they want
to keep out of work and how many people we
want to put to work. And I think we can work
something out. I'm hopeful that we can. I know
that there are people in that Republican Senate
bloc that want to vote for a good stimulus program. I know they do. I hope they'll be released
to do it.
Bosnia
Q. Mr. President, have you rejected the recommendation of your commission that force be
used in Bosnia?
The President. I saw that story. That commission has not made a report to me yet. We didn't
ask anybody not to talk to the Congress. We
just asked that policy recommendations not be
made to the Congress before a commission that
came out of the executive branch made final
recommendations to me. We have not received
a final report from them.
NOTE: The President spoke at 10:07 a.m. in the
Oval Office at the White House. The National
Preschool Immunization Week proclamation of
April 9 is listed in Appendix D at the end of this
volume. A tape was not available for verification
of the content of these remarks.


Remarks at the White House Easter Egg Roll
April 12, 1993
Good morning, everybody. I want to welcome  especially for me and for Hillary.
all of you here to the White House for the     And I want now to introduce the First Lady,
Easter egg roll and the Easter egg hunt. I want  who is the hostess for this event, to say a few
to say a special word of thanks to the sponsors  more words about it. But let me again say how
who made this possible and say how wonderful  very, very grateful we are to see all of you
it is for all of us here to see the children,  here. This is a children's day for America at


419




Apr. 12 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


the White House, and I'm glad you're here to
make it so special. Please welcome the First
Lady.


NOTE: The President spoke at 10:48 a.m. on the
South Lawn at the White House. Following his
remarks, Hillary Clinton welcomed the participants to the annual White House Easter egg roll.
A tape was not available for verification of the
content of these remarks.


Remarks at the Technology Reinvestment Project Conference
April 12, 1993


I want to welcome you to the first of five
White House briefings on the Technology Reinvestment Project, a key part of my defense reinvestment and conversion initiative. I'd like to
thank the organizations that are hosting this
event, the Northeast Midwest Institute and the
New York Academy of Sciences, as well as the
10 States that are participating. You're in good
hands today with Energy Secretary Hazel
O'Leary and our science adviser, Jack Gibbons.
They're here to kick off the event. A superb
team lead by Gary Denman, the Director of
the Advanced Research Projects Agency, or
ARPA, and Fred Bernthal, Acting Director of
the National Science Foundation, will fully brief
you on the Technology Reinvestment Project
and answer all your questions.
With the collapse of the former Soviet Union
and the end of the cold war, we've been undertaking substantial cuts in defense expenditures,
and they will continue while still maintaining
a flexible and effective military force. Now we
can turn our attention to other national needs.
But the adjustment to lower defense spending
is still painful for many communities and workers and firms. An estimated 60 percent of the
total loss in defense-related jobs between 1991
and 1997 will occur in only 10 States. Those
of you here today represent communities and
companies that face the challenges of moving
to a civilian economy.
Defense conversion is one of my highest priorities. It's one of the reasons I ran for President
in 1992. We simply must act to ease the pain
of defense downsizing, while capturing the great
potential that defense workers and firms offer
to meet pressing national economic needs. And
we have to do it quickly.
Last month, I announced a $20 billion 5 -year initiative to reinvest in workers, commu

nities, and companies harmed by cuts in military
spending. The plan provides immediate help for
hard-hit defense workers and communities, as
well as long-term investment in our Nation's
industrial technology infrastructure. The reinvestment and conversion initiative will rededicate $375 million this year alone to helping defense workers and military personnel hurt by
cuts. They'll receive job training, employment
services, and transition assistance to help them
put their skills to work in a new setting.
We're also targeting assistance to communities
that are hard hit by defense drawdown. Through
programs in the Department of Commerce and
the Department of Defense that provide grants
and revolving loans, we're helping these communities identify new sources of economic strength
that will create new jobs. These defense workers
and the communities will succeed in adapting
only if we have an expanding industrial base.
The Technology Reinvestment Project, a key
component of my conversion plan, will play a
vital role in helping defense companies adjust
and compete.
I've given this project another name, Operation Restore Jobs, to signify its ultimate mission, namely, to expand high quality employment
opportunities and to enhance demonstrably our
Nation's competitiveness. This project has generated enormous interest in the 4 weeks since
I announced it at a Westinghouse plant outside
Baltimore. More than 8,000 people have called
our 1-800-DUAL-USE hotline. Many of you
who have placed those calls are here today. Others plan to attend one of the briefings to be
held later this week in Detroit, Orlando, Dallas,
and Los Angeles.
As this enthusiastic response demonstrates,
the Technology Reinvestment Project marks a
new way of doing business. First, it begins a


420




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Apr. 12


new partnership between Government and industry aimed at making American companies
more competitive. Industry must take the lead
and share the cost. But, in return, the Federal
Government will directly support commercial
technology through industry consortia, regional
technology alliances, and other collaborative activities. This approach rejects the reliance on
defense spinoffs that has been the core of the
Federal Government's technology strategy for
more than 40 years. It recognizes that in the
years ahead a growing number of defense needs
can be met most efficiently by commercial products and commercial technology.
Second, the Technology Reinvestment Project
marks a new partnership between the Federal
and State governments. The States have pioneered programs to apply technology to industrial needs, and these programs often provide
the most effective way to help smaller defense
firms adjust and compete in commercial markets. By supporting industry-led consortia
through this project, we'll nurture technologies
with the potential to become commercial products and processes within 5 years. By funding
regional technology alliances, we'll encourage
companies in defense-dependent regions to
share information and technology in order to
develop new products and new markets. By supporting innovative manufacturing extension programs run by States and universities, we'll help
small defense firms make the transition to commercial production.
The Technology Reinvestment Project will
provide matching funds for efforts such as New
York's defense diversification program, which
has worked closely with more than 100 small
and medium-size defense firms just in the last
2 years. For example, the EDO Corporation,
which some of you visited this morning in
Queens, makes antisubmarine warfare and aircraft armament. With help from the State's diversification program, this company is moving
into the market for natural gas fueling stations.
New York is also working with defense-dependent regions, particularly Long Island and the


southern tier, to develop regional strategies for
diversification and economic growth.
Our past experience with defense conversion
yields two lessons. The first is that the process
of defense conversion can be improved by government policies designed to help companies
and workers make the transition to new forms
of production. The Technology Reinvestment
Project, Operation Restore Jobs, is a model of
how that can work. Lesson two is that conversion proceeds more smoothly if the domestic
economy is growing rapidly. That's why it's so
important for Congress to enact my whole economic program, including the stimulus package,
which will help put Americans back to work
and provide the kind of short-term boost that
New York and New England so desperately
need.
If you want this program to go forward, if
you believe in the need for conversion, I need
your help. While Congress has passed the broad
outlines of our economic program, it will be
considering the specifics in the next couple of
weeks. And if you've been following the filibuster in the Senate, you know that just a few
people can stop action on important economic
legislation by talking and talking and talking.
You've got to remind them that they can save
jobs, indeed, create new jobs if they'll just save
their breath, stop playing politics, and start responding to the needs of the American people
for a change.
My mission is simple and straightforward. I
want to create a healthy economic climate for
all Americans and all businesses in all regions.
I want to create a program of economic conversion for your businesses. I believe in jobs. I
believe in the private sector, and I believe in
you.
Thank you for attending this conference. And
thank you for your work in creating profits,
products, and opportunities for our economy
and our people.
NOTE: The President spoke at 1:20 p.m. in Room
459 of the Old Executive Office Building.


421




Apr. 12 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


Nomination for Administrator of the Federal Railroad Administration
April 12, 1993


The President will nominate Jolene Molitoris
to be the Administrator of the Federal Railroad
Administration, Department of Transportation,
the White House announced today. Ms.
Molitoris served for more than a decade with
the Ohio Department of Transportation and
Ohio Rail Transportation Authority.
"One of the most important things we can
Nomination for Commissioners of the
Commission
April 12, 1993
The President announced his intention today
to nominate four experts on energy regulation,
Bill Massey, Donald Santa, James Hoecker, and
Vicky Bailey, to be Commissioners of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. He also announced his intention to designate Elizabeth
Anne "Betsy" Moler as the Commission's Chair,
a position she has held on an interim basis since
February.


do to improve our overall transportation system
and to create high-wage manufacturing jobs is
to improve and expand our Nation's rail system,"
said the President. "Jolene Molitoris is a seasoned executive with direct experience in doing
the kinds of things we need to be doing."
NOTE: A biography of the nominee was made
available by the Office of the Press Secretary.
Federal Energy Regulatory
"I have called for a sensible, comprehensive
energy policy that serves our future energy
needs, protects our precious environment, and
helps to build a growing economy," said the
President. "This experienced and talented group
of Commissioners will help to meet those goals."
NOTE: Biographies of the nominees were made
available by the Office of the Press Secretary.


Remarks on the Observance of the 250th Anniversary of the Birth of
Thomas Jefferson
April 13, 1993


Thank you very much, Colonel McCarty, General Streeter, my fellow Americans. I want to
begin by offering my compliments to the United
States Marine Band and the Virginia Glee Club,
who have entertained us so well today. I think
we should give them another hand. [Applause]
Today we observe the birthday of perhaps
the most brilliant of our Founding Fathers in
a setting Thomas Jefferson would have very
much approved: one that joins the beauty of
human architecture with the rapturous side of
nature, with the cherry blossoms bursting all
around us in a wreath.
Mr. Jefferson used to say with some pride


that the Sun never found him in bed, that he
always rose early, and he was very proud of
the fact that well into his seventies, he could
ride a horse several miles a day without tiring.
Well, in honor of his birthday, I rose early this
morning and finding no horses around the
White House, I ran over here and jogged
around this magnificent Tidal Basin, seeing
many of my fellow citizens who were here even
before me, at the dawn, to see this magnificent
sight.
Today we have come to lay our wreaths in
honor of Thomas Jefferson, as his likeness towers behind us. And yet, no amount of bronze


422




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Apr. 13


can capture the measure of the man who helped
to cut a path for our Nation, who personally
forged the principles that continue to guide us
as Americans and as lovers of freedom.
As has already been said, this monument was
dedicated a half a century ago, on the 200th
anniversary of Jefferson's birthday by President
Franklin Roosevelt, a worthy heir to the spirit
of Jefferson. Were Jefferson here today, I think
he would not want very much to talk about
the America of his time; instead, he would be
talking about the America of our time. He
would certainly not be at a loss for ideas about
what we ought to be doing, for he was a man
blessed with an eye for invention, an ear for
music, the hands of a farmer, the mind of a
philosopher, the voice of a statesman, and the
soul of a searcher for truth.
The genius of Thomas Jefferson was his ability
to get the most out of today while never taking
his eye off tomorrow, to think big while enjoying
the little things of daily life. Perhaps most important, he understood that in order for us to
preserve our timeless values, people have to
change. And free people need to devise means
by which they can change profoundly and still
peacefully. If you go back to this monument
after the ceremony, you will see on the wall
in part the following quotation: "Laws and institutions must go hand-in-hand with the progress
of the human mind as that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are
made and new truths discovered, and manners
and opinions change. With the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to
keep pace with the times."
A very modern statement from our third
President. In his own time, the pace of change
was enormous. Just think back, during Jefferson's Presidency the steamboat made its debut,
revolutionizing travel. The importing of slaves
was banned, paving the way toward emancipation and the realignment of society. And he
acquired the Louisiana Purchase for the then
massive sum of $15 million. Turns out it was
an awfully sound investment. It doubled the size
of our Nation, it opened up a new frontier,
and it enabled me to be born in the United
States of America, and many of you as well,
I suspect.
But believe it or not, every step along the
way, Thomas Jefferson was opposed. There were
people who opposed the Louisiana Purchase,
people who opposed his then radical conception


of human liberty, and both the power of individuals and the limitations of the Government. He
fought, and he prevailed.
I wonder what he would say about our time,
in which the pace of change is even greater.
I think he would take great pride in the fact
that we have now found ways to literally double
the volume of knowledge every few years. But
I think he would be terribly disappointed that
our understanding in this country of the science
and mathematics that he loved so much is still
so limited and so inadequate when compared
to that of many other nations.
I think he would be delighted that the principles of freedom for which he stood all his
life finally resulted in the end of the cold war
and the demise of communism. But I think he
would be deeply disappointed that ethnic and
racial and other hatreds had kept this world
such a dangerous and unstable place, in ways
that are blatantly unreasonable, as he defined
reason.
I think he would be proud of the technological and economic advances of this time, of
the increasing interconnection of peoples across
national borders in a global economy. But I
think he would be profoundly disturbed that
even the richest countries are now having enormous difficulty in finding enough jobs for their
people, including his own beloved United States,
and that so much technological advance seems
to bring the destruction of much of the environment, about which he cared so deeply.
I think Jefferson would be impressed at the
enormous advances in health care. He cared
a lot about his health, and he lived to be 83
largely by taking good care of himself. And I
think he would be a little disappointed that
more of us don't take better care of ourselves
and appalled to think that the United States
is the only advanced country where every person
doesn't have access to affordable health care,
something I hope we can change before long.
If you go up there and read what's on those
walls, there is an incredibly moving statement
where Jefferson said, he trembles to think that
God is just when he considers the real meaning
of the institution of slavery. So I think he would
be delighted at the progress we have made in
human rights and living together across racial
lines. Because he had such a passionate belief
in individual liberty, I think he would be delighted by the range of personal choices and
freedom of speech that the American people


423




Apr. 13 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


enjoy today, even to say things that he would
find offensive, for he understood the clear
meaning of the First Amendment.
But I think he would be appalled at the lack
of self-respect and self-control and respect for
others which manifests itself in the kind of
mindless violence to which this city and others
have been subject for the last several years, and
appalled at the millions of young people who
will never know the full measure of their freedom because they have been raised without
order, without love, without family, without even
the basic safety which people need to be able
almost to take for granted in order to be citizens
of a real democracy. In short, I think Thomas
Jefferson would tell us that this is one of those
times when we need to change.
Clearly, the call for change that Jefferson
made, he intended to be echoed generation
after generation after generation. He believed
if we set up the Constitution in the way that
it was set up, that Americans of courage and
good sense would always, always find themselves
in the majority for change when they needed
to be there. He believed in Government constantly being reformed by reason and popular
will.
That is what this administration is trying to
do now. We know that we have an economy
that, even in growth, does not produce new
jobs. We know that we have increased by 4
times the debt of this Nation over the last 12
years, and we don't have much to show for
it. We know that the people have now courageously asked us to take on the problems of
jobs and the deficit, the environment and education and health care, to try to put our people
first again and make Government work for
them.
The American people, deep in their bones,
without even thinking about it, are the agents
of change that Thomas Jefferson sought to write
in perpetuity into our Constitution. For in the
end, Thomas Jefferson understood that no politician, no government, no piece of paper could
do for the American people what they would
have to do for themselves. He understood better
perhaps than any of his colleagues that the people of this country would always have to be
not only the protectors of their own liberty but
the agents of their own transformation and
change. But he also knew that Government must
be willing to supply the tools of that change.


And that, very simply, is our task today. After
all, what is a good education but a tool to a
better life. What is a job but a tool to build
self-sufficiency, self-esteem, and dignity for a
worker and a family.
As I look around this Nation, I know that
Thomas Jefferson would be very proud and
pleased by much of what has happened here.
I suspect it would amuse and surprise him and
make him very proud to think that for most
Americans, on most days, people from 150 and
more racial and ethnic groups live together in
not only peace and law abidingness but also
mutual respect and reinforcing strength. I think
that would make him proud. I think he would
be proud of the generosity of spirit that characterizes our people and manifests itself most
clearly at a time of national crisis and national
tragedy. After all, in Jefferson's time people gave
food and shelter to travelers who came to their
doors at night, even when they were total
strangers. Jefferson himself, at Monticello, often
offered his home over the years to bone-weary
travelers.
Today many of our people would do the same
thing. But together, together, we have not faced
the problems of the bone-weary travelers in our
own land, nor have we faced the problems that
we all share in common. We cannot turn the
problems away. It is time for reasonable change.
It is time for the Americans in our time to
live up to the principles etched in stone in this
magnificent memorial.
Just look at the beauty around us today. Do
you know that in Mr. Jefferson's time almost
all of this was a swamp? People avoided this
place like the plague, because they were afraid
of the plague. But with a plan, with investment,
with effort, with vision, Americans transformed
it. And from this inhospitable terrain rose the
city before us, one of the most magnificent capitals in the history of the world. But the structures around us are simply buildings. They come
to life only when they shake from the will of
the people. That is what Thomas Jefferson
knew.
We are the inheritors of Jefferson's rich legacy. On this the 200th anniversary of his birth,
we can honor him best by remembering our
own role in governing ourselves and our Nation:
to speak, to move, to change, for it is only
in change that we preserve the timeless values
for which Thomas Jefferson gave his life, over


424




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Apr. 13


two centuries ago.
Thank you, and God bless you all.
Remarks at a Town Meeting on Goals
April 13, 1993
The President. Thank you very much, Mr.
Secretary.
I'm glad to be here with my friends Dick
Riley and Bob Reich, also members of my Cabinet, at the headquarters of the Chamber of
Commerce to support the effort that the chamber is making, along with its Center for Work
Force Preparation, to help to examine tonight
the whole critical question of how to move our
young people from school to the workplace.
I want to compliment the chamber on all
their efforts, recognizing that without an educated work force we can't grow this economy
or remain competitive and recognizing that we
all have to work together, business and Government, labor and educators, to make things happen. This satellite town meeting is a good example of that kind of working together. And if
you'll forgive me a little home State pride, I
want to say a special word of thanks to the
Wal-Mart   Corporation,  headquartered  in
Bentonville, Arkansas, for providing several hundred of the sites for this town meeting tonight.
I appreciate that a lot, as well as the sites that
are provided for all the rest of you.
I have tried as hard as I could to move toward
constructive change for this country. Secretary
Riley talked about this being Thomas Jefferson's
250th birthday. If Thomas Jefferson believed in
anything, he believed in these three things: first,
in education; second, in real personal liberty,
freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom
of association, freedom of the press; and third,
in the absolute imperative of changing as times
change.
If you go to the Jefferson Memorial here in
this beautiful city, which is now bedecked with
all of its wonderful cherry blossoms, you will
see Jefferson saying that we have to change with
changing times. For us here in America that
means reducing our deficit and increasing our
investment and putting our people first so that
we can compete in the world. We're here to
talk about that tonight, about what we can do


NOTE: The President spoke at 12:42 p.m. at the
Jefferson Memorial.


to educate and train our people better. Unless
we do that, none of the efforts that all the
rest of us make in Government, even to bring
the budget into balance, even to increase our
investment in other things which will grow jobs,
will last in the long run.
We also have to have people who can carry
their load. And in a world where the average
young person will change jobs seven or eight
times in a lifetime, that begins with the education system and continues into the work force
where education must go on for a lifetime. It's
not just important what you know but what you
can learn.
And if I might, I'd like to close just by emphasizing we're doing our best to try to have
the most innovative partnership between the
Labor Department and the Education Department and the private sector to build a good
school-to-work transition. And we're trying to
get off to a good start this summer with a program that would create more than 700,000 new
summer jobs, including many thousands that
have a strong education component so our
young people can be learning and working at
the same time.
Dick, I think I ought to stop there. That's
a good place we can begin, I think, the discussion.
[At this point, Secretary of Education Richard
W. Riley discussed the Summer Youth Challenge
program and asked the President to explain the
importance of educational enrichment in summer
jobs. ]
The President. I think it's important for two
reasons. First of all, a lot of the young people
we're trying to reach may have had trouble adjusting to school and learning. And while we
want them to have a good experience with a
real job, we also want them to continue to learn
during the summer because we know from a
lot of research that a lot of kids that have trouble learning in school may forget as much as
30 percent of what they learned the previous


425




Apr. 13 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


year over the summertime. And that is a very
unproductive thing for schools, to have to take
up a lot of time teaching what they already
taught before. Secondly, we want to help these
young people progress, not only in terms of
work but in terms of learning. We want to abolish the artificial dividing line between what is
work and what is learning because we think
that the best and most productive workers will
have to be lifetime learners. And we think that
this experience could maybe drive that point
home and prepare these young people to succeed in school or at work or in college as they
go on.
[Secretary Riley and Secretary of Labor Robert
B. Reich discussed the importance of on-thejob experience combined with education. Secretary Riley then asked the President to discuss
his apprenticeship proposal.]
The President. Well, first of all, let's talk about
why it's important. Most new jobs that will be
created in this decade will not require a 4 -year college degree, but most of them will require some learning and skills that go well beyond what most people get in a high school
diploma.
If you look at the last 10 years, the average
salaries of young people that had at least 2 years
of good post-high school education was a good
salary that went up over the decade. The young
people who had less than that tended to have
lower wages that did not go up and, in many
cases, in real terms, fell over the decade because
they weren't productive, they weren't more valuable to their employers.
So we think America has a big economic interest in trying to ensure that all the young
people who get out of high school but don't
go on to college make a transition to work,
which includes 2 years of further training either
in a community college, a vocational setting, or
perhaps on the job. And what I have done in
this budget, as you know, is to give you and
Secretary Reich some funds and some incentives
to try to work in partnership with States and
with the private sector to build these programs
State-by-State in a way that would be customized essentially by the business community,
based on the needs of the economy in any given
area. It could revolutionize long term the quality
of the American work force and the earnings
of American workers.


[Secretary Reich and Secretary Riley discussed
community involvement, academic excellence,
and skills development as necessary components
of school-to-work transition programs. ]
The President. I think-if I might just interject one point based on my personal experience
at home-the business community has a critical
role to play, not simply in saying, "Here are
the job skills that are needed, and here's what
ought to be taught," but also in monitoring that
excellence. If you have the right sort of partnership there, the people who are paying the taxes
and who are going to then be hiring the workers
are not going to permit the second-rate programs to survive if they have any way to shape
and influence them. So I think that's very important.
And when we try to, if you will, fill in the
blanks at the Federal level, trying to set some
standards and provide some funds, one of the
things that we want to be sure and do is to
make sure that the employer has a heavy
amount of influence over the quality of these
programs, because that's really what's going to
determine whether the whole thing is worthwhile.
[Secretary Riley asked the President about longterm school reform proposals.]
The President. Well, as you know, back when
you and I were both Governors, we spent a
lot of time working on our public schools, and
we tried to be very candid with our people
in saying that a lot of these things were going
to take some time to materialize.
I had a hand in writing the national education
goals that the Governors drafted, along with representatives of President Bush's administration
back in 1989. And what we're going to try to
do this year with your leadership is to introduce
legislation in Congress that will actually define
the things that the National Government ought
to do to try to help the local schools and the
children of this country and the adult learners,
too, meet those goals: making sure that by 2000,
people show up for school ready to learn; that
we get a 90 percent on-time high school graduation rate; that children at the 4th, 8th, and 12th
grades are confident in the subjects they're supposed to know; that they are second to none
in math and science; that our schools are safe,
disciplined, and drug-free. And of course, the
fifth goal-I took them out of line to say this


426




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Apr. 13


the last-is that we have a system of lifelong
learning in this country.
And each one of those goals, there's a national
role, a State role, a school role, school district
role, and a private sector role. And what you've
attempted to do in this bill you're going to introduce with me in the next few weeks is to define
what our job is and then to give the rest of
America a way of defining what their job is
and seeing whether we're actually meeting the
standards of quality that we need to meet.
It's very exciting. So far as I know, nothing
quite like it has ever been done in the form
of Federal legislation before. Not mandating and
telling people what they have to do with their
money, but actually setting up a framework for
excellence and partnerships so that we can do
our job. I'm really excited about it.
[Secretary Riley and Secretary Reich discussed
the development of national skills standards.
Mayor Bruce Todd of Austin, TX, then asked
a question via satellite about Federal initiatives
for school-to-work transition programs.]
Secretary Riley. Mr. President.
The President. I think I'll give everybody a
chance to answer the question, Bruce, but let
me first thank you for calling and thank you
for all the great work that you're doing in Austin. I've see some of it, and I've always been
very impressed.
First, with regard to the summer program,
we hope we can structure it in a way that will
enable us to continue the summer program and
that will move a lot of these young people back
into schools under circumstances that might
allow them to do some work in the private sector, too. Secretary Reich is going to try to set
up a system where we create a lot of private
sector jobs to be matched with the public sector
jobs this summer, and we're working on that.
Secondly, in the program that I have presented to the Congress over the next 5 years,
what we are attempting to do is to build in
an amount of investment that's quite substantial
for job training programs, for school-to-work
programs, all of which give heavy, heavy weight
to local community input-just the question you


asked-but do provide some Federal investment
dollars, which we hope you can put with local
dollars to keep people working and being
trained on a year-round basis.
And I will say again, to echo what Secretary
Reich said a moment ago, to try to break down
the barrier between what is seen as work and
what is seen as learning. An awful lot of young
people actually have quite high IQ's, but actually
learn so much better when they're doing than
when they're reading or just listening. So we
hope that the community involvement part of
it will be permanent. And we hope that if the
whole budget passes-and we do have 200
budget cuts, and more than 200, actually, in
the budget and some revenue raisers and some
new money for education and training-that
we'll be able to do just what you seem to want
based on your question.
Bob, do you want to say anything?
[Secretary Reich stressed the need for job creation as a prerequisite for the success of the
program. Secretary Riley stated that the Goals
2000 program will involve individual State action plans. Dr. Harry Heinemann, special assistant to the president of LaGuardia Community
College, Long Island City, NY, then asked a
question via satellite about closer integration of
school curricula with the transition to work.]
The President. I'd just like to say, if I might,
one thing. I want to reemphasize this, and I
don't think I'm being as clear about it as I'd
like, although I think at least one of the people
who will be on the second panel will be able
to say it more explicitly than I. I think this
whole concept of applied academics is very important. And I think that we have to basically
abolish what I consider to be a very artificial
distinction between what is vocational learning
and what is academic learning. I think we should
keep the liberal arts going. I think we should
have a strong component for people who are
in the vocational program.
NOTE: The town meeting began at 8:30 p.m. The
President spoke via satellite from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Building.


427




Apr. 13 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


Letter to Congressional Leaders on Trade With Ecuador
April 13, 1993


Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)
Pursuant to section 203 of the Andean Trade
Preference Act (ATPA) (19 U.S.C. 3202), I wish
to inform you of my intent to designate Ecuador
as a beneficiary of the trade-liberalizing measures provided for in this Act. Designation will
entitle the products of Ecuador, except for products excluded statutorily, to duty-free treatment
for a period ending on December 4, 2001.
Designation is an important step for Ecuador
in its effort to fight against narcotics production
and trafficking. The enhanced access to the U.S.
market provided by the ATPA will encourage
the production of and trade in legitimate products.
My decision to designate Ecuador results
from consultations concluded in January 1993
between my Administration and the Government of Ecuador regarding the designation criteria set forth in section 203 of the ATPA. Ecuador has demonstrated to my satisfaction that
its laws, practices, and policies are in conformity
with the designation criteria of the ATPA. The
Government of Ecuador has communicated on
these matters by letter to the Office of the United States Trade Representative and in so doing
has indicated its desire to be designated as a
beneficiary.
On the basis of the statements and assurances


in Ecuador's letter, and taking into account information developed by the United States Embassy and through other sources, I have concluded that designation is appropriate at this
time.
I am mindful that under section 203(e) of
the ATPA, I retain the authority to suspend,
withdraw, or limit the application of ATPA benefits from any designated country if a beneficiary's laws, policies, or practices are no longer
in conformity with the designation criteria. The
United States will keep abreast of developments
in Ecuador that are pertinent to the designation
criteria.
My Administration looks forward to working
closely with the Government of Ecuador and
with the private sectors of the United States
and Ecuador to ensure that the wide-ranging
opportunities opened by the ATPA are fully utilized.
Sincerely,
BILL CLINTON
NOTE: Identical letters were sent to Thomas S.
Foley, Speaker of the House of Representatives,
and Albert Gore, Jr., President of the Senate. The
related proclamation is listed in Appendix D at
the end of this volume.


Letter to Congressional Leaders Transmitting the Report on the North
Atlantic Treaty
April 13, 1993


Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)
As requested in section 1314 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993
(Public Law 102-484), I am forwarding the "Report on the North Atlantic Treaty of 1949."


Sincerely,
WILLIAM J. CLINTON
NOTE: Identical letters were sent to Thomas S.
Foley, Speaker of the House of Representatives,
and Albert Gore, Jr., President of the Senate.


428




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Apr. 14


Nomination for Posts at the National Endowment for the Humanities
April 13, 1993


The President announced his intention to
nominate Sheldon Hackney to be Chair of the
National Endowment for the Humanities, National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities, today. He will also name Michael Shapiro
to be the Endowment's General Counsel.
"The National Endowment for the Humanities plays a vital role in encouraging and enhancing a better understanding of our country's


rich heritage," said the President. "Doing just
that has been the work of Sheldon Hackney's
life. Likewise, Michael Shapiro has demonstrated true ability in the management of cultural institutions. I am confident that the NEH
will flourish in their hands."
NOTE: Biographies of the nominees were made
available by the Office of the Press Secretary.


Nomination for an Assistant Secretary of Defense
April 13, 1993


The President announced today that he intends to nominate Ashton Carter, the director
of Harvard's Center for Science and International Affairs, to be Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear Security and Counter-Proliferation.
"One of the key national security challenges
of the post-cold-war era is containing the spread


of nuclear arms and other weapons of mass destruction," said the President. "In Ashton Carter
we will have an experienced and expert Assistant
Secretary focusing on the problems and seeking
solutions."
NOTE: A biography of the nominee was made
available by the Office of the Press Secretary.


Letter to Congressional Leaders Reporting on the No-Fly Zone Over
Bosnia
April 13, 1993


Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)
As part of my continuing effort to keep the
Congress fully informed, I am providing this
report, consistent with section 4 of the War
Powers Resolution, to advise you of actions that
I have ordered in support of the United Nations
efforts in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
Beginning with U.N. Security Council Resolution 713 of September 25, 1991, the United
Nations has been actively addressing the crisis
in the former Yugoslavia. The Security Council
acted in Resolution 781 to establish a ban on
all unauthorized military flights over BosniaHerzegovina. There have, however, been blatant
violations of the ban, and villages in Bosnia have
been bombed.
In response to these violations, the Security


Council decided, in Resolution 816 of March
31, 1993, to extend the ban to all unauthorized
flights over Bosnia-Herzegovina and to authorize
Member States, acting nationally or through regional organizations, to take all necessary measures to ensure compliance. NATO's North Atlantic Council (NAC) agreed to provide NATO
air enforcement for the no-fly zone. The U.N.
Secretary General was notified of NATO's decision to proceed with Operation DENY
FLIGHT, and an activation order was delivered
to participating allies.
The United States actively supported these
decisions. At my direction, the Joint Chiefs of
Staff sent an execute order to all U.S. forces
participating in the NATO force, for the conduct
of phased air operations to prevent flights not


429




Apr. 14 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


authorized by the United Nations over BosniaHerzegovina. The U.S. forces initially assigned
to this operation consist of 13 F-15 and 12
F-18A fighter aircraft and supporting tanker aircraft. These aircraft commenced enforcement
operations at 8:00 a.m. e.d.t. on April 12, 1993.
The fighter aircraft are equipped for combat
to accomplish their mission and for self-defense.
NATO has positioned forces and has established combat air patrol (CAP) stations within
the control of Airborne Early Warning (AEW)
aircraft. The U.S. CAP aircraft will normally operate from bases in Italy and from an aircraft
carrier in the Adriatic Sea. Unauthorized aircraft
entering or approaching the no-fly zone will be
identified, interrogated, intercepted, escorted/
monitored, and turned away (in that order). If
these steps do not result in compliance with
the no-fly zone, such aircraft may be engaged
on the basis of proper authorization by NATO
military authorities and in accordance with the
approved rules of engagement, although we do
not expect such action will be necessary. The


Commander of UNPROFOR (the United Nations Protection Force currently operating in
Bosnia-Herzegovina) was consulted to ensure
that his concerns for his force were fully considered before the rules of engagement were approved.
It is not possible to predict at this time how
long such operations will be necessary. I have
directed U.S. armed forces to participate in
these operations pursuant to my constitutional
authority as Commander in Chief. I am grateful
for the continuing support that the Congress
has given to this effort, and I look forward to
continued cooperation as we move forward toward attainment of our goals in this region.
Sincerely,
WILLIAM J. CLINTON
NOTE: Identical letters were sent to Thomas S.
Foley, Speaker of the House of Representatives,
and Robert C. Byrd, President pro tempore of
the Senate. This letter was released by the Office
of the Press Secretary on April 14.


Remarks at the Summer Jobs Conference in Arlington, Virginia
April 14, 1993


Thank you very much. The speech that
Octavius gave says more than anything I will
be able to say today about why it's important
to give all of our young people a chance to
get a work experience and to continue to learn,
to merge the nature of learning and work; why
it's important to honor the efforts of people
like Jerry Levin and Nancye Combs and Pat
Irving and all of those who are here.
I want to thank the Secretaries of Labor and
Education and all the people who work with
them for sponsoring this; my good friend, Governor Wilder, for being here and for speaking;
and all of the business and local community
leaders from the city and county and State level
from around America who are here.
This has been a pretty fun day. I loved hearing the young people sing. It was music to my
ears because it is their future that we are really
struggling about. A year and a half ago I began
the quest to seek the Presidency because I was
concerned about their future, because I believe
that our country, which had always been a bea

con of hope for the young, had too little opportunity, was too divided among ourselves across
lines of income and race and region and other
ways, without a vision to take us into the future.
I entered with the hope that together we
could create more opportunity and insist on
much more responsibility from all of our people.
But in the process we might recreate the best
of America's community, knowing that together
we could always do more than we could individually and that we might secure our future.
All of you here today are committed to that.
The 1,000 jobs that Jerry Levin has committed
Time-Warner to is symbolic of the commitments
made by many of the private sector people who
are here, and those who are around the country.
The work that Nancye Combs does, and the
successes of all the young people like those on
this stage, and especially the eloquent statement
by Octavius Jeffers, all those things show that
together we know what we need to do, and
we're on the right track.
Last July when I was traveling across Ameri

430




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Apr. 14


ca's heartland in my luxurious bus, I visited Seneca High School in Louisville, Kentucky. And
there I met young people and business people
who were participating in the Louisville Education and Employment Partnership. I saw what
Nancye Combs talked about today. I saw how
the young people were making an extra effort
to succeed both in school and at work. I saw,
as I have seen many times in my own State,
the principle illustrated that Octavius talked
about: that for millions of American young people it is really an impediment to both their
learning and their ability to be good workers,
to draw a sharp dividing line between what is
work and what is learning.
In the world in which we are living, the average young person will change the nature of work
seven or eight times in a lifetime. We must
learn to merge the work world and the learning
world much better. And we must determine that
all of our young people see the opportunities
that some of them have had showcased here
today.
Whether you're in business or in government
or in education, you know that we have a big
job to do when it comes to building a future
that really, honestly includes opportunity for all
of our people. There are still a lot of people
who say, "Well, things are pretty good here in
Washington. Everything's fine. The best thing
we can do about this whole thing is nothing."
They all have jobs, all the people who say that.
They all have health insurance. They all have
a pretty good education. And they all have a
pretty secure knowledge that they'll be okay no
matter what happens. I say that not to be either
political or unduly critical but to point out that
one of the great challenges of this age for every
advanced nation, everyone, is to fully develop
the capacities of all of its people and then find
work for them to do.
All the European countries have higher unemployment rates than we do but also stronger
support systems for the unemployed. The Japanese unemployment rate has been going up.
They're going to adopt a stimulus that, even
if you count it in its most rigorous terms, is
3 or 4 times bigger than the one that I have
proposed to create jobs. In West Germany
alone, the unemployment rate is now about as
high as ours.
This is a big problem for advanced nations.
It costs a lot of money to add an extra employee,
with a lot of pressure from low-wage producers


in other countries that are growing their own
economies and trying to provide new opportunity for their people. But it is especially important for America for two reasons. One is,
we have a whole lot of folks who, unless we
move aggressively, will not have the education
and skills we need to be competitive and productive in a nation like this. The second is,
even if we educate them all, if there aren't
jobs, they will be robbed of the fruits of their
educational labors. People need to be able to
work in this country.
We have always had some unemployment, and
indeed, some of it is normal. You've always got
some people leaving jobs and moving around
the country and doing first one thing and another. We have now, at this moment in our
history, the necessity for all big organizations,
including the Government, to reexamine the way
they are organized and to ask whether there
are too many people working at some kinds
of jobs. But in the whole, we must still be
able to create jobs in a country like America,
to provide people with the chance to work.
It's going to be difficult for me to make the
welfare reform proposals that I will make to
Congress in the next couple of months. It's
going to be hard for me to make those work
if at the end of all this work to get off welfare,
there isn't a job.
So we have two tasks. One is to develop the
capacity of the American people to perform
without regard to race or income or the circumstances of their birth. The other is to make
sure that there are some opportunities for them
to bring to bear for their talent and to be rewarded with a paycheck. It is a great challenge.
I do not pretend that all of the answers are
simple. But I know if you want to ask the American people, all of them, to be more responsible,
if you want to recreate a sense of community
in this country that bridges the lines of race
and income and region, you have got to have
opportunity in that mix.
A part of our vision for America has to be
a future for every young person in this country
who's willing to play by the rules and work
hard and strive for the end of the rainbow.
There has to be something at the end of that
rainbow. And that is what we are basically here
to talk about today: What can we all do as
partners, recognizing none of us can do it alone,
to develop the capacities of our people to succeed wherever they live and whatever their


431




Apr. 14 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


background. And then, what can we do to make
sure that there's something there for them to
do?
The summer jobs program we're discussing
today is an integral part of that plan, because
it will promote the values of work and opportunity and fairness, community. It will put the
people first, and it does have a partnership between the public and private sector.
I said when I addressed the United States
Congress in February on this program that I
would seek to create about 700,000 extra summer jobs from Government sources and then
challenge the American business community to
meet that target so that we can create more
than a million new summer jobs over and above
what had been created before.
Many, many people have responded to that
challenge. And Jerry is just a shining example
of that which has been replicated in this room
and around the country, people who are going
to do more than they otherwise would in the
private sector to give young people a work experience. And it is terribly important.
I want to emphasize that this summer jobs
program is part of an overall commitment to
increase the capacity of the American people,
from retraining defense workers who lose their
jobs and other adults who need to acquire new
skills, to improving the transition from school
to work for young people who don't go to college but do need at least 2 years of post-high
school training either on the job or in a community college or a vocational setting, so that they
can be competitive workers, making it possible
for more people to go on to college who do
want to go. All these things are part and parcel
of a comprehensive plan.
It's also important, as I said, that we create
more jobs. The emergency jobs program that
I asked the Congress to adopt would create a
half a million extra jobs over the next year and
a half, and that would reduce the unemployment
rate by a half a percent. It would also enable
us to absorb more young people coming into
the work force in jobs that otherwise will not
be created. It also will help a lot of cities and
counties to invest in things that need to be
done at the grassroots level: projects long delayed, water projects, sewer projects, park
projects, new industries and particularly in
small- and medium-size communities, a whole
range of things that will improve the economy
and improve the environment.


The summer jobs program is an important
part of that because we have tried for the first
time, through the work of the Labor Department and the Education Department and
through reaching out to people like you, to make
this more than just a one-shot summer jobs program; to integrate it with private sector efforts;
to hopefully replicate it in each coming summer;
to move these young people into further educational opportunities and to further job opportunities; and to have a strong, meaningful education component to these summer jobs, something that the United States Government has
never fully emphasized before.
A lot of these young people, as you well know,
because they come from difficult backgrounds,
because they go to school in difficult and challenging circumstances, need extra help in building their basic skills in math and language, reasoning, and in other areas. And a lot of educational studies show that young people who
have difficulty in school often forget as much
as 30 percent of what they learn over the summer and then that has to be repeated the next
year.
What we are trying to do here is to give
people the opportunity to learn good work habits and to reinforce their learning skills and to
put them together, and then, hopefully, over
the next couple of years, if our entire program
passes, to give every school in this country the
opportunity to have a good work and learning
environment.
There will be more applied academics, more
opportunities for people to learn and work during the school year, so that this will not simply
be an isolated moment for these young folks
but will be a part of building a whole new
educational experience, a whole new work experience, and moving on a pathway to a better
future.
The summer jobs programs are not designed
to be make-work jobs. They're designed to make
a future for the people holding the job. And
that's what they will do. In the process, they'll
help to build local communities, to strengthen
local economies, to solve local problems-real
jobs renovating housing, repairing public buildings, doing clerical work, providing nursing assistance in hospitals, supervising and training
children at child care centers, and learning all
the way, challenging young people to learn while
they earn but letting them earn.
You know, it's very difficult to make a case


432




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Apr. 14


to people who have never seen opportunity on
their own street that they should do this, that,
or the other thing if there's no evidence of
the opportunity that's at the end of the effort.
I have not been sparing in going for the last
year-and-a-half into places where it isn't exactly
popular to say it and say I wanted to reform
the welfare system; I wanted to toughen child
support; I wanted to require people to work;
I was sick and tired of people being irresponsible in the use of guns on the streets, and
I wanted to change all that. But if you're going
to summon people to greater responsibility, you
have to reward them when they do the right
thing with opportunity.
The young people we propose to put to work
under our program will spend 90 hours learning
basic skills, such as math, reading, writing, either
on the job or in the classroom. They will stretch
their minds as well as work up a sweat. They
will have a sense of accomplishment. It will literally be a summer challenge but a challenge
that will take them into a different life.
So I want to ask all of you to support this
effort even as I, as your President, support your
effort. At the end of the summer we will evaluate all the young people who participate. We'll
see whether they, instead of falling behind over
the summer academically as too many young
people do, they stayed even or moved ahead.
I suspect that they will.
This summer, Secretary Reich and Secretary
Riley and I will be visiting many of your communities. We'll really try to learn from you
which of these efforts are working, what we
should do next summer, how we can build it
in to what goes on during the school year, how
we can build in our job training efforts and
the works that we do with your companies to
make sense of this whole thing, so that we maximize the impact of the taxpayer dollar and your
private investments as well.
We want to honor the companies and the
communities, the business leaders and the young
people who do the very best jobs this summer.
And again, I want to say to all of you in private
business who have matched our effort, I thank
you. And to all of you who haven't and those
across the country who may listen or learn about
this event today, I want to implore other private
employers to stretch a little bit to give other
young people a chance to work this summer.
I'm telling you, we cannot go through another
10 years when we don't give these children any

thing to say yes to. If we exhort them to do
right, we've got to be able to reward them.
When the other speakers were talking, I was
sitting up here on the platform, listening and
reveling. And they got talking about work, and
I got to thinking about all the different things
I've done to make a living in my life. When
I was 13, I made a very foolish short-term business investment: I set up a comic book stand
and sold two trunks full of comic books. Made
more money than I had ever had in my life.
But if I had saved those trunks, they'd be worth
$100,000 today. [Laughter] That does not mean
young people should not be entrepreneurial. It
just means that you can't foresee a generation
ahead. I have mowed yards and cleared land
and built houses and worked in body shops and
the parts departments of a car dealership. And
I've done a lot of different things for a living.
Some people say I got into politics to escape
work. [Laughter]
I learned something from every job I ever
had. But I grew up in a generation where I
literally did not know a living soul, without regard to race or income, who wanted to work
who didn't have a job. I grew up in a generation
when all you had to really say to people is,
get an education, and you'll be all right. You'll
get a job, and you'll make more money next
year than you did this year. Now I live in a
generation full of people, most of whom don't
make any more money in real dollars than they
did 10 years ago, and they're working longer
hours, and they're paying more for the basics
of life. And we are now wondering whether
we can create the jobs that these young people
want.
Now, I want to close by reemphasizing these
two things: It doesn't matter what kind of economic policies this administration pursues or
how much productivity increases there are in
the private sector. If young Americans don't get
a good education, don't learn how to work, and
can't be productive, those jobs will not be created in this country. Machines will do the work,
or the work will be done off-shore by people
who have the same skill levels and can work
for a third or a fourth or a fifth the wages.
So nothing we can do economically will matter
unless we build the skills and capacities of
America's work force. And anybody that pretends otherwise is just kidding.
On the other hand, we need to be honest.
Every wealthy country in the world, including


433




Apr. 14 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


the United States, is having difficulty creating
jobs. If I knew everything that needs to be done,
I'd be glad to tell you, and we could just call
off the whole deliberations of Congress and everything else. I don't have all the answers. But
I know this: Doing nothing is not the answer.
And so the jobs program that I have presented to Congress, with the summer jobs, with
the money for the cities and the counties,
through the community development program,
with the infrastructure money, is a small part
of a big budget. It is an attempt to engage
in an experiment to see whether or not, with
the economy recovering in terms of corporate
profit, we can give a little boost to it, give opportunities to young people, create a half a million jobs, and maybe get the engine going again.
Most of the jobs in this program are going
to be jobs in the private sector, not Government
jobs, even though it's Government money. And
the lion's share of the work in rebuilding the
American economy obviously will come from the
private sector. That's the kind of system we
have, and it works pretty well.
But this is the challenge we have. So I ask
all of you here today to support the summer
jobs program, to ask your friends and neighbors
to support it, to go back home and ask your
employers to make a little extra effort, to do
what you can to help me pass the funds to


create the 700,000 jobs that the United States
Government should create this summer, so that
together we can have this partnership. Because
more than anything else, we have to give a future, a future that our young people can believe
in.
We need to send them a message that here
in America if you study hard and work hard,
if you obey the law and contribute something
to your community, you will be rewarded by
your country. You can build a future from your
own dreams.
That has always been the promise of America.
Together that's what this summer of challenge
needs to be: a reaffirmation of the promise of
America for so many young people to whom
that promise has been an illusion. We can make
it a reality.
Thank you very much.
NOTE: The President spoke at 11:22 a.m. in the
Regency Ballroom at the Hyatt Regency Hotel.
In his remarks, he referred to Octavius Jeffers,
1992 Summer Youth Program participant; Jerry
Levin, chairman of the board, Time-Warner, Inc.;
Nancye Combs, chair, Private Industry Council;
and Patricia Irving, president and chief executive
officer, Private Industry Council of Philadelphia.


Nomination for Posts at the Transportation, Commerce, and Defense
Departments and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation
April 14, 1993


The President announced his intention today
to nominate Albert Herberger to be Administrator of the Federal Maritime Administration,
Department of Transportation; Loretta Dunn to
be Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Import
Administration; and Christopher Finn to be Executive Vice President of the Overseas Private
Investment Corporation, U.S. International Development Cooperation Agency.
Additionally, he has approved the appointments of Joan Yim to be Deputy Administrator
of the Federal Maritime Administration, Alice
Maroni to be Principal Deputy Comptroller of


the Department of Defense, and Deborah
Castleman to be Deputy Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Command, Control, and Communications.
"We are continuing to move forward with putting together a Government of excellent, diverse
Americans who share my commitment to changing the way that Washington works," said the
President. "These six people I am naming today
fit that bill."
NOTE: Biographies of the nominees were made
available by the Office of the Press Secretary.


434




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Apr. 15


Appointment of White House Liaison to the Metropolitan Washington
Council of Governments
April 14, 1993
The President has named Loretta Avent, his  dent. "I am committed to changing that relationSpecial Assistant for Intergovernmental Affairs,  ship and have full confidence in Loretta's ability
to be the White House Liaison to the Metro-  to act effectively to make the White House a
politan Washington Council of Governments, the  full partner in the affairs of the region where
White House announced today.                 we live."
"Too often in the past, the Federal Government has not been a very good neighbor to    NOTE: A biography of the nominee was made
the rest of the Washington area," said the Presi-  available by the Office of the Press Secretary.
Remarks to Law Enforcement Organizations and an Exchange With
Reporters
April 15, 1993


The President. Good afternoon. Ladies and
gentlemen, 2 months ago I presented a comprehensive plan to reduce our national deficit
and to increase our investment in the American
people, their jobs, and their economic future.
The Federal budget plan passed Congress in
record time and created a new sense of hope
and opportunity in the country. Then the shortterm jobs plan I presented to Congress, which
would create a half a million jobs in the next
2 years, passed the House of Representatives
2 weeks ago. It now has the support of a majority of the United States Senate.
All of these Members of Congress know it's
time to get the economy moving again, to get
job growth going again, to get a fast start on
the investments we need to build a lasting prosperity. Unfortunately, a minority of the Members of the United States Senate have used
gridlock tactics to prevent their colleagues from
working the will of the majority on the jobs
bill.
When Congress returns, I ask every Senator
from every State and from both parties to remember what is at stake. The issue is not politics, it's people. Sixteen million of them are
looking for full-time jobs and can't find them.
These men and women don't care about who's
up or down in Washington. They care about
paying the rent and meeting the mortgage payment, about putting food on the table and buying shoes for their children, about regaining a


sense of dignity that comes from doing a day's
work and supporting their families and drawing
a paycheck. They're asking those of us who have
the privilege of serving to put aside politics and
do something now to move our economy forward.
I am prepared to do that. And I have been
working with the Senate to come up with an
adjusted package that meets some of the concerns of those who've been blocking action on
the jobs plan. I'm willing to compromise, so
long as we keep the focus on jobs, keep the
focus on growth, and keep the focus on meeting
unmet national needs.
Our opponents have been asking for a smaller
package. Today I ask them to join me in determining exactly what kind and what size package
Congress can approve that actually meets the
needs of the American people.
But even as we make those reductions, and
the package will be smaller, I believe we must
address problems that are on the minds of millions of Americans, and one in particular, and
that is the need to toughen law enforcement
in our society to deal with the dramatic rise
in violent crime.
So I will ask, even in this reduced package,
for an additional $200 million in Federal funding
to help local communities to rehire police officers who have been laid off because of the
fiscal problems caused by the national recession.
Together with a matching effort by local govern

435




Apr. 15 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


ments, this could put as many as 10,000 police
officers back on the job and back on the beat
in communities all across our Nation. At a time
when too many of our people live in fear of
violent crime, when too many businesses have
closed and too many people have lost their jobs
because people are afraid to leave their homes,
rehiring thousands of officers is one of the best
investments America can make. And I ask both
Houses of Congress to make that investment
in our people's safety and in their peace of
mind.
I believe in the need for strong Federal action
to keep the economy going toward recovery and
to create jobs. Make no mistake about it: I will
fight for these priorities as hard as I ever have.
I will never forget that the people sent me here
to fight for their jobs, their future, and for fundamental change.
I want to thank the police officers who are
here today and tell you that not a single one
of them knew before they came here that I
had determined to ask for more money in this
jobs bill to rehire police officers. They came
here because they believe in the summer jobs
portion of the package. And I want them to
be free to talk about that. They came here not
out of any law enforcement concern other than
the fact that they wanted the kids in this country
to have a chance to have jobs this summer,
to have safer streets and a brighter and more
peaceful future.
I say what I say today not just because it's
good for law enforcement but because it's good
for the people who live in these communities.
I have always supported community policing, not
only because it helps to prevent crime and to
lower the crime rate but because it cements
better relationships between people in law enforcement and the people that they're hired to
protect. It reduces the chances of abusive action
by police officers and increases the chances of
harmony and safe streets at the same time.
These are the kinds of things that we are
trying to do. I promised in my campaign that
I'd do everything I could to put another 100,000
police officers on the street over the next 4
years. This makes a good downpayment on that.
This keeps in mind the core of the jobs package.
And this will help us to move forward.
So I ask the people in the Senate who have
blocked the jobs bill, let's work together. I can
accept a reduced package if you will increase
your commitment to safe streets. I do not accept


the fact that we should reduce our commitment
to summer jobs or to building our infrastructure
or to doing those other things that will create
real and lasting prosperity for our people. I have
done my part now to end the gridlock; I ask
you to do yours.
I want now to give the people who are here
with me on the platform a chance to make some
remarks and to be heard by the American people, beginning with Janet Reno, the distinguished Attorney General.
[At this point, Attorney General Reno spoke,
followed by Robert T. Scully, executive director,
National Association of Police Organizations;
Raymond McGrath, president, International
Brotherhood of Police Cgicers; Robert B.
Kiiesmet, president, International Union of Police Associations; and Dewey R. Stokes, national
president, Fraternal Order of Police.]
Value Added Tax
Q. Mr. President, can you tell us, do you
think that the jobs package could be put in
further jeopardy by controversy over the suggestion of a VAT tax at this point in the congressional dialog?
The President. Oh, no, not at all. I think it
should have-they wouldn't have any relationship one to the other. First of all, I've made
absolutely no decision on that. You should know
that there's a lot of support in the business
community and the labor community. People
have asked us to consider that because of the
enormous burden of the present system on
many of our major employers, particularly many
of those that we depend upon to generate jobs
and to carry the strength of this economy. But
I have made absolutely no decision that would
even approach that, on that or any other kind
of general tax.
Q. Do you personally believe that the American public is ready to have another tax to pay
for health care? I mean, apart from what business and labor leaders have saidThe President. I'm not going to speculate on
that. I will say this: The real issue is how quickly
we could recycle the benefits of all the savings
to cover the cost. Everyone knows that if you
do what we're proposing to do, if you streamline
the insurance system, if you fix the system so
that there's no longer an enormous economic
incentive to overutilize or overprovide certain
services, if you provide primary and preventive


436




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Apr. 15


care in places where it isn't now, every single
analysis shows absolutely massive savings to the
health care system. The real question is whether
you can transfer those savings to cover those
who have no coverage now or those who have
virtually no coverage so that you provide people
the security.
I have no idea. The polls say that, but I
don't know. All I know is the polls that I see
in the press, that many of you have commissioned, they say overwhelmingly the American
people want the security of an affordable health
care system.
But I don't think that has anything to do
with this stimulus, and it certainly shouldn't
have. People want a job first and foremost. They
want that more than anything else.
Yes.
Stimulus Package
Q. Now that you've announced your willingness to compromise on the stimulus package,
can you tell us what parts of your package you
consider vital and uncompromisable? I assume
summer jobs is one.
The President. I want the summer jobs, I
want the highway program, and I want the police program. Let me say this: I still intend
to fully and aggressively push the crime bill,
which did not pass the Congress last year. This
is a supplement to that, not a substitute for
it in any way. But I think we need to do that.
I think we need the Ryan White funds because of the enormous health care burdens to
the communities that are inordinately and disproportionately affected by the problems of caring for people with AIDS. And there are several
other things that I think should be done. We


have to do the Agriculture Department meat
inspectors; the safety of the public depends on
that.
I don't think any of it should be cut, but
I have given Senator Mitchell and Senator
Byrd-I've talked to them. And Senator Dole
called me yesterday to discuss this, and I told
him that I would call him back. I called him
back last night in New Hampshire, and we discussed this. And I basically asked them to talk
today and said that I would not make any statements about any specifics until at least they
had a chance to talk to see whether or not
they could reach some accord.
So I don't want to be any more specific than
I have been already. And let's see if they can
talk it out.
Yes.
Q. When you talked to Senator Dole and
Senator Mitchell did you tell them about your[inaudible]-increase also, that $200 million,
that you want that as part of the package?
The President. I did. I left word for Senator
Mitchell last night about it. When I talked to
Senator Dole-I don't remember for sure-I
do not believe I mentioned it. But I did tell
him that I was prepared to reduce the package
and I wanted to break the gridlock. And I told
him that I was working on a reformulation of
it in the hope that it would become even more
focused on jobs and the kinds of issues that
I thought the American people wanted us to
address. And this is certainly consistent with
that.
Thank you.
NOTE: The President spoke at 2:52 p.m. in the
Rose Garden at the White House.


Nomination for Posts at the United States Information Agency and the
Board for International Broadcasting
April 15, 1993


The President today announced his intention
to nominate American University president and
former State Department Assistant Secretary Joseph Duffey to be Director of the United States
Information Agency. The President also designated Daniel Mica Chairman of the Board for
International Broadcasting.


"Joe Duffey's expertise in the fields of education, communications, and foreign affairs is
vast and will serve him well as he takes the
helm at USIA and works to promote the ideals
of democracy and freedom abroad," the President said.
Mr. Mica becomes Chairman of the Board


437




Apr. 15 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


for International Broadcasting after serving as  the cause of democracy abroad," the President
a member of the board since 1991.            said.
"Dan Mica has done an excellent job on the
Board of International Broadcasting, and I ex-  NOTE: Biographies of the nominees were made
pect he will continue as Chairman to promote  available by the Office of the Press Secretary.
Exchange With Reporters Prior to Discussions With Prime Minister Kiichi
Miyazawa of Japan
April 16, 1993


Bosnia
Q. Mr. President, we understand that
Srebrenica is about to fall and some 60,000
Bosnian Muslims may be evacuated or surrender
on your watch. That must be pretty painful.
The President. I regret that it's happening.
We met and discussed this morning what our
other options are and whether our allies might
now be willing to take further action. We may
know some more before the end of the day.
Q. Do you expect some military action to
do something about this?
The President. We're looking at a number of
options. I don't want to rule in or out any,
except that we've never considered the introduction of American ground forces as you know.
But I hope that the gravity of the situation will
develop a consensus among the United Nations
partners. We'll see.
Japan-U.S. Trade
Q. Has the widening of the trade deficit with
Japan-does that add importance to this meeting today, sir?
The President. Sure. Of course.
[At this point, one group of reporters left the
room, and another group entered.]


Japan's Support for Aid to Russia
Q. Mr. President, would you mind explaining
to us what you meant when you said to President Yeltsin, Japanese yes often means no?
The President. I don't know whether to say
yes or no.
Prime Minister Miyazawa. Remember the
song "Yes, We Have No Bananas"? The idea
is, I thinkThe President. Bananas. Yes. That's it.
Prime Minister Miyazawa.  every language
has its own peculiarity.
Japan-U.S. Discussions
Q. President, are you talking about the exchange rate today with Mr. Miyazawa?
The President. We haven't had a chance to
start our conversation. I think we'll talk about
a lot of things today, many things.
Q. What kind of talks do you think are top
priority at this meeting with Mr. Prime Minister
Miyazawa?
Prime Minister Miyazawa. You'll know in 2
hours. [Laughter]
NOTE: The exchange began at 10:33 a.m. in the
Oval Office at the White House. A tape was not
available for verification of the content of this exchange.


The President's News Conference With Prime Minister Kiichi Miyazawa of
Japan
April 16, 1993
The President. Good afternoon. I'm delighted ington and the White House. I especially appreto welcome Prime Minister Miyazawa to Wash- ciate his making this very long journey so soon


438




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Apr. 16


after he hosted the foreign and finance ministers
of the C-7 in Tokyo in discussing aid to Russia.
There is no more important relationship for
the United States than our alliance with Japan.
We are the world's largest economies, with 40
percent of the world's GNP between us. Our
security ties have fostered a generation of peace
in the Asia-Pacific region and remain critical
to the region's continued stability and prosperity.
As we survey the key security challenges of
this decade-supporting reform in Russia, advancing the Middle East peace process, efforts
toward reconciliation and peacekeeping from Somalia to Cambodia-it is clear that there must
be sustained cooperation between the United
States and Japan. To help us meet these challenges I have stressed with the Prime Minister
the need for some change in our relations. The
cold war partnership between our two countries
is outdated. We need a new partnership based
on a longer term vision and, above all, based
on mutual respect and responsibility.
There have always been three elements to
our relationship with Japan: our economic dealings, our security alliance, and our cooperative
efforts on global problems. Each is essential to
our relationship, and each must serve our mutual self-interests. But during the cold war, security relations often overshadowed other considerations, especially economic concerns. In today's
world, as I have often said, the United States
cannot be strong abroad unless it is strong at
home. And our strength at home depends increasingly on open and equitable engagement
with our major trading partners. That requires
that we now pay special attention to the economic side of our relationship.
Our security partnership is strong. That relationship has been an anchor for Pacific stability
for two generations. It remains fundamental to
both our interests. The United States intends
to remain fully engaged in Asia and committed
to our strategic alliance and our political partnership with Japan.
The Prime Minister and I discussed a range
of security matters in the Pacific region that
concern both of us, including efforts to gain
the fullest possible accounting of our POW's
and MIA's in Vietnam and North Korea's refusal
to comply with the international nuclear inspections and standards, which causes us serious
concern. Because of the importance of our security relationship, we will maintain close working
ties between our two defenses. And I am


pleased that the Prime Minister will be meeting
later today with Defense Secretary Les Aspin.
We also reviewed many global issues that
challenge both our nations. In particular, we
talked about the extraordinary meeting of C7 foreign and finance ministers just completed
in Tokyo to provide mutual support for Russian
economic and democratic reforms. I appreciate
the Prime Minister's leadership in convening
that meeting. We agreed that the success of
these reforms is critical to world peace and prosperity. I believe both our nations understand
the stakes and stand ready to work in partnership with President Yeltsin and Russia's other
reformers. We look forward to the C-7 summit
this July in Tokyo and to Russian participation
in the C-7-plus meeting.
But economics were at the heart of our discussions. I stressed that the rebalancing of our
relationship in this new era requires an elevated
attention to our economic relations. That must
begin with an honest appraisal of each country
and our mutual responsibilities. The fact is that
I have enormous admiration for Japan's economic performance. The Japanese have been
pioneers in high quality manufacturing. Their
record of innovation and prosperity has been
built on hard work and social cooperation. But
we and many countries have other concerns as
well. I stressed to the Prime Minister that I
am particularly concerned about Japan's growing
global current account and trade surpluses and
deeply concerned about the inadequate market
access for American firms, products, and investors in Japan.
I recognize that these are complex issues. But
the simple fact is that it is harder to sell in
Japan's market than in ours. America is accepting the challenge of change, and so, too, must
Japan.
For our part, the United States is making
economic renewal over the long term our highest priority. And we are not making the hard
decisions many of our trading partners have
urged us for years to make, required to put
our economic house in order. Our good friends,
like Japan, for some time have urged us to do
this, and we are attempting to do it, by bringing
down our deficit through a combination of
spending cuts and tax increases and committing
ourselves to long-term investment.
It is important that Japan lead the way to
global economic growth. The Prime Minister's
newly announced stimulus program is a very


439




Apr. 16 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


good first step toward stronger domestic growth
in Japan. But as in America, it must be part
of a continued and sustained effort. Japan's goal
must be to become one of the engines of growth
that creates jobs not only in Japan but throughout the world.
In addition, the Prime Minister and I
reaffirmed our commitment to lead the Uruguay
round to an early and successful conclusion. We
are committed to making the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Organization a vehicle for
trade liberalization in the region. And I look
forward to the United States hosting that organization in Seattle later this year.
Robust economic growth in America and
Japan is in everyone's interest. That's why I
hope our own Congress will pass our jobs package and the budget, just as I hope Japan will
continue taking steps to boost its own economic
growth. But macroeconomic action alone is not
enough. I am concerned not only about how
much we sell but about what we sell. Our companies that manufacture high-quality, high-wage
goods are among the most competitive in the
world. If their products are to be a greater part
of our exports to Japan, if our workers are to
receive their fair share of the benefits of trade,
Japan's markets must be more open. United
States companies bear the responsibility for providing high-quality and competitively priced
goods, but when they do, as increasingly they
do today, Japan's markets must receive them.
When our two nations take these economic
steps individually and together, we will be the
two strongest drivers of global economic growth.
That growth is essential not only for our own
prosperity but also for the success of the world's
many new and emerging democracies.
In order to take these steps, we also need
to develop a new framework for our two nations
to address concretely our economic agenda, the
structural and sectoral issues that can expand
growth and increase trade and investment flows
in key industries. This framework should also
enable us to discuss other issues in which we
can cooperate, such as technology and the environment. Within the next 3 months, the Prime
Minister and I expect to have a plan for specific
negotiations that can then occur on an expedited
basis in these areas. The Prime Minister and
I also agreed to meet twice annually, including
during the G-7 annual summit. We have agreed
to do this because we believe this new partnership deserves our highest priority from the high

est levels of our Government.
I view today's discussion with the Prime Minister as a very positive step in our effort to
begin a new and mutually beneficial stage in
the long and productive friendship between the
United States and Japan. Each spring, all who
reside here in the Nation's Capital have a wonderful reminder of that friendship. Just blocks
from here at the Tidal Basin, the circle of flowering cherry trees, begun as a gift from the
people of Japan, are the uplifting image that
defines the start of our season of hope.
Today I believe the new partnership we are
forging between our nations can help to usher
in a season of hope not only for ourselves but
for the world as well, the season when we restore economic growth, when we expand economic opportunities in our own countries and
elsewhere, when we help to fuel the worldwide
movement toward democracy, and when we
help to lay the foundation for peace and
progress in the next century. I look forward
to working with Prime Minister Miyazawa in
the coming months as we join together to build
that new partnership.
Mr. Prime Minister.
Prime Minister Miyazawa. Mr. President,
thank you for your kind words, and thank you
also for your very warm welcome today.
I have been looking forward to this important
meeting. May I say that I have a sense of accomplishment in that we have built a personal
relationship of mutual trust. I am convinced that
our new partnership can respond to the needs
of a new era. Our partnership is crucial for
making the world more peaceful and prosperous. The President and I have, therefore,
agreed to meet at least once every year, separate
from the G-7 process.
Let me comment briefly on four areas of our
discussions today. First, we affirmed the continuing importance of Japan-U.S. security treaty
in the post-cold-war era. Second, on the economy, I welcome the President's leadership in
tackling the budget deficit problem head on.
On our part, Japan's new '93 fiscal budget is
geared to stimulating domestic demand. And 3
days ago, my government decided on an additional package of expansionary measures totaling
$116 billion to further stimulate our domestic
demand. This will certainly accelerate our economic growth.
I also stressed our continuing efforts to increase market access. I further explained to the


440




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Apr. 16


President that my government has decided to
undertake a new funds for development initiative to facilitate financial flow from Japan to
developing countries. These respective efforts by
both Japan and the United States are critically
important for ensuring world economic growth.
They are also vital for strengthening the foundation of our partnership.
In the area of our bilateral trade and economic relations, I stressed to the President that
our economic prosperity is founded on our deep
economic interdependence. We must nurture
this relationship with a cooperative spirit based
upon the principle of free trade. This cannot
be realized with managed trade nor under the
threat of unilateralism.
Our relationship must be a plus-sum relationship, not a zero-sum one. It is in this context
that I expressed serious concern over some
trends in the United States. I explained my government's policy to continue efforts to increase
our market access. But this must be done with
parallel efforts of the United States to strengthen competitiveness, export promotion under the
free trade system.
On the Uruguay round negotiations, we cannot allow them to fail. And after 7 years, we
must reach a realistic agreement through further
negotiations.
Recognizing the importance of advancing our
new economic partnership, we need to develop
a new framework for our two nations to address
the structural and sectoral issues of both countries that can promote trade and the investment
flows in key industries, as well as enhance our
cooperation in such areas as environment, technology, and development of human resources.
Within the next 3 months, the President and
I expect to create such a new framework.
Third, on Russia, Japan chaired the meeting
of foreign and finance ministers of G-7 countries, subsequently joined by the Russian ministers, which ended yesterday in Tokyo. I cooperated closely with President Clinton on the
preparations for this meeting, talking over the
phone a few times. I believe the joint ministerial
meeting sent a strong message of support for
Russia's efforts for democratic and economic reform, and its law and justice foreign policy. At
the opening session of that meeting, I announced a $1,820,000,000 package of Japan's bilateral assistance to Russia. Today the President
and I discussed how we would follow up and
build on the results of that meeting as Russia


undergoes a delicate period of transition.
Fourth, the dynamic growth of the Asia-Pacific region promises benefits for the entire
world. But we must bear in mind that the region
is undergoing changes with risks and instabilities. American presence and Japan-U.S. security
treaty are indispensable, stabilizing elements for
the region. I assured the President that Japan
would continue to provide host nation support
which amounts to $4,600,000,000 in the year
1993. Japan will also work together with the
United States to build more cohesiveness and
the feeling of reassurance through regional dialog and cooperation.
Finally, let me make a personal observation.
For half a century, I have been involved in
bilateral regulations in one way or another. Now,
talking to the youthful new leader of this great
nation, who has emerged at an historic time
of changes in the world, I have felt optimism
for the unbounded possibilities of our two nations working together in our new partnership
to bring a better world for all of us.
Thank you very much.
Bosnia
Q. Mr. President, if all bets are off now, are
you seriously considering the use of air power
in Bosnia against the Serbs and also lifting the
arms embargo? Have you given any kind of ultimatum to the Serbs? And what kind of a feedback are you getting from Russia and the allies
for stronger action?
The President. Let me try to answer some
of those, anyway. We began this morning with
a discussion of the situation in Bosnia. And the
Secretary of State has been on the phone quite
a bit today, consistent with his obligation to be
part of the meeting with the Prime Minister.
All I can tell you is that, at this point, I would
not rule out any option except the option that
I have never ruled in, which was the question
of American ground troops.
I would also remind all of you that I have
operated from the beginning under the assumption that whatever is done must be done within
the framework of a multilateral cooperation, that
this was not something the United States could
effectively do alone.
Since we decided to become involved there
after the situation was already quite severe, we
have dramatically increased the availability of
humanitarian aid, secured a resolution to enforce the no-fly zone, become involved in the


441




Apr. 16 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


Vance-Owen negotiations in a way that got the
Bosnians to agree, and have worked on strengthening the sanctions which, while not doing much
to stem the violence in Bosnia, certainly have
exacted a price from the Serbians economically.
Those are the things that I have been able
to do, taking a situation that was in quite bad
shape when I found it and within the limits
of multilateralism. I wouldn't rule out other
steps. I wouldn't rule them in. All I can tell
you is that I'm going to be spending a lot of
time on this today, and I'm very concerned
about it. And I'm outraged that the Serbians,
when given the opportunity, did not sign on
to the Vance-Owen process.
Japan-U.S. Trade
Q. I would like to ask to the President[inaudible]-tough talk with the Prime Minister
regarding trading issue, do you think this is the
right way for the United States to get along
with Japan? And my other question is do you
have-[inaudible]-a substantial result from this
meeting regarding trading?
The President. First of all, let me reiterate
what I said. Our relationship is built on shared
values and a commitment to democracy. It has
a security aspect. It has an aspect of cooperation
on global affairs-and we discussed those in
great detail-and it has a bilateral economic aspect. Two nations can be great friends and can
admire each other greatly and still not agree
on every issue.
We have had a long and substantial trade
deficit with Japan, which is highly concentrated
in manufacturing and in certain sectors of manufacturing where we now believe we are competitive in price and quality: Autos, auto parts, electronics, supercomputers, semiconductors-you
know the list-agriculture-as well as I do.
The difference-I don't want to characterize
the issue as tough or not tough. I want it to
be different. I want our relationship now to
focus on the specific sectors in which there are
problems and on the kind of structural difference which makes it difficult for us to ever
meet. We have differences in patent law, differences in antitrust law, differences in the way
our financial services and our other services sector works. And what I asked the Prime Minister
for was a change in the direction of our relationship so we could focus on specific sectors and
specific structures, with the view toward getting
results.


I would just say that we have gotten some
results in the semiconductor area where there
was a specific agreement. But there's also been
some progress in the auto parts area where
there was a more general agreement. I think
when we focus on specific areas, even though
we may differ about specifically how we should
do that, we tend to make progress. And I say
this in a way of hoping that will lead us to
greater cooperation.
The world needs a strong Japan. The world
needs a strong United States. The world needs
these two countries to cooperate. And it can
only happen if we are making real progress on
this trade deficit.
Q. The trade deficit has been stubborn for
many years. It just went up again today, the
Commerce Department reported. Why do you
think that you can do something different now
that your predecessors couldn't do? The Prime
Minister just said that access for American products to Japanese markets would have to go along
the lines of free trade. Would you like to see
specific help for specific industries and targets?
The President. Well, let me reiterate what I
said. I would like to have a focus on specific
sectors of the economy, and I would like to
obviously have specific results. We had a semiconductor agreement which gave some hope
that this approach could work. There was also
a more general commitment in the area of auto
parts which has shown some progress.
Let me say that I think there are three or
four things working today which may give us
more results: Number one, the appreciation of
the Japanese yen; number two, the stimulus program, which the Prime Minister has talked
about-the last time we had a measurable drop
in our trade deficit with Japan, it was after Japan
adopted a stimulus program; number three, a
breathtaking increase in productivity and quality
by American manufacturers over the last several
years, which makes us the low cost producer
in many of these areas now; and number four,
a different approach, commitment to focus sector by sector. The Prime Minister-let's not
paper this over-there are some differences still
between the Prime Minister and me about what
kinds of agreements we should make, sector by
sector, on these structural issues. But if we focus
on them and talk about them specifically, honestly, and openly, I believe this is very different
from what has happened in the past.


442




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Apr. 16


Japan's Support for Aid to Russia
Q. Mr. President, what is it that you really
wanted to convey to President Yeltsin in Vancouver when you reportedly told him that when
Japanese say yes, they often mean no? And secondly, using probably the same degree of candid
description, would you care to characterize the
Japanese economic activities in the arena of
international trade and the economy?
The President. You know, let me say first of
all, the world would be a sad place if people
could never say anything in an offhand manner
without having it turn into an international incident. I remember when I was elected, someone
in your country suggested that Presidents always
spoke a lot of hot air once they got elected.
I took no offense at that. That's a part of the
daily life.
I think your Prime Minister made the best
statement of all when he said it reminded him
of that old American song "Yes, We Have No
Bananas." You asked me a question, what I
meant; I don't know whether to tell you yes
or no. I don't know what I meant anymore.
[Laughter]
I will say, let me make the real point: The
Prime Minister answered the question with a
resounding yes by agreeing, number one, to host
the meeting of foreign and finance ministers
in Tokyo to discuss Russian aid and, number
two, to a very aggressive commitment of $1.8
billion to help to alleviate the situation and to
support Russian reform.
So Japan's answer to this problem was clearly
yes, capital Y-E-S, yes.
Stimulus Package
Q. Mr. President, you mentioned the stimulus
program that Miyazawa's government has put
forward and described it as a good first step.
If that's a good first step, sir, is it really reasonable to argue that your own stimulus program,
less than a seventh of that, is a first step of
any significance at all?
The President. I think it is because the circumstances are different. Let's go back to the
mid-seventies, and perhaps Prime Minister
Miyazawa could fill in the blanks, but if my
memory is right, Japan had a very large budget
deficit about 15 years ago, which they then set
about to erase. And they worked very hard to
do it. They are in a surplus position now if
you take all their government budgets together,
social insurance and all of that. They're in a


surplus position. So they're in a position to have
a bigger stimulus. Also, they have a big trade
surplus with the rest of the world, so the economic prescription to get growth back in their
country and also to reduce the trade surplus
would be to dramatically expand domestic demand.
We have a large trade deficit, and we are
in an economic recovery, that is, our projected
growth rate, economic growth rate is larger than
the Japanese projected rate before their stimulus. But our problem is that even in recovery
we, like the Europeans, weren't generating any
new jobs. So what I am trying to do here is
to fire not a shotgun, but a rifle to try to take
advantage of the economic recovery and the fact
that I do have a long-term dramatic reduction
of the deficit which more than covers the cost
of this modest stimulus to create new jobs. So,
there are two different programs with two different objectives. I think both of them are quite
well-founded.
North Korea
Q. Did you discuss options against North
Korea with Prime Minister Miyazawa? Also,
could you tell us which is the United States
policy, sanctions or direct talk with North
Korea?
The President. We discussed the situation in
North Korea and what our options were and
what could be done within the next couple of
months to try to persuade North Korea, number
one, not to withdraw from the NPT regime and,
number two, not to pursue an aggressive development program for nuclear weapons. And we
talked about the relative merits of both sanctions
and persuasion and who might be able to talk
to North Korea and what might be able to be
done to convince them that this was not the
way to go. We discussed the whole range of
options.
Gay Rights
Q. Mr. President, in an hour or so you're
going to meet with gay rights leaders in the
Oval Office-the first time in history, apparently, that this has happened-a meeting that
mysteriously is closed to television cameras.
Would you (a) like to reconsider that in that
it appears that you're trying to make this a very
low-key exercise? And secondly, what do you
say to the gay rights leaders who regard your
decision to skip their march next weekend as


443




Apr. 16 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


something of a snub?
The President. Well, let me first of all answer-I didn't know about the thing being
closed. I can't comment on it because I haven't
thought about it.
But I don't see how any serious person could
claim that I have snubbed the gay community
in this country, having taken the position I have
not only on the issue of the military but of
participation in the Government. I have, I believe it's clear, taken a stronger position against
discrimination than any of my predecessors. And
it is a position that I believe in very deeply,
one that I took publicly in 1991 before there
was any organized political support for me in
the gay community. It had nothing to do with
politics and has everything to do with the fact
that I grew up in a segregated society and have
very strong feelings about the right of everybody
who is willing to work hard and play by the
rules to participate in American life.
During the time of the-on Saturday, I'm
going to be with the Senate. On Sunday, I'm
going to meet with the newspaper publishers.
I mean no snub. But Presidents usually don't
participate in marches. That has nothing to do
with my commitment on the fundamental issue
of being antidiscrimination.
Yes, in the back.
Japan-U.S. Trade and Japan's Economy
Q. Mr. President, I know the United States
is seeking the result-oriented trade policy. So
my question is that the U.S. is also seeking
a visible result in the area of macroeconomic
problems, such as a sharp decline of the Japanese trade surplus or something?
And that the next question is for Prime Minister Miyazawa. Did you make any commitment
in the future of the Japanese economy, such
as the 1994 growth rate or a trade surplus or
something?
The President. You want me to go first? I'm
not sure I entirely understood your question,
but let me answer you in this way: When the
Prime Minister and I were discussing this meeting in our private one-on-one meeting, he pointed out quite accurately that the last time there
was a reduction in the trade deficit that the
U.S. has with Japan was after a significant economic stimulus program was adopted several
years ago in the eighties which he helped to
engineer in a previous capacity.
And then he said, but still we may not get


the trade deficit down low enough for the United States purposes, and so perhaps we should
examine these things sector by sector as well
as some of the structural problems relating to
the differences in our laws and the way they
operate and some of the way we're organized.
Obviously, beyond that in terms of how you
get those results, there are still things to be
hashed out and differences. But I consider that
to be a significant move forward, that we at
least have agreed on the conceptual framework
in which we will deal with these problems.
Prime Minister Miyazawa. The $116 billion
is a sizable amount of money, particularly on
top of the $86 billion we committed over this
last year. These two stimulus measures are
bound to affect the Japanese economy; no doubt
about it. By this time of the year, we feel the
Japanese economy has picked up, recovering
slow but steady, and I am sure that the government-forecasted 3.3 percent growth is, I think,
within our reach.
Bosnia
Q. On Bosnia, do you feel that this is a time
for American leadership, that sanctions have obviously not had any effect on the Serbian behavior, even though they've had an effect on the
Serbian economy? Are you trying to persuade
our allies to lift the arms embargo, to take other
steps including possibly air strikes? Or do you
feel that this is something where your hands
are tied by our European partners?
The President. I think all I should say now,
because we are engaged in rather intense discussions about this, is that I think the time has
come for the United States and Europe to look
honestly at where we are and what our options
are and what the consequences of various
courses of action will be. And I think we have
to consider things which at least previously have
been unacceptable to some of the Security
Council members and some of those in NATO
and in other common security arrangements of
which the United States is a part.
I do think that the United States, as I have
said for a long time now and said during my
campaign, has an interest in what happens in
Bosnia. I think we have an interest in standing
up against the principle of ethnic cleansing. If
you look at the turmoil all through the Balkans,
if you look at the other places where this could
play itself out in other parts of the world, this
is not just about Bosnia.


444




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Apr. 16


On the other hand, there is reason to be
humble when approaching anything dealing with
the former Yugoslavia. Everyone remembers the
experience of the German army there during
World War II. You have only to look at the
topography of the country to realize the limits
of outside action there. So, we have to be humble in the face of it, and we haven't had a
very good hand to play, at least in the last 2 1/2


months since I've been looking closely at this.
But I do think the United States at least has
an obligation to force the consideration by all
the parties of all responsible options and try
to come to the best possible result. And that's
what I intend to do.
NOTE: The President's 11th news conference
began at 1:59 p.m. in the East Room at the White
House.


Letter to Senate Majority Leader George J. Mitchell on the Stimulus
Package
April 16, 1993


Dear Mr. Leader:
As the Senate prepares to return Monday to
consideration of the pending appropriations bill
to create jobs, to boost the economy, and to
meet pressing human needs, it is important that
we renew our commitment to breaking gridlock
and to making government work.
To help accomplish those goals, I recommend
you consider changes in the pending legislation
to reduce its scope, while leaving unaffected
certain key programs in the bill. I understand
the procedural situation permits you and Senator
Byrd to offer a substitute amendment when the
Senate reconvenes. Unfortunately, the rules of
the Senate have enabled a minority to block
the will of the majority. That makes it necessary
for us to step forward and modify the bill in
order to meet our objectives. Therefore I recommend you consider offering a substitute that
includes these components:
-Leave in place the proposed funding levels
for these essential programs to create jobs
and to meet human needs: highway construction, summer jobs for young people,
childhood immunization, the Ryan White
program for AIDS victims, construction of
wastewater treatment facilities, hiring meat
inspectors, and assistance to small business.
Of course, the $4 billion for extended unemployment compensation benefits would
be left in place.


-Reduce proportionately the other programs
in the bill to bring budget authority down
from $16.2 billion to $12 billion. This will
require an across-the-board cut in other
programs of about 44 percent.
-Target $200 million for grants to local governments to hire police as a means of helping to fight crime and to offset layoffs resulting from the fiscal constraints on local
government.
This approach would reduce the budget authority in this bill by approximately 25 percent,
but it would create only 18 percent fewer jobs
in this fiscal year.
I make this recommendation reluctantly, and
regret the unwillingness of the minority to let
the Senate act on the original legislation. But
our mandate is to achieve change, to move the
country forward, and to end business as usual
in Washington. By taking the initiative in the
face of an unrelenting filibuster I believe we
can respond to that mandate and achieve a significant portion of our original goals.
Your advice and counsel, and persistent hard
work for the working people of this country
are greatly appreciated. You have my respect
and the thanks of the millions of Americans
in the cities, towns and rural communities across
the nation who you are trying to help.
Sincerely,
BILL CLINTON


445




Apr. 16 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


Nomination for Posts at the Departments of Energy and Education
April 16, 1993


The President announced his intention to
nominate two senior officials at the Department
of Energy today and one at the Department
of Education. At Energy, William Taylor will
be Assistant Secretary for Congressional and
Legislative Affairs and Tara O'Toole will be Assistant Secretary for Environment, Safety, and
Health. Judith Winston will be the General
Counsel at the Department of Education.
The President's Radio Address
April 17, 1993
Good morning. My voice is coming to you
this morning through the facilities of the oldest
radio station in America, KDKA in Pittsburgh.
I'm visiting the city to meet personally with citizens here to discuss my plans for jobs, health
care, and the economy. But I wanted first to
do my weekly broadcast with the American people.
I'm told this station first broadcast in 1920
when it reported that year's Presidential elections. Over the past seven decades Presidents
have found ways to keep in touch with the people, from whistle-stop tours to fireside chats to
the bus tour that I adopted, along with Vice
President Gore, in last year's campaign.
Every Saturday morning I take this time to
talk with you, my fellow Americans, about the
problems on your minds and what I'm doing
to try and solve them. It's my way of reporting
to you and of giving you a way to hold me
accountable. You sent me to Washington to get
our Government and economy moving after
years of paralysis in policy and a bad experiment
with trickle-down economics. You know how important it is for us to make bold, comprehensive
changes in the way we do business.
We live in a competitive global economy. Nations rise and fall on the skills of their workers,
the competitiveness of their companies, the
imagination of their industries, and the cooperative experience and spirit that exists between
business, labor, and government. Although many
of the economies of the industrialized world are


"I am very pleased that William Taylor, Tara
O'Toole, and Judith Winston will be taking positions in my administration," said the President.
"All three of these people have distinguished
themselves through public service throughout
their careers."
NOTE: Biographies of the nominees were made
available by the Office of the Press Secretary.


now suffering from slow growth, they've made
many of the smart investments and the tough
choices which our Government has for too long
ignored. That's why many of them have been
moving ahead and too many of our people have
been falling behind.
We have an economy today that even when
it grows is not producing new jobs. We've increased the debt of our Nation by 4 times over
the last 12 years, and we don't have much to
show for it. We know that wages of most working people have stopped rising, that most people
are working longer work weeks, and that too
many families can no longer afford the escalating cost of health care.
But we also know that, given the right tools,
the right incentives, and the right encouragement, our workers and businesses can make the
kinds of products and profits our economy needs
to expand opportunity and to make our communities better places to live.
In many critical products today Americans are
the low cost, high quality producers. Our task
is to make sure that we create more of those
kinds of jobs.
Just 2 months ago I gave Congress my plan
for long-term jobs and economic growth. It
changes the old priorities in Washington and
puts our emphasis where it needs to be: on
people's real needs, on increasing investments
and jobs and education, on cutting the Federal
deficit, on stopping the waste which pays no
dividends, and redirecting our precious re

446




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Apr. 17


sources toward investment that creates jobs now
and lays the groundwork for robust economic
growth in the future.
These new directions passed the Congress in
record time and created a new sense of hope
and opportunity in our country. Then the jobs
plan I presented to Congress, which would create hundreds of thousands of jobs, most of them
in the private sector in 1993 and 1994, passed
the House of Representatives. It now has the
support of a majority of the United States Senate. But it's been held up by a filibuster of
a minority in the Senate, just 43 Senators. They
blocked a vote that they know would result in
the passage of our bill and the creation of jobs.
The issue isn't politics. The issue is people.
Millions of Americans are waiting for this legislation and counting on it, counting on us in
Washington. But the jobs bill has been grounded
by gridlock.
I know the American people are tired of business as usual and politics as usual. I know they
don't want us to spin our wheels. They want
the recovery to get moving. So I have taken
a first step to break this gridlock and gone the
extra mile. Yesterday I offered to cut the size
of this plan by 25 percent, from $16 billion
to $12 billion.
It's not what I'd hoped for. With 16 million
Americans looking for full-time work, I simply
can't let the bill languish when I know that
even a compromise bill will mean hundreds of
thousands of jobs for our people. The mandate
is to act to achieve change and move the country
forward. By taking this initiative in the face of
an unrelenting Senate talkathon, I think we can
respond to your mandate and achieve a significant portion of our original goals.
First, we want to keep the programs as much
as possible that are needed to generate jobs
and meet human needs, including highway and
road construction, summer jobs for young people, immunization for children, construction of
waste water sites, and aid to small businesses.
We also want to keep funding for extended unemployment compensation benefits for people
who have been unemployed for a long time
because the economy isn't creating jobs.
Second, I've recommended that all the other
programs in the bill be cut across-the-board by
a little more than 40 percent.
And third, I've recommended a new element
in this program to help us immediately start


our attempt to fight against crime by providing
$200 million for cities and towns to rehire police
officers who lost their jobs during the recession
and put them back to work protecting our people. I'm also going to fight for a tough crime
bill because the people of this country need
it and deserve it.
Now the people who are filibustering this bill,
the Republican Senators, say they won't vote
for it because it increases deficit spending, because there's extra spending this year that hasn't
already been approved. That sounds reasonable,
doesn't it? Here's what they don't say. This program is more than paid for by budget cuts over
my 5-year budget, and this program is well within the spending limits already approved by the
Congress this year.
It's amazing to me that many of these same
Senators who are filibustering the bill voted during the previous administration for billions of
dollars of the same kind of emergency spending,
and much of it was not designed to put the
American people to work.
This is not about deficit spending. We have
offered a plan to cut the deficit. This is about
where your priorities are, on people or on politics.
Keep in mind that our jobs bill is paid for
dollar-for-dollar. It is paid for by budget cuts.
And it's the soundest investment we can now
make for ourselves and our children. I urge
all Americans to take another look at this jobs
and investment program, to consider again the
benefits for all of us when we've helped make
more American partners working to ensure the
future of our Nation and the strength of our
economy.
You know, if every American who wanted a
job had one, we wouldn't have a lot of the
other problems we have in this country today.
This bill is not a miracle; it's a modest first
step to try to set off a job creation explosion
in this country again. But it's a step we ought
to take. And it is fully paid for over the life
of our budget.
Tell your lawmakers what you think. Tell
them how important the bill is. If it passes,
we'll all be winners.
Good morning, and thank you for listening.
NOTE: The President spoke at 10:06 a.m. in the
USAir terminal at Pittsburgh International Airport.


447




Apr. 17 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


Interview With Mike Whitely of KDKA Radio in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
April 17, 1993


Mr. Whitely. For everyone listening on KDKA
Radio, I'm Mike Whitely, KDKA Radio News.
We're here at the Pittsburgh International Airport and with me is the President of the United
States, Bill Clinton.
And I'd like to welcome you to the area and
to KDKA.
The President. Thank you, Mike. Glad to be
here.
Los Angeles Police Trial Verdict
Mr. Whitely. There are a lot of things we'd
like to talk about in the brief amount of time
we have, but some news is just breaking from
Los Angeles. I guess the entire country has been
kind of holding their breath, wondering what's
going to happen in the trial of the four Los
Angeles police officers. We just heard that two
of those officers-the sergeant, Sergeant Koon,
and Officer Powell-have been found guilty, and
two officers have been found not guilty.
It's a situation that's been building for over
a year since the first trial and now this trial
and this verdict. And I wonder what your
thoughts are this morning on how you see the
situation in Los Angeles in connection with your
administration and what you're trying to do.
The President. Well, first of all, I think the
American people should know that this trial,
in my judgment, is a tribute to the work and
judgment of the jury, as well as to the efforts
of the Federal Government in developing the
case.
The law under which the officers were tried
is a complex one; the standards of proof are
complicated. The jury decided that they would
convict the sergeant who was responsible for
supervising the officers and the officer who on
the film did most of the beating. The jury acquitted an officer who kicked Rodney King, but
also plainly tried to shield him from some blows,
and another officer who was a rookie.
No one knows exactly why they did what they
did, but it appears that they really tried to do
justice here. They acknowledged that his civil
rights were violated. And I think that the American people should take a lot of pride in that.
But I hope now we can begin to look ahead
and focus on three things: first of all, the importance of trying to bring this country together


and not violate the civil rights of any American;
secondly, the importance of renewing our fight
against crime.
I think it's important to recognize that in the
poorest areas of Los Angeles and many other
cities in this country, people may be worried
about police abuse, but they're even more worried about crime. It's time that we renewed
our efforts to go to community policing: put
100,000 more police officers on the street, pass
the Brady bill that would require a waiting period before people could buy a handgun, and
do some other things to reduce the vulnerability
of our people to violence and drugs.
And the last point I'd like to make is it seems
to me that we have got to rededicate ourselves
to the economic revitalization of our cities and
other economically distressed areas. If you just
think about it, if everybody in Los Angeles who
wanted a job had one, I don't think we'd have
quite as many problems as we do.
I laid out a very ambitious program in the
campaign to try to bring private investment and
public investment to bear in our cities. I have
dispatched  the  Commerce   Secretary, Ron
Brown, to California to try to come up with
some strategies for that State, because it's our
biggest State with our highest unemployment
rate, which could then be applied around the
country. I want to talk to him and to the Attorney General, to the new head of the NAACP,
to Reverend Jackson, and to several other people, and then I'll decide where to go from here
with regard to Los Angeles and the other cities
of the country.
Stimulus Package
Mr. Whitely. Let's talk about what brings you
to the Pittsburgh area today. I guess there's
been a lot of discussion on Capitol Hill about
your stimulus package. You've been locked in
a battle with the GOP. Yesterday, as you said
earlier in your radio address, you made some
moves to break that gridlock. What brings you
to Pittsburgh, in particular to Allegheny County,
in particular to Pennsylvania, with that battle?
The President. Well, there are two reasons.
First of all, Pittsburgh, Allegheny County, and
Pennsylvania supported me in the last election
because they wanted a new direction in eco

448




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Apr. 17


nomic policy. We have passed our overall economic plan. It gives the country a very different
budget for the next 5 years than we've had
in the previous 12. We reduced the deficit and,
at the same time, increased investment in jobs
and education and health care, in the things
that will make us a stronger country.
But in addition to that, I asked the Congress
in the short run to spend a little more money,
a modest amount of money to create another
half-million jobs in the next year and a half,
to try to cut the unemployment rate by half
a percent but also to try to spark job creation
in the private sector more. The plan passed the
House. It has the support of a majority of the
Senate. At the present time, all the Republican
Senators as a bloc are filibustering the bill. That
is, they won't let it come to a vote.
I believe that Senator Specter would like to
vote for the bill. And I believe that Senator
Dole, the Republican leader, has put a lot of
pressure on a lot of the Republicans to stay
hitched. And they're all saying that this bill increases the deficit. It doesn't. This bill is well
below the spending targets that Congress approved, including the Republicans, for this year.
This bill is paid for by budget cuts in the next
5 years. This bill is designed to give a jumpstart
to the economy. And I must say, a lot of the
Republican Senators that are holding it up,
when Mr. Bush was President, voted for billions
of dollars of emergency spending of just this
kind, much of it was totally unrelated to creating
jobs.
So what I'm trying to do is to break this
logjam. I've held out an olive branch; I've offered a compromise. But I think that we ought
to try to put some more Americans to work
right now to show that we're changing the direction of the country. And that's the purpose of
the bill.
Mr. Whitely. Have you been in touch with
Senator Specter or his office lately?
The President. Well, we've been trying to talk
regularly, through my White House congressional liaison operation, to the Senators that we
think are open to this, Senator Specter, Senator
D'Amato from New York, Senator Jeffords from
Vermont, Senator Hatfield from Oregon, and
five or six others whom we believe know we
need more jobs in this economy and know what
we are paying for this with budget cuts over
the life of the budget I presented.


You know, it has a lot of appeal to say, "Well,
we've got a big deficit. We shouldn't increase
it more." But the truth is that we are paying
for this with budget cuts in the whole life of
the budget over the next few years. And more
importantly, we have this program well below
the spending targets that Congress has already
approved for this year. And they've done this
for years, with the Republicans voting for it,
many Republicans voting for it, for things that
weren't nearly as important as putting the American people back to work.
So I just hope that this doesn't become a
political issue. It ought to just be about the
people of this country and the need for jobs.
Mr. Whitely. I have some questions from people who supported you, and some people who
are skeptical about your administration. It has
to do with their hopes and also with their fears.
A lot of people who supported you and voted
for you in Pennsylvania, I think some of them
are now saying, "We're glad we got him in the
White House, but now look at this incredible
process he has to go through. Look at these
problems. Look at this gridlock." And they're
beginning to wonder: Is this going to work; can
you pull it off? And of course, your skeptics
are saying, "Well, I knew it was going to be
like this."
The President. Well, I'd ask people, first of
all, to remember that we are, frankly, moving
very fast. The budget resolution that the Congress passed is the fastest they have ever passed
a budget resolution, ever in history, setting out
the next 5 year budget targets. So we are moving really rapidly. And we've got them working
on political reform, welfare reform, health care
reform, a whole wide range of things.
But it's a big operation. You can't expect to
turn it around overnight. It took 12 years to
produce the conditions which led to the victory
I received from the people in November, and
we can't turn it around in 90 days. But I think
we're making real, real progress.
I would urge the people not to get discouraged. We're not going to win every battle, and
not everything is going to happen overnight. But
we are definitely moving and changing things.
NOTE: The interview began at 10:40 a.m. in the
USAir terminal at Pittsburgh International Airport.


449




Apr. 17 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993
Remarks to the Community in Pittsburgh
April 17,1993


Thank you so much, Senator Wofford, Governor Casey, Commissioner Foerster-happy
birthday-and Commissioner Flaherty. I am so
glad to be back in Pittsburgh, in Allegheny
County.
Now, where's the band who played for us,
up there? The Richland High Marching Band,
thank you very much.
I want to say, Mayor, it's always good to be
with you and be in your city. I want to also
acknowledge the presence here today of Congressmen Coyne, Klink, Murphy, and Murtha,
all of whom have supported this economic program to get our country moving again, and a
person who has made some decisions that are
very good for Pittsburgh and USAir and, I think,
for the future of the country, the Transportation
Secretary, Federico Pefia, who is here with us.
I want to say a lot of things about the economic program, but before I do, let me say
what-since all of you heard the radio address
and the interview, you know that this morning
the jury in Los Angeles handed down a verdict
in the Rodney King case. You don't know that?
I thought you heard it. Well, let me say that
they did. The jury found two of the defendants
guilty and two of the defendants not guilty. The
jury convicted the officer, Officer Powell, who
was shown on the film, who did most of the
beating, and the sergeant who was in charge
of the group of police officers who were there.
The jury acquitted two of the other officers,
including the one who was a rookie and the
one who was on the film and, in part, trying
to deflect some blows from Rodney King.
Now, I want to say just a few words about
that, because I think, frankly, our attitude about
each other may have as much to do with the
progress we need to make in the future as any
specific law we can pass. This verdict was a
tribute to the work and the judgment of the
jury and the efforts of the Federal Government
in putting the case together. It was, once again,
a reminder that our courts are the proper forum
for the resolution of even our deepest legal disputes. And it did establish what a lot of people
have felt in their hearts for 2 years, that the
civil rights of Rodney King were violated.
But I ask you to think about the deeper


meaning of this whole issue. All across the world
today people are fighting with each other and
killing each other because of their racial and
religious differences. In eastern Bosnia, in the
town of Srebrenica, Muslims and Serbs that
lived together for centuries, and tens of thousands of the Muslims are now about to be
forced from their homes through a process
called ethnic cleansing and because the Serbs
had decided that they just can't live unless they
can live alone and without others who are different from them.
Our country has always been about something
different from that. We see these kinds of racial
and ethnic conflicts on every continent all across
the globe. But we've always been about something different from that. I once gave a speech
to a university in Los Angeles County where
there were students from 122 different countries. There are now people from 150 different
racial and ethnic groups in that county alone.
And I say to you, my fellow Americans, unless
we really do believe that underneath the differences of race and religion and ethnicity, underneath the differences of political party and
political opinion, there is a core in each one
of us, given us by God, in which we share in
common, which obliges us to respect one another and to wish to live together in harmony
and peace, none of the other things I came
to talk to you about today can come to pass.
For the people of Los Angeles and the people
of this country, all around the country, who
need more opportunity, the time has come to
go forward, to rededicate ourselves to the civil
rights of all Americans, to rededicate ourselves
to the fight against crime and drugs and violence, to put 100,000 more police officers on
the street, to pass the Brady bill and try to
reduce the vulnerability to violence and crimes
by people, to commit ourselves to a new agenda
of expanding opportunity and empowerment.
But in the beginning must be the willingness
of every American to assume a personal responsibility to respect the differences of his or her
fellow Americans and rejoice in what unites us
as human beings. Surely the lasting legacy of
the Rodney King trial ought to be that, a determination to reaffirm our common humanity and


450




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Apr. 17


to make a strength of our diversity. And if we
can do that, then we can get on about the
business of this great land.
I want to, before I talk a little bit about
the stimulus program, also say a special word
about the gentleman who introduced me and
those of you who sent him to the Senate. When
Pennsylvania elected Harris Wofford against all
the odds less than 2 years ago, you started a
movement not just that led to a change in Presidents but that led to a change in America. I'm
here to tell you today that Pennsylvania sent
shock waves to the country by electing Harris
Wofford because Pennsylvania was saying we expect our Government to solve the health care
crisis, we expect our Government to solve the
jobs crisis.
I wonder how many people would have even
taken seriously the campaign that I undertook
to try to break the gridlock and change the
whole way Washington works, to reduce the influence of special interests and put the American people, their jobs, their health care, their
education first, to try to change the welfare system and start a system of national service so
people could earn their way through college,
I wonder if any of that could have happened
if Pennsylvania hadn't said in a loud, screaming,
clear voice by electing Harris Wofford, the time
has come to change the direction of this country.
I also want to ask you for your understanding
and your patience. Senator Wofford has been
working hard on this health care issue ever since
he got to the Senate, but you can't change the
health care system unless the White House and
the Congress are in harness. And I, my wife,
and our administration are working on this
health care issue to put the White House and
the Congress in harness to ensure affordable
health care to all Americans.
I also want to say, again, how much I appreciate USAir and the employees for giving us
this wonderful terminal to meet in today.
And now let me talk about what Governor
Casey spoke about. When I became President,
I promised a long-term economic plan, no shortterm miracles but a real effort to turn this country around. And I presented that plan to the
Congress. They have to vote on it twice, first
in broad outlines and then in the details. They
adopted the outlines, the so-called budget resolution, in record time. They have never moved
so rapidly.


It changes the whole way the Federal Government takes care of your money and has your
priorities at stake. It emphasizes a dramatic reduction in the Federal deficit and, at the same
time, increasing investment in jobs, in education
and health care and communities and the things
that will make the country grow over a 5-year
period, not a one-shot deal, over 5 years. It
does it by a combination of strict budget cuts
and raising some more money. Seventy percent
of it comes from people with incomes over
$100,000 a year to try to restore some fairness
to this Tax Code that has gotten so unfair in
the last 12 years. This program is a good program. It is what I campaigned on.
Then I asked the Congress to do something
I didn't really campaign on but that I decided
was important, to adopt a short-term jobs program to immediately create a half a million jobs
in this economy. And I'll tell you why I did
it, even though we never talked about it in these
rallies when I came here. Because I looked
around the world and I saw that every advanced
economy in the world is having trouble creating
jobs, every one. Then I looked at America, and
I saw that the economists were saying that we
have been in an economic recovery for a year,
and the unemployment rate is higher now than
it was when we were in the depths of the recession.
So America is like a lot of these other countries. If you look at the overall figures-a lot
of you are responsible for this, by the wayproductivity, our output per working person, is
up. Some profits of our corporations are up,
stock market at record-high levels. Now interest
rates are going down because we're committed
to reducing the deficit. And a lot of you, as
a result, have refinanced your homes or gotten
a lower mortgage or interest rate on a car or
other consumer interest rates. People have been
able to get business loans or refinance them.
That's all good. But where are the jobs? This
is a sweeping, worldwide problem for wealthier
countries. But it is your problem and your community's problem if you or your neighbors don't
have one. And as a result of the incredible pressures on business today, we see that even in
this so-called recovery, we're having no new jobs
created and we're having 100,000 Americans a
month lose their health insurance. I say we can
do better. And we have to try to do better.
So we came up with the idea of not having
the Government create a job for everybody


451




Apr. 17 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


that's unemployed-you know we don't have
enough money to do that with the deficit as
high as it is-but of having a very carefully
targeted jobs plan to create a half a million
jobs and hope it would operate like striking a
match, and then that would get the economy
spurred, and other new jobs would be created.
It was a disciplined, limited, targeted plan, clearly designed to get this economy going again
in the short run. That is what I've asked the
House and the Senate to adopt. The House
adopted the plan right away. A majority of the
Senate is for it. All the Republicans are filibustering it, which means they know it will pass,
so they won't let it come to a vote.
Now, let me tell you what it will do. It will
give communities a lift by putting thousands of
police officers on the street to try to make the
streets safer. It will invest in roads and streets
and bridges and cleaner water and sewer systems and put people to work in construction
work. That is important. It will give cities and
counties and States some discretionary money
to support projects like this one. It will create
700,000 jobs for young people who otherwise
wouldn't have any work this summer to get
them off the streets.
After trying for a long time to pass this program and getting no help from any of the Republican Senators-because we have to have at
least three or four of them to help because
it takes 60 people to shut off debate in the
Senate, not a majority, 60 percent-I offered
a compromise. Well, you've heard that old saying, it takes two to tango? It also takes two
to untangle the gridlock in Washington. And
I came here today asking you to ask Senator
Specter to help me untangle this gridlock.
The Republicans say, "Well, maybe we ought
to pay money to extend the unemployment benefits of people who are unemployed," but not
a dime to create any jobs. We tried that for
12 years: Pay people to be unemployed; don't
pay them to work. I say we should do both,
take care of the unemployed but reduce the
unemployed. Put people to work.
There are those who say, "Everything's fine.
We don't need this." Everybody who says that
has got a job. [Laughter] Everybody who says
that has got health insurance. Everybody who
says that has a good education and is going
to do fine almost no matter what happens. They
can take care of themselves. The people who
know how many vulnerable people there are


in America know that we've got to try to do
something to put the people to work. If it
doesn't work, we'll do something else. But let's
try this. It can work.
Let me say, in fairness to my opponentsI want you to know what their argument is.
They say if the Congress passes an emergency
jobs bill, that adds to the deficit, and we
shouldn't do anything to make the deficit bigger,
nothing, except maybe unemployment benefits.
Now, that has a lot of appeal. Here's what they
don't tell you. We could pass every dollar I've
asked for in this jobs plan and still be below
the total spending targets that this Congress established before I ever became President, for
how much money was going to be spent this
year. Right, Congressmen? Number one.
Number two, we have cut and cut and cut
spending in this budget, over 200 specific spending cuts over the next 5 years that will blow
away this extra spending. This spending is more
than covered by budget cuts.
And third, and the most important thing of
all you need to know, is that before I became
President, just in the last 4 years, a lot of these
same people voted for the same kind of emergency spending, billions and billions and billions
of dollars of it, a lot of it for overseas spending
or other things that didn't have anything to do
with putting the people of Pennsylvania to work.
So they did this before. Let's do it for the American people this time.
What's amazing to me, they also say, '"Well,
you can't trust the cities and counties with the
money. You give these community development
block grants to the cities, you can't ever tell.
Well, they'll fool around and build a swimming
pool with it." [Laughter] I have a couple of
things to say about that. First of all, it was
the Republicans in Washington that once championed these community development grants.
Your late Senator from this State, John Heinz,
was a great champion of the very thing I'm
trying to do, increasing community development
block grants.
Before I became President, I heard speech
after speech out of the Republicans in Washington that I agreed with, saying that people at
the local level have better sense than we do
about how to spend this money. How many
times did the Congress get that speech from
the Republicans, "Let the mayors, let the Governors, let the county officials spend this money.
They know how to do it." Well, funny enough,


452




__


Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Apr. 17


I propose to expand that program, and all of
a sudden they said, "Why, you can't trust those
people. They'll squander the money. They might
build a swimming pool." [Laughter]
Let me tell you something. I don't know how
you feel, but in a lot of these cities and small
towns and country places, I'd a lot rather those
kids be at swimming pools this summer than
some of the places they're going to be. You
go to Washington. The President's got a swimming pool. The Senate has a swimming pool.
Why shouldn't the people have a swimming
pool? And what about all those people who are
going to work building those kinds of things
in our cities? I'm telling you, folks, every argument they've got still comes back to gridlock.
Now again, I'm going to tell you, this is not
the end of the world, but we need to keep
this country moving. And we need to create
some jobs now. And we need to stop making
excuses. We need to pull together. I have
reached out the hand of compromise to the
Republicans in the Senate. I did it all by myself.
I didn't have any kind of deal from them. I
just listened to them. I listened to all those
speeches about how bad these programs were.
So I said, "Okay, here's a different deal, and
by the way, how about spending $200 million
more to put police on the street? Why don't
you do that?" Let's hear what their answer is.
Why shouldn't we have police on the street
where we need it in the cities, where we've
have to cut back on law enforcement coverage?
Why shouldn't we have more people working
in this country?
I want to ask you to help us put America
back to work. I want to ask you to help keep
the movement going. I have been very honest


with you. We don't have any magic bullets. We
know there won't be any overnight successes.
But we know that this economy, like so many
countries in the world, is not creating jobs. And
if people were working, you just think about
it, if everybody in this country who wanted a
job had one, we wouldn't have half the problems
we've got now. Let's try to put America back
to work.
By the end of this month, let me give you
one more example, if we don't fund this program, the main loan program of the Small Business Administration will be shut down. The opposite party for years paraded as the champion
of the small businesses of this country. That
program can help start 25,000 small businesses.
Small business is generating most of the new
jobs in America today. That is the kind of thing
we have done here.
I ask you, please, not in a spirit of partisanship, not in an atmosphere of hostility, not with
political rhetoric, just for the benefit of the people of Pittsburgh and Allegheny County and
Pennsylvania and the United States of America,
ask your Senator and the Senators in the United
States Senate to give us a chance to put this
country back to work, starting Monday.
Thank you, and God bless you all.
NOTE: The President spoke at 11:16 a.m. in the
USAir terminal at Pittsburgh International Airport. In his remarks, he referred to Tom Foerster
and Pete Flaherty, Allegheny County commissioners, and Sophie Masloff, Mayor of Pittsburgh.
The Office of the Press Secretary also released
a statement by the President on the jury verdict
in the Rodney King case which was an excerpt
from the President's remarks printed above.


Statement on the Death of President Turgut Ozal of Turkey
April 17, 1993


Mrs. Clinton and I are deeply saddened over
the passing of President Turgut Ozal of Turkey.
We have expressed our condolences to the Acting President of Turkey, Hussametin Cindoruk,
and to Mrs. Semra Ozal at this difficult and
sad time. Friends of Turkey everywhere mourn
his passing.
President Ozal devoted his life to public serv

ice, and Turkey is a stronger country because
of his dedicated and visionary leadership. President Ozal's mark on the political life of Turkey,
both at home and abroad, has been extraordinary. He crafted a new regional role for his
country, stressing always the importance of democracy, trade, and peace. The alliance of Turkey and the United States is stronger today be

453




Apr. 17 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


cause of the personal leadership of the late  I extend our heartfelt sympathies to the people
President.                                  of Turkey and to the family and friends of PresiOn behalf of all Americans, Mrs. Clinton and  dent Ozal.
Remarks to the Champion University of Maine Ice Hockey Team and an
Exchange With Reporters
April 19, 1993


The President. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. It's an honor for me to welcome the
University of Maine Black Bears, the winner
of the NCAA Division I hockey national championship to the Rose Garden and the White
House. I understand from Senator Mitchell that
this is the first team from the University of
Maine ever to win a national championship. And
we're glad to have them here.
I'm inspired not only by how the team pulled
together to win the championship but how the
entire State pulled together to cheer them on
to victory. Coming from a State that is also
relatively small in size but also filled with pride
and tradition and community, I can understand
how the people of Maine must feel about the
Black Bears. In our State, people are still talking
about the time we won the Orange Bowl over
the number one ranked football team, and that
was back in 1978. I'm sure that 15 years from
now the people of Maine will be as proud of
this team as they are today.
You know, in my State football is a slightly
more popular sport than hockey. We don't have
a lot of ice. [Laughter] But after spending 3
months getting banged around in this town, I
can understand a little more about hockey than
I did before I came here. Hockey is a tough
game; it's a hard-hitting sport. It does have one
virtue though, there's a penalty for delay of
game. I wish we had that rule in the Senate.
[Laughter] In Government, as in hockey, leadership is important. In the United States Senate,
our team has a great captain, the majority leader
and the senior Senator from Maine, George
Mitchell; junior Senator Cohen looks so young,
I can't imagine. [Laughter] I'm actually bitter
about Senator Cohen because he looks so much
younger than me.
On your hockey team the captain, Jim Montgomery, has done a great job. He scored the
winning goal late in the championship game,


leading you to a come-from-behind victory,
something else I know a little bit about. Sport
brings out the best in individuals and in teams
and in communities. I share the pride that Senator Mitchell and Senator Cohen and Congressman Andrews and all the people of Maine must
feel for the Black Bears who have shown us
all how to play as a team, how to bring out
the best in one another, and how to come from
behind. I think it's important, as I ask young
people from around America who have achieved
outstanding things in working together to come
here to the White House to be recognized and
appreciated by their country, to remember that
those kinds of values and those kinds of virtues
need to be ingrained in all of us for all of
our lives. We now have another role model,
and I'm glad to have them here today.
[At this point, the President was presented with
a team jersey. ]
The President. That's great. I love it. It's beautiful.
[The President was then presented with an autographed hockey stick. ]
The President. Thank you. That's great.
Branch Davidian Religious Sect Standoff
Q. Mr. President, did you authorize the move
on Waco this morning, sir?
The President. I was aware of it. I think the
Attorney General made the decision. And I
think I should refer all questions to her and
to the FBI.
Q. Did you have any instructions for her as
to how it should be executed?
The President. No, they made the tactical decisions. That was their judgment, the FBI.
Q. Is this a raid?
The President. I want to refer you to, talk
to the Attorney General and the FBI. I knew
it was going to be done, but the decisions were


454




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Apr. 19


entirely theirs, all the tactical decisions.
Stimulus Package
Q. What did you and Senator Mitchell talk
about this morning?
Q. Any chance for that stimulus package?
The President. Senator Mitchell ought to pay
my quarter. I was in there-[laughter]
Senator Mitchell. You have to pay that quarter.
The President. I was ready. [Laughter] Senator Mitchell, he's worth a quarter any day.
9. Any chance for your bill, sir?
The President. We talked about what was
going to happen this week in the Senate and
about what other meetings we're going to have
for the rest of the week. We only had about
5 minutes to talk, and we agreed we'd get back
together later, around noon, and talk some
more.
Q. Senator Dole said over the weekend that
your compromise is no compromise.
The President. Well, I know he did, but look,
Senator Dole and a lot of the other Republicans
now in the Senate voted for the same kind of
thing for Ronald Reagan in 1983. And our research indicates that a majority of them over
time voted for a total of 28 emergency spending
measures totaling over $100 billion when Reagan
and Bush were President, in those administra

tions. And many of those purposes were not
nearly as worthy as putting the American people
back to work. I don't want to go back and revisit
every one, but you can do it. You can look
at the research there. So this position they're
taking is not credible. We have a very tough
5-year deficit reduction plan. All these costs are
covered during that time and then some. And
the very people that are saying this has all got
to be paid for don't have much of a history
on which to base their position. They've got
12 years of votes for stimulus measures of this
kind that had very little to do with putting the
American people back to work. So I think we've
got a chance to work it out, and I'm hopeful.
We'll see what happens today and tomorrow.
I'm feeling pretty good about it.
NOTE: The President spoke at 9:58 a.m. in the
Rose Garden at the White House. In his remarks,
he referred to the assault by Federal agents with
armored vehicles and tear gas on the Branch
Davidian religious sect compound in Waco, TX.
The action ended a 51-day standoff which began
on February 28 when Federal agents raided the
compound in an attempt to serve warrants for firearms violations on David Koresh, leader of the
sect. A portion of these remarks could not be verified because the tape was incomplete.


Remarks to the Building and Construction Trades Department of the
AFL-CIO
April 19, 1993


The President. Thank you very much, Bob.
And thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for that
wonderful, wonderful reception.
Audience member. My hero! [Laughter]
The President. I don't know about that, but
I'm up here fighting for you every day, I'll tell
you that.
I like looking out into a big crowd into the
faces of people who have worked hard and
played by the rules and tried to make this country work again. I thank you for the help you
gave me last November when we said together
we wanted to change this country; we wanted
to break the gridlock in Washington; we wanted
to change the priorities and put our people first


again; we wanted to develop a high-wage, highgrowth economy.
We knew that to do it we'd have to do some
very tough things. All of us knew that going
in. We knew that these decisions would be difficult and that they wouldn't come overnight
and that the country had been going in one
direction for more than a decade and you
couldn't turn it around overnight. But everyone
knew that we had to reduce this awful Federal
deficit, we had to increase our investment in
our people and jobs, at the same time we had
to address the health care crisis. Now, we're
spending 15 percent of our national income on
health care with 37 million people uninsured,


455




Apr. 19 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


100,000 people a month losing their health insurance, and more and more money every year
going to health care instead of investment in
jobs and growth and the economy. We knew
we had to make some changes.
I made some commitments to you, and I told
you that if you'd vote for me, I'd try to bring
fairness and growth and opportunity back to
America. I tried to do everything that I said
I'd do. I've confronted some different and difficult circumstances, but we are moving ahead.
I have been gratified, frankly, by most of what
has happened here in the last 21/2 months. Congress passed a resolution endorsing the budget
plan I presented to reduce the deficit and increase investment in jobs and education and
training, in record time. They have never passed
a budget plan that fast.
And then I said, well, now I think we ought
to have an emergency jobs plan to try to
jumpstart this economy, to put a half a million
more people back to work through direct investment in the public and private sector over the
next year and a half because this economy
doesn't seem to be creating any jobs, even
though everybody tells us we're in a recovery.
And there was broad-based support for that,
for creating jobs and using the money to immunize children and to rebuild our community and
to rebuild our infrastructure. The bill swept
through the House and is supported by a majority of the Senate.
A few weeks ago we had a meeting of business and labor leaders that included Bob
Georgine and Lane Kirkland and some of the
biggest business people in this country saying
we need the jobs bill. And the labor movement
has shown real leadership on this issue in working in partnership with business on the concept
of investment.
I tried to look hard at this economy and ask
what we can do. How can we move this economy forward? How can we do it in the short
term and in the long term? Over the long term,
we've got to bring the deficit down. That gets
interest rates down. You've seen that already.
Interest rates have come down since the election. And billions of dollars are being refinanced
in homes, in car loans, in commercial loans,
in business loans. And that's going to mean
more jobs for people like you. But it also means
that we have to have some direct investment
to create jobs in this economy. We've got to
get the economy moving. There are those who


say, well, we're in a recovery and things are
going fine. Well, I don't know about you, but
16 months of 7 percent unemployment or more
is not fine with me. I ran because I thought
we could do better.
You know, people ask me all the time what
is the real difference about being President?
Is it really different? And I have to tell you,
after just a couple of months, I've got an enormous amount of sympathy with every predecessor I ever had who got out of touch. [Laughter] You know, you live in the nicest public
housing in America-[laughter]-and somebody
drives you around everywhere, and you're always
being protected because you are at some risk,
and you've got the nicest airplane anybody ever
saw-[laughter]-and nobody except your wife
and your mama and your nearest family can
call you by your first name anymore without
violating protocol. Before you know it, you're
just walking around in a bubble.
The other day-this is a true story-the other
day I came down from the upper residence floor
of the White House down to the first floor,
the big floor, and I was going to a meeting.
And I didn't know it but my wife had had a
meeting with a bunch of other people, and when
the elevator door opened I found myself standing in the midst of 20 or 30 people. I didn't
know them, and I just shook hands with them,
and said hello, and went on and-to give you
an example of how bad it is-this very nice
person working at the White House said, "Oh,
Mr. President, I'm so sorry I let you out in
the middle of those people." And so I looked
at him and I said, "That's okay young man,
I used to be one myself." [Laughter]
It's so easy for people who make decisions
here to forget. You know, everybody that makes
a decision here has got a job. Everybody that
makes a decision here that affects your life got
a good education. Everybody that makes a decision here has got a good health care plan and
has pretty good security because we keep taking
in tax dollars.
And it's important that we think about where
other people are. Unemployment in building
trades across the board is about 14 percent,
about twice the national average. And yet we
know we're spending much less of our income
investing in building things, in the infrastructure
and in construction and things that really make
a country rich over the long run, than almost
all of our competitors.


456




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Apr. 19


We also know that every wealthy country in
the world is having trouble creating jobs. All
the rich countries are. Even Japan's seen its
unemployment rate go up some, and theirs is
lower than everybody else's because their economy is more closed. But all the wealthy countries, including Japan, including Germany, are
having difficulty creating jobs. This is not just
an American problem. But we need to find the
courage and the creativity to solve the problem.
We're not like some of those countries who give
you your wages for a year and a half and all
of your benefits if you lose the job. In America,
people need to work. And you just think about
it, about half our problems would go away overnight if everybody in this country who wanted
to work had a job.
There are more than a million fewer jobs
in the private sector now than there were before
this recession began. Virtually all the net growth
in employment has come in local, State, and
Federal Government. And if you will forgive
me, that's not a very sound basis for long-term
economic recovery, because their bills are all
paid by somebody else. The somebody elses
need the work. And that's what we're trying
to do.
Last year, more businesses failed than at any
time in memory. Last month, we lost a total
of net 22,000 jobs, including 59,000 construction
jobs. There are now 16 million Americans who
are looking for the wages and dignity of fulltime work. There may be more who aren't on
the rolls who have just given up trying.
I've taken a lot of heat because I have cut
Government programs that some people in my
own party like a lot. I offered a program that
had 200 specific budget cuts, a program that
will reduce this deficit by about $500 billion
over 5 years. I don't think the Government can
do everything or should try to do everything.
And a lot of what we used to do either doesn't
need to be done or must be done by State
and local government or the private sector. But
I am not willing to say when 7 percent of our
people are unemployed and have been for 16
months, when millions more are underemployed, when business is under so much
pressure that 100,000 Americans a month are
losing their health insurance, when city after
city after city in this country is full of young
people who won't have anything to do this summer and have never had a good job and need
to have the experience of working, that we


shouldn't do more to create real opportunity
and to have the dignity of work and to develop
the capacity of our people.
I just think we can do better. I did not ask
for this job for the honor, great as it is, of
living in the White House and riding around
in all the limousines and the airplanes. It is
a very great honor to be President, but you
can only do honor to the job if you get up
every day and try to make things better and
change things. That's why I asked you to give
me the job.
Now I need your help today, because I know
that the building trades have been willing in
the past to endorse builders, whether they were
Republicans or Democrats. And you have been
willing to endorse people that you thoughtMembers of Congress and others at the State
level who would help you to put people to work.
Some of the people you endorsed are now involved in the Senate filibuster of the jobs plan.
Now this plan will create hundreds of thousands of jobs. Is it the answer to all our problems? No. Is it big enough? Probably not, but
it's about as big as it can be given the size
of the deficit and the fact that we've got to
bring that down and keep interest rates down.
Will it hurt the economy? No.
We want to put people to work in construction. We also want to rehire thousands of police
officers who have lost their jobs so they can
do a better job protecting people from crime.
You know, there was a fascinating article on
Los Angeles the other day before the verdict
in the King case, which said that in all neighborhoods, without regard to race or income, people
wanted more police officers. They wanted community policing. They knew it would reduce the
possibility of abusive police power if they had
enough police on the street so that they knew
their neighbors. They worked together to prevent crime as well as to catch criminals. And
people felt less tension and more community.
That's what's also in this jobs plan. In your
industry, a $450 billion a year industry, we can
create about 23,000 to 25,000 jobs directly,
quickly, quickly, if this bill will pass. We can
give 700,000 young people a chance to have
a job this summer that will not only be a real
job but will require them to do some more
work on their education so that they will learn
even as they earn.
We will provide some loans to small businesses where most of the new jobs are created.


457




Apr. 19 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


The Republican Party has been a champion of
this small business program in the past as they
have been of the community development block
grants, Republican Mayors all over America supporting my jobs program as the Republican Senators say how bad the community development
block grant is. They used to trust Mayors and
Governors when they had a Republican in the
White House. I don't know what this has got
to do with me. They've still got the same Mayors
and Governors they had before.
It's time to stop playing politics and move
forward. Many of the projects funded by this
jobs plan have sat on the shelves for years while
deficits exploded and investments in the things
that make the economy strong and the people
strong have been totally neglected.
Now what are my opponents saying? Why
did they say it's okay for the minority to keep
the majority from even voting on this bill? They
say this bill adds to the deficit. Well, I'll give
you four arguments against that. I want you
to give it back to them before you leave town.
First, they're more than happy to pay for unemployment benefits to be extended. That is,
they say, Okay, we'll vote for that in emergency
funding. But they won't create any money to
put people to work so they don't have to draw
unemployment. Now, we tried it their way for
12 years. They always voted to extend unemployment benefits. I'd like to extend employment benefits. That's a lot better than unemployment benefits.
Second thing you need to know is, because
of some savings in the defense budget, which
have already occurred, we could pass every dollar in this jobs bill and still be below the target
for total discretionary Federal spending set by
these folks in Congress before I ever got here.
They never tell you that.
Third thing you need to know, as I said, is
that we have proposed 200 specific budget cuts
that will more than pay for this modest amount
of extra spending. And very often in the past,
these same folks have voted to spend money
this year and pay for it in the years ahead in
a 5-year budget plan.
And finally, and maybe most importantly,
many and perhaps most of the Senators who
are blocking consideration of our plan have actually voted for emergency measure after emergency measure after emergency measure just
like this for 12 years, often in legislation that
wasn't paid for. And they didn't have much trou

ble with it then when their guys were in the
White House.
This plan puts people to work. It's paid for.
It doesn't shift jobs overseas, it puts jobs on
the streets of America. Many of the people who
are leading this filibuster voted for a stimulus
plan like this under President Reagan back in
1983. We did some quick research over the
weekend. It appears that 28 times in the last
12 years, many of the same people who are
holding this bill up voted to do the same thing
I'm asking for to the tune of over $100 billion,
often for foreign aid and for other things that
didn't have nearly as much to do with affecting
the lives of the American people in Main Street
America. And it's time to help Main Street
America.
We had an election in November that said
stop the gridlock, stop the partisan bickering,
compromise, work together, move the country
forward, and start by putting the American people back to work. That's what this is all about.
Don't listen to those arguments.
So that's it. When they say, oh, we can't add
to the deficit, say, well, you guys, you guys not
the Democrats, you guys, you voted for 12 years
for these kinds of things, often to help countries,
why not help us? Two, you've got $500 billion
in deficit reduction; it'll cover this real well.
Three, you're still under the spending targets
that you adopted before President Clinton ever
got to town. And four, we need this jobs plan.
We don't need to fund just unemployment benefits, we want to fund employment benefits.
This whole thing has got to be about enabling
people to live up to their potential. I went on
these buses all across the country with Hillary
and Al and Tipper Gore, and we went into
little towns and big cities. Over and over and
over again, what I left those encounters with
was the sense that Americans were yearning just
to be themselves as fully as they could be. And
you can't do that if you can't have a job. You
can't do that if you can't get a decent education.
You can't do that if you think no matter how
hard you work, you can't take care of your family if they get sick. You can't do that if you
think you can never change jobs without losing
your health benefits.
If you think about it, we live in a world where
the power of people is uppermost. We live in
a country where, thank God, no one is a dictator. We have to work together. We have to
be able to put aside our partisan labels and


458




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Apr. 19


sometimes our personal prejudices and think
about what it takes to pull people together and
give everybody a chance to be the most they
can be. That's what the whole purpose of politics is.
And when this bill was held up, I didn't like
it, but I offered to compromise, to take some
of the jobs out of it, though it grieves me, to
try to respond to some of the specific speeches
that were given by Republican Senators on the
floor of the Senate.
And so far what have they said to my good
faith offer? Same old thing: stonewall. This is
the deficit; we can't add to the deficit. Folks,
this is the crowd that had the Government for
12 years. They took the deficit from $1 trillion
to $4 trillion. Have they no shame? How can
they say this? What is going on? Sometimes
I think the secret to success in this town is
being able to say the most amazing things with
a straight face.
We're going to get the deficit down. We're
going to try to keep interest rates down. But
we've got to invest in people, and we've got
to try to create jobs. Will this work wonders?
No. Will it work some good? Yes, you bet it
will. It is an effort. Did I even campaign on
this? No. You endorsed me without asking me
to promise an emergency jobs program. I offered this program for the simple reason that
I looked at the performance of this economy
and its difficulty in creating jobs. Then I looked
around the world and I saw all these other countries having the same exact problem we were


having, and I thought, we've got to try something else. And I'll tell you something, if we
get this done and it doesn't work, I'll try something else. We're living in a new and different
time where we've got to try.
I ask you, every one of you that ever had
a chance to make it because you joined this
union, because somebody invested in a project
that gave you a chance to work, because you
had the opportunity to raise a family and have
a house, educate kids. Just take a little time
now and ask the people you know in the United
States Congress, who have all made it, to think
about how together we can provide these opportunities for others. The arguments they are using
just don't hold water. They don't measure
against the facts of what they have done in
the past and what the facts of this budget that
I have presented are. This is a modest program
to give hope and opportunity to people in this
country who need it and to try to get the job
engine going in America again.
I have compromised. I have held out my
hand. I think it's time for somebody to reach
back across the divide of party politics and put
the American people first. And you can help
get it done today. I hope you will.
Thank you, and God bless you.
NOTE: The President spoke at 11:53 a.m. at the
Washington Hilton Hotel. In his remarks, he referred to Robert Georgine, president, Building
and Construction Trades Department, and Lane
Kirkland, president, AFL-CIO.


Statement on the Tragedy in Waco, Texas
April 19, 1993


I am deeply saddened by the loss of life in
Waco today. My thoughts and prayers are with
the families of David Koresh's victims.
The law enforcement agencies involved in the
Waco siege recommended the course of action
pursued today. The Attorney General informed


me of their analysis and judgment and recommended that we proceed with today's action
given the risks of maintaining the previous policy
indefinitely. I told the Attorney General to do
what she thought was right, and I stand by that
decision.


459




Apr. 19 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993
Nomination for Assistant Secretaries of Labor
April 19, 1993


The President today named California Chief
Deputy Treasurer E. Olena Berg and former
Michigan Department of Commerce Director
Douglas Ross to senior positions at the Department of Labor. He intends to nominate Ms.
Berg to be Assistant Secretary for Pension and
Welfare Benefit Programs, Pension and Welfare
Benefits Administration, and Mr. Ross to be Assistant Secretary for Employment and Training,


Employment and Training Administration.
"Olena Berg and Doug Ross have been effective and innovative officials at the State government level," said the President. "Both have significant business experience as well. I am very
pleased that they will be part of Secretary
Reich's team at Labor."
NOTE: Biographies of the nominees were made
available by the Office of the Press Secretary.


Remarks on Presenting the Teacher of the Year Award
April 20, 1993


The President. Good afternoon. Please be
seated.
I want to say, first, how delighted I am to
be here with Secretary Riley and with Senator
Graham. The three of us served as Governors
together during the 1980's when we worked
constantly on strategies to improve our schools,
when we led often difficult and long efforts to
upgrade the standards in American education
and to improve the quality of instruction our
children were receiving.
There were no two Governors whom I admired more during that period than the two
who now stand on this stage with the Teacher
of the Year. And I think both of them would
join me in saying that, after all the testimony
has been heard and all the bills have been
passed and the funds have been raised and allocated, it all comes down to what happens between the teacher and the students in the classroom.
That's why today's ceremony honoring the National Teacher of the Year is so important. Tracey Leon Bailey has won recognition all across
our country for highly advanced and innovative
science programs. He's developed and introduced into Florida's classrooms cutting-edge
programs in molecular biology and DNA
fingerprinting, subjects usually taught only in
college and, I might add, probably only dimly
understood here in the Nation's Capital.
Within 3 years of being hired by a satellite


high school, Mr. Bailey's institution had one of
the strongest science programs in the entire
State of Florida, and it won numerous national
and international awards. These advanced programs aren't just for a favored few. Tracey Bailey has inspired all kinds of students, including
those previously known as low-achieving or atrisk, to reach for excellence and to attain it.
This is what our students need and what our
country needs.
Today, we know that a good future with high
wages and rich opportunities rests on the foundation of quality education for a lifetime. The
basics aren't enough anymore. All our kids need
competence in math and science and advanced
problemsolving. That's why Tracey Bailey's accomplishments are so important and why I am
so pleased and proud to participate in recognizing and honoring these accomplishments.
Tracey, you represent the best in the United
States. I'm glad to recognize you today and to
formally present you with this apple award as
the Teacher of the Year for 1993.
[At this point, the President presented the
award, and Mr. Bailey made a brief statement
of appreciation.]
The President. In closing, I would like to also
welcome the education leaders from Florida
who are here, those representing the national
education groups who have also come. I'd like
to recognize Tracey's Congressman, Representa

460




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Apr. 20


tive Jim Bacchus in the back, himself a great
advocate of education. And I'd like to remind
all of you that the ultimate purpose of the National Teacher of the Year Award is to find
a way for the rest of us to express our appreciation to people all across this country who give
their lives to our children, all of the teachers
of this country who get up every day and do
The President's News Conference
April 20, 1993
Tragedy in Waco
The President. On February the 28th, four
Federal agents were killed in the line of duty
trying to enforce the law against the Branch
Davidian compound, which had illegally stockpiled weaponry and ammunition and placed innocent children at risk. Because the BATF operation had failed to meet its objective, a 51 -day standoff ensued.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation then
made every reasonable effort to bring this perilous situation to an end without bloodshed and
further loss of life. The Bureau's efforts were
ultimately unavailing because the individual with
whom they were dealing, David Koresh, was
dangerous, irrational, and probably insane. He
engaged in numerous activities which violated
both Federal law and common standards of decency. He was, moreover, responsible for the
deaths and injuries which occurred during the
action against the compound in February. Given
his inclination towards violence and in an effort
to protect his young hostages, no provocative
actions were taken for more than 7 weeks by
Federal agents against the compound.
This weekend I was briefed by Attorney General Reno on an operation prepared by the FBI,
designed to increase pressure on Koresh and
persuade those in the compound to surrender
peacefully. The plan included a decision to withhold the use of ammunition, even in the face
of fire, and instead to use tear gas that would
not cause permanent harm to health but would,
it was hoped, force the people in the compound
to come outside and to surrender.
I was informed of the plan to end the siege.
I discussed it with Attorney General Reno. I
asked the questions I thought it was appropriate


their best to try to advance the cause of learning
for all the children of America. They are, in
so many ways, our most important public servants.
Thank you very much.
NOTE: The President spoke at 1:25 p.m. in the
Rose Garden at the White House.


for me to ask. I then told her to do what she
thought was right, and I take full responsibility
for the implementation of the decision.
Yesterday's action ended in a horrible human
tragedy. Mr. Koresh's response to the demands
for his surrender by Federal agents was to destroy himself and murder the children who were
his captives, as well as all the other people who
were there who did not survive. He killed those
he controlled, and he bears ultimate responsibility for the carnage that ensued.
Now we must review the past with an eye
toward the future. I have directed the United
States Departments of Justice and Treasury to
undertake a vigorous and thorough investigation
to uncover what happened and why and whether
anything could have been done differently. I
have told the Departments to involve independent professional law enforcement officials in the
investigation. I expect to receive analysis and
answers in whatever time is required to complete the review. Finally, I have directed the
Departments to cooperate fully with all congressional inquiries so that we can continue to be
fully accountable to the American people.
I want to express my appreciation to the Attorney General, to the Justice Department, and
to the Federal agents on the frontlines who did
the best job they could under deeply difficult
circumstances.
Again I want to say, as I did yesterday, I
am very sorry for the loss of life which occurred
at the beginning and at the end of this tragedy
in Waco. I hope very much that others who
will be tempted to join cults and to become
involved with people like David Koresh will be
deterred by the horrible scenes they have seen
over the last 7 weeks. And I hope very much


461




Apr. 20 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


that the difficult situations which Federal agents
confronted there and which they will be doubtless required to confront in other contexts in
the future will be somewhat better handled and
better understood because of what has been
learned now.
Q. Mr. President, can you, first of all, tell
us why after 51 days you decidedQ. Mr. President, can you describe for us
what it is that Janet Reno outlined to you in
your 15-minute phone conversation with
The President. I can't hear you both. If one
will go first and then the other.
Q. Sorry. Can you describe what Janet
RenoQ. Mr. President
The President. I'll answer both your questions,
but I can't do it at once.
Q. Can you describe what she told you on
Sunday about the nature of the operation and
how much detail you knew about it?
The President. Yes. I was told by the Attorney
General that the FBI strongly felt that the time
had come to take another step in trying to dislodge the people in the compound. And she
described generally what the operation would
be, that they wanted to go in and use tear
gas which had been tested not to cause permanent damage to adults or to children but which
would make it very difficult for people to stay
inside the building. And it was hoped that the
tear gas would permit them to come outside.
I was further told that under no circumstances
would our people fire any shots at them, even
if fired upon. They were going to shoot the
tear gas from armored vehicles which would
protect them, and there would be no exchange
of fire. In fact, as you know, an awful lot of
shots were fired by the cult members at the
Federal officials. There were no shots coming
back from the Government side.
I asked a number of questions. The first question I asked is, why now? We have waited 7
weeks; why now? The reasons I was given were
the following:
Number one, that there was a limit to how
long the Federal authorities could maintain with
their limited resources the quality and intensity
of coverage by experts there. They might be
needed in other parts of the country.
Number two, that the people who had reviewed this had never seen a case quite like
this one before, and they were convinced that
no progress had been made recently and no


progress was going to be made through the normal means of getting Koresh and the other cult
members to come out.
Number three, that the danger of their doing
something to themselves or to others was likely
to increase, not decrease, with the passage of
time.
And number four, that they had reason to
believe that the children who were still inside
the compound were being abused significantly,
as well as being forced to live in unsanitary
and unsafe conditions.
So for those reasons, they wanted to move
at that time.
The second question I asked the Attorney
General is whether they had given consideration
to all of the things that could go wrong and
evaluated them against what might happen that
was good. She said that the FBI personnel on
the scene and those working with them were
convinced that the chances of bad things happening would only increase with the passage
of time.
The third question I asked was, has the military been consulted? As soon as the initial tragedy came to light in Waco, that's the first thing
I asked to be done, because it was obvious that
this was not a typical law enforcement situation.
Military people were then brought in, helped
to analyze the situation and some of the problems that were presented by it. And so I asked
if the military had been consulted. The Attorney
General said that they had and that they were
in basic agreement, that there was only one
minor tactical difference of opinion between the
FBI and the military, something that both sides
thought was not of overwhelming significance.
Having asked those questions and gotten
those answers, I said that if she thought it was
the right thing to do, that she should proceed
and that I would support it. And I stand by
that today.
Q. Mr. PresidentThe President. Wait.
Go ahead.
Q. Can you address the widespread perception, reported widely-television, radio, and
newspapers-that you were trying somehow to
distance yourself from this disaster?
The President. No, I'm bewildered by it. The
only reason I made no public statement yesterday, let me say, the only reason I made no
public statement yesterday is that I had nothing
to add to what was being said, and I literally


462




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Apr. 20


did not know until rather late in the day whether anybody was still alive other than those who
had been actually seen and taken to the hospital
or taken into custody. It was purely and simply
a question of waiting for events to unfold.
I can't account for why people speculated one
way or the other, but I talked to the Attorney
General on the day before the action took place.
I talked to her yesterday. I called her again
late last night after she appeared on the Larry
King show, and I talked to her again this morning. It is not possible for a President to distance
himself from things that happen when the Federal Government is in control.
I will say this, however. I was, frankly, "surprised" would be a mild word, to say that anyone that would suggest that the Attorney General should resign because some religious fanatics murdered themselves.
I regret what happened, but it is not possible
in this life to control the behavior of others
in every circumstance. These people killed four
Federal officials in the line of duty. They were
heavily armed. They fired on Federal officials
yesterday repeatedly, and they were never fired
back on. We did everything we could to avoid
the loss of life. They made the decision to immolate themselves. And I regret it terribly, and
I feel awful about the children.
But in the end, the last comment I had from
Janet Reno is when-and I talked to her on
Sunday-I said, "Now, I want you to tell me
once more why you believe, not why they believe, why you believe we should move now
rather than wait some more." And she said, "It's
because of the children. They have evidence
that those children are still being abused and
that they're in increasingly unsafe conditions,
and that they don't think it will get any easier
with the passage of time. I have to take their
word for that. So that is where I think things
stand."
Q. Can we assume then that you don't think
this was mishandled in view of the outcome,
that you didn't run out of patience? And if you
had it to do over again, would you really decide
that way?
The President. No-well, I think what you
can assume is just exactly what I announced
today. The FBI has done a lot of things right
for this country over a long period of time.
This is the same FBI that found the people
that bombed the World Trade Center in licketysplit, record time. We want an inquiry to analyze


the steps along the way. Is there something else
we should have known? Is there some other
question they should have asked? Is there some
other question I should have asked? Can I say
for sure that we could have done nothing else
to make the outcome different? I don't know
that. That's why I want the inquiry and that's
why I would like to make sure that we have
some independent law enforcement people, not
political people but totally nonpolitical, outside
experts who can bring to bear the best evidence
we have.
There is, unfortunately, a rise in this sort of
fanaticism all across the world. And we may
have to confront it again. And I want to know
whether there is anything we can do, particularly
when there are children involved. But I do think
it is important to recognize that the wrongdoers
in this case were the people who killed others
and then killed themselves.
Q. Mr. President, were there any other options presented to you for resolving this situation
at any point from February 28th until yesterday?
The President. Well, yes, I got regular reports
all along the way. There were lots of other options pursued. If you go back-you all covered
it very well. You did a very good job of it.
I mean, the FBI and the other authorities there
pursued any number of other options all along
the way, and a lot of them early on seemed
to be working. Some of the children got out.
Some of the other people left. At one point,
there seemed to be some lines of communication opening up between Koresh and the authorities. And then he would say things and
not do them, and things just began to spin
downward.
In terms of what happened yesterday, the
conversation I had with the Attorney General
did not involve other options except whether
we should take more time with the present strategy we were pursuing because they said they
wanted to do this, because they thought this
was the best way to get people out of the
compound quickly before they could kill themselves. That's what they thought.
Q. Did the government know that the children did not have gas masks?
Q. [Inaudible]-congressional hearings once
the situation-are you in agreement with that?
The President. That's up to the Congress.
They can do whatever they want. But I think
it's very important that the Treasury and Justice
Departments launch this investigation and bring


463




Apr. 20 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


in some outside experts. And as I said in my
statement, if any congressional committees want
to look into it, we will fully cooperate. There
is nothing to hide here. This was probably the
most well-covered operation of its kind in the
history of the country.
Go   ahead,  Sarah  [Sarah   McClendon,
McClendon News Service].
Q. There are two questions I want to ask
you. The first is, I think that they knew very
well that the children did not have gas masks
while the adults did, so the children had no
chance because this gas was very-she said it
was not lethal, but it was very dangerous to
the children, and they could not have survived
without gas masks. And on February 28th-let's
go back-didn't those people have a right to
practice their religion?
The President. They were not just practicing
their religion. The Treasury Department believed that they had violated Federal laws, any
number of them.
Q. What Federal laws?
The President. Let me go back and answer
that. I can't answer the question about the gas
masks, except to tell you that the whole purpose
of using the tear gas was that it had been tested;
they were convinced that it wouldn't kill either
a child or an adult, but it would force anybody
that breathed it to run outside. And one of
the things that I've heard-I don't want to get
into the details of this because I don't knowbut one of the things that they were speculating
about today was that the wind was blowing so
fast that the windows might have been opened
and some of the gas might have escaped, and
that may be why it didn't have the desired effect.
They also knew, Sarah, that there was an underground compound, a bus buried underground, where the children could be sent. I
think they were hoping very much that if the
children were not released immediately outside,
that the humane thing would be done and that
the children would be sent someplace where
they could be protected.
In terms of the gas masks themselves, I
learned yesterday-I did not ask this fact question before-that the gas was supposed to stay
active in the compound longer than the gas
masks themselves were to work. So that it was
thought that even if they all had gas masks,
that eventually the gas would force them out
in a nonviolent, nonshooting circumstance.


Press Secretary Myers. Last question.
Q. Mr. President, why are you still saying
that
Q. Could you tell us whether or not you ever
asked Janet Reno about the possibility of a mass
suicide? And when you learned about the actual
fire and explosion what went through your mind
during those horrendous moments?
The President. What I asked Janet Reno is
if they had considered all the worst things that
could happen. And of course, the whole issue
of suicide had been raised in the public-he
had-that had been debated anyway. And she
said that the people who were most knowledgeable about these kinds of issues concluded that
there was no greater risk of that now than there
would be tomorrow or the next day or the day
after that or at anytime in the future. That was
the judgment they made. Whether they were
right or wrong, of course, we will never know.
What happened when I saw the fire, when
I saw the building burning? I was sick. I felt
terrible. And my immediate concern was whether the children had gotten out and whether they
were escaping or whether they were inside trying to burn themselves up. That's the first thing
I wanted to know.
Thank you.
Q. Mr. President, why are you still saying
it was a Janet Reno decision? Isn't it, in the
end, your decision?
The President. Well, what I'm saying is that
I didn't have a 4- or 5-hour detailed briefing
from the FBI. I didn't go over every strategic
part of it. It is a decision for which I take
responsibility. I'm the President of the United
States, and I signed off on the general decision
and giving her the authority to make the last
call. When I talked to her on Sunday, some
time had elapsed. She might have made a decision to change her mind. I said, "If you decide
to go forward with this tomorrow, I will support
you." And I do support her.
She is not ultimately responsible to the American people; I am. But I think she has conducted her duties in an appropriate fashion, and
she has dealt with this situation, I think, as
well as she could have.
Thank you.
NOTE: The President's 12th news conference
began at 1:36 p.m. in the Rose Garden at the
White House.


464




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Apr. 20


Exchange With Reporters Prior to Discussions With President Vaclav
Havel of the Czech Republic
April 20, 1993


Bosnia
Q. Mr. President, President Havel is here for
the Holocaust Museum opening, and you toured
the museum last night. All this focus on the
Holocaust, how does that weigh on your decisionmaking process as far as Bosnia is concerned?
The President. Well, I think the Holocaust
is the most extreme example the world has ever
known of ethnic cleansing. And I think that even
in its more limited manifestations, it's an idea
that should be opposed. You couldn't help thinking about that. That's not to compare the two
examples. They're not identical. Everyone knows
that. But I think that the United States should
always seek an opportunity to stand up againstat least to speak out against inhumanity.
Q. Sir, how close are you to a decision on
more sanctions on Bosnia?
The President. Well, of course, we've got the
U.N. vote. Ambassador Albright was instrumental in the U.N. vote to strengthen the sanctions,
and they are quite tough. And we now are putting our heads at the business of implementing
them and looking at what other options we
ought to consider. And I don't have anything
else to say, except to tell you that I spent quite
a bit of time on it and will continue to over


the next several days.
Q. Following your meeting today, sir, are you
any closer to some sort of U.S. military presence
there?
The President. I have not made any decisions.
[At this point, one group of reporters left the
room, and another group entered. ]
Meeting With President Havel
Q. President Clinton, why have you decided
to meet with Mr. Havel?
The President. Well, I'm just honored that
he would come and see me. I'm glad he's here
in the United States for the dedication of the
Holocaust Museum. He is a figure widely admired in our country and around the world and
a very important person in Europe and a very
important person to the United States. So I'm
hoping that we'll have a chance to talk about
the new Czech Republic and what kinds of
things we can do together to support the causes
we believe in.
NOTE: The exchange began at 5 p.m. in the Oval
Office at the White House. A tape was not available for verification of the content of this exchange.


Message to the Congress Reporting Budget Rescissions and Deferrals
April 20, 1993


To the Congress of the United States:
In accordance with the Congressional Budget
and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, I herewith report one proposed rescission in budget
authority, totaling $180.0 million, and one revised deferral of budget authority, totaling $7.3
million.
The proposed rescission affects the Board for
International Broadcasting. The deferral affects
the Department of Health and Human Services.


The details of the proposed rescission and the
revised deferral are contained in the attached
reports.
WILLIAM J. CLINTON
The White House,
April 20, 1993.
NOTE: The report detailing the rescissions and deferral was published in the Federal Register on
May6.


465




Apr. 20 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


Message to the Senate Transmitting the Protocol to the International
Convention on Atlantic Tunas
April 20, 1993


To the Senate of the United States:
I transmit herewith, for the advice and consent of the Senate to ratification, the Protocol
adopted June 5, 1992, by the Conference of
Plenipotentiaries of the Contracting Parties to
the International Convention for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) to amend paragraph 2 of Article X of ICCAT. The Protocol
was signed by the United States on October
22, 1992. Also transmitted for the information
of the Senate is the report of the Department
of State with respect to the Protocol.
The Protocol would amend the subject Convention to modify the formula used to calculate
the budgetary obligations of the parties to the
Convention. The ICCAT, which establishes a
Commission to address the conservation and
management of highly migratory fisheries stocks
in the Atlantic Ocean, has an accumulated debt
of over $700,000 due to the inability of some
of its very poor member states to meet their
obligations to contribute to the annual budget
of the Commission. At a Conference of Plenipotentiaries of the States Party to the Conven

tion, held in Madrid June 4 through 5, 1992,
a Protocol was adopted which, along with a new
financial contribution scheme to be set forth
in the ICCAT Financial Regulations, amends the
Convention in such a way as to reduce the contributions of the developing countries to make
it easier for them to meet their assessments.
The Protocol and the new financial contribution
scheme will base assessments on the GNP per
capita and on tuna production.
The Protocol amending the budget scheme
is necessary to ensure the continued viability
of ICCAT, which is responsible for the conservation of highly migratory fisheries stocks of great
value to the United States. Ratification by the
United States will be necessary before the Protocol can enter into force. I recommend that
the Senate give early consideration to the Protocol and give its advice and consent to ratification.
WILLIAM J. CLINTON
The White House,
April 20, 1993.


Message to the Senate Transmitting the Protocol to the Caribbean
Environmental Convention
April 20, 1993


To the Senate of the United States:
I transmit herewith, for the advice and consent of the Senate to ratification, the Protocol
Concerning Specially Protected Areas and Wildlife to the Convention for the Protection and
Development of the Marine Environment of the
Wider Caribbean Region, done at Kingston on
January 18, 1990. Included for the information
of the Senate is a Proces-verbal of Rectification
correcting technical errors in the English and
Spanish language texts. I also transmit, for the
information of the Senate, the Annexes to the
Protocol which were adopted at Kingston June
11, 1991, and the report of the Department
of State with respect to the Protocol.


The Protocol elaborates and builds on the
general obligation in the Convention for the
Protection and Development of the Marine Environment of the Wider Caribbean Region,
which calls for parties to establish specially protected areas in order to protect and preserve
rare or fragile ecosystems, as well as the habitats
of threatened or endangered species of fauna
and flora. Species of plants and animals that
the parties believe require international cooperation to provide adequate protection are listed
in three Annexes developed in implementation
of the Protocol. The initial version of the Annexes was adopted in 1991. Annexes I and II
list species of special concern, including endan

466




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Apr. 20


gered and threatened species, subspecies, and
their populations of plants (Annex I) and animals
(Annex II). Species included in these Annexes
are to receive protection within the geographic
area of the Protocol comparable to that for species listed as endangered or threatened under
the Endangered Species Act, or protected under
the Marine Mammal Protection Act. Annex III
lists plants and animals requiring some management, but not necessarily full protection.
The Protocol is considered a major step forward in protecting wildlife and habitats of spe

cial concern in the Caribbean. Early ratification
will demonstrate our continued commitment to
the goal of sound regional environmental management and protection. I recommend that the
Senate give early and favorable consideration to
the Protocol and give its advice and consent
to ratification, subject to the understanding and
reservations described in the accompanying report of the Secretary of State.
WILLIAM J. CLINTON
The White House,
April 20, 1993.


Message to the Congress Transmitting Reports on Highway and Motor
Vehicle Safety
April 20, 1993


To the Congress of the United States:
I transmit herewith the 1991 calendar year
reports as prepared by the Department of
Transportation on activities under the Highway
Safety Act and the National Traffic and Motor


Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (23
U.S.C. 401 note and 15 U.S.C. 1408).
WILLIAM J. CLINTON
The White House,
April 20, 1993.


Message to the Congress Transmitting the Railroad Safety Report
April 20, 1993
To the Congress of the United States:        the Act (45 U.S.C. 440(a)).
I transmit herewith the 1991 annual report
on the Administration of the Federal Railroad                      WILLIAM J. CLINTON
Safety Act of 1970, pursuant to section 211 of  The White House,
April 20, 1993.


Nomination for Director of the Women's Bureau
April 20, 1993


The President will nominate Karen Nussbaum, who holds leadership positions in several
women's and workers' organizations, to be Director of the Department of Labor's Women's
Bureau, the White House announced today. The
Women's Bureau is responsible for programs
aimed at meeting the needs of working women.


"Karen Nussbaum has been organizing working women for two decades," said the President.
"She is uniquely qualified for this important
job."
NOTE: A biography of the nominee was made
available by the Office of the Press Secretary.


467




Apr. 21 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


Remarks on Earth Day
April 21, 1993


Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen,
for being here in the wonderful Botanical Gardens. I must say there's a lot I have to learn
about this town, as you can tell if you follow
events from day to day. And I didn't know that
the Botanical Gardens was a branch of the Congress until I showed up here. [Laughter] Just
one more thing I'm not responsible for. I'm
glad to be here.
I also think that we should introduce a guest
from another country who is here with us, the
Environmental Minister from Australia, Roz
Kelly. Would you stand up? We're glad to have
you here.
Al Gore introduced Katie McGinty, and you
were all good enough to clap. And I don't know
if you could hear through the clapping that her
parents are here. And what you may not know
is that the real reason we appointed her is that
she's one of 10 children, and we'd like to carry
Pennsylvania in 1996. [Laughter] We think that
there's a significant likelihood now because of
that.
I want to say a special word of thanks to
the Vice President for two things: first of all,
for the wonderful trip that he has just concluded, going to Poland to represent our country
on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the
Warsaw Uprising, and the wonderful remarks
he gave in New York on the eve of that departure and the way that he represented the United
States in Poland. And secondly, notwithstanding
what he said in the introduction, which was
true, one of the reasons I did ask him to join
the ticket is that he knew more about the subject of the environment than I did, and I
thought I had something to learn from him.
And I have learned a great deal, and it has
been an immensely rewarding experience and
one which I hope will benefit the United States
in many ways over the course of the next 4
years. That's worth clapping for. I agree with
that, Nancy, thank you. [Applause]
It's a good thing to have this celebration in
the springtime, a time when our spirits are renewed and we are reminded by nature of new
beginnings and forgotten beauty. This has been
an astonishingly beautiful spring in Washington,
DC, and something for which I will always be


grateful, my first springtime here that I see
every morning as I go out and jog around in
it and try to breath in it, something that is
a continuing challenge. [Laughter]
A little more than a week ago, most Americans celebrated holy days of freedom and renewal. Today, we still nurture the faith that
helps us to understand more clearly that we
can do better. This is a time of new beginnings,
a time when there is anguish and anxiety all
around us, but we still must yearn once again
to succeed in our common purposes to reach
our deepest goals.
For all of our differences, I think there is
an overwhelming determination to change our
course, to offer more opportunity, to assume
more responsibility, to restore the larger American community, and to achieve things that are
larger than ourselves and more lasting than the
present moment. We seek to set our course
by the star of age-old values, not short-term
expediencies; to waste less in the present and
provide more for the future; to leave a legacy
that keeps faith with those who left the Earth
to us. That is the American spirit. It moves
us not only in great gatherings but also when
we stand silently all alone in the presence only
of nature and our Creator.
If there is one commitment that defines our
people, it is our devotion to the rich and expansive land we have inherited. From the first
Americans to the present day, our people have
lived in awe of the power, the majesty, and
the beauty of the forest, the rivers, and the
streams of America. That love of the land, which
flows like a mighty current through this land
and through our character, burst into service
on the first Earth Day in 1970.
When I traveled the country last year, I saw
and spoke of how much had been accomplished
by the environmental movement since then and
how much still remains to be done. For all
that has been done to protect the air and the
water, we haven't halted the destruction of wetlands at home and the rain forest abroad. For
all that has been learned, we still struggle to
comprehend such dangers to our planet's delicate environment as the shroud of greenhouse
gases and the dangerous thinning of the ozone


468




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Apr. 21


layer. We haven't done nearly enough to protect
our forest communities from the hazards, such
as lead poisoning, which is believed to cause
mental retardation, learning disabilities, and impaired growth.
Unless we act and act now, we face a future
where our planet will be home to 9 billion people within our lifetime, but its capacity to support and sustain our lives will be very much
diminished. Unless we act, we face the extinction of untold numbers of species that might
support our livelihoods and provide medication
to save our very lives. Unless we act now, we
face a future in which the sun may scorch us,
not warm us; where the change of season may
take on a dreadful new meaning; and where
our children's children will inherit a planet far
less hospitable than the world in which we came
of age. I have a faith that we will act, not
from fear but from hope and through vision.
All across this country, there is a deep understanding rooted in our religious heritage and
renewed in the spirit of this time that the bounty of nature is not ours to waste. It is a gift
from God that we hold in trust for future generations. Preserving our heritage, enhancing it,
and passing it along is a great purpose worthy
of a great people. If we seize the opportunity
and shoulder the responsibility, we can enrich
the future and ennoble our own lives.
just as we yearn to come together as a people,
we yearn to move beyond the false choices that
the last few years have imposed upon us. For
too long we have been told that we have to
choose between the economy and the environment, between our jobs, between our obligations
to our own people and our responsibilities to
the future and to the rest of the world, between
public action and private economy.
I am here today in the hope that we can
together take a different course of action, to
offer a new set of challenges to our people.
Our environmental program is based on three
principles.
First, we think you can't have a healthy economy without a healthy environment. We need
not choose between breathing clean air and
bringing borne secure paychecks. The fact is,
our environmental problems result not from robust growth but from reckless growth. The fact
is that only a prosperous society can have the
confidence and the means to protect its environment. And the fact is healthy communities and
environmentally sound products and services do


best in today's economic competition. That's
why our policies must protect our environment,
promote economic growth, and provide millions
of new high-skill, high-wage jobs.
Second, we want to protect the environment
at home and abroad. In an era of global economics, global epidemics, and global environmental hazards, a central challenge of our time
is to promote our national interest in the context
of its connectedness with the rest of the world.
We share our atmosphere, our planet, our destiny with all the peoples of this world. And
the policies I outline today will protect all of
us because that is the only way we can protect
any of us.
And third, we must move beyond the antagonisms among business, Government, and individual citizens. The policies I outlined today are
part of our effort to reinvent Government, to
make it your partner and not your overseer,
to lead by example and not by bureaucratic fiat.
In the face of great challenges, we need a
Government that not only guards against the
worst in us but helps to bring out the best
in us. I know we can do this because our administration includes the best team of environmental
policy makers who have ever served the United
States: the Vice President, Interior Secretary
Babbitt, EPA Administrator Browner-and I
hope that the EPA will scon, by the grace of
Congress, be a Cabinet-level Department-and
Energy Secretary O'Leary, Commerce Secretary
Brown, Transportation Secretary Pefia, the Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy, our Environmental
Policy Director Katie McGinty, and our Science
and Technology Adviser Jack Gibbons. All of
them share an unshakable commitment to a
healthy environment, a growing economy, and
a responsive Government.
Our economic plan will create new job opportunities and new business opportunities, protecting our natural environment. The reductions in
the interest rates which we have seen already
will free up tens of billions of dollars for responsible investments in this year alone.
The jobs package I have asked the Congress
to pass contains-this has hardly been noticed,
but it actually contains green jobs from waste
water treatment to energy efficiency, to the restoration of our national parks, to investments
in new technologies designed to create the
means by which we can solve the problems of
the future and create more jobs for Americans.
Our long-term strategy invests more in pollu

469




Apr. 21 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


tion prevention, energy efficiency, in solar energy, in renewable energy, and environmental
restoration, and water treatment, all of which
can be found in the 5-year budget that we have
presented to the Congress.
These investments will create tens of thousands of new jobs, and they will save tens of
thousands more. Because when we save energy
and resources, we will have more to invest in
creating new jobs and providing better living
standards. Today every other advanced nation
is more energy efficient than we are. That is
one of the reasons why over the last couple
of years, for example, the average German factory worker has come to make over 20 percent
more than his American counterpart; that German workers, while having higher wages, also
have more secure and better health care. That's
because that economy uses one-half the energy
we do to produce the same amount of goods.
We can do better, and we will.
I believe we can develop the know-how to
out-conserve and out-compete anyone else on
Earth. All over the world, people are buying
products that help them to protect their environment. There's a $200 billion market today
for environmental technologies, and by the turn
of the decade and the century, it will be $300
billion.
Let me just share one example with you.
Something we all know and use and something
some of us are still trying to learn how to replace: light bulbs. Long-lasting, energy-saving
light bulbs didn't even exist in 1985. Now American companies sell over $500 million worth of
these products, with sales expected to reach $2
billion by 1995 and $10 billion by the year 2000,
creating thousands of new jobs. American scientists have taken the lead in developing these
technologies, and it's time to help our companies take the lead in bringing our products and
services to market.
I've asked the Energy Department, the Commerce Department, and the EPA to assess current environmental technologies and create a
strategic plan to give our companies the trade
development, promotional efforts, and technical
assistance they need to turn these advances into
jobs here in America, as well as to help promote
a better environment. America can maintain our
lead in the world economy by taking the lead
to preserve the world environment.
Last year, the nations of the world came together at the Earth Summit in Rio to try to


find a way to protect the miraculous diversity
of plant and animal life all across the planet.
The biodiversity treaty which resulted had some
flaws, and we all knew that. But instead of fixing
them, the United States walked away from the
treaty. That left us out of a treaty that is critically important not only to our future but to
the future of the world, and not only because
of what it will do to preserve species but because of opportunities it offers for cutting-edge
companies whose research creates new medicines, new products, and new jobs.
Again, just one recent example makes the
point. A tree that was thought to have no value,
the Pacific Yew, used to be bulldozed and
burned. Now we know that that tree contains
one of our most promising potential cures for
ovarian cancer, breast cancer, and other forms
of cancer. We cannot walk away from challenges
like those presented by the biodiversity treaty.
We must step up to them.
Our administration has worked with business
and environmental groups toward an agreement
that protects both American interests and the
world environment. And today, I am proud to
announce the United States' intention to sign
the biodiversity treaty.
This is an example of what you can do by
bringing business and environmentalists together, instead of pitting them against each
other. We can move forward to protect critical
natural resources and critical technologies. I'm
also directing the State Department to move
ahead with our talks with other countries which
have signed the convention so that the United
States can move as quickly as possible toward
ratification.
To learn more about where we stand in protecting all our biological resources here at home,
I'm asking the Interior Department to create
a national biological survey to help us protect
endangered species and, just as importantly, to
help the agricultural and biotechnical industries
of our country identify new sources of food,
fiber, and medication.
We also must take the lead in addressing the
challenge of global warming that could make
our planet and its climate less hospitable and
more hostile to human life. Today, I reaffirm
my personal and announce our Nation's commitment to reducing our emissions of greenhouse
gases to their 1990 levels by the year 2000.
I am instructing my administration to produce
a cost-effective plan by August that can continue


470




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Apr. 21


the trend of reduced emission. This must be
a clarion call, not for more bureaucracy or regulation or unnecessary costs but, instead, for
American ingenuity and creativity, to produce
the best and most energy-efficient technology.
After the cold war, we face the challenge
of helping Russia achieve a healthy democracy,
a healthy economy, and a healthy environment.
Our Russian aid package includes $38 million
to clean up pollution and promote better uses
of energy. As with the full range of our investments in Russia, this is truly an investment not
only in promoting our own values but in protecting our national security. To protect the environment at home and abroad, I am committed to
a Government that leads by example, brings
people together, and brings out the best in everyone. For too long our Government did more
to inflame environmental issues than to solve
them. Different Agencies pursued conflicting
policies. National leaders polarized people. And
problems wound up in the courts or in the
streets instead of being solved.
We seek to bring a new spirit to these difficult issues. Three weeks ago in Portland, Oregon, we brought together business people, timber  workers,  and  environmentalists  from
throughout the Northwest to discuss how best
to preserve jobs and to protect the old-growth
forests and the species which inhabit them. People sat down in a conference room, not a court
room, and in the words of Archbishop Thomas
Murphy of Seattle, we tried to find common
ground for a common good. At the close of
that forest conference, I asked my Cabinet and
our entire administration to begin work immediately to craft a balanced, comprehensive longterm policy that is also comprehensible.
Before I ask our companies and our communities and our families to meet any challenge,
it seems to me we have to set that standard
for the Government. The American people are
entitled to know where the United States stands
on this issue and many other issues. And it
is time to bring an end to the time when issues
like this wind up in court and there are five
different positions from the United States Government itself. We can never solve problems
in that fashion. We can only undermine the
security and stability of people's lives.
That's one reason I am proud that yesterday
the United States Army announced its plan to
clean up a large number of sites where we
learned recently that chemical weapons mate

rials may be buried, in some places from as
long ago as World War I. Working with the
EPA, the Army will clean up this problem safely
and in an environmentally sound manner.
This is a legacy of America's efforts to defend
our people and the community of free nations.
Now, we are taking steps to defend our people
and our environment and the environment of
the world. In that same spirit, I plan to sign
an Executive order requiring Federal facilities
that manufacture, process, or use toxic chemicals, to comply with the Federal right-to-know
laws and publicly report what they are doing.
I might add that it is time that the United
States Government begins to live under the laws
it makes for other people. With this Executive
order, I ask all Federal facilities to set a voluntary goal to reducing their release of toxic
pollutants by 50 percent by 1999. This will reduce toxic releases, control costs associated with
cleanups, and promote clean technologies. And
it will help make our Government what it should
be, a positive example for the rest of the country.
Poor neighborhoods in our cities suffer most
often from toxic pollution. Cleaning up the toxic
wastes will create new jobs in these neighborhoods for those people and make them safer
places to live, to work, and to do business.
Today I am also signing an Executive order
that directs Federal agencies to make preliminary changes in their purchasing policies, to use
fewer substances harmful to the ozone layer.
Here, too, we must put our actions where our
values are. Our Government is a leading purchaser of goods and services. And it's time to
stop not only the waste of taxpayers' money
but the waste of our natural resources.
Today I am signing an Executive order which
commits the Federal Government to buy thousands more American made vehicles, using
clean, domestic fuels such as natural gas, ethanol, methanol, and electric power. This will reduce our demand for foreign oil, reduce air
pollution, promote promising technologies, promote American companies, create American
jobs, and save American tax dollars. To demonstrate my commitment to this issue, Energy
Secretary O'Leary is creating a task force led
by the land commissioner of Texas, Garry
Mauro, who is here in the audience today, who
has headed a successful effort in his own State.
I hope we can do as well in America as they
have done in Texas.


471




Apr. 21 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


In that same spirit, I plan to sign an Executive
order committing every agency of the National
Government to do more than ever to buy and
use recycled products. This will provide a market for new technologies, make better use of
recycled materials, and encourage the creation
of new products that can be offered to the Government, to private companies, and to consumers. And again, it will create jobs through the
recycling process.
We must keep finding new ways to be a force
for positive change. For example, the Federal
Government is the largest purchaser of computer equipment in the world, and computers
are the fastest growing area of electricity use.
That's why I am also signing an Executive order
today requiring the Federal Government to purchase energy-efficient computers. We're going
to expand the market for a technology where
America pioneered and still leads the world, and
we'll save energy, saving the taxpayers $40 million a year, and set an example for our country
and for the world.
For as long as I live and work in the White
House, I want Americans to see it not only
as a symbol of clean Government but also a
clean environment. That's why I'm announcing
an energy and environmental audit of the White
House. We're going to identify what it takes
to make the White House a model for efficiency
and waste reduction. It might mean fewer
memos and less paper. [Laughter] And then
we're going to get the job done. I want to make
the White House a model for other Federal
agencies, for State and local governments, for
business, and for families in their homes. Before
I ask you to do the best you can in your house,
I ought to make sure I'm doing the best I can
in my house.
I ask that all of us today reaffirm our willingness to assume responsibility for our common
environment and to do it willingly, hopefully,
and joyously. We are challenged here today not
so much to sacrifice as to celebrate and create.


I've challenged Americans who are young in
years or young in spirit to offer their time and
their talent to serve their communities and their
country. I've asked them to help in teaching
our children, healing the sick, policing our
streets. But equally important are efforts to protect our environment, from our largest cities
to our smallest towns to our suburbs. Our national service plan will ask thousands of Americans to do their part, from leading recycling
drives to preventing lead poisoning.
The challenge to shoulder responsibility and
seize opportunity extends to each of us in businesses, communities, and homes. In our own
lives, in our own ways, each of us has something
to offer to the work of cleaning up America's
environment. And each of us surely has something very personal to gain.
On a colder day in the middle of winter,
just 3 months ago, a poet asked us to celebrate
not only the marvelous diversity of our people
but the miraculous bounty of our land. "Here
on the pulse of this new day," Maya Angelou
challenged us to look at "the rock, the river,
the tree, your country." Now, it is a season
of new hope and new beginnings. And as we
look anew at our neighbors, our children, and
our own communities, as well as the world
around us, we must seize the possibilities inherent in this exhilarating moment, to face our challenges, to exercise our responsibilities, and to
rejoice in them.
Thank you very much.
NOTE: The President spoke at 11:50 a.m. at the
U.S. Botanic Gardens. The Executive orders of
April 21 on ozone-depleting substances, alternative fueled vehicles, and energy efficient computer equipment are listed in Appendix D at the
end of this volume. Later in the year, the President signed Executive orders on compliance with
right-to-know laws (August 3, 58 FR 41981) and
recycling (October 20, 58 FR 54911).


Remarks at a Reception for the Opening of the United States Holocaust
Memorial Museum
April 21, 1993
Thank you so much for that magnificent state-  gentlemen, Hillary and I and the Vice President
ment and for the kind introduction. Ladies and  and Mrs. Gore are deeply honored to welcome


472




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Apr. 21


all of you here to the White House this afternoon to mark the opening of the United States
Holocaust Memorial Museum.
All of us are honored to be joined by the
heads of state of so many distinguished nations:
of Israel and Portugal, Croatia and Romania,
Bulgaria and Hungary, Poland, Slovenia, the
Czech Republic, the Slovak Republic, Albania
and Moldova. These fine people, as you heard,
and I had a lot of conversations this afternoon
and we are a little late, and for that I apologize.
I do want to say that for a while some of my
friends in the audience were speculating, as
Mandy had to stand up and sing again and
again, that I was really testing the proposition
that he has not only the best voice but the
strongest lungs in the United States of America.
This afternoon I was interrupted on a couple
of occasions to go back and work with the Congress in our attempt to create more jobs for
the American people, but I spent a great deal
of time talking to these world leaders about
things that concern us all and that are very
relevant to the occasion which has brought all
of you here today. I was honored to see the
President of Israel on this day when we announce the resumption of peace talks in the
Middle East starting next week. We know this
is the beginning, not the end of the process;
but what a fine day it is to begin.
I was honored to talk with the leaders of
these other nations about things of profound
concern to the Jewish community in America.
How can we keep democracy alive in Russia
and the other republics of the former Soviet
Union and throughout Eastern Europe? How
can we stand against the awful principle of ethnic cleansing which has too much currency in
the world today, given the experiences of so
many people in a world so recently gone by?
I want to thank Benjamin Meed, not only
for what he said but for what he has done.
I want to thank Bud Meyerhoff and Bill
Lowenberg who made a very significant contribution to this week's events through their
services as Chair and Vice Chair of the Museum
Council. I understand that we have here in this
audience two half-siblings of Raoul Wallenberg,
Nina Lager and Guy von Dardel. And I want
to recognize them and all the rest of you whose
generosity and dedication and determination
never to forget has helped make this day a reality. I want to recognize the members of the


Cabinet and the distinguished Members of the
United States Congress who are here and thank
them for their presence and their dedication.
Finally, there are many friends of the Gores
and the Clintons who are here tonight whom
I've not seen since the election. And I want
to thank you and say that we're going to take
more time shaking hands on the way out than
we did on the way in, and I hope we'll be
able to see all of you.
We've gathered here to mark the opening of
this Holocaust Museum. We do so to help ensure that the Holocaust will remain ever a sharp
thorn in every national memory, but especially
in the memory of the United States, which has
such unique responsibilities at this moment in
history. We do so to redeem in some small
measure the deaths of millions whom our nations did not, or would not, or could not save.
We do so to help teach new generations the
dangers  of  antidemocratic  despots,  racist
ideologies, and ethnic hatreds.
Late Monday night, I walked through the museum with the museum's Director, Jeshajahu
Weinberg. He did a brilliant job of telling me
about the incredible work in the relatively brief
time of 2 hours and 10 minutes. And I say
that in all seriousness. When the Vice President
went through the museum, he said, if you go
back there you ought to allow at least 2 hours
so that you can really absorb what you will see
and feel. I can personally now attest to how
darkly it teaches and how deeply it moves all
who step inside with their ears, their eyes, and
their hearts open. It is the testament not only
to the worst and most depraved examples of
human conduct but also to the best, the bravest,
and the most loving in the human soul. I hope
that all of you who are here and all of the
many visitors who come to Washington from
now on will take the opportunity to visit and
be touched by this wonderful place.
Many of the leaders who join us today are
from countries now making bold transitions toward democracy, as I have said. As a Nation
that's been struggling with it for more than 200
years now, we understand some of the challenges of that transition. Even after 200 years
there are parts of it we have trouble getting
right. The Holocaust Museum will stand as a
stark reminder that, of the many tasks of democracy, the most imperative perhaps, are those
of fostering tolerance for ethnic and religious


473




Apr. 21 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


and racial differences, of fostering religious freedom and individual right and civic responsibility;
each of us to take responsibility for the welfare
of all of us.
The event we have joined to commemorate
is one of immeasurable sorrow; yet today we
speak of hope, as others have said. For while
the faces pictured within the museum remind
us of the worst of an old Europe, the faces
I see within this tent suggest the best of a
new Europe and a new world: a Europe no
longer divided by ideology, no longer braced
for all-consuming war, where freedom is replacing repression, where people can devote less
of their resources to preparation for hostilities
and more for investment for prosperity. We
know, of course, that the new Europe is not
yet free of old cruelties and that contemporary
horrors like the slaughter of innocents in Bosnia
have not disappeared. Indeed, one of the eternal
lessons to which this museum bears strong witness is that the struggle against darkness will
never end and the need for vigilance will never
fade away.
Still, we have grounds to hope that the seeds
of democracy in Europe will one day soon bear
the fruit of a more peaceful civic culture in
which neighbor no longer lifts up sword against
neighbor, within countries or across national
borders. Our own people have long waited and
too often have had to fight for that kind of


Europe. Now that these historic transitions are
underway, I want you to know that the United
States will remain fully engaged in Europe and
in its transitions toward a new and better future.
For, as we vow never to forget the dark days
of a half-century ago when all humanity fell
apart, we can also celebrate in this event the
process of coming together by rededicating ourselves to making sure that the process works,
that this time all of us will get it right. It is
a coming together of Israel and those nations
that saw much of the worst persecution of the
Jews. A coming together of Western Europe
and Central Europe and Eastern Europe and,
indeed, the first coming together of those regions ever as democratic states. It is a coming
together among free peoples determined to
confront and remember the horrors that befell
past generations so that we can create a world
of justice and peace for our generation and for
the children to come.
I thank all of you for coming here today.
But more than that, I thank you for living the
lives that brought you here today. God bless
you all.
NOTE: The President spoke at 6:43 p.m. on the
South Lawn at the White House. In his remarks,
he referred to entertainer Mandy Patinkin and
Benjamin Meed, president, American Gathering
of Jewish Holocaust Survivors.


Exchange With Reporters on the Stimulus Package
April 21, 1993


Q. Mr. President, any reaction to the
The President. Well, I'm disappointed. But I
knew when I came here that we'd have to
change some things in Washington and that the
American people won't be surprised, I guess,
to think that a minority of one House could
keep several hundred thousand people out of
work this year. I think it's a mistake, but I'm
not done. I'm going to come back next week
and regroup and go forward.
We've had a real good success getting our
budget plan through. We've kept interest rates
down. There's going to be $100 billion in refinancing this year as a result of that. So I think
that things are going basically in the right direc

tion, but I'm very disappointed about this. And
frankly, I'm a little surprised about it. It doesn't
make a lot of sense. A lot of the Republican
Senators told me they wanted us to work something out, and I went out of my way to meet
them halfway, and then some. I don't know.
But I just think that we've got to keep fighting
for jobs.
I think it's so easy for people who are here,
who have not been out in the country, who
make these decisions, who all have jobs, to be
willing to pay for unemployment but not want
to invest in employment, not want to put people
to work. And I just think we've got to keep
fighting for it. So next week I'll regroup and


474




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Apr. 21


try to do something else.
Q. What do you come back with next week?
The President. I don't know. We'll see. This
country went in one direction solid for more
than a decade. I've been here about 90 days;
it's going to take a little while to turn it around.
But I'm not too disheartened. I'm disappointed
in this particular thing and surprised by it, genuinely surprised, but I think we can regroup and
go forward.
Q. If you can't get a $16-billion stimulus package through Congress, what does it say for some
of your more ambitious proposals, health care
reform and the price tag that that carries with
it?
The President. Well, we'll just have to see.
I think that depends on, always, whether there
is a majority for a proposition and then whether
the minority will keep it from even being voted
on. I think the American people need to know
that we had a majority in both Houses of Congress, but the minority kept the issue from being
voted on. I feel pretty good about it.
We passed the budget resolution, and we got
the 60 votes necessary to break the debate in
the Senate there, so I think we've got a real
shot at a lot of reform. But it's going to be
hard. And as I said, look at what's happened
in the last 12 years: the deficit goes up, jobs
go down, and no investment in our people. Congress passes laws it doesn't live under. We're
trying to change this. And a lot of the Members
of Congress have been willing to support this
process of reform. This is, I hope and believe,
an aberration where a minority stubbornly refused to let an issue get voted on. I'm just
not going to be discouraged by it; we're just
going to go on.
Q. Let me ask you, when you come back
next week, are you coming back with a scaled

down jobs bill or what are you
The Vice President. Stay tuned.
The President. I've got to talk to a lot of
people, see where we are, and go forward.
We've got lots of other issues we need to put
out there in the Congress and, you know, we
may not win them all. But I'm going to keep
fighting for jobs. I'm going to wake up tomorrow
knowing that I'm waging a fight to put the
American people back to work and lift this economy up, and that's what I was hired to do.
I'm just going to keep doing it.
Q. Is this a pretty big defeat for you, Mr.
President? Isn't this a big defeat?
The President. Not a big defeat. For me, it's
a big disappointment to the hundreds of thousands of Americans who would have had jobs.
But I don't have to explain it; I fought for
it. The people who have voted for this sort of
spending repeatedly to help other countries and
wouldn't do it to help their own folks and did
it when the deficit was going up, and I'm bringing the deficit down, they may have to explain
some things, but that's the way Washington's
worked for too long. We're going to lift this
thing up and change it. We've just got to get
people focused on the American people and
their needs and put aside all the petty politics
and all the maneuvering and start thinking about
what's best for the American people. I think
we can change it, and I'm upbeat about it.
We've just been here 90 days. And basically,
the big part of the plan, the budget resolution,
passed. We've just got to keep fighting it.
NOTE: The exchange began at 7:42 p.m. in the
North Portico at the White House. A tape was
not available for verification of the content of this
exchange.


Letter to Congressional Leaders Reporting on Panamanian Government
Assets
April 21, 1993


Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)
1. I hereby report on developments since the
last Presidential report on October 5, 1992, concerning the continued blocking of Panamanian
government assets. This report is submitted pur

suant to section 207(d) of the International
Emergency Economic Powers Act, 50 U.S.C.
1706(d).
2. On April 5, 1990, President Bush issued
Executive Order No. 12710, terminating the na

475




Apr. 21 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


tional emergency declared on April 8, 1988, with
respect to Panama. While this order terminated
the sanctions imposed pursuant to that declaration, the blocking of Panamanian government
assets in the United States was continued in
order to permit completion of the orderly
unblocking and transfer of funds that the President directed on December 20, 1989, and to
foster the resolution of claims of U.S. creditors
involving Panama, pursuant to 50 U.S.C.
1706(a). The termination of the national emergency did not affect the continuation of compliance audits and enforcement actions with respect to activities taking place during the sanctions period, pursuant to 50 U.S.C. 1622(a).
3. Of the approximately $6.3 million remaining blocked at this time (which includes approximately $100,000 in interest credited to the accounts since the last report), some $5.7 million
is held in escrow by the Federal Reserve Bank
of New York at the request of the Government
of Panama. Additionally, approximately $600,000


is held in commercial bank accounts for which
the Government of Panama has not requested
unblocking. A small residual in blocked reserve
accounts established under section 565.509 of
the Panamanian Transactions Regulations, 31
CFR 565.509, remains on the books of U.S.
firms pending the final reconciliation of accounting records involving claims and counterclaims
between the firms and the Government of Panama.
4. I will continue to report periodically on
the exercise of authorities to prohibit transactions involving property in which the Government of Panama has an interest, pursuant to
50 U.S.C. 1706(d).
Sincerely,
WILLIAM J. CLINTON
NOTE: Identical letters were sent to Thomas S.
Foley, Speaker of the House of Representatives,
and Albert Gore, Jr., President of the Senate.


Letter to Congressional Leaders Reporting on the Cyprus Conflict
April 21, 1993


Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. Chairman:)
In accordance with Public Law 95-384 (22
U.S.C. 2373(c)), I am submitting to you this
bimonthly report on progress toward a negotiated settlement of the Cyprus question. The
previous report, sent to you by President Bush,
covered September, October, and part of November 1992. The current report covers the remainder of November 1992 through February
14, 1993.
There were no further face-to-face negotiating
sessions on the Cyprus issue from the time of
the October 12, 1992, recess of the New York
talks through February 14, 1993. During this
period, which coincided with the campaign and
Presidential election in the Republic of Cyprus,
the U.N. Secretary General's negotiators and the
U.S. Special Cyprus Coordinator, Ambassador
John Maresca, and other U.S. officials remained
in contact with the two Cypriot communities
and the Governments of Greece and Turkey.
The previous report on this subject included
Secretary General Boutros-Ghali's report on the
October-November U.N. negotiating session and


U.N. Security Council Resolution 789, which
unanimously endorsed the Secretary General's
report, including the confidence-building measures suggested therein. On November 24, 1992,
President Vassiliou notified the Secretary General by letter that the Greek-Cypriot side accepted the Secretary General's report, including
the confidence-building measures. The TurkishCypriot side reacted negatively to both the Secretary General's report and to Security Council
Resolution 789.
On November 22, between the time of the
issuance of the Secretary General's report and
the passage of Security Council Resolution 789,
U.S. Special Cyprus Coordinator Maresca visited
Ankara and Athens and discussed the report and
the resolution that was then being drafted in
New York. Ambassador Maresca had further discussions in Washington with representatives of
the two Cypriot sides as well as with the Turkish
Embassy. Ambassador Maresca informed all
concerned that he would not visit Cyprus during
the Cypriot election campaign.
In early December, during a regular visit to


476




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Apr. 21


the Eastern Mediterranean area, the Director
of the State Department's European Bureau,
Office of Southern European Affairs, discussed
the Cyprus negotiations with the leaders of both
Cypriot communities on the island and with officials of the Governments of Greece and Turkey.
The election campaign in Cyprus continued
into February 1993. On February 7, the first
round of the election did not produce a majority
for any candidate. One week later, on February
14, the last day covered by this report, the two
candidates with the most votes in the first
round-the   incumbent,   President  George
Vassiliou, and Mr. Glafcos Clerides-faced each
other in a runoff election. Mr. Clerides won
the runoff by about 2,000 votes.
I would like to take the opportunity of my
first letter on the Cyprus dispute to reiterate
my strong commitment to press hard for a lasting solution to the tragedy of Cyprus. I intend
to give that goal a high priority in my Adminis

tration. The U.N. "set of ideas" for a bizonal
and bicommunal federation with a single national sovereignty and identity continues to offer
the best chance for a peaceful resolution of this
dispute. I urge both President Clerides, in his
new capacity as the leader of the Greek-Cypriot
community, and Mr. Denktash, the leader of
the Turkish-Cypriot community, to continue
their participation in the U.N.-sponsored negotiations and to be ready when the talks resume
to make the political decisions necessary to resolve this long-standing dispute in a way that
is acceptable and beneficial to all Cypriots.
Sincerely,
BILL CLINTON
NOTE: Identical letters were sent to Thomas S.
Foley, Speaker of the House of Representatives,
and Claiborne Pell, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.


Message to the Congress Transmitting the "Goals 2000: Educate America
Act"
April 21, 1993


To the Congress of the United States:
I am pleased to transmit today for your immediate consideration and enactment the "Goals
2000: Educate America Act."
This legislation strives to support States, local
communities, schools, business and industry, and
labor in reinventing our education system so
that all Americans can reach internationally competitive standards, and our Nation can reach
the National Education Goals. Also transmitted
is a section-by-section analysis.
Education is and always has been primarily
a State responsibility. States have always been
the "laboratories of democracy." This has been
especially true in education over the past decades. The lessons we have learned from the
collective work of States, local education agencies, and individual schools are incorporated in
Goals 2000 and provide the basis for a new
partnership between the Federal Government,
States, parents, business, labor, schools, communities, and students. This new partnership is not
one of mandates, but of cooperation and leadership.


The "Goals 2000: Educate America Act" is
designed to promote a long-term direction for
the improvement of education and lifelong
learning and to provide a framework and resources to help States and others interested in
education strengthen, accelerate, and sustain
their own improvement efforts. Goals 2000 will:
* Set into law the six National Education
Goals and establish a bipartisan National
Education Goals Panel to report on
progress toward achieving the goals;
* Develop voluntary academic standards and
assessments that are meaningful, challenging, and appropriate for all students
through the National Education Standards
and Improvement Council;
* Identify the conditions of learning and
teaching necessary to ensure that all students have the opportunity to meet high
standards;
* Establish a National Skill Standards Board
to promote the development and adoption
of occupational standards to ensure that
American workers are among the best


477




Apr. 21 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


trained in the world;
* Help States and local communities involve
public officials, teachers, parents, students,
and business leaders in designing and reforming schools; and
* Increase flexibility for States and school
districts by waiving regulations and other
requirements that might impede reforms.
Though voluntary, the pursuit of these goals
must be the work of our Nation as a whole.
Nomination for Secretary of the Navy
April 21, 1993
The President announced today that he intends to nominate John Dalton, an Annapolis
graduate and former Chairman of the Federal
Home Loan Bank Board, to be Secretary of
the Navy.
"Throughout his distinguished Navy career
and his equally distinguished civilian career in
public service and private industry, John Dalton


Ten years ago this month, A Nation At Risk
was released. Its warnings still ring true. It is
time to act boldly. It is time to rekindle the
dream that good schools offer.
I urge the Congress to take prompt and favorable action on this legislation.
WILLIAM J. CLINTON
The White House,
April 21, 1993.


has displayed true leadership ability," said the
President. "I am proud that he has agreed to
serve with me and confident that he will work
with Secretary Aspin and the Navy to adjust
to the new security realities that we face."
NOTE: A biography of the nominee was made
available by the Office of the Press Secretary.


Remarks at the Dedication of the United States Holocaust Memorial
Museum
April 22, 1993


Thank you very much, Mr. Vice President,
Mrs. Gore, President and Mrs. Herzog, distinguished leaders of nations from around the
world who have come here to be with us today,
the leaders of our Congress, and the citizens
of America, and especially to Mr. Meyerhoff
and all of those who worked so hard to make
this day possible, and even more to those who
have spoken already on this program, whose
lives and words bear eloquent witness to why
we have come here today.
It is my purpose on behalf of the United
States to commemorate this magnificent museum, meeting as we do among memorials, within the sight of the memorial to Thomas Jefferson, the author of our freedom, near where
Abraham Lincoln is seated, who gave his life
so that our Nation might extend its mandate
of freedom to all who live within our borders.
We gather near the place where the legendary


and recently departed Marian Anderson sang
songs of freedom and where Martin Luther King
summoned us all to dream and work together.
Here on the town square of our national life,
on this 50th anniversary of the Warsaw Uprising,
at Eisenhower Plaza on Raoul Wallenberg Place,
we dedicate the United States Holocaust Museum and so bind one of the darkest lessons
in history to the hopeful soul of America.
As we have seen already today, this museum
is not for the dead alone nor even for the survivors who have been so beautifully represented;
it is perhaps most of all for those of us who
were not there at all, to learn the lessons, to
deepen our memories and our humanity, and
to transmit these lessons from generation to generation.
The Holocaust, to be sure, transformed the
entire 20th century, sweeping aside the Enlightenment hope that evil somehow could be per

478




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Apr. 22


manently vanished from the face of the Earth,
demonstrating there is no war to end all war,
that the struggle against the basest tendencies
of our nature must continue forever and ever.
The Holocaust began when the most civilized
country of its day unleashed unprecedented acts
of cruelty and hatred, abetted by perversions
of science, philosophy, and law. A culture, which
produced Goethe, Schiller, and Beethoven, then
brought forth Hitler and Himmler, the merciless
hordes, who themselves were educated, as others who were educated stood by and did nothing. Millions died for who they were, how they
worshiped, what they believed, and who they
loved. But one people, the Jews, were immutably marked for total destruction. They who
were among their nation's most patriotic citizens, whose extinction served no military purpose nor offered any political gain, they who
threatened no one were slaughtered by an efficient, unrelenting bureaucracy, dedicated solely
to a radical evil with a curiously antiseptic title:
The Final Solution.
The Holocaust reminds us forever that knowledge divorced from values can only serve to
deepen the human nightmare, that a head without a heart is not humanity. For those of us
here today representing the nations of the West,
we must live forever with this knowledge. Even
as our fragmentary awareness of crimes grew
into indisputable facts, far too little was done.
Before the war even started, doors to liberty
were shut. And even after the United States
and the Allies attacked Germany, rail lines to
the camps within miles of military-significant
targets were left undisturbed.
Still there were, as has been noted, many
deeds of singular courage and resistance: the
Danes and the Bulgarians, men like Emmanuel
Ringelbaum, who died after preserving in metal
milk cans the history of the Warsaw ghetto;
Janusz Korczak, who stayed with children until
their last breaths at Treblinka; and Raoul
Wallenberg, who perhaps rescued as many as
100,000 Hungarian Jews; and those known and
those never to be known, who manned the thin
line of righteousness, who risked and lost their
lives to save others, accruing no advantage to
themselves but nobly serving the larger cause
of humanity.
As the war ended, these rescuers were joined
by our military forces who, alongside the allied
armies, played the decisive role in bringing the
Holocaust to an end. Overcoming the shock of


discovery, they walked survivors from those
dark, dark places into the sweet sunlight of redemption, soldiers and survivors being forever
joined in history and humanity. This place is
their place, too, for them as for us, to memorialize the past and steel ourselves for the challenges of tomorrow.
We must all now frankly admit that there
will come a time in the not too distant future
when the Holocaust will pass from living reality
and shared experience to memory and to history.
To preserve this shared history of anguish, to
keep it vivid and real so that evil can be combated and contained, we are here to consecrate
this memorial and contemplate its meaning for
us. For more than any other event, the Holocaust gave rise to the universal declaration of
human rights, the charter of our common humanity. And it contributed, indeed made certain,
the long overdue creation of the nation of Israel.
Now, with the demise of communism and the
rise of democracy out of the ashes of former
Communist states, with the end of the cold war,
we must not only rejoice in so much that is
good in the world but recognize that not all
in this new world is good. We learn again and
again that the world has yet to run its course
of animosity and violence.
Ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia is
but the most brutal and blatant and ever-present
manifestation of what we see also with the oppression of the Kurds in Iraq, the abusive treatment of the Baha'i in Iran, the endless racebased violence in South Africa. And in many
other places we are reminded again and again
how fragile are the safeguards of civilization.
So do the depraved and insensate bands now
loose in the modem world. Look at the liars
and the propagandists among us, the skinheads
and the Liberty Lobby here at home, the
Afrikaaners resistance movement in South Africa, the Radical Party of Serbia, the Russian
blackshirts. With them we must all compete for
the interpretation and the preservation of history, of what we know and how we should behave.
The evil represented in this museum is incontestable. But as we are its witness, so must we
remain its adversary in the world in which we
live; so we must stop the fabricators of history
and the bullies as well. Left unchallenged, they
would still prey upon the powerless, and we
must not permit that to happen again.
To build bulwarks against this kind of evil,


479




Apr. 22 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


we know there is but one path to take. It is
the direction opposite that which produced the
Holocaust; it is that which recognizes that
among all our differences, we still cannot ever
separate ourselves one from another. We must
find in our diversity our common humanity. We
must reaffirm that common humanity, even in
the darkest and deepest of our own disagreements.
Sure, there is new hope in this world. The
emergence of new, vibrant democratic states,
many of whose leaders are here today, offers
a shield against the inhumanity we remember.
And it is particularly appropriate that this museum is here in this magnificent city, an enduring tribute to democracy. It is a constant reminder of our duty to build and nurture the
institutions of public tranquility and humanity.
It occurs to me that some may be reluctant
to come inside these doors because the photographs and remembrance of the past impart
more pain than they can bear. I understand
that. I walked through the museum on Monday
night and spent more than 2 hours. But I think
that our obligations to history and posterity alike
should beckon us all inside these doors. It is
a journey that I hope every American who
comes to Washington will take, a journey I hope
all the visitors to this city from abroad will make.
I believe that this museum will touch the
life of everyone who enters and leave everyone
forever changed: a place of deep sadness and
a sanctuary of bright hope, an ally of education
Remarks on Presenting the American
an Exchange With Reporters
April 22, 1993
The President. Ladies and gentlemen, these
are the annual American Cancer Society Courage Awards. And the certificate salutes the two
people I'll present the awards to for personal
courage in the battle against cancer and for a
message of hope and inspiration given to all
Americans in the fight for life and health.
We have here to my right Dr. Reginald Ho,
the president of the American Cancer Society;
Stanley Shmichkiss, who is the chairman of the
board of the Cancer Society; Dr. John Seffrin,
the national executive vice president and chief


against ignorance, of humility against arrogance,
an investment in a secure future against whatever insanity lurks ahead. If this museum can
mobilize morality, then those who have perished
will thereby gain a measure of immortality.
I know this is a difficult day for those we
call survivors. Those of us born after the war
cannot yet fully comprehend their sorrow or
pain. But if our expressions are inadequate to
this moment, at least may I share these words
inscribed in the Book of Wisdom: "The souls
of the righteous are in the hands of God, and
no torment shall touch them. In the eyes of
fools they seem to die. Their passing away was
thought to be an affliction, and their going forth
from us, utter destruction. But they are in
peace.
On this day of triumphant reunion and celebration, I hope those who have survived have
found their peace. Our task, with God's blessing
upon our souls and the memories of the fallen
in our hearts and minds, is to the ceaseless
struggle to preserve human rights and dignity.
We are now strengthened and will be forever
strengthened by remembrance. I pray that we
shall prevail.
NOTE: The President spoke at 12:43 p.m. at the
Memorial. In his remarks, he referred to Chaim
Herzog, President of Israel, and Harvey M. Meyerhoff, Chairman, U.S. Holocaust Memorial
Council.
Cancer Society Courage Awards and
staff officer of the Cancer Society.
The young gentleman to my right is Mr. Jeremy Fleury, who is here with his mother, Sharon. And I want to tell you a little about him.
He is 13, same age as my daughter. He's undergone treatment for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma
way back in 1989, and since then he's been
in clinical remission. He's a very brave young
man, and he's from Clovis, New Mexico.
So I want to give you this. I'll let you hold
it so everyone can see it.
And further to the left is Matilda Goodridge,


480




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Apr. 22


from New York, New York, who has been enrolled since 1981 in the Breast Examination
Center of Harlem, located at the Harlem Hospital, which I have visited. She kept annual visits
for a mammogram and in 1991 was diagnosed
with a localized breast cancer. She's undergone
surgery and treatment, and she's doing quite
well. And I want to recognize her.
Both these folks have had a lot of personal
difficulties because of the absence of medical
coverage and some other economic problems,
and they're carrying on with a lot of real courage. I also want to compliment Ms. Goodridge,
as the son of a breast cancer survivor, for being
enrolled in the breast examination program for
over a decade. I think that example will help
to save the lives of many women in this country
who will see this ceremony recorded in the news
media.
So I congratulate both of you. Let me give
this to you. And thank you very much for being
here.
[At this point, the President presented the
awards. ]
If I might point out, this young man and
his mother-if she remains unemployed, they
can be covered through Medicaid. But if she
were to take another job, it would be very difficult, because of his treatment and past condition, even though he's in remission, for her to
get a job with health insurance.
If we can pass reforms which will guarantee
coverage to all Americans and which will provide
a broad-based community base for any insurance
against risks so that there will be no economic
advantage or disadvantage to employers for hiring the parents or the people who suffer from
disease, this country will be a long way down
the road toward dealing with this problem. And
I think that that clearly will be a part of the
health program that we come out with, something that will guarantee coverage to all Americans and will enable people to leave their jobs
to care for sick family members and then resume employment when possible without having
the employer suffer economically crippling con

sequences or forcing the people to choose between staying unemployed to get Government
health care or taking a job and losing health
coverage.
Health Care Reform
Q. Mr. President, have you decided on a way
to finance health care reform? I mean, you're
moving toward a deadline now. Have you made
any decisions?
The President. We're moving toward a deadline, and we'll have the details for you. I've
already told-those things will be in the program. Whatever options we decide, we'll do that.
Q. When do you think you'll make your mind
up?
The President. Well, we're still well within
our deadline. I think that-because of my father-in-law's illness my wife was out of pocket
for about 3 weeks, and so we're going to be
pushed back a little bit off the 100 days. But
we're working very hard. I spent many, many
hours on this myself and, indeed, this afternoon
will be spending another 2-1/2 hours on it. So
I think we're pretty well on schedule.
Bosnia
Q. [Inaudible]-Elie Wiesel's comments about
Bosnia this morning, sir, as a challenge to you
personally?
The President. I think it was a challenge to
the United States and to me and to the West
to take further initiatives in Bosnia. And I accepted it as such.
I was eager to have a few moments to speak
with Elie Wiesel after the ceremony. We went
back into a holding room, and I introduced him
to my wife and my daughter, who wanted very
much to meet him. And then we sat and talked
for a while. We may talk again. But I welcomed
his remarks this morning.
NOTE: The President spoke at 3:30 p.m. in the
Oval Office at the White House. A tape was not
available for verification of the content of these
remarks.


481




Apr. 22 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


Remarks at the National Volunteer Action Award Ceremony
April 22, 1993


Thank you very much. I want to thank, first
of all, the people who have made possible this
12th annual National Volunteer Action Award
event, begun in the early 1980's under President
Reagan, people from the Points of Light Foundation and the folks from ACTION. I want to
say, too, to all of you that this is a matter of
great personal pride to me to be President and
be a part of this today, because I have believed
for a long time in grassroots community efforts
and community service.
Last year, on the occasion of my birthday,
which I share with the Vice President's wife,
Tipper Gore, our two families went to Georgia
and built a house with Habitat for Humanity,
along with President and Mrs. Carter as a way
of symbolizing our commitment to national service. And my daughter selected a school here
in Washington in part because one of the requirements of being enrolled in the school was
to do community service. Just a couple of days
ago, she and her group went out and did one
of their service projects, working to build some
park facilities for young people who will come
behind and use those facilities.
I can't help but say I'm especially proud today
because one of the honorees today is the Arkansas Land and Farm Development Corporation
from my home State. I should say, I had nothing
to do with selecting any of these awards.
[Laughter] But they will tell you that for well
over a decade I have worked with them in many
ways, watching them work against often enormous odds to empower poor people in rural
areas to seize control of their own destinies.
So I am especially proud of them as well as
of all the other honorees.
I think all of you recognize the fundamental
truth that as Americans and as human beings
we can never be completely fulfilled unless we
help each other. Just a few moments ago, I
was over at the dedication of the Holocaust Museum. And we recognized, of course, the great
losses of the Jewish people, of the Gypsies, and
others who were systematically exterminated by
the Nazis. But we also recognize the services
of perhaps the most important volunteers in the
20th century, those who put their lives at risk
to try to save large numbers of the Jews.


On that cold, wind-whipped occasion, I think
it's fair to say that, by far, the most popular
speaker at the event was a woman who put
her life at risk to shield Jews from almost certain
death and, in the process, found a person who
became her husband. The Scriptures say that
in giving we will receive. Perhaps not all of
us will find a mate for life in our gifts, but
all of us certainly will receive.
I think it has been recognized for a long
time that service sustains and defines our democracy and helps us to understand that we
are not brought together by race or religion
or region but that we cannot be kept apart by
those things if we have common values, common
interests, and undertake common endeavors.
After all, volunteers won the American Revolution. And ever since, volunteers have been
winning our wars and winning the battles of
peacetime. Volunteers helped to get women the
right to vote and helped to effect the civil rights
revolution and help us even today to overcome
the barriers that divide us.
All generations have been called upon to
serve. And today, as people are living longer
than ever before, every generation now living
is called upon to serve, to deepen our lives
and to strengthen the bonds of our communities.
Today is so special to me because we are recognizing those of you who have risen to the
challenge in particularly innovative and effective
ways.
I hope that as we honor you today you will
all join me in renewing our call for all Americans to embrace the spirit of service. We all
have roles to play. Even those who are not in
organizations represented here may be able to
help to patrol this, police, and support the work
of law enforcement officers in areas plagued
by high crime, where children are unsafe, or
may help to volunteer in a community health
center where health care is available in theory
but not in practice unless people can find their
way to the clinic; or tutoring children after
school; or being mentors to children who themselves would like to do better but don't have
the role models they need.
We bring out the best in our country when
we serve. I know that you know that I've tried


482




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Apr. 22


to make sure our Government will do its part.
And as Mr. Segal said, next week I intend to
introduce the national service legislation that I
hope will change our country for the better and
forever to provide a revolution in the best sense
of the word, bringing us back to our best values,
offering opportunity, requiring responsibility,
and creating a stronger sense of the American
community.
Those are the things which drove me into
this race for President well over a year ago
and the things which I hope so deeply will be
embodied in the national service movement. We
want to make opportunity available by making
it easier to get a loan to go to college and
easier to pay it off through service, demanding
responsibility by making sure that everybody
who gets something from their Government finally gives something back, we hope in service
but at least in dollars, and rebuilding communities all over this country through our civilian
GI bill, with thousands of people paying their
way to college either before or after they go
by doing what their communities need.
We'll bring ourselves a little closer to that


sacred day when all of our children can live
up to their full potential by working together
to make sure that we do that as well as the
children we're trying to help. If these efforts
are to succeed, the spirit of service must be
renewed in the hearts of every American, not
just in those who will be part of the national
service movement. I hope that this movement
will go well beyond party or any other political
division in this country. I hope that everybody
will embrace the cause and the spirit, because
I believe we can change the country. If we
can do it here in the Government, we can then
challenge our corporations, our foundations, our
schools, our nonprofits to follow the leads of
those whom we honor here today. And if we're
in it for the long haul because we know we
all have a role to play, I really believe it means
an America finally and fully living up to its potential, that is, being more like those of you
whom we honor today.
Thank you very much.
NOTE: The President spoke at 3:47 p.m. in the
East Room at the White House.


Nomination for Energy Department and Ambassadorial Posts
April 22, 1993


The President announced today that he will
nominate Archer Durham, a retired Major General in the U.S. Air Force, to be Assistant Secretary of Energy for Human Resources and Administration. He also formally announced his intent to nominate Boston Mayor Raymond Flynn
to be Ambassador to the Holy See.
"Through his long and exemplary career in
the Air Force, Archer Durham had a reputation
of being a hands-on manager who consistently
led the Air Force in management efficiency indicators," said the President. "Secretary O'Leary
has called for that kind of management at her
Department, and I am glad that General Dur

ham will be providing it."
"I am also very pleased to be formally announcing my intention to nominate Mayor Flynn
for the important post of Ambassador to the
Holy See," the President added. "As I said on
St. Patrick's Day here at the White House, he
has been one of the best mayors to serve in
my lifetime, and I think he'll do a great job
in a wide range of areas."
NOTE: Biographies of the nominees were made
available by the Office of the Press Secretary.


483




Apr. 23 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993
The President's News Conference
April 23, 1993


The President. Terry [Terence Hunt, Associated Press], do you have a question?
Bosnia
Q. Mr. President, there's a growing feeling
that the Western response to bloodshed in
Bosnia has been woefully inadequate. Holocaust
survivor Elie Wiesel asked you yesterday to do
something, anything to stop the fighting. Is the
United States considering taking unilateral action such as air strikes against Serb artillery
sites?
The President. Well, first let me say, as you
know, for more than a week now we have been
seriously reviewing our options for further action. And I want to say, too, let's look at the
last 3 months. Since I became President, I have
worked with our allies, and we have tried to
move forward, first on the no-fly zone, on enforcement of it, on the humanitarian airdrops,
on the war crimes investigation, on getting the
Bosnian Muslims involved in the peace process.
We have made some progress. And now we
have a very much tougher sanctions resolution.
And Leon Fuerth, who is the National Security
Adviser to the Vice President, is in Europe now
working on implementing that. That is going
to make a big difference to Serbia.
And we are reviewing other options. I think
we should act. We should lead. The United
States should lead. We have led for the last
3 months. We have moved the coalition. And
to be fair, our allies in Europe have been willing
to do their part. And they have troops on the
ground there.
But I do not think we should act alone, unilaterally, nor do I think we will have to. And
in the next several days I think we will finalize
the extensive review which has been going on
and which has taken a lot of my time as well
as the time of the administration, as it should
have, over the last 10 days or so. I think we'll
finish that in the near future, and then we'll
have a policy, and we'll announce it and everyone can evaluate it.
Q. Can I follow up?
The President. Sure.
Q. Do you see any parallel between the ethnic
cleansing in Bosnia and the Holocaust?
The President. I think the Holocaust is on


a whole different level. I think it is without
precedent or peer in human history. On the
other hand, ethnic cleansing is the kind of inhumanity that the Holocaust took to the nth degree. The idea of moving people around and
abusing them and often killing them solely because of their ethnicity is an abhorrent thing.
And it is especially troublesome in that area
where people of different ethnic groups live side
by side for so long together. And I think you
have to stand up against it. I think it's wrong.
We were talking today about all of the other
troubles in that region. I was happy to see the
violence between the Croats and the Muslims
in Bosnia subside this morning, and I think
we're making progress on that front. But what's
going on with the Serbians and the ethnic
cleansing is qualitatively different than the other
conflicts, both within the former Yugoslavia and
in other parts of the region.
Helen [Helen Thomas, United Press International]?
The First 100 Days
Q. Mr. President, by any count, you have
not had a good week in your Presidency. The
tragedy in Waco, the defeat of your stimulus
bill, the standoff in Bosnia. What did you do
wrong, and what are you going to do differently?
How do you look at things? Are you reassessing?
The President. I don't really believe that the
situation in Bosnia-it's not been a good week
for the world, but I don't know that the administration could have made it different.
On the stimulus package, I'd like to put it
into the larger context and remind you that in
this 100 days we have already fundamentally
changed the direction of an American Government. We have abandoned trickle-down economics. We've abandoned the policies that
brought the debt of this country from $1 trillion
to $4 trillion in only a decade.
The budget plan, which passed the Congress,
which will reduce the deficit and increase investment, has led to a 20-year low in mortgage
rates, dramatically lower interest rates. There
are probably people in this room who have refinanced their home mortgages in the last 3
months or who have had access to cheaper credit. That's going to put tens of billion dollars


484




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Apr. 23


coursing throughout this economy in ways that
are very, very good for the country. And so
we are moving in the right direction economically.
I regret that the stimulus did not pass, and
I have begun to ask, and will continue to ask,
not only people in the administration but people
in the Congress whether there is something I
could have done differently to pass that. Part
of the reason it didn't pass was politics; part
of it was a difference in ideas. There are really
people still who believe that it's not needed.
I just disagree with that.
I think the recovery-the economists say it's
been underway for about 2 years, and we've
still had 16 months of 7-percent unemployment,
and all the wealthy countries are having trouble
creating jobs. So I think there was an idea base,
an argument there, that while we're waiting for
the lower interest rates and the deficit reduction
and the investments of the next 4 years to take
effect, this sort of supplemental appropriation
should go forward.
Now, I have to tell you, I did misgauge that
because a majority of the Republican Senators
now sitting in the Senate voted for a similar
stimulus when Ronald Reagan was President in
1983 and voted 28 times for regular supplemental appropriations like this. I just misgauged
it. And I hope that I can learn something. I've
just been here 90 days. And you know, I was
a Governor working with a contentious legislature for 12 years, and it took me a decade
to get political reform there. So it takes time
to change things. But I basically feel very good
about what's happened in the first 100 days with
regard to the Congress.
Tragedy in Waco
Q. Waco-[inaudible]
The President. Well, with regard to Waco I
don't have much to add to what I've already
said. I want the situation looked into. I want
us to bring in people who have any insights
to bear on that. I think it's very important that
the whole thing be thoroughly gone over. But
I still maintain what I said from the beginning,
that the offender there was David Koresh. And
I do not think the United States Government
is responsible for the fact that a bunch of fanatics decided to kill themselves. And I'm sorry
that they killed their children.


Ross Perot
Q. Mr. President, to follow up partly on
Helen, on your stimulus package and on your
political approach to Capitol Hill, Ross Perot
said today that you're playing games with the
American people in your tax policy. He was
strongly critical of your stimulus package. He
said he's going to launch an advertising campaign against the North American Free Trade
Agreement. How are you going to handle his
political criticism? Will it complicate your efforts
on the Hill with your economic plan? And do
you plan to repackage some of the things that
have been in your stimulus program and try
to resubmit them to the Hill?
The President. Let me answer that question
first. We're going to revisit all of that over the
next few days. I'm going to be talking to Members of Congress and to others to see what
we can do about that. With regard to the economic plan, I must say I found that rather amazing. I don't want to get into an argument with
Mr. Perot. I'll be interested to hear what his
specifics are, but I would-go back and read
his book and his plan. There's a remarkable
convergence except that we have more specific
budget cuts. We raise taxes less on the middle
class and more on the wealthy. But otherwise,
the plans are remarkably similar.
So I think it would be I'll be interested to
see if maybe perhaps he's changed his position
from his book last year, and he has some new
ideas to bring to bear. I'll be glad to hear them.
Q. To follow up, sir, how do you plan to
handle his political criticism? He's launched a
campaign against you. Do you think you can
sit back and justThe President. Well, first of all, I will ask
you to apply the same level of scrutiny to him
as you do to me. And if he's changed his position from the positions he took in the campaign
last year, then we need to know why and what
his ideas are. Maybe he's got some constructive
ideas.
I think the American people have shown that
they're very impatient with people who don't
want to produce results. And the one thing I
think that everybody has figured out about me
in the last-even if they don't agree with what
I do-is that I want to get something done.
I just came here to try to change things. I
want to do things. And I want to do things
that help people's lives. So my judgment is that


485




Apr. 23 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


if he makes a suggestion that is good, that is
constructive, that takes us beyond some idea
I've proposed that will change people's lives for
the better, fine. But I think that that ought
to be the test that we apply to everyone who
weighs into this debate and not just to the President.
Bosnia
Q. Mr. President, to go back to Bosnia for
a minute. You continue to insist that this has
to be multilateral action, a criteria that seems
to have hamstrung us when it comes to many
options thus far and makes it look as if this
is a state of paralysis. The United States is the
last remaining superpower. Why is it not appropriate in this situation for the United States
to act unilaterally?
The President. Well, the United States-surely
you would agree, that the United States, even
as the last remaining superpower, has to act
consistent with international law under some
mandate of the United Nations.
Q. But you have a mandate andThe President. They do, and that is one of
the things that we have under review. I haven't
ruled out any option for action. I would remind
all of you, I have not ruled out any option,
except that we have not discussed and we are
not considering the introduction of American
forces in continuing hostilities there. We are
not.
So we are reviewing other options. But I also
would remind you that, to be fair, our allies
have had-the French, the British, and the Canadians-have had troops on the ground there.
They have been justifiably worried about those.
But they have supported the airdrops, the
toughening of the sanctions. They welcomed the
American delegation now in Europe, working
on how to make these sanctions really work and
really bite against Serbia. And I can tell you
that the other nations involved are also genuinely reassessing their position, and I would not
rule out the fact that we can reach an agreement
for a concerted action that goes beyond where
we have been. I don't have any criticism of
the British, the French, and others about that.
Q. Would that be military action?
Statements by Administration Officials
Q. Mr. President, several of the leading lights
in your administration, ranging from your FBI
Director to your U.N. Ambassador, to your Dep

uty Budget Director, to your Health Services
Secretary, have issued statements in the last couple of weeks which are absolutely contradictory
to some of the positions you've taken in your
administration. Why is that? Are you losing your
political grip?
The President. Give me an example.
Q. Example? Judge Sessions said that there
was no child abuse in Waco. Madeleine Albright
has said in this morning's newspapers, at least,
that she favors air strikes in Bosnia. All of these
are things you said that you didn't support.
The President. First of all, I don't know
what-we know that David Koresh had sex with
children. I think that is undisputed, is it not?
Is it not? Does anybody dispute that? Where
I come from that qualifies as child abuse. And
we know that he had people teaching these kids
how to kill themselves. I think that qualifies
as abuse. And I'm not criticizing Judge Sessions
because I don't know exactly what he said.
In terms of Madeleine Albright, Madeleine
Albright has made no public statement at all
about air strikes. There is a press report that
she wrote me a confidential letter in which she
expressed her-or memos-in which she expressed her views about the new direction we
should take in response to my request to all
the senior members of my administration to let
me know what they thought we ought to do
next. And I have heard from her and from others about what they think we ought to do next.
And I'm not going to discuss the recommendations they made to me, but in the next few
days when I make a decision about what to
do, then I will announce what I'm going to
do. So I wouldn't say that either one of those
examples qualifies speaking out of school.
Q. How about the value-added tax, Mr. President?
The President. What was that?
Q. The value-added tax, Mrs. Rivlin and Ms.
Shalala both said that they thought that that
was a good idea.
The President. I don't mind them saying they
think it's a good idea. There are all kinds of
arguments for it on policy grounds. That does
not mean that we have decided to incorporate
it in the health care debate. No decision has
been made on that. And I have no objection
to their expressing their views on that. We've
had a lot of people from business and labor
come to us saying that they thought that tax
would help make their particular industries more


486




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Apr. 23


competitive in the global economy. That wasn't
taking a line against an administration policy.
Gay Rights
Q. Mr. President, a week ago a group of
gay and lesbian representatives came out of a
meeting with you and expressed in the most
ringing terms their confidence in your understanding of them and their political aspirations,
and their belief that you would fulfill those aspirations. Do you feel now that you will be able
to meet their now-enhanced expectations?
The President. Well, I don't know about that.
And I don't know what their-it depends on
what the expectations are. But I'll tell you this:
I believe that this country's policies should be
heavily biased in favor of nondiscrimination. I
believe when you tell people they can't do certain things in this country that other people
can do, there ought to be an overwhelming and
compelling reason for it. I believe we need the
services of all of our people, and I have said
that consistently and not as a political proposition. The first time this issue came up was
in 1991 when I was in Boston. I was just asked
the question about it.
And I might add, it's interesting that I have
been attacked. Obviously, those who disagree
with me here are primarily coming from the
political right in America. When I was Governor,
I was attacked from the other direction for sticking up for the rights of religious fundamentalists
to run their child care centers and to practice
home schooling under appropriate safeguards.
I just have always had an almost libertarian view
that we should try to protect the rights of American individual citizens to live up to the fullest
of their capacities, and I'm going to stick right
with that.
Q. Are you concerned, sir, that you may have
generated expectations on their end and criticism among others that has hamstrung your administration in the sense of far too great emphasis on this issue?
The President. Yes, but I have not placed
a great deal of emphasis on it. It's gotten a
lot of emphasis in other quarters and in the
press. I've just simply taken my position and
tried to see it through. And that's what I do.
It doesn't take a lot of my time as President
to say what I believe in and what I intend
to do, and that's what I'll continue to do.


Bosnia
Q. Mr. President, getting back to the situation
in Bosnia-and we understand you haven't made
any final decisions on new options previously
considered unacceptable. But the two most commonly heard options would be lifting the arms
embargo to enable the Bosnian Muslims to defend themselves and to initiate some limited
air strikes, perhaps, to cut off supply lines. Without telling us your decision-presumably, you
haven't made any final decisions on those two
options-what are the pros and cons that are
going through your mind right now and will
weigh heavily on your final decision?
The President. I'm reluctant to get into this.
Those are two of the options. There are some
other options that have been considered. All
have pluses and minuses; all have supporters
and opponents within the administration and in
the Congress, where, I would remind you, heavy
consultations will be required to embark on any
new policy.
I do believe that on the air strike issue, the
pronouncements that General Powell has made
generally about military action apply there. If
you take action, if the United States takes action, we must have a clearly defined objective
that can be met. We must be able to understand
it, and its limitations must be clear. The United
States is not, should not, become involved as
a partisan in a war.
With regard to the lifting of the arms embargo, the question obviously there is if you widen
the capacity of people to fight, will that help
to get a settlement and bring about peace? Will
it lead to more bloodshed? What kind of reaction can others have that would undermine the
effectiveness of the policy?
But I think both of them deserve some serious consideration, along with some other options
we have.
Q. Do you think that these people who are
trying to get us into war in Bosnia are really
remembering that we haven't taken care of hundreds of thousands of veterans from the last
war and we couldn't take care of our prisoners
and get them all home from Vietnam? And now
many of them are coming up with bills for treatment of Agent Orange. How can we afford to
go to any more of these wars?
The President. Well, I think that's a good argument against the United States itself becoming involved as a belligerent in a war there.


487




Apr. 23 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


But we are, after all, the world's only superpower. We do have to lead the world, and there
is a very serious problem of systematic ethnic
cleansing in the former Yugoslavia, which could
have not only enormous further humanitarian
consequences, and goodness knows there have
been many, but also could have other practical
consequences in other nearby regions where the
same sorts of ethnic tensions exist.
Q. Did you make any kind of agreement with
Boris Yeltsin to hold off either on air strikes
or any kind of aggressive action against the
Serbs until after Sunday? And in general, how
has his political situation affected your deliberation on Bosnia?
The President. No, I have not made any
agreement, and he did not ask for that. We
never even discussed that, interestingly enough.
The Russians, I would remind you, in the middle of President Yeltsin's campaign, abstained
from our attempt to get tougher sanctions
through the United Nations in what I thought
was the proper decision for them and one that
the United States and, I'm sure, the rest of
the free world very much appreciated.
Tragedy in Waco
Q. Do you wish, Mr. President, that you'd
become more involved in the planning of the
Waco operation? And how would you handle
that situation differently now?
The President. I don't think as a practical
matter that the President should become involved in the planning of those kinds of things
at that detail. One of the things that I'm sure
will come out when we look into this is-the
questions will be asked and answered: Did all
of us who were up the line of command ask
the questions we should have asked and get
the answers we should have gotten? And I look
forward to that. But at the time, I have to
say as I did before, the first thing I did after
the ATF agents were killed, once we knew that
the FBI was going to go in, was to ask that
the military be consulted because of the quasi-, as least, military nature of the conflict given
the resources that Koresh had in his compound
and their obvious willingness to use them. And
then on the day before the action, I asked the
questions of the Attorney General which I have
reported to you previously and which at the
time I thought were sufficient. As I said, I'm
sure, I leave it to others to make the suggestions
about whether there are other questions I


should have asked.
FBI Director Sessions
Q. Mr. President, what is your assessment
of Director Sessions' role in the Waco affair?
And have you made a decision on his future?
And if you haven't, will you give him a personal
hearing before you do decide?
The President. Well, first of all, I have no
assessment of his role since I had no direct
contact with him. And I mean no negative or
positive inference. I have no assessment there.
I stand by what I said before about my general
high regard for the FBI. And I'm waiting for
a recommendation from the Attorney General
about what to do with the direction of the FBI.
Bosnia
Q. Mr. President, since you said that one
side in the Bosnia conflict represents inhumanity
that the Holocaust carried to the nth degree,
why do you then tell us that the United States
cannot take a partisan view in this war?
The President. Well, I said that the principle
of ethnic cleansing is something we ought to
stand up against. That does not mean that the
United States or the United Nations can enter
a war, in effect, to redraw the lines, geographical
lines of republics within what was Yugoslavia,
or that that would ultimately be successful.
I think what the United States has to do is
to try to figure out whether there is some way
consistent with forcing the people to resolve
their own difficulties we can stand up to and
stop ethnic cleansing. And that is obviously the
difficulty we are wrestling with. This is clearly
the most difficult foreign policy problem we face
and that all of our allies face. And if it were
easy, I suppose it would have been solved before. We have tried to do more in the last
90 days than was previously done. It has clearly
not been enough to stop the Serbian aggression,
and we are now looking at what else we can
do.
Q. Yesterday you specifically criticized the
Roosevelt administration for not having bombed
the railroads to the concentration camps and
things that were near military targets. Aren't
there steps like that that would not involve conflict, direct conflict or partisan belligerence, that
you might consider?
The President. There may be. I would remind
you that the circumstances were somewhat different. We were then at war with Germany at


488




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Apr. 23


the time, and that's what made that whole series
of incidents so perplexing. But we have-as I
say, we've got all of our options under review.
Haiti
Q. The diplomatic initiative on Haiti is on
the verge of collapse. What can you do to salvage it short of a full-scale military operation?
The President. Well, you may know something
I don't. That's not what our people tell me.
I think Mr. Caputo and Ambassador Pezzullo
have done together a good job. The thing keeps
going back and forth because of the people who
are involved with the de facto government there.
It's obvious what their concerns are. They were
the same concerns that led to the ouster of
Aristide in the first place, and President Aristide,
we feel, should be restored to power. We're
working toward that. I get a report on that.
We discuss it at least three times a week, and
I'm convinced that we're going to prevail there
and be successful.
I do believe that there's every reason to think
that there will have to be some sort of multilateral presence to try to guarantee the security
and the freedom from violence of people on
both sides of the ledger while we try to establish
the conditions of ongoing civilized society. But
I believe we're going to prevail there.
The First 100 Days
Q. Mr. President, would you care to make
your assessment of the first 100 days before
we make one for you? [Laughter]
The President. Well, I'll say if-I believe, first
of all, we passed the budget resolution in record
time. That was the biggest issue. That confirmed
the direction of the administration and confirmed the commitments of the campaign that
we could both bring the deficit down and increase investment, and that we could do it by
specific spending cuts and by raising taxes, almost all of which come from the highest income
people in this society, reversing a 12-year trend
in which most of the tax burdens were borne
by the middle class, whose incomes were going
down when their taxes were going up, while
the deficit went from $1 trillion to $4 trillion,
the total national debt, and the deficit continued
to go up.
We have a 20-year low in interest rates from
mortgages. We have lower interest rates across
the board. We have tens of billions of dollars
flooding back into this economy as people refi

nance their debt. We have established a new
environmental policy, which is dramatically different. The Secretary of Education has worked
with me and with others and with the Governors
to establish a new approach in education that
focuses on tough standards as well as increasing
opportunity. We have done an enormous
amount of work on political reform, on campaign finance, and lobbying reform. And I have
imposed tough ethics requirements on my own
administration's officials. These things are consistent with not only what I said I'd do in the
campaign but with turning the country around.
The Vice President is heading a task force which
will literally change the way the Federal Government operates and make it much more responsive to the citizens of this country.
We are working on a whole range of other
things: the welfare reform initiative, to move
people from welfare to work. And, of course,
a massive amount of work has been done on
the health care issue, which is a huge economic
and personal security problem for millions of
Americans.
So I think it is amazing how much has been
done. More will be done. We also passed the
family leave bill, a version of the motor voter
bill that has not come out of conference back
to me yet. And everything has been passed except the stimulus program. So I think we're
doing fine, and we're moving in the right direction. I feel good about it.
Aid to Russia
Q. Sir, a followup. Wouldn't you say, though,
that one of your biggest initiatives, aid to Soviet
Russia, is now practically finished? If we can't
pass a stimulus bill in our own country, how
can we do it for them?
The President. Let me recast the question a
little bit. It's a good question. [Laughter] It's
a good question, but to be fair we've got to
recast it. We have already-the first round of
aid to non-Soviet Russia, to a democratic Russia,
is plainly going to go through, the first $1.6
billion. The aid that we agreed with our partners
in the G-7 to provide through the international
financial institutions, which is a big dollar item,
is plainly going to go through. The question
is, can we get any more aid for Russia that
requires a new appropriation by the United
States Congress? And that is a question I think,
Mary [Mary McGrory, Washington Post], that
will be resolved in the weeks ahead, in part


489




Apr. 23 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


by what happens to the American workers and
their jobs and their future. I think the two
things will be tied by many Members of Congress.
Navy Sexual Harassment Investigation
Q. The Tailhook report came out this morning, documenting horrendous and nearly criminal conduct on the part of the Navy. How much
did you discuss the incident, and what might
be done about it with your nominee to be the
Secretary of the Navy?
The President. First, let me comment a little
on that. The Inspector General's report details
conduct which is wrong and which has no place
in the armed services. And I expect the report
to be acted on in the appropriate way. I also
want to say to the American people and to all
of you that the report should be taken for what
it is, a very disturbing list of allegations which
will have to be thoroughly examined. It should
not be taken as a general indictment of the
United States Navy or of all the fine people
who serve there. It is very specific in its allegations, and it will be pursued.
The only thing I said to the Secretary-designate of the Navy and the only thing I should
have said to him, I think, is that I expected
him to take the report and to do his duty. And
I believe he will do that.
Russia
Q. Mr. President, to go back to Russia for
just a minute. The latest polls show that Mr.
Yeltsin will probably win his vote of confidence.
But there seems to be a real toss-up on whether
or not voters are going to endorse his economic
reforms.
The President. I understand that.
Q. Can you live with a split decision, though,
or do you need both passed in order to then
build support for Russian aid?
The President. I believe-the answer to your
question is, for the United States, the key question should be that which is posed to any democracy, which is who wins the election? If
he wins the election, if he is ratified by the
Russian people to continue as their President,
then I think we should do our best to work
with him toward reform.
You know, we had a lot of other countries
here for the Holocaust Museum dedication;
their leaders were here. Leaders from Eastern
Europe, leaders from at least one republic of


the former Soviet Union, all of them having
terrible economic challenges as they convert
from a Communist command-and-control economy to a market economy in a world where
there's economic slowdown everywhere. And in
a world in which there's economic slowdown
and difficulty, all leaders will have trouble having their policies be popular in a poll because
they haven't produced the results that the people so earnestly yearn for. You can understand
that.
But if they have confidence in the leadership,
I think that's all we can ask. And the United
States will, if the Russian people ratify him as
their President and stick with him, then the
United States will continue to work with him.
I think he is a genuine democrat-small "d"and genuinely committed to reform. I think that
we should support that.
NAFTA
Q. Mr. President, Mr. Perot has come out
strongly in what is perceived behind the line
against a free trade agreement, NAFTA. How
hard are you going to fight for this free trade
agreement, and when do you expect to see it
accomplished?
The President. I think we'll have the agreement ready in the fairly near future. You know,
our people are still working with the Mexican
Government and with the Canadians on the side
agreements. We're trying to work out what the
environmental agreement will say, what the
labor agreement will say, and then what the
fairest way to deal with enforcement is.
The Mexicans say, and there is some merit
to their position, that they're worried about
transferring their sovereignty in enforcement to
a multilateral commission. Even in the United
States, to be fair, we have some folks who are
worried about that, about giving that up. On
the other hand, if we're going to have an environmental agreement and a labor standards
agreement that means something, then there has
to be ultimately some consequences for violating
them. So what we're trying to do is to agree
on an approach which would say that if there
is a pattern of violations, if you keep on violating
it past a certain point-maybe not an isolated
incident, but a pattern of violation-there is
going to be some enforcement. There must be
consequences. And we're working out the details
of that.
But I still feel quite good about it. And this


490




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Apr. 23


is just an area where I disagree with Mr. Perot
and with others. I think that we will win big
if we have a fair agreement that integrates more
closely the Mexican economy and the American
economy and leads us from there to Chile to
other market economies in Latin America and
gives us a bigger world in which to trade. I
think that's the only way a rich country can
grow richer. If you look at what Japan and other
countries in the Pacific are doing to reach out
in their own region, it's a pretty good lesson
to us that we had better worry about how to
build those bridges in our own area.
So this is an idea battle. You know, you've
got a lot of questions, and I want to answer
them all. But let me say not every one of these
things can be distilled simply into politics, you
know, who's for this and who's for that, and
if this person is for this, somebody else has
got to be for that. A lot of these things honestly
involved real debates over ideas, over who's
right and wrong about the world toward which
we're moving. And the answers are not selfevident. And one of the reasons that I wanted
to run for President is I wanted to sort of open
the floodgates for debating these ideas so that
we could try to change in the appropriate way.
So I just have a difference of opinion. I believe
that the concept of NAFTA is sound, even
though, as you know, I thought that the details
needed to be improved.
POWIMIA's
Q. Mr. President, there was a tremendous
flurry of interest earlier this month in the Russian document that purported to show that the
Vietnamese had held back American prisoners.
General Vessey has now said publicly that while
the document itself was authentic, he believes
that it was incorrect. Do you have a personal
view at this point about that issue? And more
broadly, do you believe that, in fact, the Vietnamese did return all the American prisoners
at the time of the Paris Peace Accord?
The President. First let me say, I saw General
Vessey before he went to Vietnam and after
he returned. And I have a high regard for him,
and I appreciate his willingness to serve his
country in this way. As to whether the document
had any basis in fact, let me say that the Government of Vietnam was more forthcoming than
it had been in the past and gave us some documents that would tend to undermine the validity
of the Russian documents claim.


I do not know whether that is right or wrong.
We are having it basically evaluated at this time,
and when we complete the evaluation, we'll tell
you. And of course, we want to tell the families
of those who were missing in action or who
were POW's. I think that we'll be able to make
some progress in eliminating some of the questions about the outstanding cases as a result
of this last interchange, but I cannot say that
I'm fully satisfied that we know all that we need
to know. There are still some cases that we
don't know the answer to. But I do believe
we're making some progress. I was encouraged
by the last trip.
Q. I'd like to follow up on that. Before the
U.S. normalizes relations, allows trade to go forward, do you have to be personally sure that
every case has been resolved or would you be
willing to go forward on the basis that while
it may take years to resolve these cases, the
Vietnamese have made sufficient offerings to us
to confirm good faith?
The President. A lot of experts say you can
never resolve every case, every one, that we
couldn't resolve all the cases for them and that
there are still some cases that have not been
factually resolved, going back to the Second
World War. But what I would have to be convinced of is that we had gone a long way toward
resolving every case that could be resolved at
this moment in time, and that there was a complete, open, and unrestricted commitment to
continue to do everything that could be done
always to keep resolving those cases. And we're
not there yet.
Again, I have to be guided a little bit by
people who know a lot about this. And I confess
to being much more heavily influenced by the
families of the people whose lives were lost
there or whose lives remain in question than
by the commercial interest and the other things
which seem so compelling in this moment. I
just am very influenced by how the families
feel.
Legislative Agenda
Q. [Inaudible]-your economic stimulus package, are you doing some kind of reality check
now and scaling back some of your plans, your
legislative plans for the coming year, including
the crime bill, the health care initiatives, and
other things? Are there any plans to do that?
And also, did you underestimate the power of
Senator Bob Dole?


491




Apr. 23 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


The President. No, what I underestimated was
the extent to which what I thought was a fairly
self-evident case, particularly after we stayed
below the spending caps approved by this Congress, including the Republicans who were in
this Congress last year, when we had already
passed a budget resolution which called for over
$500 billion in deficit reduction. When they had
voted repeatedly for supplemental appropriations to help foreign governments, I thought
at least four of them would vote to break cloture, and I underestimated that. I did not have
an adequate strategy of dealing with that.
I also thought that if I made a good-faith
effort to negotiate and to compromise, that it
would not be rebuffed. Instead, every time I
offered something they reduced the offer that
they had previously been talking to the majority
leader about. So it was a strange set of events.
But I think what happened was what was a
significant part of our plan, but not the major
part of it, acquired a political connotation that
got out of proportion to the merits, so that a
lot of Republicans were saying to me privately,
"Mr. President, I'd like to be for this, but I
can't now. And we're all strung out, and we're
divided."
I think we need to do a reality check. As
I said, what I want to know-let me go back
to what I said-what I want to know from our
folks and from our friends in the Senate, and
Republicans or Democrats, is what could I have
done differently to make it come out differently,
because the real losers here were not the President and the administration. The real losers
were the hundreds of thousands of people who
won't have jobs now. We could have put another
700,000 kids to work this summer. I mean, we
could have done a lot of good things with that
money. And I think that is very, very sad. And
it became more political than it should have.
But the underlying rationale I don't think holds
a lot of water, that it was deficit spending. That
just won't wash.
Q. [Inaudible]-and redoThe President. No. I mean, you know, for
example, you mentioned the crime bill. I think
it would be a real mistake not to pass the crime
bill. I mean, the crime bill was almost on the
point of passage last year. And they were all
fighting over the Brady bill. Surely, surely after
what we have been through in this country just
in the last 3 months, with the kind of mindless
violence we have seen, we can pass a bill requir

ing people to go through a waiting period before
they buy a handgun. And surely we can see
that we need more police officers on the street.
That's another thing that-I really believe that
once we move some of that money, not all but
some of it, up into this jobs package to make
some of the jobs rehiring police officers on the
street who'd been laid off, that would be a compelling case. I mean people are scared in this
country, and I think we need to go forward.
I feel very strongly that we need to go forward
on the crime bill.
Navy Sexual Harassment Investigation
Q. Mr. President, back to the Tailhook report
for a second. That report contained very strong
criticism of the Navy's senior leadership in general but did not name any of the senior officers.
Do you believe that the senior officers who are
implicated in this, including Admiral Kelso who
was there one night in Las Vegas, should they
be disciplined, and do you believe the public
has a right to know the names of the senior
officers?
The President. You should know that under
the rules of law which apply to this, I am in
the chain of command. There is now an Inspector General's report, and the law must take its
course. If I were to answer that question I might
prejudice any decisions which might be later
made in this case. I think all I can tell you
is what I have already said. I was very disturbed
by the specific allegations in the Inspector General's report, and I want appropriate action to
be taken.
Until the proper procedures have a chance
to kick in and appropriate action is taken, I
have been advised that because I am the Commander in Chief I have to be very careful about
what I say so as not to prejudice the rights
of anybody against whom any action might proceed or to prejudice the case in any other way
either pro or con. So I can't say any more except
to say that I want this thing handled in an
appropriate and thorough way.
Bosnia
Q. Mr. President, could I ask you for a clarification on Bosnia? You said that you were not
considering introduction of American forces.
Does that include any air forces as well as
ground forces, sir?
The President. I said ground forces.
Q. You said ground forces. Could I ask you,


492




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Apr. 23


sir, if you fear that using U.S. air strikes might
draw the United States into a ground war there?
The President. I just don't want to discuss
our evaluation of the options anymore. I've told
you that there's never been a serious discussion
in this country about the introduction of ground
forces into an ongoing conflict there.
Gay Rights March
Q. With hundreds of thousands of gays in
Washington this weekend for the march, did
you ever reconsider your decision to leave town
for this weekend? Did you ever consider in any
way participating in some of the activities?
The President. No.
Q. Why not?
The President. Because I-and, basically, I
wouldn't participate in other marches. I think
once you become President, on balance, except
under unusual circumstances, that is not what
should be done. But more importantly, I'm
going to the American Society of Newspaper
Editors, a trip that presumably most of you


would want me to make, to try to focus anew
on what I think are the fundamental issues at
stake for our country right now. And I expect
that I will say something about the fact that
a lot of Americans have come here asking for
a climate that is free of discrimination, asking
basically to be able to work hard and live by
the rules and be treated like other American
citizens if they do that, and just that. And that's
always been my position, not only for the gays
who will be here but for others as well.
Thank you very much.
NOTE: The President's 13th news conference
began at 1 p.m. in the East Room at the White
House. During the news conference, the following
persons were referred to: Elie Wiesel, Nobel laureate and concentration camp survivor; Dante
Caputo, U.N./OAS Special Envoy to Haiti; Lawrence Pezzullo, Special Assistant to the Secretary
of State on Haiti; and Adm. Frank B. Kelso II,
USN, Chief of Naval Operations.


Statement on Advancing U.S. Relations With Russia and the Other New
Independent States
April 23, 1993


Since my summit in Vancouver with Russian
President Boris Yeltsin, I have pursued a number of measures to implement our policy of economic and strategic partnership between our
two countries. These reflect my conviction that
the movement toward political and economic reform in Russia and the other new states of the
former Soviet Union is the greatest security
challenge of our day and can fuel our own future prosperity as well.
It is time to put our relations with Russia
and the other states on a new footing. As an
important step in that process, we need to update the accumulated cold war vestiges that remain in U.S. laws and practices. Our statutes
and regulations are filled with restrictions on
a Communist Soviet Union, a nation that no
longer exists. Many of those provisions needlessly impede our relations with the democratic
states that replaced the Soviet Union.
Many in Congress have already taken the lead
on re-examining these provisions. Today I have


asked Ambassador-at-Large Strobe Talbott to coordinate our Executive review of these laws and
statutes on an expedited basis, with the goal
of revising or removing them where appropriate
and consistent with our security and other national interests. Related to this process, our administration will also begin a thorough review,
working with our allies, of how to reorient export controls on sensitive technology. I ask the
bipartisan leaders in Congress to work with us
to coordinate and expedite these reviews.
Today I am also announcing steps to help
build a new security partnership with Russia
and the other states. We will accelerate the deactivation of nuclear weapons systems already
scheduled for elimination under the START I
Treaty, while working to accelerate dismantlement in Russia and the three other states with
nuclear weapons on their territory. We are beginning a comprehensive review of measures
that could enhance strategic stability, including
the possibility of each side reprogramming its


493




Apr. 23 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


nuclear missiles so they are not routinely aimed
at each other. And we will be starting a consultative process within the next 2 months with Russia, our allies, and other states, aimed at commencing negotiations toward a multilateral nuclear test ban.
Finally, we are continuing our efforts to strike
a partnership with political and economic reformers throughout Russia and the other states.
We are continuing work with our C-7 partners
to assemble the package of multilateral assistance that Secretaries Bentsen and Christopher


recently negotiated in Tokyo. And I am continuing consultation with Congress over the further
efforts our own Nation will take to assist Russia's
reforms.
The hardest work of reform must be done
by the people of Russia and the other states
themselves, and we applaud the courageous
steps they have taken. Yet we dare not miss
opportunities to do what we can to bolster their
processes of democratization and economic liberalization. The steps I am announcing today
will advance those objectives.


Statement on the Death of Cesar Chavez
April 23, 1993


The labor movement and all Americans have
lost a great leader with the death today of Cesar
Chavez. An inspiring fighter for the cause to
which he dedicated his life, Cesar Chavez was
an authentic hero to millions of people throughout the world.
I share the sadness his family, friends, followers, and supporters all feel upon his passing
away. We can be proud of his enormous accom

plishments and the dignity and comfort he
brought to the lives of so many of our country's
least powerful and most dispossessed workers.
He had a profound impact upon the people
of the United States. My deepest sympathies
go out to all his loved ones.
NOTE: The related proclamation of April 28 is listed in Appendix D at the end of this volume.


Statement on Signing Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Legislation
April 23, 1993


Today I have signed into law H.R. 1335, the
"Emergency Supplemental Appropriations" Act
of 1993. This Act provides $4 billion in emergency unemployment compensation to approximately 1.9 million unemployed American workers. This critical assistance will help the unemployed and their families with grocery bills,
mortgage payments and other expenses while
they seek new employment. I am disappointed
that the job-producing elements of the original
version of the legislation were forced to be removed from it.
Our efforts to create jobs, increase investment, and safeguard our communities and our
children, were frustrated by the use of parliamentary tactics in the Senate in the furtherance of politics-as-usual. The losers, in the end,


were jobless Americans looking for the dignity
of employment, and communities across the
United States looking forward to meeting unmet
national needs through growth-oriented efforts
provided by the legislation in its original form.
It is my hope that the Congress will consider
further legislation to produce the jobs that are
needed to strengthen and sustain the current
economic recovery.
WILLIAM J. CLINTON
The White House,
April 23, 1993.
NOTE: H.R. 1335, approved April 23, was assigned
Public Law No. 103-24. This statement was released by the Office of the Press Secretary on
April 24.


494




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Apr. 24


The President's Radio Address
April 24, 1993
Good morning. It's been said that to learn
about democracy you can take a break from
Plato and take the bus. I know firsthand that's
good advice. It was on our bus tour last year
that I met so many of the Americans who
helped to chart our course toward tomorrow:
fathers and mothers and children, citizens whose
concerns are everyday concerns, the kind that
unfortunately have been ignored for too long
in this Capital City.
I heard worry in some of those voices and
hope everywhere that new leadership could
change our country for the better. That
strengthened my resolve to beat back the status
quo, to fight against special interest and politics
as usual, to fight for the people who work hard
and play by the rules. You put your faith in
us so that we could put you, the American people, first. And that's what I try to do every
day. In every battle I fight, I just try to keep
you and your needs and the future of our great
Nation in mind.
Even today I'm reminded of the work still
to be done here. For many Americans the weekend is a time to unwind a bit, see friends, catch
up with the family, do the shopping and other
chores. Maybe some of you are out in the yard
gardening or washing a car or tossing a softball
or a frisbee.
I know there's been some good news lately.
After about 100 days as President we've begun
to change the direction of America. Our economic program has been adopted in its broad
outlines by Congress. That's brought an end to
trickle-down economics. The stock market is at
an all-time high, and interest rates are very,
very low, mortgages at a 20-year low. Many of
you have already saved a lot of money just since
the November election on these lower interest
rates, with refinancing your home mortgages or
getting car loans or consumer credit or perhaps
business loans at lower rates. That's going to
put billions and billions of dollars back into this
economy, which will create jobs and opportunities for people for years to come. I'm excited
about that. We're also lowering the deficit with
over 200 specific cuts in Government spending
and tax increases, almost all of which are coming
on people with incomes above $100,000.


We're doing some other things, like taking
steps to make more credit available to businesses and farms, supporting working families
with children, developing a proposal to clean
up our environment in a way that creates jobs
rather than costs jobs, and working to invest
for new jobs for those people who have been
laid off by defense cuts.
These developments will all help to turn our
country around and move us in the right direction. But still, for many Americans, this is just
another day without a job and a cruel reminder
that without gainful employment even the basics
in life, including self-esteem, are hard to come
by.
For those Americans I'll never stop fighting,
because for all Americans the stakes go up
whenever unemployment refuses to go down.
Think about this: For 16 straight months the
national unemployment rate has been 7 percent
or higher. Just this week we saw the latest figures for unemployment claims, and it still wasn't
good. There were 359,000 claims, an increase
of 26,000.
And some say we're in a recovery. Well, the
majority of the officials you elected to represent
you in Washington know this is a serious situation. They know that every industrial nation in
the world is having a big problem creating jobs.
Most people understand we need action and
bold changes to ensure that we get out of this
cycle of job loss. How can anybody with a lick
of sense think that we don't need more jobs?
Yet, still, this past week, a minority of the
United States Senate, 43 Senators, played parliamentary games with our people's lives. They
blocked an attempt to even vote on our plan
to put Americans back to work. Instead of giving
the majority the chance they wanted to pass
the jobs bill, which would have put hundreds
of thousands of Americans to work, they decided
we should spend your tax dollars only to extend
unemployment benefits.
I could think they don't understand. The 16
million Americans who want full-time jobs don't
just want more handouts to get from week to
week. They want work so they can support
themselves and be independent and pay taxes
instead of spending tax dollars.


495




Apr. 24 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


The bill I proposed didn't create Democratic
jobs or Republican jobs. And it certainly didn't
create make-work jobs. It was a bill to create
jobs building the fundamentals for long-term
economic growth. It funded highway and mass
transit constructions. It would have enabled
inner-city and rural kids to get off the streets
and go to work. It would have permitted hardpressed communities to rehire as many as
10,000 police officers to enlist them in the fight
against street crime. And these investments were
paid for by more than 200 real spending cuts
contained in the budget that Congress has already passed.
Of course, the best program is one that will
help to generate jobs. That's the social program
we really need. Think of it: If everybody in
America who wanted a job had one, we wouldn't
just be a more productive nation; we'd be a
freer people, free of many of the problems in
our society.
That's why I went the extra mile on this jobs
program. I offered a compromise. I offered another compromise that met our opponents more
than halfway, and why I still want to work with
Congress, both Democrats and Republicans, to
pass the details of our economic program and
to create jobs.
Look what happened in the Senate. When
the economy is looking weak, when the recovery
isn't producing jobs, when you, the American
people, are asking lawmakers to cut out the
gridlock, the opponents of our program filibustered and literally prevented even a vote so that
the majority could have worked its will. Well,
a lot of those people think they've scored a
victory by killing a chance to put nearly a half
million Americans to work. I don't think that's
much of a victory. I think that's letting the
American people down. And I'm going to do
my best not to let you down.
I've just been here in Washington a short


time. We've made some big strides. Our budget
blueprint has been approved by Congress in
record time, and that's led to a record reduction
in interest rates. As I said earlier, a lot of you
have already benefited from that, and that's
going to release tens of billions of dollars to
invest in this economy.
We're not going to play business as usual
here. We're going to shift the course of this
economy from consumption and waste to investment and growth. We're taking on some of the
hardest problems facing America, such as changing the health care system to make it work for
you and trying to drive special interest out of
politics through campaign finance and lobbying
reform. We're asking everyone to take more responsibility by reforming welfare so it's a second
chance, not a way of life, by making our education system live up to strong national standards, by offering students a chance to go to
college in exchange for community service, by
forcing Federal Agencies to do more with a
lot less of your money.
These are big changes. We all know they
won't happen overnight. But we're on our way,
thanks to the support you've given us. I want
our debate on key issues like creating jobs to
rise above politics, to rise above party and up
to the level of the American people. Our only
agenda should be your needs, the kind of needs
you've been telling us about for a long time.
I'm still listening to you. And I'll keep on
doing it. But all the people here in Washington
are going to have to get on the bus. We can't
miss the bus this time. We've got to be out
there working for you to make this country what
it ought to be.
Thank you.
NOTE: The address was recorded at 7:30 p.m. on
April 23 in Room 453 of the Old Executive Office
Building for broadcast at 10:06 a.m. on April 24.


Remarks to the Newspaper Association of America in Boston,
Massachusetts
April 25. 1993
Thank you very much. Frank, I am delighted was in Los Angeles last year on the day before
to be here. You reminded me, when you said this convention. And I was flying back, and I
that I came last year to the Waldorf, that I got somewhere around Las Vegas, and our plane


496




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Apr. 25


malfunctioned. We had to go back to California,
and I took the red-eye into the Waldorf. I've
always thought that was why I was the first
Democrat in 28 years to receive a majority of
the newspaper endorsements in the last election.
I was thinking today whether there was some
stunt I could pull that would have the equal
effect. [Laughter]
When Frank was giving me the introduction,
he said it was just a year ago, and this young,
charismatic Governor was out-I thought to myself, what happened to that guy? [Laughter] You
know, people ask me all the time whether
there's anything really different about being
President, and is it different from being a Governor or some other job? And it really is.
One of the things is that people walk around
on eggshells all the time, and they're always
trying to protect you, even from things that
aren't necessarily in need of protecting. The
other day I came down from the residence floor
at the White House to the first floor. And I
didn't know this, but my wife was having a
meeting with some women there, about 30 of
them, talking about health care, and the meeting
just let out as I got off on the floor. I was
going around the corner to another little room,
and all of a sudden I found myself in the middle
of 30 people whom I had never met before.
I literally just walked out into their midst. So
I shook hands with them, said hello. It was
quite pleasant. And this young aide who was
working there, a man who's a full-time employee
of the White House, said, "Oh, Mr. President,
I'm so sorry that I let you out in the middle
of all those people." And I looked at him, and
I said, "That's all right, young man, I used to
be one." [Laughter] That's the way I sort of
feel sometimes.
I want to tell you how very proud I am to
be here today with you, all of you who offer
our fellow countrymen and women the information, the analysis, the range of opinions that
they need to make decisions about their future.
I know that there's always a healthy tension
between the people in public service and the
press. And when I have bad days I remember
that another President who had a few bad days
with the press himself, Thomas Jefferson, said
that if he had to choose between having a Government without newspapers or newspapers
without a Government, that he would not hesitate for a moment to prefer the latter. I think
that was on one of the days when he got a


good press. [Laughter]
I want to say, in all seriousness, that I've
had the opportunity over the last several years
to read a fairly large number of newspapers
from around the country. As all of you know,
I believe very strongly that over the last 10
to 12 years the political system, which includes
both parties, in many important ways failed our
people. And oftentimes, it was newspapers of
our country who continued to put the human
concerns of people back at the center stage of
public debate, reporting on the stagnation of
living standards that created so much anxiety
for the middle class and so much despair for
the poor.
I think, in particular, of the incredible series
run by the Philadelphia Inquirer, called "America: What Went Wrong?", and the detail in
which that series documented what happened
to the middle class in America as most families
worked harder for lower wages and had more
insecurity in the fundamentals of their lives.
But many other papers, perhaps all of them
all across the country, issued various reports on
other problems that were neglected for too long:
how we went from a $1 trillion to a $4 trillion
deficit in national debt in 12 years; how most
of the gains, the economic gains of the 1980's
went to people in the top 3 to 4 percent of
income brackets; how we came to spend over
33 percent more than any other country in the
world on health care and still had over 35 million people without any health insurance and
millions of others at risk of losing it at a moment's notice; the problems we had in our
school systems, our welfare systems; the problems we had with drug abuse and crime; the
problems we have in the rising tide of people
in what may well be for them a permanent
underclass, most of them young women and
their little children or young, single, unemployed
and uneducated men.
Editorial writers warned us about organized
interest having too much dominance over public
policy, and the slogans and the smears and the
sound bites having too much dominance over
public debate and election decisions. Newspaper
after newspaper reported on the profound disaffection of so many of our people from the
political process itself. When the political system
seemed brain-dead and deadlocked, with so
many people locked into yesterday's rhetoric and
yesterday's policies, many in the newspapers
helped to give the American people not only


497




Apr. 25 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


the information they need but the sense that
with that information, something profound could
be done to change the course of our Nation's
history.
I don't think there's any question that the
size of the turnout last November, the nature
of the turnout, with so many people from traditionally underrepresented groups in the electorate, including so many millions of young people,
indicated that the American people wanted
some fundamental change in the way our Government does the people's business. And fortunately for me, I was given the opportunity to
try to lead that change.
Now that we have taken office and had almost
100 days to work at it, I know that you are
about the business of playing your roles, not
as a cheering section for our administration but
as a conscience for the Nation, measuring the
deeds against the words, reminding us still, always, no matter what happens in Washington,
of the hurts and the hopes and the capacities
of the people who do the voting and who challenge us now to live up to the promise of America.
For those who serve in Government and for
those who watch Government up close in Washington, it's all too easy to concentrate on the
daily events and the inside stories, to worry
about who's up or down or in or out, who won
or who lost the moment's battle; too easy to
forget about the real people whose real lives
will be changed for better or worse by what
we do or do not do: the unemployed people,
the people who are afraid of losing their health
insurance, the teenagers who wonder if they'll
have a chance to work this summer, the families
who feel less safe on their streets when we
don't provide enough law enforcement officials,
and on and on.
We can't forget, amidst all the gamesmanship
of American political life which is a high form
of entertainment, that there are real people with
real stories, and they are what all of our efforts
are ultimately about.
Every day, I try to devote some time to looking past the deadlines, to look ahead of the
headlines, to look beyond the beltway, to go
beyond the false choices and the failed policies
and philosophies that still grip so much of the
debate that I must confront every day, to go
beyond the politics of abandonment or the politics of entitlement, to think about how we can
all be in this together. No more every person


for himself or herself, and no more something
for nothing.
I am doing my best to offer every American
an opportunity to succeed and to challenge
every American to give something back to our
country. Everyone who is willing to work hard
and play by the rules ought to have a chance
to be a part of this American community, and
I think we all know that that is not the case
today.
In the first 96 days of this administration,
I think we have begun to fundamentally change
the direction taken by the Government over the
past decade, to go beyond trickle-down and taxand-spend to a new approach to our deficit and
to Government's role that reduces the deficit
and increases investment in our future with an
economic plan that reduces the deficit by over
$500 billion in the next 5 years, has led to
a 20-year low in mortgage rates, which the business writers say this year alone, if we can keep
the  interest rates  down, will result in
refinancings which will put over $100 billion
back into this economy; an economic plan that
includes an attempt to avoid the inevitable conflict between the environment and the economy
by finding ways to create jobs with responsible
environmental policy; an economic plan which
tries to deal seriously with the enormous problems occasioned by the dramatic reductions in
the defense budget and the impact that's had
on high-tech, high-wage employment in the
United States.
And I might add that tomorrow here in Boston we're going to have the first of five national
conferences on that subject here to try to work
in partnership with the private sector, to use
the fact that the cold war is over and the defense budget is going down to find new ways
for these people to work, to bring their talents
and their knowledge and their enormous experience to bear.
We've tried to go, in the trade debate, beyond
the old debate between free trade and protectionism to a new policy rooted in the notion
that we ought to expand trade to grow our economy and to grow the economy of our trading
partners. That is driving us as we seek to conclude a new agreement on the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trades, as we seek to conclude a treaty with Mexico and Canada to integrate our economies over the long run, and as
we seek to redefine our relationship with Japan
in the economic area.


498




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 I Apr. 25


We seek to go beyond inertia and ideology
to experimentation and initiative and a reliance
on more individual responsibility in social policy,
with initiatives in welfare reform and national
service and national health care and community
policing. We seek to go beyond politics as usual
to political reform with a serious effort to reduce
the influence of lobbying in our political process,
to reform the campaign finance system, to reduce the Federal bureaucracy and increase the
amount of your tax dollars that can be invested
in ways that directly promote the health and
welfare and economic well-being of the American people. We seek to go beyond the divisive
rhetoric of family values to an administration
that values families, one that gives everybody
a chance to be part of America's families. That's
what the Family and Medical Leave Act was
all about. That's what repealing the ban on fetal
tissue research so that we could save the lives
of children afflicted by diabetes and other dangerous diseases was all about. That's what the
effort to immunize all of our children is all
about.
There is such an incredible gulf in this country between what we say and what we do, it
is an awful burden to bear if you're a serious
American citizen. You hear all this talk about
how much we care about our children. Well,
I'll tell you something. We make over half the
vaccines in the world in this country, and we
have the third worst immunization record in the
Western Hemisphere. And everybody goes
around piously talking about how all this Government stimulus program I had was a bunch
of pork barrel. It wouldn't have been pork barrel
for the kids we would have immunized against
preventable childhood diseases.
In the aftermath of the cold war, we are trying to fashion a new world rooted in democracy
and human rights and economic reform, a world
in which the United States will lead but in
which we will continue to work with our allies.
There is, as we speak now, a Russian election
which has just concluded. We don't know how
it came out. I can tell you that I know the
polls show that the American people think that
the President of the United States should not
have spent time or their money on Russia. But
I respectfully disagree.
I grew up in an age when the biggest threat
to my future as a little child was whether there
would be a nuclear war between the United
States and what was then the Soviet Union. His

toric events in the former Soviet Union and
in Eastern Europe have given democracy new
hope. The START I and START II treaties,
if they can both be implemented by all the
nuclear powers, give our children new hope.
We cannot afford to withdraw from the struggle
of promoting democracy, human rights, market
reforms, and an end to imperialism in that part
of the world. And whatever happens today, we
must engage the Russian people on those fronts,
because my children and our country's future,
all of our futures and all of our children's, are
at stake there.
We have other interests as well, in Bosnia.
The United States in the last 96 days has tried
to increase the efforts of the West to bring
about a settlement. We led the effort to put
a no-fly zone and to enforce it through the
United Nations. We started airlifts of supplies
to people who were isolated. We got two of
the three parties to sign on to the Vance-Owen
peace process. We have dramatically increased
the enforcement of tougher sanctions. It has
not been enough, and now we are considering
what our other options are. I say, frankly, it
is the most difficult foreign policy problem this
country faces, but we have to try to bring an
end to the practice of ethnic cleansing and to
bring a beginning of peaceful resolution of the
conflict there.
We told the American people, I and the people who work with me, that we would restore
real, not just rhetorical, responsibility to the actions of Government. That's what our education
initiative to write the national education goals
into the law of this country, to have real standards, is all about. That's what the initiatives that
the HUD Secretary, Henry Cisneros, is undertaking to have certain strict rules of conduct
for people who live in public housing is all
about. That's what the initiatives we're taking
to help people move from welfare to work is
all about.
We told the American people we would try
to accomplish what no other administration has
ever been called up to do in the history of
this country before. We would try to reduce
this massive Federal deficit and increase investments in areas critical to our future, because,
funny enough, in the last 12 years we exploded
the deficit and reduced our investment in areas
critical to our future. We have to do that because we have to free this economy of the burden of debt we are shouldering. And we have


499




Apr. 25 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


to invest because while we're doing it, we have
to realize that we're in a competitive global
economy, and we still have technologies and
workers and students that have to have the benefit of appropriate investments in order to be
fully competitive.
Doing these things will expand job opportunities and incomes for middle class people and
help others to move into the middle class, something that has all but stopped in the last couple
of years.
When I submitted to the Congress the core
elements of my budget plan, designed to change
these policies of debt and disinvestment and
decline in return for thrift and investment and
growth, the Congress adopted that budget plan
in record time, the first time in 17 years a
budget resolution has passed Congress on time.
When people say to me, "Well, what did you
do in your first 100 days?" I say, "What did
the other guys do in their first 100 days?" The
United States Congress deserves a lot of credit
for taking all the heat after all these years of
antitax rhetoric, "No such thing as a good tax.
Taxes are terrible." They adopted a budget with
200 specific budget cuts, over and above the
last budget adopted under the previous administration, and some tax increases, 70 percent of
which fall on people with incomes above
$100,000, over 50 percent of which fall on people with incomes above $200,000; with an energy tax that the middle class will have to help
pay that is good for conservation and good for
the environment and good for the long-term
direction this country needs to go in. Budget
cuts and revenue increases.
We are already seeing the fruits of that. Because of interest rates going down, the deficit
this year is going to be less than we thought
it was going to be. This is something of very
significant importance. The financial markets
have clearly responded. Stock prices are at alltime highs, and many key interest rates, including home mortgage rates, are at 20-year lows.
As I said, this means $100 billion more in
money coming from refinancing of homes and
businesses, credit card rates, and automobile interest rates going directly into the economy over
the next year. And that's not my figure. Those
are the figures of the business writers who have
examined the circumstance that exists. These refinancing possibilities mean that farmers and
small business people and homeowners are
going to have a better deal in their ordinary


lives, but that money will then flow back to
more productive purposes in the economy.
Along with the $514 billion deficit reduction
program, we're also trying to confront the longterm economic problems of this country with
a lifelong learning package that includes an attempt to devise apprenticeship opportunities of
2 years after high school for every American
who does not go on to college, with initiatives
to build a 21st-century infrastructure that focuses on technology as well as physical infrastructure, with efforts to revitalize our community and to strengthen our economy.
As I said, I think to get this done-and we're
coming back now to try to pass the details of
the budget-we will have to begin to see the
world new, not as tax-and-spend, not as trickledown, but as invest-and-grow. We'll have to
think of Government not as the sole problem
or the sole savior but as a partner with the
private sector in trying to work our way out
of the problems that we have. We'll have to
think about new approaches based on old values
like work and faith and family and opportunity,
responsibility and community. Our success will
ultimately be measured not by how many programs we've passed but by whether we improve
the lives of our fellow Americans, not simply
by what we do for people but by what we help
people to do for themselves.
We start, I think as we must, with honoring
and rewarding work. Just 17 days into this administration, we made family and medical leave
the law of the land after 8 years of gridlock
and delay and two vetoes. Hard-working men
and women now can know that if they have
to take a little time off for a genuine family
problem, they can do it without losing their
jobs.
Again I say, I heard all the clamor about
what a terrible bill this was. And I looked
around the world, and a hundred and some nations have found a way to give family leave
that we just couldn't find it in our heart, our
minds, a way to provide before we got around
to doing it. It's time Americans put their actions
where their rhetoric is, and that's what this administration is trying to do.
Forty-four days into the administration we
were called upon to extend unemployment compensation to hundreds of thousands of jobless
men and women, something now Congress will
do as a matter of course without regard to party.
Everybody is willing to pay people to remain


500




-


Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Apr. 25


unemployed. But this time we changed the law
so that we spend a small portion of that money
to offer the unemployed new opportunities for
job training and counseling to try to move them
back to work more quickly, based on a New
Jersey experiment which shows clearly that we
can do that if we don't just pay people to stay
out of work but we take some of that money
to get them back to work.
That's why we are trying to dramatically increase the earned-income tax credit to working
poor people. It is a solemn commitment to those
who work, who care for our sick or tend to
our children or do our most difficult and tiring
jobs, that we're going to do our best to enshrine
in our tax law and in our country's life the
principle that if you work for a living 40 hours
a week and you've got children in the house,
you should not live in poverty. I think that is
an important principle and one that's worth
fighting for.
That is why I tried for several weeks to pass
an emergency jobs program through the Congress which, I want to point out, I did not
campaign on in the campaign of 1992. I ran
a fiscally responsible campaign. I did not offer
to do anything that we did not pay for in the
moment we did it. And this jobs program was
a responsible approach based on the fact that
the American economy was not producing new
jobs, even though we were allegedly into the
second year of a recovery.
We're supposed to be in the 24th month of
a recovery, according to the economic statistics.
But jobs have increased by only eight-tenths of
one percent. And private sector jobs have not
increased in that period. If we were following
the trend of typical past recoveries, jobs would
have grown by more than 7 percent. We are
still 3.5 million jobs behind the rate generated
in a normal economic recovery. And we have
reclaimed only one-half the jobs we lost in the
last recession. This past week, jobless claims
went up yet again. At a time in which 16 million
men and women are out of work or looking
for full-time work with part-time jobs, I'm fighting to give them a chance to earn a paycheck,
to do useful work, to support their families, to
contribute to their communities.
Now, the stimulus package that I offered, the
jobs plan, would not have revolutionized the
economy. It was a $16 billion program in a
$6 trillion economy. The purpose of it was to
do just exactly what it would have done. It


would have lowered the unemployment rate by
half a percent. And it might have sparked a
new round of job creation in other sectors of
the economy.
I decided to do it, even though it was not
part of my campaign, because the economy was
sluggish and because as I looked around the
rest of the world, I discovered that all of the
advanced industrialized countries were having
great difficulty creating jobs even in recovery.
If you go back and look at what happened to
Europe in the last decade, they had two different economic recoveries that have produced
virtually no new jobs in many of those countries.
And all I wanted to do was to try to find a
way to deal with what I think is the number
one problem. If everybody in this country who
wanted a job had one, we wouldn't have half
the other problems we've got. And I think every
one of you, without regard to party or philosophy, would agree on that.
There were two objections raised to the program. Some said, "Well, you ought to pay for
it all right now." Well, we had a 5-year deficit
reduction plan that reduces the deficit by $514
billion. And Congress pays for things all the
time over a multiyear period, number one.
Number two, because of unpredicted reductions
in defense, if we'd spent every penny I recommended, we'd still be under the spending
levels approved by the Congress for this year.
The other thing people said, well, was,
"There's a lot of pork in this plan." Well, I
don't know how you define that. I think if you
put 700,000 kids to work this summer, particularly under our plan, which for the first time
said that the at-risk kids had to do some education as well as take jobs-we tried to take
more pork out and put more standards init would be a good thing. I think if you open
these immunization centers this summer, I think
if you had more kids in summer Head Start
and you paid people to work in that, I think
if you rehired 20,000 of these police officers
who were laid off because of tough economic
times and made the streets safer, I think if we
accelerated funding under the highway program,
which has always had enormous support from
the other party as well as from the Democrats,
and I think if we gave some more money to
the Mayors and the Governors of this country
for job purposes, that would be a good thing.
I don't think it would be a lot of pork.
It was amazing to me to listen to some of


501




Apr. 25 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


the debate about the community development
program. I was a Governor for 12 years. I used
that program. You might quarrel with some of
the things we did, but usually what we did was
good for creating jobs in my State. And the
Republican Party had always supported community development block grants before. They
thought Mayors and Governors were smart
enough to make the decisions. I wanted to give
money to Governor Weld, a Republican Governor of Massachusetts-I thought he had
enough sense to figure out how to best spend
the money here for the Massachusetts economy-or the Republican Mayor of York, Pennsylvania, or the Republican Mayor from Indiana
who's the head of the Republican Mayors Association. You know, all we did was change the
occupants of the White House. We didn't
change the party or the personality of the Governors and the Mayors. I don't know what happened that made that program such a bad idea
all of a sudden. It was a good idea.
And again, I tell you that it is not nearly
as important as the big picture budget that has
already passed. But it is symbolic of the idea
battle that we have to fight. We have to be
prepared to think anew. Now, if no western
country is creating jobs, even in the midst of
economic recovery, it is not readily apparent
that the $100 billion we're going to put back
into the economy with lower interest rates are
going to lead to a whole lot of new jobs. They
may. It depends on how the money is invested.
That's the big deal, the fact that we've got
interest rates down, we've passed the budget
resolution, it's going. All I wanted to do was
to strike a little match to that and see if we
couldn't put several hundred thousand people
back to work in useful places and see if that
would help the economy to get going on the
job machine. I think, still think, it was a worthwhile effort. And I'd a lot rather get beat trying
to put people to work than get beat fighting
putting people to work.
Let me also tell you that I regret the partisan
tone of the rhetoric of the last several days,
because a lot of the things that I support have
a lot of support among Republicans. I'm for
the line-item veto. There are Democrats that
are against it and Republicans that are for it.
I'm for the crime bill. I hope we can pass it
with bipartisan support, the Brady bill and more
police on the street. I'm for cuts in the budget
that a lot of people in my own party won't


support. But a lot of them voted for cuts in
the budget, because they thought it was a responsible way to go overall.
There are lots of things that I think we need
to do that I hope we can get bipartisan support,
toughening the child support system, having a
national service program that will give every
young person in this country a chance to borrow
the money to go to college and pay it back,
either as a percentage of their income at tax
time so they can't beat the bill or by working
it off and giving something to their country.
These are things that ought to have bipartisan
support. We cannot solve the problems of this
country if every last issue that comes up, just
because the President recommends it, becomes
a source of a filibuster in the Senate or, frankly,
attracts only members of my own party. I don't
want that. I want us to debate these ideas anew,
to look at them anew, to take our blinders off.
And I'm not going to be right about everything
I recommend, but at least I want us to be
up there all working together fighting for
change.
Let me say one thing in particular about the
work that two very important people in my administration are doing, the Vice President and
the First Lady. I met with a lot of you before
I came out here, and several of you said, "Well,
I generally support what you're doing, but you
ought to bring that deficit down more." And
I will say to you what I say to everybody: Send
me a list of the things you want cut, because
we found 200 things that we were cutting that
weren't cut in the previous budget, and we're
not done yet.
But I want you to know what this Government is like now. In my judgment, if you want
further meaningful cuts, you have to do two
things: You have to look at the whole way the
Federal Government is organized, because there
is a limit to how much you can get just out
of cutting defense unless you deal with the way
it is organized, like procurement and issues like
that, structural things. And that's what the Vice
President is involved in, this whole initiative to
reinvent the Government. We've got hundreds
of gifted people from all over America coming
to work with us in Washington now, reexamining
every last Government program, every last Government organization, committed to thinking
about it anew.
This fall, when we come out with our program, we're going to ask the American people


502






Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Apr. 25


to think about the role of the Federal Government: What it should do; how it should be organized. And it's going to be a very challenging
report. I hope all of you will read it and give
it a lot of publicity. And on the tough things
that we recommend, in terms of changes, I hope
we can get some good support without regard
to party, because a lot of the things that we
have to do now require us to rethink how this
whole thing is organized.
We've already cut 14 percent in administrative
costs, 25 percent of the personnel in the White
House, and a lot of other things that we can
do symbolically and substantively that will save
billions of dollars. But to get more, we're going
to have to literally rethink the whole Government.
The second point I want to make is, you
can do all that, and unless we address this health
care crisis, the Government's deficit cannot be
erased. Under every scenario we saw, from
every political source-that is, the Republicans
and the Democrats agreed, the bipartisan Congressional Budget Office agreed, everybody
agreed-no matter how much we cut the deficit,
we could bring it down for 5 years. But after
that, it would start going right back up again
because of the breathtaking increase in health
care cost.
The estimates are now that over a 5-year period, Federal spending for Medicare and Medicaid alone will go up by 67 percent in 5 years.
Taking away the defense cuts, taking away the
interest savings, taking away the cuts in other
Government programs, taking away the cuts in
farm support programs, taking away, you name
it, anything you want cut, you're just transferring
the money to health care and not new health
care, more money for the same health care.
So that this is not only an incredibly compelling
human issue-how do you give coverage to
those who don't have it? How do you give courage to those who want to change jobs but can't
because they had somebody in their family sick,
and the preexisting condition keeps them from
getting any health insurance? But how do you
restore sanity to the Nation's budget? And by
the way, how do you restore health to big
chunks of our economy, a lot of our biggest
and best companies striving to be more competitive. We say, "We desperately want you to start
investing in America and stop investing so much
of your money to create jobs somewhere else."
And they say, "Give me a break. I'm spending


19 percent of payroll on health care."
This country is spending 15 percent of its
income on health care. No other country is up
to 10 percent. Only Canada is over 9 percent.
So when people say-you'll hear it all-they'll
say, oh, they're dealing with health care again,
there they go again; it's all taxes and terrible
and everything. You figure out what you're paying right now. Every one of you figure out what
you're paying for health care, in taxes, premiums, uncompensated care that gets shifted
on to your health insurance bills.
And so I say to you, we have got to face
some other big fundamental issues. Not just this
budget but how the Government is organized,
what it delivers, whether it needs to deliver what
it does, whether it needs to stop doing some
things altogether. And then, what are we going
to do about health care? We cannot go on ignoring the fundamental problems. If you've got it,
it's still the best health care system in the world.
There are a lot of things about it that are
wonderful. I want the delivery system to stay
in private hands. I want people to still be able
to pick their doctor. I want the best things about
this health care system to stay just as it is. But
you cannot look at it as long and hard as we
have without concluding that we are spending
a dime on the dollar on unnecessary paperwork
and bureaucratic and regulatory expenses.
People say to me all the time, "You've got
to do something about doctors' fees." Let me
tell you just one little interest number. In 1980,
the average doctor, working in a clinic, took
home 75 percent of the money that came into
the clinic. By 1990, that doctor was taking home
52 percent of the money coming into the clinic.
Where did the rest of it go? Mostly to paper,
to regulation, mostly from the proliferation of
insurance policies, but some from what the Government did.
We can do better. We must. And we're going
to bust a gut trying in this administration. We're
going to do our best.
The last thing I want to say about this is,
I ask for your scrutiny and your understanding
as we get into the difficult business of political
reform. I intend to ask the Congress to pass
a tough campaign finance reform law. I intend
to ask the Congress to adopt some restrictions
on lobbying and some disclosure requirements
that are not there now. We had the toughest
ethics rules any President ever imposed on his
appointee that prevent people from leaving my


503




Apr. 25 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


administration and going to work anytime in the
near future to make money as lobbyists in the
areas in which they worked for us.
These things are important. It may never be
possible to be perfect, but it is important that
we take these things on and that the voters
of this country understand what is at stake as
these matters begin to be debated.
And finally let me say-I think it's important
to talk about today-I'm doing my best to restore a sense of real community in this country.
As I said right when I came to you last year,
we'd just seen Los Angeles racked by riots, and
we were all talking about how we had to learn
to live together without regard to race or income
or region. I want to reiterate what I said to
you a year ago: We don't have a person to
waste in this country, and we're wasting them
by the bucketful. We're letting people go, this
way, that way, and the other way. And that's
one of the reasons that I have said that we
have to fight for a society that is not at all
permissive but that is tolerant.
Today in Washington, many Americans came
to demonstrate against discrimination based on
their sexual orientation. A lot of people think
that I did a terrible political thing-and I know
I paid a terrible political price-for saying that
I thought the time had come to end the categorical ban on gays and lesbians serving in our
military service and that they should not be subject to other discrimination in governmental employment.
Let me tell you what I think. This is not
about embracing anybody's lifestyle. This is a
question of whether if somebody is willing to
live by the strict code of military conduct, if
somebody is willing to die for their country,
should they have the right to do it? I think
the answer is yes, if somebody is willing.
But in a larger sense, I want to say to you
that I think the only way our country can make
it is if we can find somehow strength out of
our diversity, even with people with whom we
profoundly disagree, as long as we can agree
on how we're going to treat each other and
how we're going to conduct ourselves in public
forums. That is the real issue.
It's very ironic to me to see that the traditional attacks on the position I've taken on this
issue have come from conservatives saying that
I am a dangerous liberal. I took on two issues
like this as Governor of Arkansas, and I was
attacked by liberals for what I did, and I want


to tell you what they were.
One was the leadership role I took in crafting
a bill that permitted people to educate their
children at home, consistent with their religious
beliefs and their educational convictions, as long
as the kids could take and pass a test every
year. And people say, "Oh, that's a terrible
thing. All those kids should be required to be
in a school. How can you do that?" And I said,
"Because at least these people have coherent
families and that's still the most important unit
of our society, and people ought to have a
chance to try other things. And it wouldn't do
the schools any harm to have a little competition, unsubsidized by the taxpayers, just letting
people do it."
Two, when the fundamentalist religious
groups in my State were confronting a legal
issue that swept the country in the mid-eighties,
a bunch of them came to me and said, "We
do not mind having our child care centers subject to the same standards that everybody else
is subject to. But it is a violation of our belief
to have to get a State certificate to operate
what we think is a ministry of our church. Don't
make us do that." I don't know if you remember
this, but in one or two States there were preachers that actually wound up going to jail over
this issue, the certification of child care centers.
We sat down and worked out a law that permitted those churches to operate their child care
centers without a certificate from the State as
long as they were willing to be subject to investigation for health and fire safety, and as long
as they agreed to be in substantial compliance
with the rules and regulations that those who
were certified observed. And people said, "How
can you do that?" You know how many complaints we've had coming out of that, to the
best of my knowledge? Zero. Not a one. Why?
Because they were good people, and they were
willing to play by the rules, and they wanted
to have their religious convictions, and they
wanted to stick up for their minister, and they
desperately love the children that were in their
charge. And we protected the public interest.
But all the criticism I got was from the left,
not the right. This doesn't have anything to do
with left or right. This is about whether we
are going to live in a country free of unnecessary
discrimination. You are free to discriminate in
your judgments about any of us, how we look,
how we behave, what we are. Make your judgments. But if we are willing to live together


504






Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Apr. 25


according to certain rules of conduct, we should
be able to do so. That is the issue for America.
And it has ever been unpopular at certain critical junctures. But just remember this: A whole
lot of people came to this country because they
wanted a good letting alone. And that's what
we ought to be able to do today.
That's it. I've already talked longer than I
meant to. I'll still stay and answer the questions
for the allotted time. We've got to change the
direction of the country. We've got to compete
in a new world we don't understand all the
dimensions of. But we ought to be guided by


three simple things: How can we create opportunity; how can we require all of us to behave
more responsibly; and how can we build a
stronger American community. And I don't believe that the answer necessarily has a partisan
tinge. And I hope we can begin tomorrow the
business of going forward with what this country
urgently needs to do.
Thank you very much.
NOTE: The President spoke at 4:14 p.m. in the
Grand Ballroom at the Marriott Copley Place
Hotel.


Question-and-Answer Session With the Newspaper Association of America
in Boston
April 25, 1993


Bosnia
Q. I'm director of the School of Journalism
at Northeastern University here in Boston. I
apologize for not being an actual member of
NAA, but I guess I'm here as your guest.
Mr. President, you did refer to Bosnia. And
I must say, as we look at that situation, it is
horrifying; it is so reminiscent of what happened
in Europe in the Second World War. I wonder
if you would be able to explain to us why the
West, which is possessed of imagination and
technology, can stand idly by while these horrible things go on?
The President. Suppose you tell me what you
think we ought to do, what the end of it will
be?
Q. Well, you know, I could speculate, but
I didn't come here to foist my ideas on other
people. I'd be interested to hear what you have
to say. It's obviously an immensely difficult
question, because it could drag you into areas
that you don't want to go, a Balkan war, an
expanded-but let me quit. I'd like to hear
yourThe President. All right. Let me just tell you
that I think that the European countries, that
are much closer to this than we, would like
very much to find a way to put an end to
the practice and to the principle of ethnic
cleansing. They are very concerned about it, just
as the United States has been.
The question is not simply how to stop the


Serbs from cleansing certain areas of Bosnia of
all the Muslim inhabitants and killing and raping
along the way, but also what the end of it is
from a military and political point of view. That
is, there is much more ethnic coherence, as
you know, in the other republics of what used
to be Yugoslavia. So the question is, what can
we do that will actually achieve the objectives
you seek? And secondly, who's going to live
where, and how are they going to live when
it's over?
Then there are all the tactical questions about
whether, in fact, it could be done. Remember,
in the Second War, Hitler sent tens of thousands
of soldiers to that area and never was successful
in subduing it, and they had people on the
ground.
That does not mean that there is not anything
else that we can do. I'm not prepared to announce my policy now. I can tell you I've asked
myself the question you asked me a thousand
times. I have spent immense amounts of time
on this, talking to General Powell; talking to
Reg Bartholomew, our Special Ambassador to
the area; talking to the Secretaries of State and
Defense and the Ambassador to the United Nations; and soliciting opinions from others in Congress and elsewhere. And I assure you that we
are going to do everything we think we can
to achieve those two objectives. One is to stand
up against and stop the practice of ethnic cleansing. The second is to try to find some way


505




Apr. 25 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


for the people who live in Bosnia and
Herzegovina to live in peace. But I have to
tell you, the more you look at it, it is by far
the most difficult foreign policy problem  we
face, both in terms of the larger political issues
and in the purely tactical questions to resolve
it. I wish I could be more specific now, but
if I were, I would be announcing a policy that
has not been finalized.
Telecommunications
Q. My question has to do with telecommunications. Newspapers and others who wish to
offer electronic information services can do so
now only by using the local exchange monopolies of the telephone companies, principally the
Bell operating companies. The telephone companies would like to be deregulated, and they
would like to use those monopolies to offer
those same services themselves. Would your administration support the establishment of competition for local exchange services before granting deregulation?
The President. I thought you'd never ask.
[Laughter] I hesitate to give you the honest
answer. The honest answer is, I'm not sure I
still understand it well enough to give you an
answer. We have a technology working group
in the White House; there are about five issues
that we're looking at, of which this is one. And
no decision has been made yet, and I wish I
could give you a more intelligent answer. I can
tell you this: You have certainly rung my bell,
and I will get on top of it next week. [Laughter]
I didn't mean that, ring my bell. Hey, what
can I tell you; it was a long week. [Laughter]
President Boris Yeltsin of Russia
Q. You mentioned the Russian election ongoing today. Could you tell us whether or not
you have had any contact within the past 24
hours with President Yeltsin and, if so, what
advice or counsel you may have given him?
The President. I haven't had any contact with
him in the last 24 hours. And I haven't done
it because he had no business talking to me
because I couldn't vote for him. [Laughter] He
needed to be out there stirring around. I also
was, frankly, quite sensitive to the delicate tightrope that Yeltsin walks in our relationships together. That is, apparently the Russian people
believe that it is, on balance, a good thing that
we met in Canada and that we came forward
with the aid package and that all of us in the


G-7 are trying to help them in ways that will
be more real than the last aid package. And
that's not a criticism of the previous administration so much as a criticism of the process which
made Russia ineligible for a lot of the things
that we said, the nations of the world said they
were going to do for them. All that's been a
plus.
On the other hand, the enemies of reform
and the enemies of Yeltsin just beat him to
death with me all the time. I don't know if
you saw in one of the newspapers-maybe it
was the Wall Street Journal that had a quote
in the last day or two in Yeltsin's campaign
where one of his enemies were saying: The only
person for him is Bill Clinton. [Laughter] And
so I have on purpose not had any personal and
direct contact with him in the last few days
because I didn't want to hurt him in the election. But I can tell you this: I think he's going
to do pretty well today, and we need to be
in this for the long term with him. And I intend
to call him as soon as it's appropriate, when
we have some sense of which way things are
going.
Education Financing
Q. I'm a student at University of Massachusetts at Amherst. And I, with a lot of other
students, because of tuition fees, may not be
coming back next year. And I was wondering
how your administration is going to try and step
in and help public state colleges, help us students afford it, basically.
The President. We're trying to do two things.
First of all, one of the things I attempted to
do in the jobs program which didn't have anything to do with jobs-it was sort of like unemployment-was to deal with the problem left
on the table last year, which is to replenish
the Pell grant program, to try to get it ginned
up.
And then, what I want to do with this national
service proposal-it really has two components
that are distinct but related. The one would
make available, to all Americans who go to college, income-contingent loan repayment. Now,
that's a brain-breaker of a phrase; I'm trying
to think of some clever way to say that that
makes common sense. But the idea is that any
young American, or not-so-young American
would be able to borrow the money to finance
a college education and then pay the loan back,
not based on so much just on how much you


506




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Apr. 25


borrowed but also on a percentage of your income so that it would be affordable for everyone. And we could do it for a lower cost because
we are proposing to cut the administrative costs
of the program and to make people pay the
loan back with some connection to the tax system so you can't beat the loan. An enormous
number of college loans now are not repaid
at all, Putting enormous burdens on those who
do repay. If we set this up the way we're trying
to, that would mean no one would ever have
to fear a loan again, because you would not
start to repay it until you were employed. And
your ability to repay would be secured by having
the formula for repayment tied to your own
salary. So if you made less, even though you
borrowed more, you'd just pay at a smaller rate
over a longer period of time.
The second thing we want to do is to give
more young people like you the chance to actually earn your way through college through rendering service to your country, either before you
go to college, after you get out, or while you're
going, under the national service program. And
if we could do those two things, I think we
could lift the crushing burden of college costs
off millions of young people. And we're going
to introduce the national service program to do
that on the 100th day of this administration.
And I hope you will support it.
Media Credibility
Q. Mr. President, I'm a student at Boston
College and a communications major. I'd like
to ask you, do you think the news media today
is too concerned with gossip and sensationalism?
The President. I don't know that I'm the one
to answer that. [Laughter] I think the answer
to that is, you can't generalize about it. I must
say, I am stunned from time to time at the
stuff I read in the papers now about things
in the National Government that are just purely
based on gossip. I mean, I think you can get
a rumor into print a little too easy now, I do,
and even in the news magazines, some of them,
although there seem to be different standards
for different ones. But I wouldn't generalize.
I think, by and large, there are still quite high
standards of proof and fact that most people
in journalism require before they go with stories.
But I am kind of amazed, actually, of the stuffmost of it doesn't affect me at all-but the
things that will get into print if you just say
it is a rumor or "it's alleged that" or "somebody


said that." I think there's a little too much of
that in some places, but it would be unfair to
generalize about it. And by and large, it occurs
either in the tabloids, which are a different class,
or in journalistic media that basically live and
breathe with political gossip, where there's more
pressure to do that all the time.
Congressional Budget Cuts
Q. Mr. President, I think many of us were
very pleased to hear you say today that Vice
President Gore has been put in charge of looking at ways of streamlining the budget. Of
course, we all know that the Congress is in
charge of the financial spending of the United
States. Will there be any looking by Vice President Gore of the way Congress has increased
its spending many times over the last few decades?
The President. Well, let me say two things.
Number one, I think Congress has made a commendable beginning in cutting back its staff expenses, too. They've, I think, adopted a 12 percent cut, absolute cut target over the next couple of years, not quite as much as the administration has but not insignificant. And they deserve credit for that. Secondly, there's been a
lot of pressure, because of the publicity that's
been brought to bear on Congress, to scale
down on some of the committee and subcommittee work for select committees that were
recently abolished by the Congress. And let me
just say this: There are a lot of Members of
Congress who believe that they're on too many
committees or subcommittees. There are a lot
of them who don't feel they can do their best
work. I don't think it is for the executive branch
to tell the legislative branch how it should reorganize itself. We have a separation of powers
clause in the Constitution which I think has
a good purpose.
I think the best thing you could do, since
you need to know-there are a lot of people
in the Congress who are honestly asking these
questions-the best thing you can do is to give
the issues that you care about, all of you, in
terms of congressional organization, a high level
of visibility and make your suggestions about
what should be done and go at them directly,
because they are not reform averse. Now, I can
tell you that the freshman legislators are certainly not. But believe me, I've got plenty to
do reorganizing the executive branch, and
there's more money there. And I think it would


507




Apr. 25 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


be inappropriate for me to tell them how to
do it. I think it's better for you to tell them
how to do it.
Stimulus Package
Q. Mr. President, some recent indicators suggest that the economic recovery may be slowing
down. If that continues, will you take another
run at a stimulus package? And what would
have to be different about it this time?
The President. Well, I don't know. As I said
in my press conference a couple of days ago,
we've sat down at the White House, and we've
tried to really reexamine how this whole thing
was handled and what I could have done differently, how I could have done a better job
in presenting this, because I'm sure that there
were some mistakes made on our side, too, in
terms of how it was done.
I can tell you this: There are people in the
Republican Party, for example, in the Senate,
who are generally sympathetic to this sort of
thing-people who voted for these kind of supplemental appropriations over 25 times in the
last 12 years-who voted against it because they
basically thought that even if it wasn't increasing
the deficit, this was another way certainly to
reduce it-if you don't spend the money-and
that we were in a recovery.
I think what I'm going to do is to just examine, with people who care about this, what we
did that wasn't right the last time and how we
could do it better and what our options are.
Because as I said, I live in a State with perhaps
the toughest balanced budget law in the country.
I'm appalled by the size of the deficit. I can't
stand it. I wouldn't spend a nickel to see the
cow jump over the Moon if I didn't think it
needed to be done. So the reason I asked for
this package was because I saw it as a part
of a big overall deficit reduction package that
would maybe jumpstart this economy right now.
And we're just going to have to revisit it.
Let me say that we had a huge increase in
productivity in the fourth quarter, as all of you
who follow this know, I know, and that's wonderful work. It means output per worker is escalating dramatically. The difference is that in the
past when productivity went way up, it normally
meant a reinvestment in the business which
would lead to more people being hired.
Today-and I'll bet you a lot of newspapers
can identify with this, I'll bet you a lot of you
have gone through this-today, when you have


an increase in productivity, you may turn around
and put it right back into what produced the
productivity, which is new technology which may
reduce the pressure to hire people. And small
businesses, which hired almost all the new workers net in the eighties, have slowed down not
only because they too are reaping the gains of
technology and productivity but also because of
the incredible extra costs it takes to hire a new
worker in terms of health care costs, Social Security, workers' comp, and all the rest of it.
So, I know I haven't answered your question,
but the short answer is this: If the economy
slows down, we'll go back and try something
different. And I don't know what it is, but we'll
keep trying things that are different. Because
keep in mind, one of the reasons the economy
may be slowing down is that the economic
growth rate is so low in Europe and that our
friends in Japan are having a tough time. That's
another reason: I thought if we could get this
small stimulus out now, that the Japanese job
stimulus package which is much larger would
begin to bite about 6 or 7 months from now
and that we might have some movement in Europe because the Germans continue to lower
their interest rates, hoping, I think, trying to
make an effort to stave off this slow growth.
So what we do will depend on what happens
in Europe, what happens in Japan, and what
my options are if it becomes clear that the
economy's really slowing down.
Moderator. Mr. President, unfortunately I'm
going to have to interrupt and say we have time
for just one more question. And there's a smile
back on that lady's face. And I'd like all of
you please to stay in place when the President
is finished. You're going to do more than that,
did you say?
The President. We ought to let those two
young people back thereModerator. All right, fine. We're going toThe President. You qualify
Moderator. There's no question you're in
charge here, so-[laughter]
The President. Nearly everybody looks young
to me these days. Go ahead.
The First 100 Days
Q. Over the past week or so, I've been taking
a poll for my radio class about your favorability
with your first 100 days in office. It seems that
you've started to fall out of grace with a lot
of college students. And they were citing that


508




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Apr. 25


you didn't keep the campaign promises. What
would you say to boost the morale of our generation?
The President. Well, give me an example. One
thing I'd say, you can't expect instant results.
It took 12 years to get in the situation that
I found when I took office. One of the things
I would say to college students is you need
to have a realistic expectation about what kind
of time it takes to get anything done.
The second thing I would say is that what
I promised college students was a national service bill, and we're introducing it on the 100th
day. We're doing it. And we're also going to
release a report which shows how many of my
campaign commitments that I have kept. To
the best of my knowledge, the only one I
haven't been able to keep was to give some
tax relief to the middle class because the deficit,
the week after the election, was announced at
being $50 billion bigger than I thought it was.
And I can't responsibly offer to cut anybody's
taxes when the deficit is going up instead of
down. That's not right, and I can't do it. But
the budget that was adopted by the Congress,
in general, is completely consistent with my
campaign commitments. I've got a national service program going, a health care program going.
We're changing the way the Government operates-all the things that I promised to do. I
have imposed tougher ethics guidelines than
anybody else has ever imposed. I'm going to
offer a campaign finance reform and a lobby
restriction bill. Everything I talked about in the
campaign is being done.
Now, if people thought that I'd be President
and 90 days later every campaign commitment
I made would be written into the law and
everybody's life would be changed, I think that's
just not realistic. You have to have a realistic
feeling about how much time it takes to change
and how long it takes to have an impact on
it.
Another thing is, when you're not in a campaign, when you have to stay there and go to
work, you're at the-and this is not a criticism
of you, this is a fact-you are at the mercy
of the press coverage. The defeat of the $16
billion stimulus package got 50 times the press
coverage of the passage of the multitrillion-dollar budget resolution. Why? Because we won,
and we won in record time and in short order.
Again, I'm not being critical; that's just the way
this whole deal works. And if somebody stands


up and criticizes me, that's good news. And I
welcome that.
But I'm just telling you, I think that if you
look at what's actually been done in this 100 -day period and compare it to what has previously been done within 100 days, in a long
time, I think you'll have a very difficult time
saying that the actual accomplishments were,
number one, not consistent with my campaign
commitments-they were-and, number two,
that they're not quite considerable. So what I've
got to do is a better job communicating to the
students you represent what has been done and
what we're going to do and how much I need
their help to fight for it. That's why you get
a 4-year term, not a 3-month term.
Stimulus Package
Q. I don't know if I should be up here or
not, but just to make sure that you're not guilty
of age discrimination-[laughter]-I guess that
I was ahead of the gentleman behind me. I
have a question for you about what you refer
to as gridlock in Congress, because it seemed
to me that for the first time Congress did say
no to some very good programs because of the
fact that they would add to the deficit, and
that this was in fact breaking a previous gridlock
which existed when Congress, when they had
good programs, would simply say, well, we've
got to add to the deficit. And you campaigned
on reducing the deficit. And why couldn't youadmittedly, that you have some very good programs in the stimulus bill-why couldn't you,
say, cut tobacco subsidies or any of a number
of other programs that weren't as necessary as
what's in your stimulus package?
The President. I will answer that. First of all,
I had 200 such cuts, 200 that were not adopted
by the previous administration or the previous
Congress in the previous budget, 200. I did not
ask that stimulus bill to be voted on until the
Congress had adopted the budget resolution
committing itself to more than $500 billion of
deficit reduction in the next 5 years, more than
$500 billion, including this $16 billion. It was
paid for by those budget cuts.
Secondly, as I said, even if it hadn't been
paid for, all of the spending was under the
spending limits that Congress had already adopted. It was paid for. And you know, I must
tell you that I find it-I will say one more
time, a majority of the Republican Senators
voted under Presidents Reagan and Bush-not


509




Apr. 25 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


the Democrats, the Republicans-28 times for
over $100 billion of exactly the same kind of
spending, usually for foreign aid purposes, without blinking an eye. And so, do I think that
it was a mistake that they didn't vote for it?
I do.
Now, if I had just come up and said, how
about adding $16 billion to the deficit this year,
they should have voted against that. But I didn't
ask them to vote on it until we had adopted
a budget resolution in the Congress that reduced the deficit $514 billion over the next 5
years, including the $16 billion. I did not ask
them to vote to spend until they had voted
to cut. Now, I concede that I didn't do a great
job of painting that picture, but that is a fact.
And you ought to write those fellows and ask
them how they'd feel about just the suggestion
that you made. Tell them to come up with that
program. We'll see what we can do with it.
Q. Thank you.
Law Enforcement
Q. Thank you for waiting, Mr. President. I'm
a student journalist from Boston University. And
you've mentioned so far, in a couple different
contexts, that you're interested in putting more
police officers on the streets. I was also concerned and wondering that, in the same notion,
are you willing to create some kind of, I don't
know-do you have a task force now that would
look into community relations between police
officers and the public? Because I'm from a
city and a neighborhood where some people
might feel safer with more police in the streets,
but a lot of people would actually be terrified
with more police in the streets.
The President. Well, I accept that. The answer
to your question is no, I haven't thought about
that. Maybe I should think about it, but I
haven't. But let me answer you in this way:
When I have talked about putting more police
officers on the street, I've always talked about


it with two things in mind. First of all, keep
in mind that in the last 30 years, there has
been a dramatic worsening in the ratio of police
to crime. Thirty-five years ago there were approximately three policemen for every serious
crime, every felony reported. Now there are
three felonies for every police officer. That puts
enormous pressure on those police officers. I'm
not justifying abuse. I'm just talking about the
kinds of pressures in the day-to-day work of
the cops on the beat, out there on the front
line living with all this. So I believe that if
you had more police officers who were welltrained, you would have a reduction in tensions.
But secondly and more importantly, I believe
it's important to go to community based policing, where you have the same group of police
officers, unless they're misbehaving, working in
the communities month in and month out, year
in and year out, establishing relationships with
people in the communities so that you dramatically reduce the likelihood of abuse or fear, because people know each other. They've got people walking the beats. They know the first
names of the police officers. They see them
as friends. In the cities where I have seen that
happen, I have seen not only a decline in crime
but also an increase in mutual trust and understanding between folks in a community and folks
in the uniforms.
So I think you've made a very good point.
It's not just important that we have more police
officers, but the structure of policing, in my
judgment, has to be more rooted in particular
communities. And I think if we did that, the
crime rate would go down significantly. And by
the way, there is a lot of evidence, probably
in a lot of the cities in which you live here,
that that would in fact occur.
Thank you very much.
NOTE: The President spoke at 4:56 p.m. at the
Marriott Copley Place Hotel.


Statement to Participants in the March for Lesbian, Gay, and Bi Equal
Rights and Liberation
April 25, 1993


Welcome to Washington, DC, your Nation's
Capital.


During my campaign and since my election,
I have said that America does not have a person


510




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Apr. 26


to waste. Today I want you to know that I
am still committed to that principle.
I stand with you in the struggle for equality
for all Americans, including gay men and lesbians. In this great country, founded on the
principle that all people are created equal, we
must learn to put aside what divides us and
focus on what we share. We all want the chance
to excel in our work. We all want to be safe
in our communities. We all want the support
and acceptance of our friends and families.
Last November, the American people sent a
message to make Government more accountable
to all its citizens, regardless of race, class, gender, disability, or sexual orientation. I am proud
of the strides we are making in that direction.
The Pentagon has stopped asking recruits
about their sexual orientation, and I have asked
the Secretary of Defense to determine how to
implement an Executive order lifting the ban
on gays and lesbians in the military by July
15.


My 1994 budget increases funding for AIDS
research, and my economic plan will fully fund
the Ryan White Act. Soon I will announce a
new AIDS coordinator to implement the recommendations of the AIDS Commission reports.
I met 9 days ago with leaders of the gay
and lesbian community in the Oval Office at
the White House. I am told that this meeting
marks the first time in history that the President
of the United States has held such a meeting.
In addition, members of my staff have been
and will continue to be in regular communication with the gay and lesbian community.
I still believe every American who works hard
and plays by the rules ought to be a part of
the national community. Let us work together
to make this vision real.
Thank you.
NOTE: Representative Nancy Pelosi read the
statement to march participants assembled on The
Mall.


Remarks to the Champion University of Arkansas Track Team
April 26, 1993


Thank you very much. Please be seated. As
all of you know, as an ardent sports fan I have
happily followed the practice of previous Presidents in welcoming to the White House various
national championship teams in college and professional athletics. But this is a special honor
for me today to welcome to the White House
an historic team, the NCAA indoor track champions for the 10th year in a row, the Razorbacks
from my home State and home university, the
University of Arkansas.
I also want to extend a special welcome to
my friend, who this year became the most successful coach in the history of intercollegiate
athletics, John McDonnell. I'm sorry it's raining
here today. I wanted the team to have a chance
to try out the new jogging track on the South
Lawn. [Laughter]
I also want to say that this team has done
some amazing things. I would like to just say
that it's really worth contemplating how it happened and what it means for the efforts they
made and the kinds of things that ought to
be done in intercollegiate athletics and at the


athletic events and teams of younger people,
too. This is the first time that any team in any
sport has ever won 10 national titles in a row.
The Razorbacks, under coach McDonnell, have
now won 18 national championships in crosscountry and indoor and outdoor track, which
makes him the winningest coach in history.
Just think of it, though, John: If you had
come here last year they might have called you
the failed coach from a small southern State.
[Laughter] Before the coach came to the University of Arkansas we really had no history of
track success there; football got all the attention.
He left his native County Mayo in the west
of Ireland and made his way to Arkansas, and
he's been bringing our track teams the Irish
luck ever since.
I am told now that every one of our school's
indoor and outdoor track records is held by one
of John's recruits. Over the last three decades,
since he came to the university in the seventies,
he's coached 10 Olympians in 4 games, including Mike Conley who won the gold in the triple
jump last year in Barcelona. He's fostered 19


511




Apr. 26 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


individual national champions in 39 different
events.
I actually think that I might hire him to become my training coach. [Laughter] I read in
Runner's World that I didn't have enough stamina, and they told me that I should run up
the steps of the Capitol. And so, I've started
running up the steps of the Capitol every morning, which is exhausting to the Secret Service
but as yet is having no effect on the United
States Congress. [Laughter] I thought about this
all, and I've decided that I should instead prepare for a marathon and leave track and field
to the University of Arkansas.
I want to say, too, that this team has twice
won the triple crown, the combined championships in indoor, outdoor, and cross-country. And
they're trying for a third triple crown at the
NCAA outdoor competition in New Orleans in
June, and I want to wish them well.
Again, I want to say that I am especially
proud to welcome this team here, because I
know something about the coach and his values
and the way these things have been done over
the years. You don't win this many times over
this many years unless you're concerned about


the character and well-being of your athletes,
as well as just about whether you win one particular meet or another. And so I want to say
to all of you, it's a great source of pride and
pleasure for me to present to the United States
this track team and this fine coach.
Coach, come up here and say a word.
[At this point, the President was presented with
a gift.]
John, I have something I want to give you
in honor of your historic achievement. I want
to give you this Presidential commendation for
doing something no one ever did before, one
for you and one for the team.
I also want to point out that in your honor
the First Lady made a rare appearance at one
of my press conferences wearing Irish green.
At the end of the press conference, I'm going
to shake hands with the team and take some
pictures and say hello to all of you from home,
but I do have to make a brief announcement
about the election in Russia and then perhaps
answer a couple of questions.
NOTE: The President spoke at 3:10 p.m. in the
East Room at the White House.


Remarks on the Election in Russia and an Exchange With Reporters
April 26, 1993


The President. Not very long ago, perhaps
about, oh, an hour ago now, I had a conversation with President Yeltsin. I called to congratulate him on his outstanding victory in the election and to reassure him that the United States
continues to support him as the elected leader
of Russia and continues to look forward to our
partnership in working to reduce the threat of
nuclear weapons, to increase trade and commerce, and to promote democracy. This is a
very, very good day, not only for the people
of Russia but for the people of the United States
and all the people of the world.
I will say again I know that there have been
times in the last 3 months when many Americans, troubled with their own economic difficulties, have asked why their President would be
so involved in trying to support the process of
democracy in Russia. And I want to say again


why that is so. They are a huge country with
vast natural resources, with enormous opportunities for Americans to create jobs and to earn
income and to reap the benefits of trade. They
still have thousands of nuclear weapons which
we must proceed to reduce and to dismantle
so that the world will be a safer place and
so that we will no longer have to spend our
investment dollars, that we need so desperately
to rebuild our own economy, on maintaining
a state of extreme readiness and large numbers
of warheads positioned against Russia. And they
are a great country that can be a symbol of
democracy in a very troubled part of the world
if democracy can stay alive there. They can
prove that you can make three dramatic changes
at once as they try to move from a Communist
system to a democracy, from a controlled economy to a market economy, and to a nation state


512




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Apr. 26


away from being an imperial power with occupying armies.
This is a victory that belongs to the Russian
people and to the courage of Boris Yeltsin, but
I am very glad that the United States supported
steadfastly the process of democracy in Russia.
I was glad to have a chance to talk to President
Yeltsin. Needless to say, he was in a very good
humor when I talked to him, and he had a
good sense of humor. And he offered the United
States a great Russian bear hug for their support
for democracy in Russia and, actually, in the
other republics of the former Soviet Union as
well.
So, it was a very good conversation. But I
do want to say that this is a good day, not
just for the people of Russia but for the people
of the United States as well.
Russia
Q. Mr. President, will this election result help
you sell your aid package to Congress?
The President. I would hope so. I think it
will validate the policy of the United States,
which I might say has been by and large a
completely bipartisan one. I want to say a special word of appreciation to all the living former
Presidents who supported the position I took
here: President Carter and President Reagan
and President Ford, President Nixon and President Bush, all of them. They made it easier
for all of us to maintain a united American
front. And I want to say a special word of thanks
to all the leaders in Congress on both sides
of the aisle who supported this policy.
I do believe that we have to think of this
as a long-term effort. We have to be in this
for the long run. But I think it will be immensely beneficial to the United States.
Q. Mr. President, were you surprised by the
results on all four questions?
The President. Well, I sort of thought he
would win on all four. I thought there might
be some difference, and as you know, there
was a difference in the vote between the referendum on Yeltsin himself and his policies. But
you would expect that in tough times. We've
had a lot of Western leaders reelected in the
last 3 or 4 years in the midst of economic difficulties where the people got reelected and
there was still debate about their policy, because
people are having a tough time, and people in
Russia are having a very tough time. I think


the reaffirmation of his policies really is a tribute
to the farsightedness of the Russian people. I
think in the end what happened was they decided that as difficult as it is, that that is the
only path they could take. And I think, again,
it's a real tribute to his courage and to their
common sense and ability to see the future.
And it's very tough to do when you're going
through what they're going through: terrible inflation, unemployment, all those dislocating
problems. It is a real tribute to their maturity
and to their courage and foresight.
Stimulus Package
Q. Mr. President, will you now break down
your jobs stimulus bill and offer them one at
a time on the meritorious projects?
The President. Sarah [Sarah McClendon,
McClendon News Service], I thought they were
all meritorious. I have not made a decision
about what to do. I want to consult with the
Members of Congress. I think it is imperative
that we make some decisions along that line.
Certainly the Russian issue, I think if it's going
to be seriously addressed by Congress, has to
be done in the context of what our first obligations are to the American people and their interests. And so we'll be talking about that. And
I expect to make a decision in the fairly near
future on that.
Bosnia
Q. Mr. President, do you now have a course
of action that you're free to take by virtue of
this result in Russia that you might have been
inhibited in taking before, perhaps on Bosnia
or perhaps on some other issue, perhaps on
Russia itself?
The President. Well, what you say may be
true in the sense that had there been a reversal
there, the position of the Russian Government
might have become much more intransigent. It
is now, I think, clear that the United States
and our allies need to move forward with a
stronger policy in Bosnia, and I will be announcing the course that I hope we can take in the
next several days. I want to do some serious
consultations with the Congress and others, and
I will be doing that in the next few days.
But now I think the time had come to focus
on that problem and what it means for the United States and has for the rest of the world,


513




Apr. 26 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


as well as for the people that are suffering there.
Thank you very much.


NOTE: The President spoke at 3:20 p.m. in the
East Room at the White House.


Message to the Congress on Additional Measures With Respect to the
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro)
April 26, 1993


To the Congress of the United States:
On June 1, 1992, pursuant to section 204(b)
of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1703(b)) and section 301
of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C.
1631), President Bush reported to the Congress
by letters to the President of the Senate and
the Speaker of the House, dated May 30, 1992,
that he had exercised his statutory authority to
issue Executive Order No. 12808 of May 30,
1992, declaring a national emergency and blocking "Yugoslav Government" property and property of the Governments of Serbia and
Montenegro.
On June 5, 1992, pursuant to the above authorities as well as section 1114 of the Federal
Aviation Act (49 U.S.C. App. 1514), and section
5 of the United Nations Participation Act (22
U.S.C. 287c), the President reported to the Congress by letters to the President of the Senate
and the Speaker of the House that he had exercised his statutory authority to issue Executive
Order No. 12810 of June 5, 1992, blocking
property of and prohibiting transactions with the
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and
Montenegro). This latter action was taken to
ensure that the economic measures taken by
the United States with respect to the Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro)
conform to U.N. Security Council Resolution
No. 757 (May 30, 1992).
On January 19, 1993, pursuant to the above
authorities, President Bush reported to the Congress by letters to the President of the Senate
and the Speaker of the House that he had exercised his statutory authority to issue Executive
Order No. 12831 of January 15, 1993, to impose
additional economic measures with respect to
the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and
Montenegro) to conform to U.N. Security Council Resolution No. 787 (November 16, 1992).
Those additional measures prohibited transactions related to transshipments through the


Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and
Montenegro), as well as transactions related to
vessels owned or controlled by persons or entities in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro).
On April 17, 1993, the U.N. Security Council
adopted Resolution No. 820, calling on the
Bosnian Serbs to accept the Vance-Owen peace
plan for Bosnia-Hercegovina and, if they failed
to do so by April 26, calling on member states
to take additional measures to tighten the embargo against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
(Serbia and Montenegro). Effective 12:01 a.m.
EDT on April 26, 1993, I have taken additional
steps pursuant to the above statutory authorities
to enhance the implementation of this international embargo and to conform to U.N. Security Council Resolution No. 820 (April 17, 1993).
The order that I signed on April 25, 1993:
-blocks all property of businesses organized
or located in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia or Montenegro), including the
property of entities owned or controlled by
them, wherever organized or located, if that
property is in or later comes within the
United States or the possession or control
of U.S. persons, including their overseas
branches;
-charges to the owners or operators of property blocked under that order or Executive
Order No. 12808, 12810, or 12831 all expenses incident to the blocking and maintenance of such property, requires that such
expenses be satisfied from sources other
than blocked funds, and permits such property to be sold and the proceeds (after payment of expenses) placed in a blocked account;
-orders (1) the detention, pending investigation, of all nonblocked vessels, aircraft,
freight vehicles, rolling stock, and cargo
within the United States that are suspected
of violating U.N. Security Council Resolu

514




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Apr. 27


tion No. 713, 757, 787, or 820, and (2)
the blocking of such conveyances or cargo
if a violation is determined to have been
committed, and permits the sale of such
blocked conveyances or cargo and the placing of the net proceeds into a blocked account;
-prohibits any vessel registered in the United
States, or owned or controlled by U.S. persons, other than a United States naval vessel, from entering the territorial waters of
the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia
and Montenegro); and
-prohibits U.S. persons from engaging in any
dealings relating to the shipment of goods
to, from, or through United Nations Protected Areas in the Republic of Croatia and
areas  in  the   Republic  of  BosniaHercegovina under the control of Bosnian
Serb forces.
The order that I signed on April 25, 1993,
authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury in consultation with the Secretary of State to take such
actions, and to employ all powers granted to
me by the International Emergency Economic
Powers Act and the United Nations Participation


Act, as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of that order, including the issuance of
licenses authorizing transactions otherwise prohibited. The sanctions imposed in the order
apply notwithstanding any preexisting contracts,
international agreements, licenses or authorizations. However, licenses or authorizations previously issued pursuant to Executive Order No.
12808, 12810, or 12831 are not invalidated by
the order unless they are terminated, suspended
or modified by action of the issuing federal
agency.
The declaration of the national emergency
made by Executive Order No. 12808 and the
controls imposed under Executive Orders No.
12810 and 12831, and any other provisions of
those orders not modified by or inconsistent
with the April 25, 1993, order, remain in full
force and are unaffected by that order.
WILLIAM J. CLINTON
The White House,
April 26, 1993.
NOTE: The Executive order of April 25 is listed
in Appendix D at the end of this volume.


Nomination for Ambassador to the Organization for Economic Cooperation
and Development
April 26, 1993


The President announced today that he intends to nominate David Aaron to be Ambassador to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
"David Aaron is an experienced and accomplished foreign policy hand, who has already
been of great service to me as an adviser during


my campaign and an emissary in Europe before
I was inaugurated," said the President. "I am
confident he will serve our country capably at
OECD."
NOTE: A biography of the nominee was made
available by the Office of the Press Secretary.


Remarks to the National Realtors Association
April 27, 1993


The President. Thank you very much. And
thank you, president Bill. [Laughter] I'm glad
to be on your coattails today. [Laughter]
I'm glad to see all of you in a good humor,
enthusiastic and, I hope, feeling very good about


your country. I'm glad to have you here today
in our Nation's Capital. I saw some people from
my home State out there in the crowd as I
wandered around. I see them back there.
You know, in politics, you don't have a lot


515




Apr. 27 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


of job security. And therefore, I've been a good
customer for several realtors over the years.
[Laughter] Even though I now live in America's
finest public housing-[laughter]-I actually was
a customer on several occasions.
I want to thank you at the outset for the
support this organization has given to the economic program I have put before the Congress
and to our efforts to put the American people
back to work. I'm proud to be here with people
who are on the frontlines of America's real economy, who understand the need for fundamental
change in the way we promote growth and increase profits and generate jobs.
I believe we have begun to make those fundamental changes, but I think we can only see
the job through if we have the help of you
and millions of people like you who live in the
economy beyond the beltway, where people are
not guaranteed jobs and have an uncertain future.
I had an interesting encounter here just a
couple of days ago. I was out on my morning
run, and as is often the case, I just saw some
people along the Mall out there. I was running
up toward the Capitol the end of last week,
and this young man asked if he could jog along
with me. And he was visiting the Nation's Capital, and I asked him what he did for a living.
And he said, "I'm in the real estate business
in Texas." And he said, "I'm just telling you,"
he said, "I'm out there seeing it." He said, "It's
just amazing how hard people work just to keep
their heads above the water. And we need jobs
and education in this country. We need to do
something to make these cities safer. And we've
got to turn these things around." And he said,
"I just want you to know that." He said, "I
have more awareness of it than I ever did since
I've been in the real estate business, because
I really see people and how they have to live
and the struggles they endure." And I understand that about the work that you do. And
I thank you for the support you've given to
the efforts that we've made.
In the first 3 months of this administration,
we have fundamentally changed the direction
taken by our National Government over the previous decade. I've tried to overcome inertia, ideology, and indifference. I've tried to reach out
a hand of partnership and to restore energy
and experimentation to this Government.
Everybody knows we're living in a new and
uncharted time. There is a global economy com

ing together in ways that are good and bad,
opening all kinds of new opportunities for us
but also affecting us. When there is a recession
in Japan and recession in Germany and a recession in the rest of Europe, it affects the United
States.
We are trying to figure out now how we
should chart our course in the future. But we
do know some things about what works and
what doesn't and what has always worked in
the American free enterprise system. The
changes we have to make won't be easy. It
hasn't been so far. It's not going to be easy
in the future. But we have to do these things.
One of the things that we know is the worst
thing we can do in many cases is to stay on
the path that we were on.
I submitted to the Congress a blueprint of
a budget plan designed to change the policies
of debt and disinvestment and decline, to bring
a new spirit of investment and growth and thrift
to the Government. Both Houses of Congress
agreed to the budget plan in record time, a
plan that will reduce the national deficit by over
$500 billion in the next 5 years.
These votes are important because they're
votes of confidence, and they illustrate that this
town has finally gotten serious about cutting the
deficit. That's one of the reasons we saw a big
upturn in the stock market at the same time
interest rates were hitting record lows. As you
know better than anyone, these things can bring
enormous long-term benefits to the economy.
Just look at this chart that I brought with
me. I only brought one, but I wanted to show
this one. My staff, they started letting me take
charts around again. You know, I used to carry
them all, and I used to get criticized for putting
people to sleep with numbers and statistics and
everything. So I quit for a while. But I just
couldn't stand it anymore, I had to bring one.
[Laughter]
This chart shows what has happened to 30
year fixed rate mortgages with a 20-percent
downpayment since the election. Look at this.
Six months prior to the election the average
rate was 8.2 percent. Right after the election
we announced that we were going to seriously
work to bring this deficit down, and we began
intense meetings in Little Rock with people who
were part of our administration and people from
around the country. We had the national economic summit. From election day to February
17th, the day on which I presented the plan,


516




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Apr. 27


the average rate was 8.1 percent. Since February
17th the average rate has been 7.5 percent.
Today the rate is the lowest it's been since August of 1972, the lowest in over 20 years.
These reductions have prompted, as you well
know, a wave of refinancing which will put over
$100 billion back into this economy in a 12
month period if we can keep these rates down.
That is a huge boost to the economy.
Businesses will pay less to borrow. That will
help them to make new investments and create
new jobs. The Federal Government is already
saving billions of dollars as we roll over the
debt at each auction. Our national deficit this
year in this budget is going to be much lower
than it was thought to be because of the lower
interest rates. And of course, as you well know,
this means lower home mortgages for citizens,
lower car payments, less expensive credit card
payments at the end of each month, strengthened by our subsidiary efforts to attack the credit crunch, which are now getting underway in
earnest, and working with community banks all
across the country. This is liberating billions of
dollars in capital. It means that farmers and
small business people and others can look forward to a better future if we can keep the
trend going. It means that there will be new
confidence in the economy, and that can be
a catalyst for economic growth. It means
progress.
The question we now have to ask is: Will
we continue this progress? How can we turn
back? For in the next few days, Congress will
begin to consider the legislation to turn the
budget resolution, which adopted the form of
budget cuts and revenue increases and deficit
reduction and new investments, into very specific, specific budget items. And now the time
has come to reinvigorate and reenergize our efforts to make sure that the budget steps that
have been taken are going to be followed
through on.
The process is kind of complicated, and it's
known in the Congress as reconciliation. But
it means that they have to reconcile all of the
thousands and thousands and thousands of specific decisions on tax cuts, tax increases, spending decreases, spending increases into a final
bill which reflects the budget resolution which
was adopted several weeks ago and which you
all supported. So it is very important that the
final resolution be really a reconciliation; that
is, that it is consistent with that first budget


resolution that the Congress courageously adopted.
It's important to realize what's at stake. We're
supposed to be in the 24th month of an economic recovery. I bet if we took a poll among
you, it would be hard to get a majority for
that proposition. But the economists say, based
on aggregate economic figures, we're in the 24th
month of a recovery. Still, we have fewer private
sector jobs than we did in 1990; 16 million
men and women are looking for full-time jobs.
This past week, jobless claims went up again.
Housing starts and sales of existing homes are
still on the decline. That's why I've been fighting
so hard for some immediate action to get the
economy moving and to create new jobs.
I want to stop here, just sort of create a
parenthesis and say, when you see all these
struggles going back and forth in Washington,
and it may be reported to you that the President
wins this battle and loses that battle, or somebody's up and somebody's down, it's very important for you to try to clear away the political
smokescreen and ask yourself what is really at
stake here. We are waging a great contest of
ideas. And I ran for President in the hope that
I could change the ideas that both parties had
brought to the national debate. And there are,
not surprisingly, people here who not only have
different political agendas but who honestly have
different ideas.
What I hope to do in the days and weeks
and months ahead is to say, look, I don't have
all the answers, but if we're going to fight, let's
don't fight over this or that political advantage
or some speculative impact on some future election. Let us wage an honest battle of ideas.
And then we can find out what's best for the
American people.
My belief is, if you look at the last 12 years,
our country got in trouble because we did two
things at the same time: We dramatically increased the Government's debt, going from $1
trillion in national debt to $4 trillion in debt.
And believe it or not, we decreased at the same
time the Nation's investment in many things
that are critical to our future, the National Government's investment in many education and
training areas, in nondefense technologies. We
weren't keeping up with all of our competitors
in the infrastructure that makes communities
strong and growing and lifts incomes and opportunities. We weren't keeping up with our competitors. And we were actually spending a much


517




Apr. 27 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


smaller percentage of our budget in 1990 than
we had in 1980 or 1975 in many of these critical
areas. This had never happened before.
At the same time, because of these policies,
because of tax policies, and because of global
economic pressures, we saw most middle class
people working longer weeks for lower wages
than they had been drawing 10, 15 years before.
So it seemed to me what we needed to try
to do was to turn both those things around,
to try to decrease the Government's deficit and
adopt a disciplined plan that would run not just
4 years, but 8 or 10 years, to bring this debt
down to zero-the deficit down to zero, so we
could turn-[applause]-so that we could reduce the percentage of our income that our
national debt comprises.
In the early seventies the national debt got
down to about, oh, 27 percent of annual income.
It's now up to $4 trillion, which is about twothirds of annual income. On the other hand,
I want to emphasize, if you wanted to abolish
it overnight, you could do it, but it would collapse the economy.
Again, this is a battle of ideas. Idea number
one: Should we reduce the deficit? Everybody
will say yes.
Audience member. Yes.
The President. Sure. [Laughter] Sure. Then
the question is: How fast, how much, and on
what kind of a timeframe? My objective has
been to try to bring it down substantially but
not so dramatically as to cause another recession
in a difficult economic time but to do it with
an 8 year plan in mind, not just 4, that will
actually do away with it. So we can bring it
down to zero so we can begin to stabilize the
debt, because even as you reduce the deficitthat's what you're running in red ink every
year-the debt will grow.
But if we do this for 8 years, we can bring
it down to zero. We can then reduce dramatically the percentage of our income that the national debt represents, and we can strengthen
the long-term health of the economy. And then
we can have some money to invest in other
things that we need to invest it in.
Second thing: Can we afford to put all of
our investment programs on hold for 4 or 8
years and spend no new money on anything?
Major idea: I would argue the answer to that
is, no. Because we know that in the world in
which we're living, in the global economy, what
we earn depends on what we can learn; that


new technologies are the source of most new
jobs that pay high wages and have enormous
spin-off effects on people like realtors. You've
got a growing economy in your area; you're
going to do better. If you have a shrinking economy in your area, you won't do as well.
Thirdly, I would argue, you cannot afford to
stop investing, because we have cut the defense
budget so much in areas that cost jobs, not
just base closings, the obvious things, but even
more importantly, as anybody from California
or Connecticut or Massachusetts can tell you,
in areas related to research and development
and production of weapons, which provided very
high-wage jobs in manufacturing and in research.
So for all those reasons I don't think you
can just put all your investments on hold. I
think we've got to empower the American people to be able to compete in the global economy. So while we bring the deficit down, I
would argue we need to have at least modest
increases in some areas of investment.
That means, in my view, that you have to
have very rigorous spending cuts in other areas,
and you have to raise some more money, because we dramatically altered the tax base of
the country back in 1981. That's why I presented the program that this organization endorsed.
Now, I welcome people who have different
ideas. But I think it's very important to scrutinize them. Some will say, "Well, we can have
the same deficit reduction with lower taxes if
we have no new investments." That's true.
They're right. That is an opposition idea that
is absolutely true. But I think we would pay
for it. So we could argue about that.
Others will say, "We ought to cut the deficit
more, and I hate all taxes." They're not telling
you the way it is. If that crowd wins this battle,
the deficit will go up, not down. You mark my
words.
There are others who say, "I wish they'd leave
that health care thing alone." Let me tell you
why I don't agree with that. The biggest spending increases in the first part of the last 12 -year period were in defense. But defense peaked
out in 1986, and it's been going down since.
And my fellow Americans, without regard to
party, respectfully, there is a limit to how much
you can take it down, how fast. We still have
responsibilities, and this is still a difficult world
with a lot of unpredictable things out there.


518




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Apr. 27


And we have cut it a lot. I don't mean the
rate eventually. It's been cut.
So you might say, "Well, what has happened?
If defense has been going down for 5 years,
how come this deficit keeps going up?" I'll tell
you why. Because in the last 5 years the defense
increases have been supplemented by explosive
increases in health care costs and in interest
payments on the debt.
So we're trying to get the interest payments
down by bringing the interest rates down. But
we have to address the health care issue. If
we don't do anything to add a single new benefit, not anything to add a single new benefit,
we'll have a 67-percent increase in outlays for
Medicare and Medicaid in the next 5 years,
going up at 12 percent a year, assuming an
inflation rate in the economy as a whole of
about 4 to 5 percent. And, of course, a lot
of you who pay health insurance see the same
thing in your own premiums.
The United States of America spends 15 percent of its income on health care. No other
nation in the world is at 10. Only Canada is
over 9. That means when our automotive companies or our airplane manufacturers or our
major service sector people go into the global
economy, they have spotted their competitors
a one-third advantage on health care. And actually, it's worse than that because a lot of people
don't pay anything, because they get uncompensated care at emergency rooms. So a lot of our
bigger manufacturers actually pay more than 15
percent of their income for health care.
This is a very troubling thing. I don't mean
to tell you there are easy answers, but the reason I asked my wife to take on this issue is,
I could see that if you want an 8-year plan
that brings this debt down to zero, you can
never get there without health care reform. You
can't get there without health care reform.
Another big idea: If you look at everybody's
deficit reduction plan-it doesn't matter what
party or what their ideas are-we can cut this
budget and we can bring it down for 5 years.
If my plan is adopted, the one I put before
Congress or some reasonable facsimile of it, it
will bring this debt down steeply for 5 years.
And then the next year it goes right up again.
Why? Because all the cuts we make and all
the money we raise will be overcome by health
care explosion.
If we don't change the way we're going by
the end of this decade, we'll be spending 18


percent of our income on health care. No other
country then will be over 10, and we will really
be in the soup. Now, that's a big idea. You
have to decide whether you agree with that or
not, but I believe that. And that drives what
I'm trying to do as your President.
So in summary, what I've tried to do is to
put people and their needs first, build a foundation that invests in education and technology
and the future economy and gets people out
of an economy that is fast going away and has
trapped them, to do what business people do
for their companies, to put more investments
into things that don't work, to try to reduce
unnecessary debts and cut out a lot of things,
put more investment in things that do work
and cut out a lot of things that don't.
In this budget that I have presented to the
Congress, there are over 200 specific budget
cuts. I do want to restore responsibility in the
way your money is spent. And I am appalled
at this deficit. I live in a State which is in
the bottom five in the percentage of income
going to State and local taxes, had a tough balanced budget law, and permitted me to cut
spending across the board every month when
revenues were below spending. I don't like
what's going on. But you cannot fix it overnight.
We have to have a disciplined plan that will
bring it down without endangering the economic
recovery and recognizing the things that we
ought to be investing in so we can compete
with these other nations for the jobs of tomorrow.
I tried to set an example. We cut the size
of the White House staff by 25 percent starting
in the next budget year. It's already well below
where it was when I took office. We cut acrossthe-board administrative expenditures of the
Federal Government 14 percent over the next
5 years. The Congress has followed suit. They
get a lot of criticism, but I will say this: They've
followed suit. They've agreed to nearly that big
an administrative cut in their staff. We've eliminated a lot of unnecessary perks and privileges.
And most important of all, I've asked the Vice
President to head up a task force on reinventing
Government.
We now have several hundred people from
all over this country coming to Washington to
help us reexamine the way every last dollar of
your tax money is spent. And in September
when we come forward with that report and
the Vice President's task force reports, I think


519




Apr. 27 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


we'll have a whole new round of changes in
the way your money is spent that will not only
save money but will treat taxpayers more like
customers and try to make this Government a
low-cost, high-quality producers of services for
you. And we'll reexamine some things, believe
me, that have not been examined in 60 years
in the way things are done.
What I want to ask all of you to do is to
ask the Members of Congress to help us make
this street run two ways. Pennsylvania Avenue
has to run two ways. And the dispute I had
last week over the stimulus, all the people who
disagreed with me were in the other party, in
the Republican Party. I'm going to have disputes
in the weeks ahead where the people who disagree with me, many of them will be in my
own party. But again I say, let us keep this
battle a battle of ideas. That's one I think I
can win, because I told my ideas to the American people when they voted. But we cannot
afford to have one day wasted on mindless maneuvering. We need to argue over the direction
of the country.
I'd also like to ask for your help on a specific
thing. When I was a Governor I had a lineitem veto that I could use to wipe out unnecessary spending. Believe it or not, once I'd used
it a little bit, I hardly ever had to use it again.
The fact of having it even made a difference
in disciplining spending.
I want to point out, it's not just about spending reduction, but it's about the quality of the
overall budget. The legislative process is always
and in every place a lot like making sausage,
as some wise wag once said. That's just the
nature of it. A lot of us in our different roles
in life have probably contributed to that sausage
slicing at some time or another.
It is important that someone who is accountable only to everyone can have some discipline
over the process. We now have an opportunity
to adopt a law that will provide the President
not an identical but a similar means to cut
wasteful spending.
This week the House of Representatives is
considering, and I urge them to pass, a new
law that would give the President the right to
reject items in appropriations bills. This proposal
is called enhanced rescission. Let me tell you
what that means. I hate all these Washington
words, don't you? It's kind of like the line-item
veto and only slightly different. Let me tell you
what it means. It means that the President is


given the power to cut individual spending
items, and the rest of the bill can go into effect.
Once cut by the President, these items can only
be restored unless Congress voted on them separately. Now it wouldn't require a two-thirds
majority. It would only require a majority. I
think that's probably all we can do under the
Constitution of the United States.
But the difference is these items would be
out there by themselves, not buried in some
big bill. So that when the votes were taken,
they would be taken in view of the press and
the public, and you could draw your conclusions.
And if they were areas where we had, again,
a difference of ideas and they believed in the
idea and thought it could be defended, then
they could vote on it. And you could make your
decision. It would give me the chance, and any
future President, the chance to try to impose
some budget discipline.
In the early seventies the Congress adopted
a new budget control act. Before that, Presidents could regularly impound big amounts of
spending in the budget, before 20 years ago.
And Presidents of both parties regularly did that.
This would, at least, begin to move us in
the direction of what I think of as an acceptable
compromise. It respects the separation of powers. It ultimately respects the right of the United
States Congress to do what the Constitution
gives it and not the President the power to
do. But it makes both of us more responsible
in how your money is spent.
I hope you will ask your Senators and Representatives, without regard to party, to vote for
this bill. It is a good idea. And it is a beginning
of a reform agenda which I think we should
see through.
In the next several days, as we consult with
Republicans as well as Democrats, I hope to
announce my support of a sweeping bill to reform the system of campaign finance that will
reduce the influence of special interest and big
money and open up the political process to challengers and also open up the airwaves a little
bit so that people will have a chance for honest
debate in elections, and they won't all be turned
by expensive 30-second ads.
I hope we'll see the passage in this Congress
of a bill requiring much more sweeping disclosure laws for lobbyists. I hope we will see more
efforts to get the Federal Government to live
within the laws it makes. For example, on Earth
Day, the day before Earth Day when I gave


520




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Apr. 27


my environmental speech, one of the things that
I said we were going to do is to have the Federal Government, when we deal with toxic sites
within our jurisdiction, start living by the rightto-know laws that were long ago imposed on
private employers. I think if we're going to do
that to people in the private sector, we ought
to live within it.
And I think we have to constantly keep
changing the Government. I am very excited
about the work being done by the Vice President's Commission on Reinventing Government,
and I think you will be, too. There are dramatic
changes that can be made in the way we deliver
the goods, in ways that will both save money
and improve the quality of service.
But let's begin with what I call the Federal
version of the line-item veto. Ask your Members
of Congress to vote for this enhanced rescission
bill. It can't do any harm, and it might do a
whole lot of good. And I need it, and you need
it.
I just want to say a couple of things that
you already know, but they bear repeating. I
don't just ask for, in this economic plan, to
invest money publicly in things like Head Start
and better standards for our schools and apprenticeship programs for young people who don't
go to college and the national service program,
which we will unveil in its details on Friday,
to provide for college education loans for every
young person who is willing to pay them back
at tax time so they can't beat the bill or by
working and paying off the loan by doing something for their country. I also recognize that
the main engine of economic growth is you and
people like you.
So I believe-and again, this is a battle of
ideas. And you can read a lot about this since
you're in this town. I believe that, while the
'86 Tax Reform Act had some good provisions,
the idea of simplifying the rate structure, lowering the rates, and eliminating some of the individual deductions and trying to simplify, that
was basically good. I think the idea that you
can have a tax system which has no incentives
for investment at a time when you need to increase investment and reduce consumption is
wrong. That's my view. That's my view.
Again, this is an honest contest of ideas. I
recognize that anytime you fool with the Tax
Code, if you're not careful, you just make more
money for accountants and lawyers and open
loopholes. You've got to be careful with that.


So let's recognize there are two sides to every
argument on changing the Tax Code. I accept
that. But what I have tried to do, based on
my experience of a dozen years as a Governor,
struggling to get people to invest in my State
and grow our economy, and based on untold
thousands of conversations over the years with
people in the private sector, I tried to present
a bill to the Congress that would strike the
right balance between not just opening the Tax
Code and having it riddled but having significant
incentives, especially now, to boost investment.
There are a lot of people who don't think
I struck the right balance. But as long as it's
a battle of ideas, we can wage that. I just think
there is a compelling case to be made that we
have always benefited in the history of this
country from investment incentives. At a time
when there is too little investment and everybody can see that, I think it's something we
ought to be sensitive to. So that's something
else you'll see as we unfold this battle.
You know how I feel about the real estate
issues. I recommended making permanent the
low-income housing tax credit. And I recommended stopping the discrimination against
people in real estate by changing the passive
loss provisions. I feel strongly about it. But I
also recommended a change in the alternative
minimum tax, which would primarily benefit
bigger businesses which invest.
Yes, I asked for the corporate rate on high
income corporations to be raised to 36 percent.
But I wanted to change those things which
would reward investment. I think that's the right
decision. I know it's the right direction. We
can argue about the details. I know it's the
right direction. So I ask you to help to get
that passed.
Let me just say a personal word in closing.
I've been very fortunate in my life. I've had
a good family. I've had a good education. I've
had good jobs. I got to live the American dream.
And as I've already said, I've lived in the best
public housing in Arkansas and Washington,
DC. [Laughter]
I live by some values that I was raised with:
the idea that everybody ought to have an opportunity to work hard; the idea that everybody
who gets an opportunity has responsibility that
goes with it; and the idea that we're all part
of a bigger community, and if we have a chance
in life, we ought to try to guarantee that same
chance to everyone else. That's why I respect


521




Apr. 27 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


the work you do. There's no greater goal for
America's families than to be able to live in
their own homes and to help their children and
their grandchildren and their neighbors to do
it.
I respect you, too, because I know that you
live with a certain amount of uncertainty in your
own life. You live by your wits; you live by
your efforts. You don't have a guaranteed income. How well you do depends on how hard
and how smart you work, but it also depends
on the decisions made by people in this town
and by people all around the world that you
don't know that impinge on your life and set
the parameters in which you operate.
And so I ask you to help join me again in
partnership on these issues, to make sure that
the struggles that we have in the months ahead
are great battles of ideas. It is an exciting time,
after all. A lot of good things are going on.
The cold war is over. The people of Russia
stood up to the old guard and said, "We're
going to stay with freedom. We're going to stay
with free market economics. We don't want to
go back to being an imperial power. We'd like
to be part of the world," that you and I take
for granted.
A lot of good things going on. Productivity
in the private sector in this country increased
by the highest rate in 20 years in the last quarter
of last year, the American business sector trying
to reinvest, trying to compete. A lot of good
things going on, but a lot of profound chal

lenges. Let these challenges be addressed in
the spirit of partnership, and let the battles be
battles of ideas, not politics.
I do not think we can be down about what's
going on. These problems are big problems.
They're the problems of our generation. We inherited them, and it's our job to deal with them,
not to moan about them. That's our job, to
roll up our sleeves and face them and deal with
them.
One of the greatest poets that this country
ever produced was Carl Sandburg. And I used
to save a little quote by Carl Sandburg. I carried
it with me for years and years when I was a
young man. And it was-I believe I remember
it, even though I haven't seen it in 15 years.
Sandburg said, "A tough will counts. So does
desire. So does a rich, soft wanting. Without
rich wanting, nothing arrives. Without effort,
nothing arrives." Sandburg said, "I see America
not in the setting sun of black night of despair
ahead of us. I see America in the crimson light
of a rising sun, fresh from the burning, creative
hand of God. I see great days ahead, great days
possible to men and women of will and vision."
I see that, and I think you do, too.
Thank you very much.
NOTE: The President spoke at 11:52 a.m. at the
Sheraton Washington Hotel. In his remarks, he
referred to Bill Chee, president, National Realtors
Association.


Remarks to the NCAA Men's and Women's Basketball Champions and an
Exchange With Reporters
April 27, 1993


The President. Good afternoon. I want to
apologize to the people who are here from
North Carolina and Texas. I have been inside
in a meeting with some Members of the United
States Congress of both parties, some of whom
are also here in the crowd, talking about the
situation in Bosnia. And I got away as quickly
as I could. I thank all of you for coming here.
It's a great honor for me as an ardent basketball fan to welcome to the White House two
proud new national champions, the Tarheels of
North Carolina and the Lady Raiders of Texas


Tech, who won the men's and women's NCAA
basketball championships.
The Lady Raiders have been stirring things
up in West Texas for some time now, with backto-back Southwest Conference titles, and this
year, of course, they brought home Texas Tech's
first national championship in any sport. It helps
when you have a secret weapon in basketball
whose name rhymes with "hoops." No doubt
about it, Cheryl Swoopes turned in a tournament performance that was one for the ages.
She averaged over 32 points a game and scored


522




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Apr. 27


47 points in the final, which is an all-time championship record for men or women in basketball
finals. If anybody hasn't figured it out yet, I
think women's basketball has arrived.
I'd also like to say that we have to make
special mention of the coach of the Lady Raiders, coach Marcia Sharp, who is a four-time
Southwest Conference Coach of the Year and
who took a wonderful 11-year career at Texas
Tech to new heights.
Then there are the Tarheels, one of whom
had the grace to remind me that they waxed
Arkansas in getting to the Sweet 16. [Laughter]
There may not be many things you can depend
upon in this world, but normally it is when
"March Madness" rolls around, you can be sure
that Dean Smith's Tarheels will be there at the
final bell, with discipline and style as great as
any you will ever see. Nineteen consecutive
years in the NCAA, 13 trips to the Sweet 16,
9 times to the Final 4, 2 national championships.
Even though I have to admit that I didn't pull
for them in every game-[laughter]-I thought
they were magnificent, true Carolina Blue champions.
I also want to say a special word of thanks
to Eric Montross for not standing on the riser
when I walked by. I felt small enough as it
was. [Laughter] I want to congratulate him and
Donald Williams for the three-pointers that they
made, and George Lynch for muscling out his
opposition on the inside. As a matter of fact,
I was thinking of asking George to stay around
here for a few days and help me. [Laughter]
I want to say again that the thing I like about
basketball and the thing I think our country
needs more of is that you can't just win with
great players; you have to have great teamwork.
People have to understand each other's
strengths and weaknesses and learn to work together in a consistent way. These two teams
have done it and have done it magnificently,
and it's a great honor for me to welcome them
to the White House today.
I'd like to now invite the coaches to come
up and say a few words.
[At this point, team members were introduced,
and each team presented the President with a
basketball. ]


The President. I want to invite all the people
to come up here, and we'll all take a few pictures and everything. And I thank all of you
for coming. I want to take a few minutes; then
I've got to go back to my meeting. Thank you
very much.
Congressional Meeting on Bosnia
Q. Have you talked to Biden about your decision, or is this just an information meeting?
The President. No. I have not made a final
decision yet, and I am consulting with them
and giving them a chance to tell me what they
think we should do. And I think that's the appropriate thing to do. I've tried to proceed here,
as I did in Russia, with bipartisan support. We're
having a very good meeting, and I'm going to
take a few minutes to shake hands, then go
back to the meeting. We're in the middle of
the meeting. I have no results to report, but
I am just listening to them.
OMB Director Panetta
Q. What do you think about what Mr. Panetta
said today?
Q. Are you taking Leon Panetta to the woodshed, Mr. President?
The President. No, I don't need to take him
to the woodshed. I need for him to get his
spirits up a little. You know, this is like a basketball game. You see, these guys, there were a
lot of times that they were in close games; a
lot of times they were in close games, they
wound up winning.
I just think he's been working 60 to 70 hours
a week, and he got discouraged. I need for
him to sort of get his spirits up. He's done
a wonderful job for this administration. He's
got a lot of credibility, and I think every Member of Congress that's ever worked with Leon
Panetta would say he's one of the most honest,
competent people they've ever worked with. He
had a bad day yesterday because he got his
spirits down. I want to buck him up; I don't
want to take him to the woodshed.
Thank you.
NOTE: The President spoke at 4:45 p.m. in the
Rose Garden at the White House.


523




Apr. 27 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


Message to the Congress Reporting on the Continuation of Export Control
Regulations
April 27, 1993


To the Congress of the United States:
1. On September 30, 1990, in Executive
Order No. 12730, President Bush declared a
national emergency under the International
Emergency Economic Powers Act ("IEEPA")
(50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) to deal with the threat
to the national security and foreign policy of
the United States caused by the lapse of the
Export Administration Act of 1979, as amended
(50 U.S.C. App. 2401 et seq.), and the system
of controls maintained under that Act. In that
order, the President continued in effect, to the
extent permitted by law, the provisions of the
Export Administration Act of 1979, as amended,
the Export Administration Regulations (15
C.F.R. 768 et seq.), and the delegations of authority set forth in Executive Order No. 12002
of July 7, 1977, Executive Order No. 12214 of
May 2, 1980, and Executive Order No. 12131
of May 4, 1979, as amended by Executive Order
No. 12551 of February 21, 1986.
2. President Bush issued Executive Order No.
12730 pursuant to the authority vested in him
as President by the Constitution and laws of
the United States, including IEEPA, the National Emergencies Act (NEA) (50 U.S.C. 1601
et seq.), and section 301 of title 3 of the United
States Code. At that time, the President also
submitted a report to the Congress pursuant
to section 204(b) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1703(b)).
Section 204 of IEEPA requires follow-up reports, with respect to actions or changes, to be
submitted every 6 months. Additionally, section
401(c) of the NEA requires that the President,
within 90 days after the end of each 6-month
period following a declaration of a national
emergency, report to the Congress on the total
expenditures directly attributable to that declaration. This report, covering the 6-month period
from October 1, 1992, to March 31, 1993, is
submitted in compliance with these requirements.
3. Since the issuance of Executive Order No.
12730, the Department of Commerce has continued to administer and enforce the system of
export controls, including antiboycott provisions,
contained in the Export Administration Regulations. In administering these controls, the De

partment has acted under a policy of conforming
actions under Executive Order No. 12730 to
those required under the Export Administration
Act, insofar as appropriate.
4. Since the last report to the Congress, there
have been several significant developments in
the area of export controls:
-United States Government experts have
continued their efforts to implement and
strengthen export control systems, including prelicense inspections and post-shipment verifications, in the nations of Central Europe and the
former Soviet Union-notably Belarus, Bulgaria,
the Czech Republic, Hungary, Kazakhstan, Poland, Romania, Russia, the Slovak Republic, and
Ukraine, as they continue their progress towards
democracy and market economies. We anticipate
that these developments will facilitate enhanced
trade in high-technology items and other commodities in the region, while helping to prevent
unauthorized shipments or uses of such items.
A key element of these efforts continues to be
the prevention of proliferation of weapons of
mass destruction and corresponding technology.
-Working diligently with our Coordinating
Committee (COCOM) partners to expand export
control cooperation with the newly developing
democracies of Central Europe and the former
Soviet Union and to streamline multilateral national security controls, we are pleased to report
the following important developments:
-In their November 1992 High-Level Meeting, the COCOM partners took action to
significantly liberalize export controls on
certain telecommunications exports to the
newly independent states (NIS) of the
former Soviet Union and other Central European nations, which should facilitate rapid
and reliable telecommunications between
these nations and the West, as well as modern, cost-effective domestic telecommunications systems. This action was soon thereafter reflected in corresponding amendments to the Export Administration Regulation. (57 F.R. 61259, December 24, 1992.)
-Also in November, at the first High-Level
"COCOM Cooperation Forum" (CCF)
Meeting, which included the 17 members


524




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Apr. 27


of COCOM, most of the newly independent states of the former Soviet Union (NIS),
and other Central European nations, the
United States announced an $11 million
technical assistance package to assist in the
elimination of nuclear arms, enhanced nonproliferation efforts, and export control development. The United States, in cooperation with the CCF, hopes to engage these
nations in further establishing controls for
trade in sensitive goods and technologies,
and to provide an impetus for wider access
by those countries to controlled items.
-In the first 2 months of 1993, as a result
of Bulgarian and Romanian commitments
to undertake the establishment of effective
export control systems, COCOM agreed to
provide favorable consideration treatment
for exports of strategic items to those countries.  The  Commerce   Department   is
amending its regulations to reflect this development.
-We are also continuing our efforts to address the threat to the national security and
foreign policy interests of the United States
posed by the spread of weapons of mass destruction and missile delivery systems. As such,
we continue to work with our major trading
partners to strengthen export controls over
goods, technology, and other forms of assistance
that can contribute to the spread of nuclear,
chemical, and biological weapons and missile
systems:
-As of December 1992, the Australia Group
(AG), a consortium of nations that seeks
to prevent the proliferation of chemical and
biological weapons (CBW), increased its
membership to 24, with the admission of
Iceland and Sweden in 1991 and Argentina
and Hungary in 1992. In addition, the delegates agreed to increase from 50 to 54 the
number of precursor chemicals subject to
control and to adopt a common list of controlled biological items. The Commerce
Department published a rule implementing
these measures. (57 F.R. 60122, December
18, 1992.) As of December 1992, the delegates also agreed to a refined common control list of dual-use biological equipment.
The Commerce Department is in the process of publishing a rule reflecting the
changes to conform the U.S. list to the
AG list.
-The United States was also a key partici

pant in the Chemical Weapons Convention
(CWC) negotiations in Geneva, Switzerland.
On September 3, 1992, the Conference on
Disarmament, which drafted the CWC, forwarded to the United Nations General Assembly a draft CWC, which includes a prohibition on the development, production,
acquisition, stockpiling, use, or transfer of
chemical weapons, as well as provides for
destruction of chemical weapons production
facilities and stockpiles. The Convention
opened for signing in January of this year.
The United States strongly supports these
provisions and is working to implement
them in harmony with our laws.
-In December 1992, the 27-nation Nuclear
Suppliers Group (NSG), in which the United States participates, continued its discussions on nuclear-related dual-use controls.
The NSG list is similar to the nuclear referral list currently administered by the Department of Commerce. The Department
is working to publish a rule to conform
the U.S. list with the NSG list. Also in
December 1992, the NSG members agreed
to procedures intended to standardize and
improve the exchange of information among
members.
-At the March plenary session in Canberra,
the Missile Technology Control Regime
(MTCR) members welcomed Iceland as the
newest partner, bringing the total membership to 23 nations. Argentina and Hungary
were also accepted as members, subject to
final arrangements agreed to by the MTCR
partners. A licensing and enforcement officers conference will be held in June 1993
to provide an information exchange forum
for all partners on implementation of the
new extended Guidelines, which now cover
missiles capable of delivering all weapons
of mass destruction. Previously, the regime
covered only missiles capable of delivering
nuclear weapons. The future of the MTCR
is likely to be a main agenda item for the
next plenary session to be held in November 1993.
-In the area of supercomputers, in 1991 the
United States established a supercomputer
safeguard regime with Japan. Since that
time both countries have negotiated with
European suppliers to expand this regime.
Issues discussed at the March 1993 London
meeting include the development of a com

525




Apr. 27 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


mon licensing policy and security safeguards.
-Finally, we continue to enforce export controls vigorously. The export control provisions
of the Export Administration Regulations are enforced jointly by the Commerce Department's
Office of Export Enforcement and the U.S. Customs Service. Both of these agencies investigate
allegations and, where appropriate, refer them
for criminal prosecution by the Justice Department. Additionally, the Commerce Department
has continued its practice of imposing significant
administrative sanctions for violations, including
civil penalties and denial of export privileges.
-Commerce's Office of Export Enforcement
(OEE) has continued its vital preventive
programs such as pre-license checks and
post-shipment verifications, export license
review, and on-site verification visits by
teams of enforcement officers in many
countries. The OEE has also continued its
outreach to the business community to assist exporters with their compliance programs and to solicit their 'help in OEE's
enforcement effort. The OEE further continued its well-received Business Executive
Enforcement Team (BEET) to enhance
interaction between the regulators and the
regulated.
-During this 6-month reporting period, OEE
has continued its new program-the Strategic and Nonproliferation Enforcement Program (SNEP)-which targets critical enforcement resources on exports to countries
of concern in the Middle East and elsewhere.
-Two particularly important enforcement efforts during the past 6 months in which
OEE was involved resulted in the arrest
and indictment of several individuals, including several foreign nationals. In one
case, OEE special agents arrested an Iranian national, Reza Zandian, and an American citizen, Charles Regar, on charges that
they conspired and attempted to export a
computer to Iran without the required validated license. The computer, valued in excess of $2 million, was seized by the Commerce Department. The Department of
Justice will seek forfeiture of the computer
to the United States. In another case, a


British citizen doing business in South Africa, David Brownhill, was arrested and
charged with attempting to export polygraph and thermal imaging system equipment to South Africa without authorization.
Both of these cases are currently pending
trial.
-In the last 6 months, the Commerce Department has also continued to enforce the
antiboycott law vigorously. The Office of
Antiboycott Compliance (OAC) maintains
30 full-time staff positions, and OAC has
doubled the level of civil penalties it seeks
to impose within the statutory $10,000 per
violation maximum. The total dollar amount
of civil penalties imposed in fiscal year 1992
approaches $2,109,000, the second largest
amount in the history of the program. This
amount includes a civil penalty of $444,000
imposed in the first case alleging both
antiboycott and export control violations.
-One particularly significant antiboycott
compliance case was recently concluded by
an order of February 11, 1993. Under that
order, William Hardimon was assessed a
civil penalty of $54,000, and his export
privileges were denied  for 6 months.
Hardimon allegedly refused to do business
with another person in order to comply
with an illegal Saudi Arabian requirement,
complied with an illegal Kuwaiti boycott request, and failed to report the receipt of
the boycott requests.
5. The expenses incurred by the Federal Government in the 6-month period from October
1, 1992, to March 31, 1993, that are directly
attributable to the exercise of authorities conferred by the declaration of a national emergency with respect to export controls were largely centered in the Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Export Administration. Expenditures
by the Department of Commerce are anticipated to be $17,897,000, most of which represents program operating costs, wage and salary
costs for Federal personnel, and overhead expenses.
WILLIAM J. CLINTON
The White House,
April 27, 1993.


526




_ __ _


Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Apr. 28


Nomination for Navy Department and Ambassadorial Posts
April 27, 1993


The President today announced his intention
to nominate Steve Honigman to be General
Counsel for the Department of the Navy, and
his intention to make the following ambassadorial nominations:
Howard Jeter, Ambassador to the Republic
of Botswana
William Ramsay, Ambassador to the People's
Republic of the Congo
David Romero, Ambassador to the Republic
of Ecuador
Alan Flanigan, Ambassador to the Republic
of El Salvador
Andrew Winter, Ambassador to the Republic
of Gambia
Aurelia Brazeal, Ambassador to the Republic
of Kenya


William Dameron, Ambassador to the Republic of Mali
Dennis Jett, Ambassador to the Republic of
Mozambique
John Davidson, Ambassador to the Republic
of Niger
John Sprott, Ambassador to the Kingdom of
Swaziland
David Rawson, Ambassador to the Republic
of Rwanda
"These Ambassadors are a talented and experienced group who will, I am sure, represent
our country's interests ably," said the President.
NOTE: Biographies of the nominees were made
available by the Office of the Press Secretary.


Remarks Announcing the Appointment of the Director of the Office of
National Drug Control Policy and an Exchange With Reporters
April 28, 1993


The President. Thank you very much, ladies
and gentlemen. Please be seated. I want to
thank the members of the Cabinet who are here
and the Members of the Congress who are here
and express my apologies for the Attorney General who is with the Congress. And that's why
some of them and why she is not here.
I want to thank the representatives of law
enforcement, people who are involved in drug
treatment and drug education, and other citizens
who are here with us today, as well as those
who have been working in the office of drug
policy who are here.
It is a great pleasure and honor for me today
to announce the appointment of Lee Brown,
the first police officer ever to hold the job of
Director of the Office of National Drug Control
Policy.
A few weeks ago I elevated this office to
Cabinet-level status because I believe drug
abuse is as serious a problem as we have in
America and because I believe that this office
cannot work effectively on its own, no matter
how many people it might have. The real ability


of this office to make a difference in the lives
of the American people is the ability to work
with all the Departments of the National Government and with others who care about this
issue to maximize our resources, to focus our
efforts, and to make sure we're all working together. Lee Brown shares that view, and I am
proud that he has agreed to join us in this
administration.
As Americans who care about our future, we
can't let drugs and drug-related crimes continue
to ruin communities, threaten our children even
in schools, and fill up our prisons with wrecked
and wasted lives. We have to do a better job
of preventing drug use and treating those who
seek treatment, and we must do more to protect
law-abiding citizens from those who victimize
them in the pursuit of drugs or profits from
drugs. I'm committed to winning this struggle,
as all Americans are, and I'm convinced that
there is no better American to lead this effort
than Lee Brown. He's been the chief law enforcement officer in Atlanta, in Houston, and
New York. He's a policeman with a Ph.D. in


527




Apr. 28 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


criminology who brings to this tough job a truly
extraordinary record of innovation in crime reduction and a sensitivity to the problems of real
people who want to walk home safe at night
and who want to be free of the problems that
we're trying to combat.
To reduce drug use and drug-related crimes
we have to do many things at the same time.
It has to start with community policing, with
more police at the local level working with our
neighbors and the children and the friends to
prevent crime and to quickly punish criminals.
There must be better education and prevention
efforts starting at the earliest ages. These work;
I know that. And there must be treatment for
those who want to get better.
Dr. Brown knows a little something about
community policing. It's nearly his invention. He
turned the Houston police force into a model
of community policing. And for many serious
crimes, the crime rate there dropped. In New
York he added thousands of officers to foot patrols; men and women whom he empowered
to solve problems, not with the Federal program
but with a commitment to a better life in a
particular neighborhood. And reports of serious
crime fell where that was done in New York.
He's had the vision to seek conditions clearly
and the courage to change what doesn't work.
Most importantly, he gets results. And this is
exactly what we need in the war against drugs.
I pledge to him and to the American people
an exceptionally focused and carefully executed
antidrug effort from the National Government.
At the heart of our efforts will be more funds
for local police officers, more for treatment and
more for prevention. We will continue to work
with other nations who have shown the political
will to fight illegal drugs. They will continue
to get our full support and our cooperation.
But it's time we turned our attention home
and built a strategy to make the neighborhoods
of America safer and more drug-free. We want
to close the gap between those who want treatment and available treatment. Treating addiction
is good urban policy and good anticrime policy
and good health policy. We ask for a 10-percent
increase in treatment funds for 1994. And we'll
make drug treatment an important part of the
national health care plan that will be presented
to the Congress and the American people. Our
goal is to work toward treatment on demand.
I believe the parents of America want and
deserve more help in educating their children


about drugs. We can prevent drug abuse. School
programs work. Public service programs work.
But they aren't miracles. They require a commitment and a consistency year in and year out.
We've asked for a 16-percent increase in drug
prevention funding.
Finally, we're determined to put more police
officers on the street and to expand community
policing. It's a local program, old-fashioned law
enforcement, but it works. It means less crime.
I think it's time to go back to the basics. I
asked the Congress to approve $200 million in
the jobs stimulus package for community policing. And I proposed almost $600 million in policing and other initiatives similar to that in
1994.
The most basic responsibility of the Government is to protect the American people. It's
our sacred duty to do our best. I believe we
have a good program. It can be a great program
if it can come alive in America in every community in this country. It's basic: more officers,
more education, more treatment. And with the
leadership of Lee Brown it promises to be effective.
I look forward to working with him and with
the other members of our Cabinet, administration to meet and to master the challenges ahead.
[At this point, Dr. Brown expressed his appreciation to the President and his commitment to
develop a national drug control strategy.]
Drug Control Policy Director
Q. Mr. President, you talked about the need
to give resources to education and treatment
from some of the law enforcement efforts. Why
then did you pick someone with a background
in law enforcement?
The President. Because I don't think it's an
either-or thing. I think having the right kind
of community-based education and treatment
programs, if they work, also requires having the
right kind of community law enforcement strategy. One of the things that I have learned in
the many years I served as attorney general and
Governor, and talking to other people who have
been involved in that, is that if you do it right,
all these things go hand in hand.
I wish the Attorney General were here today
to talk about the drug courts she started in
Miami, and what the relationship of law enforcement there is to integrating a treatment and
education program.


528




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Apr. 28


That's why I wanted someone who had a
background in law enforcement and credibility
on that issue, but who believed in innovation
and education and treatment to do this job. I
wanted someone who could put together a policy that makes sense. If you try to pick one
or the other, you're never going to get the job
done.
Wolf [Wolf Blitzer, CNN News]?
Bosnia
Q. Mr. President, you met last night with
a bipartisan group of congressional leaders on
the situation in Bosnia. And by all accounts,
they seem to have given you some conflicting
advice. Many of them appear to be more moved
by the lessons of Vietnam than they are by the
Holocaust. Did you emerge from that session
more confused about what the United States
should do as far as the situation in Bosnia is
concerned?
The President. No, I didn't. I still believe the
United States has to strengthen its response.
But the meeting was helpful because of the
practical issues which were raised and the specific suggestions I got from people, many of
whom have different views. But some who were
there last night are here today; they can make
their own comments. But I think it was a very
helpful meeting and there were a lot of very
specific things that came out of that, and that
I think will come out of our consultations over
the next couple of days.
Andrea [Andrea Mitchell, NBC News]?
Q. Do you feel that you can continue, though,
to consider military options now that so many
Members of Congress have strongly expressed
their objections? Would you proceed if you felt
it was still the right thing to do and if you
had allied support?
The President. Well, I will decide what I think
the right thing to do is, and then see if I can
persuade the Congress and the allies to go
along. Right now, what I want to do is to hear
what they think the right thing to do is, and
the people with whom I consulted last night
were good enough to tell me. And we agreed
that they would set in motion a process to go
back to their committees and try to solicit some
more views.
Q. Mr. President, is it accurate —
Drug Control Policy
Q. [Inaudible]-plan to continue with the pol

icy of hot pursuit like in the Machain case,
or how are you going to deal with cases like
that? Are you going to come to other countries
and kidnap or bring to justice in this country
a person suspected of a crime in a drug situation, like in the Machain case? How are you
going to deal with that situation?
The President. I'm not sure I heard youthe plane flew over. But you asked about the
abduction out of Mexico? Is that what you asked
about?
Q. That's right-if you are going to continue
with that type of policy.
The President. I think I've made my position
clear on that. I think the present ruling of law
is too broad there. I don't believe that the United States should be involved in that unless there
is a clear and deliberate attempt by a government in another country to undermine extradition or undermine the enforcement of its own
laws and our laws on that. So that's been my
position for months and months; I haven't
changed that.
Q. Mr. President, do you expect to get bipartisan support from Congress for the money
you're going to need? The two predecessors of
Mr. Brown accomplished certain things, but not
much. How will you make sure that Mr. Brown
has the money to accomplish —
The President. Well, I think there will be bipartisan support. Keep in mind this is partly
a money problem and partly a resource problem.
We're going to try to do some different things
and attract people who have thought about this
issue. I don't think this is a Republican or a
Democratic issue. There's hardly a family in
America that hasn't been touched directly or
indirectly by this problem. So I feel very hopeful
about it.
Q. [Inaudible]-in the budget, sir?
The President. Well, we recommended more
funds in the budget, and it's very critical to
the whole health reform area. I mean, a big
part of our strategy in this is embodied in the
proposals we'll make on health care to deal with
the whole treatment issue.
Helen [Helen Thomas, United Press International]?
Bosnia
Q. When do you think you will have a decision? Do you have Yeltsin on board now to
do more? And do you think the American people will support a military-[inaudible]-use of


529




Apr. 28 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


military force?
The President. Well, you asked me three
questions. I think there will be a decision soon.
We are working very hard on it. There are a
lot of very practical questions that have to be
asked and answered. As you know, it is a very
difficult matter.
I believe that when we do make a decision,
we will be, as we have been all along, consulting
with our allies in the United Nations. And I
think there is a fair chance that we'll be able
to get the U.N. to go along with what we decide
to do if we have some consultations as we go
along; as we have.
I think President Yeltsin-I don't know what
he will say. It depends in part, obviously, on
what we recommend. But I'll tell you this: I've
been very pleased by the positions that he has
taken both publicly and privately recently. And
even in the midst of his own election, when
it might have hurt him politically, Russia did
not veto our attempts to get much tougher sanctions. And I think he's been pretty clear since
the election that he's not at all happy about
the continuation of Serbian aggression and the
refusal to negotiate in good faith and try to
settle this war and stop the ethnic cleansing.
So I feel pretty good about that.
Q. Mr. President, how are you going to tell
the American people
Drug Control Policy
Q. Mr. President, a former drug czar, Bill
Bennett, said today that you have gutted the
Office by cutting it down, cutting the personnel.
How do you answer that?
The President. Well, my answer to thatmaybe I should refer you to Congressman Rangel. I spoke with him when we were trying
to figure out what to do about this budget. And
what I perceived happened in that office before
is that it was a large office that operated basically separate from the rest of the Government.
It has no legal authority to compel the behavior
of any law enforcement officials, and it obviously
has no legal authority over all the State and
local people and the nonprofit people who are
involved in drug education and treatment. So
the real issue is whether it has the mechanisms


necessary to pull all the levers in the Federal
Government and pull people together.
And I think by putting the Office in the Cabinet, by coordinating all of our national policies
throughout the Federal Government, and by
having a staff that can support that function,
it's much more likely that we're going to be
effective.
And I also would tell you that I believe in
rhetoric in the war against drugs. I know that
works. I think the education programs work,
the prevention programs work, but it needs to
be more than rhetoric. And I think it will also
be perceived that I have appointed the most
experienced person with the best record and
the least political person who ever held this
job. And I think that will count for something,
too, with the Republicans and the Democrats.
Take Our Daughters to Work Day
Q. Where's Chelsea?
The President. Well, we discussed it this
morning and she said, "You know, it's easier
for me; you work where you live. I know what
it's like." She said, "I missed a lot of school
last month, so I'm going to school."
Q. Would she have gone to work with you
or Hillary?
The President. Actually, she thought it was
just for mothers to take their daughters. I said,
"No, no, fathers can, too." She said, "Well, you
both work where you live. I'm going to school."
But she's spent some time with us over here.
Health Care Reform
Q. Have you firmly decided not to delay
health care because it might risk your budget
proposal, sir?
The President. I think what we're talking
about is not a risk.
Thank you very much.
NOTE: The President spoke at 12:30 p.m. in the
Rose Garden at the White House. A biography
of the nominee was made available by the Office
of the Press Secretary. A portion of the exchange
could not be verified because the tape was incomplete.


530




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Apr. 28


Exchange With Reporters Prior to a Meeting With National Governors'
Association Representatives on Health Care Reform
April 28, 1993


Q. Mr. President, do you feel that you can
extend health care to all the uninsured in the
firstThe President. I think we're going to have
a very successful health care program that will
be very much like the one I talked about when
I started the campaign. It will be very good.
I think

Q. But do you think you can do it?
The President. Wait until we come out with
it; you'll see.
NOTE: The exchange began at 4:37 p.m. in the
State Dining Room at the White House. A tape
was not available for verification of the content
of this exchange.


Letter to Congressional Leaders Transmitting a Report on Nonproliferation
in South Asia
April 28, 1993


Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. Chairman:)
As required under section 620F(c) of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related
Programs Appropriations Act, 1993 (22 U.S.C.
2376(c)), I am transmitting a report entitled
"Progress Toward Regional Nonproliferation in
South Asia." The report is unclassified.
This is the first report required on this subject
and reflects information available as of March
19, 1993. Events after March 18, 1993, will be
included in the next report.


Sincerely,
WILLIAM J. CLINTON
NOTE: Identical letters were sent to Thomas S.
Foley, Speaker of the House of Representatives;
William H. Natcher, chairman, House Committee
on Appropriations; Robert C. Byrd, chairman,
Senate Committee on Appropriations; and Claiborne Pell, chairman, Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.


Statement by the Press Secretary on the President's Meeting With the
Dalai Lama
April 28, 1993


The President and the Vice President met
yesterday with His Holiness the Dalai Lama and
discussed issues relating to Tibet.
"The Dalai Lama is internationally revered
for his spiritual and moral leadership," the President said. "As a Nobel Peace Prize winner and


committed advocate of nonviolent change and
resolution of disputes, I deeply appreciated
hearing the Dalai Lama's views on the situation
in China, including Tibet. The administration
continues to urge Beijing and the Dalai Lama
to revive a dialog between them and presses
China to address human rights abuses in Tibet."


531




Apr. 28 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


Nomination for Posts at the Departments of Education and Energy
April 28, 1993


The President announced today that he intends to nominate former San Francisco superintendent of schools Ramon Cortines to be Assistant Secretary of Education for Intergovernmental and Interagency Affairs and Jay Hakes,
a top aide to Senator Bob Graham of Florida,
to be Administrator of the Energy Information
Administration.


"Ramon Cortines and Jay Hakes have both
distinguished themselves as public servants in
their own States and at the national level," said
the President. "I am grateful that they have
agreed to continue their service as part of my
administration."
NOTE: Biographies of the nominees were made
available by the Office of the Press Secretary.


Nomination for Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission
April 28, 1993


The President today announced his intention
to nominate Arthur Levitt, Jr., owner of the
Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call and formerly
chairman of the American Stock Exchange, as
a member of the Securities and Exchange Commission. Once Mr. Levitt is confirmed as a
member, the President intends to designate him
Chairman of the SEC.
"Backed by 20 years of experience in high


finance and newly introduced to the workings
of Capitol Hill, Arthur Levitt is well prepared
to take the helm at the SEC," the President
said. "I have full confidence he will use his
office wisely to strengthen public confidence in
our country's financial agencies."
NOTE: A biography of the nominee was made
available by the Office of the Press Secretary.


Remarks Prior to a Meeting With Members of the House Ways and Means
Committee and an Exchange With Reporters
April 29, 1993


The President. Let me just make a brief remark, and then I'll answer your questions.
First, I want to thank these members of the
Ways and Means Committee for coming in for
this meeting. This morning's economic figures
on the performance of the United States economy in the first 3 months of the year clearly,
I think, support the policies of this administration. They support filling out and implementing
the budget commitment that the Congress has
made to reduce the deficit and to increase targeted investments and to generate jobs.
It also plainly proves, I think, that the administration was right in trying to hedge against
this economic slow growth by passing the jobs
bill that the House of Representatives passed


and that the Senate wanted to pass. It proves
that we were right in both reducing the deficit
and in trying to create some jobs right now
in this economy. But it also proves that the
long-term interests of the country will be served
if we fulfill our commitments on the budget.
The budget, I think, is well under way. The
Ways and Means Committee had a good day
yesterday. And I think we can continue to show
our commitment to bring the deficit down and
to target our investments in areas that will create jobs. We'll have a long-term plan that's good.
But it also proves, I think clearly, beyond any
doubt, that the strategy of the administration
to create some more jobs right now was the
right strategy. The American people still need


532




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Apr. 29


more employment, and we're going to do our
best to give it to them.
The First 100 Days
Q. Mr. President, 100 days, have there been
mistakes? Are there things you would do differently? What have you learned, what lessons?
The President. Well, I learned that things are
not going to change quite as fast as I wanted
them  to. But I noticed there was-one columnist a day or two ago in one of the major
papers pointed out that at least the American
people know that the Democratic Party is serious and the President is serious about deficit
reduction. They know we're going to do something about health care reform. They know
we're going to try to be partners with the private
sector in rebuilding the economy. And they
know we're trying to make the Government
work again, with the national service program
that I will announce tomorrow and a whole
other range of issues to try to give people educational and other opportunities. So I feel basically quite good about what's happened.
But this country has some serious problems,
and we're going to have to get everybody serious
about dealing with the problems. Now, I am
very impressed so far with the work that we've
been able to do with the House and with the
majority in the Senate in getting the deficit
down and in focusing on the investment needs
of our people. But we've got a lot of work
to do.
I don't know that 100 days is a rational category, but if you look at how much we've done
and how much is well underway now as compared with most previous administrations in a
similar time period, I think we're doing pretty
well.
Q. Did you take on too much, Mr. President?
Bosnia
Q. Have you reached a decision on Bosnia
yet, Mr. President?
The President. Helen [Helen Thomas, United
Press International], I have not. As you probably
know, General Powell was away for most of


the week in Europe. And I want to see and
talk with him personally and have some other
consultations on some of the military issues. And
I have not. But we will do so soon, and then
we'll begin some pretty aggressive consultations
with our allies.
President's Agenda
Q. [Inaudible]-took on too much, Mr. President? Do you have some concerns about that?
The President. No, I will. You know, it's a
question of-the Vice President has a word for
it, sequence and timing, I think he calls it. I
believe I got hired to try to do something about
the economy and the health care issue, and to
try to promote political reform and many other
things we're trying to do. When we put all these
things out here, I don't expect them all to be
resolved right away. But I think we're going
to focus on the budget first. That's what we're
doing today. Then we're going to take up, we're
going to focus on health care.
But this country still needs to remember that
we've got to do these things to put people back
to work and to solve their economic problems.
That is the issue, the economy. And that is
what we are spending-I'm spending two-thirds
of my time or more on the economy and health
care. And that's what I hope we can do in
the Congress in the few weeks ahead.
Q. So you're more optimistic than Mr. Panetta? You're more optimistic than Mr. Panetta?
The President. I have more faith in Mr. Panetta's colleagues than he does. [Laughter]
I think we're going to bring this deficit down,
and I think we're going to get some investments
passed. I think we're going to turn this economy
around. I wish we could have done it faster.
I still think we ought to create some jobs now.
I think that was a mistake. But I think we just
keep going. We'll make the progress we can
and go on.
NOTE: The President spoke at 10:20 a.m. in the
Roosevelt Room at the White House. A tape was
not available for verification of the content of
these remarks.


533




Apr. 29 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993
Remarks to Justice Department Employees
April 29, 1993


Thank you very much. When Janet Reno was
confirmed, she said she never wanted to be
called General, but only Janet. But somehow
I feel I should call her General. She certainly
seemed in command to me yesterday up on
the Hill.
I want to say to all of you what an incredible
honor it has been for me as a citizen of this
country, as well as President, to be in the Justice
Department for the first time, to walk down
the halls and to see the wonderful work that
was done more than 50 years ago now in building this great building during the Great Depression, when President Roosevelt was trying to
lift the spirits of the country by putting the
people to work-that's still a pretty good idea,
I think; to walk into the Attorney General's office and see the magnificent portrait of Robert
Kennedy, who was my favorite Attorney General
from my childhood; and mostly just to shake
hands with all the employees here. I think it
is so easy for us to forget, in the ebb and flow
of events when we were so focused on the moment, and easy for the American people to forget that every day there are so many Americans
who could have chosen a different life, who
get up every day and come to work in this
building because they believe in simple justice
and fairness and in doing right by the American
people. And I want you to know that I appreciate that very, very much, and I thank you
for your service.
After years of taking a different course, I am
doing my best to turn this Government around,
to change the way things operate here, to convince the American people that we are serious
about the economy, serious about reducing the
deficit, serious about investing in the real needs
of our people, serious about providing fairness
to the middle class and to others who are willing
to work hard and play by the rules in America,
and serious about trying to bring all the people
of this country together again in a great national
community in which we all recognize that we
are in this together.
The changes we are making go well beyond
policy and particular bills and, I hope, beyond
politics to a whole new idea of hope in this
country as we move toward the 21st century,


the idea that we can keep the American dream
alive, preserve our basic values, and make the
new future that all of you and your children
deserve.
I thought about this a lot when I was attorney
general, that when you work to ensure the full
protection of the law for every citizen, you help
to sustain the most fundamental values of democracy and, indeed, to provide for the freedom
of all. I know most of you came here with
similar feelings for the law. I have enormous
respect for your motives. I come from a generation that revered the law because we believed
it gave us the tools to help people and, in my
part of the country, that it was the only instrument that would ever enable us all, black and
white together, to live as equals.
I still believe those things. Today before I
came over here, I had a whole string of people
into my office who I had known for years and
years and years, and they were laughing about
how sometimes I may seem almost naive because I genuinely feel more idealism and hope
today than I did in the first day I entered public
life, than I did on the first day I cast a vote
as a young man. I still believe that we can
make a difference, that we can live up to the
ideals enshrined in the Constitution, and that
we have the obligation to do so. And I asked
Janet Reno to become the Attorney General of
the United States because I knew she believed
that, too.
Since I became President I have spent a good
deal of time trying to focus on law enforcement
issues, because I saw all across this land in the
last year and a half when I ran for President
the enormous amount of insecurity and fear that
so many Americans felt, living in their homes,
walking on their streets. Many of you may have
heard me tell this story, at least in the media,
before, but one of the most gripping things that
ever happened to me in the race for President
occurred in a hotel in New York.
It was about a week before the New Hampshire primary. I looked like I was yesterday's
news, to say the least. I was walking through
this corridor to go to a big fundraiser full of
people who wondered why they had bought tickets. I was feeling sorry for myself. And a man


534




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Apr. 29


who worked in the hotel as a waiter stuck his
hand out and grabbed my hand, and he said,
"My 10-year-old boy studies the Presidential
race in school, and he says you should be President, so I will be for you. I'm an immigrant
from Greece." And he said, "I will be for you
because my boy wants me to be." But he said,
"You know, where I came from we were so
much poorer, but at least we were free." And
he said, "Now when my boy walks outside from
our apartment, he cannot go across the street
and play in the park unless I am with him
because he won't be safe. We live only two
blocks from the school, and he cannot walk to
his school unless I am with him because he
won't be safe. So if I do what my boy wants
me to do and I vote for you, will you make
my boy free?"
And all of a sudden I couldn't remember what
I was feeling sorry for myself about. But I did
remember one of the reasons that I wanted
to be President and one of the solemn duties
of the Government of the United States and
every other law enforcement jurisdiction in this
country. And I think it's time that we move
from the incredible gulf between rhetoric and
reality to doing some very specific things that
will make the American people safer. We ought
to pass and sign the Brady bill.
I will propose a major new safe schools program so that children at least can be drug free
and safe in their schools. I have just appointed
Lee Brown, who was the police chief of Atlanta,
Houston, and New York City, to be the Director
of the Drug Control Office, the first police officer ever to hold that position, a person who
pioneered community policing and actually can
show how the crime rate went down in communities where there were enough police officers
on the street to walk the beat and know their
neighbors and work to prevent crime, not just
to catch criminals after crimes had occurred.
I have asked for more resources for drug education programs and treatment programs. And
I want to increase police presence in our communities, so I've asked for substantial new funding to eventually add up to 100,000 more police
officers on our streets.
Some of them will come, I hope, through
the crime bill that I hope we can pass this
year that was filibustered last year. That's a
thing, institution, I've learned to have less and
less respect for as we go along. [Laughter] Some
of them will come from incentives we give, from


people coming out of the service as we build
down our armed services and give people incentives to move into police or teaching. Some of
them will come from the national service corps,
which we will announce tomorrow in New Orleans, as people who will pay off their college
loans by working as police officers. I had hoped
that some would come from the jobs program,
which contained $200 million for more police
officers. But we are going to work together to
do this. When I sat in the Attorney General's
office just a few moments ago, it's the second
issue she brought up. She said, we've still got
to deliver for the American people. We have
to give them the police officers they need and
the security they need. And we're going to do
it.
I also want our Government to set an example. I want us to have a tougher child support
enforcement program. I've asked my appointees
to adhere to the strictest ethics law ever applied
to executive branch appointees. I have cut my
own White House staff and begun a Governmentwide review of every program we operate,
so that we can show the American people we
are trying to be accountable and responsible and
effective and that we're trying to make sure
that when we do something in Washington, it's
for the good of the people out there who pay
the bills and not just for ourselves.
Our country is great because we have succeeded over 200 years in providing opportunity
to all, freedom of speech and worship and association to all, providing equal justice to all. We
have become the custodian of freedom's dream
for the entire world because people like you
have decided to give your lives to this great
call.
My goals for this Justice Department are simple. I want it to be free of political controversy
and political abuse. I want it to be an innovator
in crime reduction and in law enforcement. I
want it to create a genuine partnership with
those who work with us in State and local systems of justice. I want it to set an example
in the practice of law and in the protection
of civil rights that will make all Americans
proud. And I want the American people to believe that you are their partners in making our
communities, our children, and our families safe
again.
In closing, let me say how very, very proud
I am to name these seven Attorneys General,
Assistant Attorneys General, to your Justice De

535




Apr. 29 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


partment team. Some of them are new to me;
some I have known and admired a very long
time. At least one of them once sued me; shows
you how broadminded I am. [Laughter] And
I can tell you, I am very pleased that each
of them has agreed to join our administration.
This may surprise you if you've been reading
the press reports, but with these appointments,
our administration has in 100 days nominated
172 people for consideration by the Senate. At
the same point in their administrations, President Reagan had named 152 people, and President Bush had named 99. By any measure,
we're doing a fairly good job in staffing up this
administration with high-quality folks. And I
might add, since I look across here I can't resist
saying, a third of them are women, for a change.
Today when I walked through these halls and
I went to the Attorney General's office, I
couldn't help but remember that it was 25 years
ago in this springtime when Robert Kennedy,
by then a Senator from New York, was running
for President and was subsequently killed, just
2 days before I graduated from college, with
one of my roommates working in his office. It's
impossible for me still, especially now as I think
back across those 25 years, not to be moved
by his memory and his work and the power
of the example he set for all Americans, regardless of their gender or color or station in life.


I hope 25 years from now, another daughter
or son of America will walk in here and remember what you have accomplished here and be
moved. I believe the tradition of greatness here
is still very much alive. I believe that Janet Reno
and the team that she is assembling can bring
it to life for all Americans. The American people
want you to succeed in your work; I do, too.
Working together, we can be proud to honor
the tradition of the Justice Department by ensuring its great future.
Thank you all, and God bless you.
NOTE: The President spoke at 1:12 p.m. in the
Courtyard at the Department of Justice.
The President named the following Assistant
Attorneys General:
Walter Dellinger, Office of Legal Counsel
Lani Guinier, Civil Rights Division
Frank W. Hunger, Civil Division
Anne K. Bingaman, Antitrust Division
Eleanor Dean Acheson, Office of Policy Development
Sheila Foster Anthony, Office of Legislative
Affairs
Gerald Torres, Environment and Natural Resources Division
Biographies of the nominees were made available by the Office of the Press Secretary.


Remarks at a Reception for the President's Health Care Task Force and
an Exchange With Reporters
April 29, 1993


The President. Thank you very much. Let me
say how pleased I am that one of the things
that even people who care about health care
can't control, the weather, cooperated with us
today. How delighted we are to have you here
to just say a simple thank you for all the work
you've done.
I have a few other things I want to say, but
I think I should begin by introducing the First
Lady by way of saying that 10 years ago we
tried this once before when I was Governor
of our State. And it was obvious that we needed
to dramatically overhaul our education system,
and I asked her to chair this committee. And


she looked at me as if I had lost my mind
because we knew we had to make everybody
in the State mad to do what needed to be
done. And it turned out to be all right. We
had to change a lot of things, but it was one
of those remarkable moments in history when
all the people were ahead of all the policymakers.
I think we may be there again with health
care. And I think that if all of this works I
will be once again indebted to my wonderful
wife and all of you. And I just want you to
know that she has sung your praises to the
Moon from the beginning of this. And so I


536




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Apr. 29


hope that you think that she did as good a
job as she thinks you did, because I think you
were both pretty great. Thank you very much.
[At this point, Hillary Clinton and Tipper Gore
made statements welcoming members of the task
force and commending their efforts.]
The President. Thank you very much. You
know, I wish there were something more I could
do for all of you. I think you deserve a medal
just for putting up with Ira's tollgates. I can't
believe Ira's hiding back there. He's probably
sharpening darts or something. [Laughter]
I want to say a special word of thanks to
Tipper Gore for her involvement and for the
work that she's done to personally sensitize me
to a lot of the mental health issues that I think
all Americans need to know more about.
I want to say, too, that the Vice President
is not here tonight because he is on an errand
for our administration in Florida and could not
be here. But he sat in all those meetings with
me, that we had, long hours trying to make
sure that we understood the implications of
every issue and understood all the incredible
work that all of you have done.
I want to say a special word of thanks to
Ira. Hillary and I have known Ira a long time.
Ira and I were at Oxford together back in the
late sixties, and we always used to say when
Ira walked into a room he doubled the IQ of
whoever was in there, however many people
were in there. [Laughter] I don't know how
many of his brain cells he has departed forever
in this endeavor, but-[laughter]-I hope that
part of this endeavor will lead some of you
to encourage him to take more care of his
health. I don't think he's had any sleep since
this whole thing started. He's really been a
champ, and Hillary and I are very grateful for
his efforts.
I want to say, too, that there are a lot of
people who said, well-I mean, I never could
believe this-for years and years and years we
all complained of gridlock and do-nothing and
nothing ever got done. And the last 5 days,
I see all these articles complaining that I'm trying to do too much. [Laughter] I plead guilty
to that.
But the overwhelming focus of this administration has been on the economy, jobs, deficit
reduction, and. investment in our people and
on health care. That's what we have focused
on, the things that will lift this country up again


and bring this country together again and give
people some measure of security, even as they
go out in the highly changed and charged world
that we're moving toward.
I wish I could write a book. I wish I could
even remember all the incredible stories I heard
along this last year and a half when we were
out on the campaign trail, related to health care.
I'll never forget the woman I met in Columbus, Ohio who had six or seven kids and had
to give up a $50,000 a year job because one
of her children was so sick, and the only way
she could get any care was to become Medicaid
eligible; the farmers that I met along the way
who couldn't get health insurance, or if they
did, it took up the whole profit from the farms
in the average years; the small business person
I met who had only four employees and was
chagrined because of the exploding cost of insurance in his small group, he had to go to
a $2,500 deductible, and how badly he felt for
his own employees; the big businesses that told
me about their inability to compete in a global
economy because they had to spot their competitors so much; the doctors that I know who
wanted to be good doctors and wanted to reach
out to people who were spending more and
more of their time and money on paperwork
and regulation, and on and on and on.
The human dimension of this issue is utterly
enormous. The economic dimension is also very
great. We're here, struggling to really be serious
about reducing the Government's deficit, and
under every scenario we can cut it quite a bit
in the next 5 years, and then it starts to go
right up again because of health care costs. So
there has rarely been a time in the history of
this country when an economic issue and a social issue, when an issue that affects all the
big people and all the little people and all the
people in between has been so tightly joined,
as this health care issue.
I know there are those who say, "Well, we
shouldn't try to deal with this. It ought to be
enough just to have a fundamental budget that
dramatically changes the priorities of America."
But if you want to get rid of the deficit and
have any money left to invest in your children
and your education, your economy and your future, we have to do both.
And so I just want to reaffirm to you that
all of your efforts have not been in vain, and
I'm going to do my best to give us a health
care reform package that can pass the Congress


537




Apr. 29 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


this year. And I'm going to do my best to fight
for it, and I hope you will, too.
It may be that we can only do one thing
at a time in this town. That may be, but I'm
not prepared to acknowledge that. Congress has
worked out smaller bills, but they're all different. I mean, they've got an agreement on
the family and medical leave, and now they're
apparently going to send me the motor voter
bill I've been working on. And today, they voted
for a modified line-item veto in the House,
which I thought was remarkable, the first bill
we've had with real bipartisan support.
I think we can do more than one thing. And
I think if people understand that you have to
do both of these things-have a new budget
and a new direction and a new approach to
health care to get control of our deficit and
our financial future and to have something left
to invest in our people, our economy, and our
own future, I think we can do it.
And I just have to ask all of you to be committed now to be agents of change. You've done
all this work on this program. And you know,
the final thing we come out with, none of you
will agree with all of it. I won't agree with
all of it. We're going to do the best we can
to put something together that's good for America and that we can get through the United
States Congress. And we're going to do our best
to continue to reach out to both Democrats
and Republicans as we have throughout this entire process, to try to make this an American
effort, not a Bill Clinton effort, not a Democratic effort, not a Republican effort, but an
American effort. America needs this.
I'll say this: You know, when this group began
to get together, I kept reading all this stuff
about secrecy. And you know, shoot, I've read
more about everything you've done in the press
than anything else I've seen. [Laughter] If you
can't keep a secret in Washington with two people, you sure can't keep a secret with 1,000.
[Laughter]
I think you've been great. I want to ask you
to commit now to do what you can. A lot of
you don't come from here. A lot of you live
out in the country where a lot of these problems
are being grappled with. When you go home,
try to mobilize your friends to tell your Members of Congress that the time is now. The
time is now to deal with this. And if you do


live here and you have even more contacts on
the Hill or with others that can influence this
process, use your time now to pass it. Don't
let all your work have been in vain. This is
a magic moment in the history of this issue.
People have been working for decades just to
have the circumstances which exist now. And
I hardly see anybody who doesn't admit that
the time has come to do something, to do something bold and do something substantial, to do
something we can live with from years to come
that will really make our country better off, our
people more secure, healthier, and happier.
We're going to have enough insecurity as it
is in America, and everybody is, with all the
changes that are going on in this world. The
least we can do is to join the mainstream of
the world in taking care of our people better,
providing a comprehensive, affordable, good,
quality health care system. And it's good for
the economy. If we can get that idea across,
we can prevail.
I need your help now to carry the fight to
the floors of the Congress, both Chambers and
both parties. And let's lift this issue up. Let's
keep it high in America's mind and heart, and
let's make sure that all this work you have done
will be rewarded for generations to come.
This is a real moment in the history of this
country. You can be a part of it. Now the time
has come to bring it home.
Thank you very much.
Bosnia
Q. Mr. President, does this reconvening of
the peace talks take the pressure off you at
all, sir?
The President. Well, let's see what happens
there. Let's see what happens. Let's see how
serious they are. You know, they've said things
before and not meant it. If they mean it now,
so much the better. I'll see.
Q. How are you going to know if they mean
it, sir?
The President. We will know them by their
deeds, not their words.
NOTE: The President spoke at 6:38 p.m. on the
South Lawn at the White House. In his remarks,
he referred to Ira Magaziner, Senior Adviser to
the President for Policy Development.


538




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Apr. 29


Statement on the National Commission to Ensure a Strong Competitive
Airline Industry
April 29, 1993


Today I am, in conjunction with the bipartisan
congressional leadership, releasing the names of
the members of the National Commission to
Ensure a Strong and Competitive Airline Industry.
This Commission will enable us to start planning the revitalization of one of our country's
most important industries, one of our most important exporters, one of our Nation's most important employers: the aircraft manufacturers
and carriers that have been the pride of the
United States and the world's leaders since the
beginning of aviation. I pledge that this Commission will have the full resources of every
Agency of the Federal Government at its disposal.
Each of the individuals on this Commission
brings a strong record of accomplishment in his
or her field, together with a keen sense of the
importance of aviation in a global economy.
Each of them has demonstrated the ability to
look toward the future and the energy and intellect to shape the course of the current airline
debate.
I would like to thank the bipartisan congressional leadership for their support and leadership in creating this Commission and in selecting persons of such high caliber.
The Chairman of the Commission will be an
old friend and former colleague of mine, former
Virginia Governor Gerald L. Baliles. Perhaps no
other Governor in the past decade devoted more
thought and attention to the global nature of
the challenges facing his State. Governor Baliles
always recognized that the nature of competition
had changed fundamentally and that any strategy
to shape that change must be rooted in a vision
extending beyond our borders. He recognized
that aviation is the lifeblood of commerce in
a global economy and made it an important
part of his State's competitiveness strategy. That
is what we must do now at a national level.
As the legislation creating this Commission
was debated in Congress, it became clear that
there are many different explanations of why
our airline carriers and manufacturers are facing
such financial difficulty. And those issues will
be debated. But it will be valuable for the Com

mission to take a step back from that debate
and examine the context in which the aviation
industry operates. To the extent the Commission
can help us understand how we got to where
we are today and provide a vision for a competitive future, it will have rendered an invaluable
service. I look forward to receiving their report
and pledge the full cooperation of my entire
administration in their work.
NOTE: The Office of the Press Secretary announced the membership of the Commission as
follows:
Members appointed by the President:
Gerald L. Baliles, partner, Hunton & Williams, and former Governor of Virginia,
Richmond, VA (Chair)
Bette B. Anderson, president, Kelly, Anderson
and Associates, Inc., Washington, DC
Sylvia A. de Leon, partner, Akin, Gump,
Strauss, Hauer and Feld, Washington, DC
Herbert D. Kelleher, chief executive officer,
Southwest Airlines, Dallas, TX
Gina F. Thomas, managing attorney for international and regulatory affairs, Federal Express Corp., Memphis, TN
Members appointed by the Senate:
Charles "Chip" M. Barclay, president, American Association of Airport Executives,
Washington, DC
Robert F. Daniell, chief executive officer,
United Technologies, West Hartford, CT
Felix G. Rohatyn, managing partner, Lazard
Freres and Co., New York, NY
Russell W. Meyer, Jr., chairman and chief
executive officer, Cesna Aircraft Company,
Wichita, KS
Abraham D. Sofaer, partner, Hughes, Hubbard and Reed, Washington, DC
Members appointed by the House:
Captain J. Randolph Babbitt, president, Airline Pilots Association (ALPA), Oakton, VA
John Peterpaul, vice president, International
Association of Machinists (IAM), Silver
Spring, MD
Sandra Pianalto, first vice president, Federal
Reserve Bank, Cleveland, OH


539




Apr. 29 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993
John E. Robson, Lister Crown distinguished
faculty fellow, Yale University, New Haven,
CT
Daniel M. Kasper, director of transportation
practice, Harbridge House, Inc., Boston,
MA
Ex officio (nonvoting) members:
Laura D'Andrea Tyson, Chair, President's
Council of Economic Advisers, CA


Senator J. James Exon, NE
Senator Ernest Hollings, SC
Senator Patty Murray, WA
Senator John Danforth, MO
Senator Slade Gorton, WA
Representative Richard Gephardt, MO
Representative Robert Borski, PA
Representative Maria Cantwell, WA
Representative Newt Gingrich, GA
Representative Bud Shuster, PA


Remarks and a Question-and-Answer Session on National Service in New
Orleans, Louisiana
April 30, 1993


The President. Thank you. It's good to see
you. How many of you are students here? Okay.
And how many of you are in the Delta Service
Corps? And then, who's here from Teach For
America? That's good. I've got it.
Let me, first of all, say how delighted I am
to be here and how much I appreciate all of
you taking a little time out to talk with me.
You probably know that I am going from here
over to the University of New Orleans to speak
about the national service plan and the new
direct loan plan for college students that will
be announced today and will be introduced
shortly into the Congress.
I have with me today Senator Johnston and
many Members of your congressional delegation
and your Lieutenant Governor and many State
officials here and some people who have come
all the way from Washington to be with us,
the Secretary of Education and Gen. David
Jones, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, a lot of people who believe in you and
your future and all the other young people in
this country.
What I wanted to do today is to try to sort
of set the stage for this speech that I'm going
to go give and also to listen to you a little
bit about the kinds of things that you do now:
Why did you get into this service? Do you believe if there were more opportunities, more
young people would do it?
This program we're going to propose will provide opportunities for tens of thousands of
young people to work before, during, or after
college to build up credit against a college edu

cation or, if they do it afterward, to pay off
their college loans. It will also change the way
young people borrow money to go to college
so that you won't have to pay money back that
you can't afford to pay back. Even if you borrow
a lot of money to go to college, you'll always
pay it back as a percentage of your income,
so that people will be able to, and if you're
not working, you don't have to pay it back. Then
you pay it back as you work. But we're going
to use the tax system and make sure that you
have to pay it back if you can, so there won't
be all the defaults we have now. That will lower
the cost of and the threshold of going to college
for every young person in America who wants
to deal with it.
So I want to increase access to college, but
also it's very important for me to increase the
number of people, starting in our high schools,
who will engage in some form of service.
So I think it would be helpful to me to
know-we can maybe start with the high school
students. If you could talk a little bit about
the service projects you've been involved in and
why you do it and whether you think we can
get a lot more people involved.
Who wants to go first?
[At this point, a student discussed her experience
as a volunteer with the Girl Scouts of America
and the importance of being a role model.]
The President. You know, one of the things
that I think is good about this program is we're
going to build on the organizations at work now
and set it up on a State-by-State basis. And


540




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Apr. 30


a State can certify any program that's working
in that State to be eligible to take young people
for the national service program. So we're not
going to create a whole new network of things.
We're going to build on the programs that are
working.
Anybody else? Anybody from the Delta Service Corps? Go ahead.
[A National Summerbridge Program volunteer
discussed that program.]
The President. Anyone else?
[A student discussed a volunteer program funded
by the Nestle Corp.]
The President. And how many young people
were involved in the project?
Q. We started out with about 40, and then
through attrition, we ended up with about 8
or 10 of us at the end. But it was just a great
feeling to go down there and do that.
The President. What did you learn about
homeless people?
Q. That they're just like us; that they're families and that they want to succeed as badly
as we do and that there are more of them
in the city than I ever thought possible. The
line for that lunch just kept going forever.
[A Delta Service Corps member then discussed
that program.]
The President. Do you have a feeling in the
Teach For America program that you're actually
helping people change their lives?
[A teacher discussed how teachers and the Teach
For America program can be a positive influence
in a student's life.]
The President. The Teach For America program has worked very well. This should help
increase the recruitment, because you'll get
some credit against whatever your accumulated
college loans are to go do that.
What about you? What are you doing?
[A VISTA volunteer stressed the importance of
the literacy program.]
The President. You know, one of the things
that we discovered when we started trying to
put this national service program together is that
there were a whole lot of programs like that
that had been funded at a very limited level
in one Government agency or another. No one
had ever put them all together and figured out
how to get them all to work together. It's one


of the things we're trying to do.
Another thing I want to say about the literacy
issue is that when I was Governor of my State,
I devoted a lot of time to trying to dramatically
increase the number of people who would go
back to get their GED and get into adult literacy programs. We had a huge increase. And
one of the things that we can now tell those
folks, too, is if you're involved in any kind of
service program, you can earn credit to go on
after high school. But you can't get any money
until you get your GED, which I think is important. You know, that will sort of reinforce that.
[A participant stressed that local agencies should
have a role in the national service program.]
The President. That's great. Yes, sir?
[A participant suggested that communities be
given a leading role in the national service program and expressed concern about the motivation of some students in the program. ]
The President. You might, but first, you raise
two issues. Let me respond to the first one.
I, 100 percent, agree with you about having
to be community-based. That's why we went
out of our way not to create some big new
Federal bureaucracy but to require the States
to have community representatives on a board
that can just certify a project in a community
that's plainly working, because otherwise this
whole thing is going to fail. There's no way
we know what's good for your home town or
mine or anybody else's of the Federal Government.
The second thing is: That may be right. You
may have more young people-I hope you do
have more young people coming into the service. It may be that some of them will be just
doing it for the money. But frankly, if you look
at, for example, the GI bill, there's a lot of
evidence people enroll in the military service
in part because of the benefits, but no evidence
that they do it only because they think they're
going to get money on the back end, because
you have to make the effort, you have to go
to it. And I think-or one of you alluded to
this earlier, one of you has already talkedI don't think you can be in these service programs without being changed yourself. I think
it's pretty hard to go all the way through one
and not get connected to the people you're trying to help. I think it's worth the risk to get
more people.


541




Apr. 30 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


I may mess up the numbers here, but there's
a man here with me from New Jersey who is
very successful in business, named Ray Chambers, who has given the rest of his life to try
to help the people in his community and other
communities like his community all over the
country, poor kids growing up with all kinds
of problems. And we were talking about trying
to get more mentors. And he said there's something like 15 million children who need these
mentors and only 100,000, 150,000 of the mentors out there. So I think you have to take
some risk if you put these incentives out that
there will be some people doing it who may
not care that much about it. But first of all,
the benefit is not so great as to look like you're
just giving somebody something. And secondly,
I think most people will themselves be changed
by this, will be reconnected to our country.
Go ahead.
Q. I'm a volunteer for Habitat. We help build
homes for families who might otherwise not
have an opportunity to own a home of their
own.
The President. It's a great program.
[The volunteer discussed both the Habitat for
Humanity and Delta Service Corps experiences
and the importance of giving people the opportunity to provide community service.]
The President. You know, I'm really particularly proud of the Delta Service Corps because
it grew out of the work that was done a few
years ago by the States of Arkansas, Louisiana,
Mississippi, and then Missouri, Kentucky, and
Illinois and the parts that are right along the
river. And we studied the conditions of the
lower Mississippi Delta, and one of the things
that we urged was that some way be found
to bring young people in here to this area to
work. And then the legislators and the Congressmen from our States sponsored this bill that's
really been very impressive. I'm glad to see all
of you here. Walter, did you have
[A Delta Service Corps member stressed the importance of making sure that the volunteers are
suited for their jobs. Another volunteer then suggested that the Delta Service Corps become a
nationwide program. ]
The President. I think it may. And certainly,
things like it will. I think new organizations will
spring up from the grassroots. Just to go back
to the point you made about that, what's the


most likely thing that will happen is that there
will be communities where there are people like
you, but there's no organization. And when this
thing comes out and young people start talking
about it and thinking about it, it'll probably be
much more likely that in every community in
America there will be groups like this.
You know, when I hear all of you talk, one
of the things that, as you know, I worry about
most of the time is how to find enough jobs
for the American people in a world in which
we've had a difficult time in our country creating jobs, and other wealthy countries are having
trouble creating jobs. And a lot of the good
things that happen in the economy now-a lot
of you can do this; most of you probably are
proficient with computers and things like thata lot of the things that happen in the economy
now mean that people can do more with fewer
workers, because they have all this technology.
But one of the things that you cannot substitute people for are the kind of human contacts that you all are engaged in. I mean, a
lot of the people problems of America can only
be solved by people in very small groups or
one on one. So I think there will be a huge
increase in the demand for folks like you to
do what you're doing in the years ahead.
[A student stated that the national service program will probably encourage more students to
become involved in community service.]
The President. That's a terrific point. I know
we've got to quit in a minute, and I want to
give you a chance to talk. But let me say that
people say to me, "Well, can you afford this
program, and what if 250,000, what if 500,000,
what if a million young people want to do this?"
Well, if you think about it, think what we're
paying now for the failures of the present society, think what we're paying now for all the
young people who drop out of school, who have
children when they're children, who get involved
in drugs, who wind up in prisons, who can't
work and draw welfare or food stamps or unemployment or who wind up in homeless shelters,
you think what it's cost us now to do that.
We're living in a world where we need every
person. And I agree with you. I think when
people like you get out of college, you get a
world-class education in a place like Tulane, if
you can get people like that who still are really
aware of what is going on and who understand
the point you made, that homeless people are


542




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Apr. 30


just like us. There are a lot of kids out there
in these homeless shelters. A lot of them can
learn and do real well if they're given a chance.
And if they do well, this is going to affect you
much more than me. One in ten Americans
now is on food stamps.
Now, you think about what your life is going
to be like when you're my age, you have children getting ready to go to college, if we don't
reverse these trends. What's the unemployment
rate in America going to be? What's your tax
burden going to be? What are you going to
be paying it for? What's it going to be like
to be in the streets of your country? This service
thing has so much more to do with your future
in a way than with mine. And I think the point
you made is terrific.


I know we've got to quit, but I want togo ahead.
[A participant stated that working on community
service projects fosters a desire to continue serving others.]
The President. Good for you.
Q. Thank you for visiting.
The President. Thank you all very much.
You're terrific. I feel a lot better about my country every time I see young people like you.
We're going to be fine. Thank you.
NOTE: The President spoke at 11:52 a.m. in the
courtyard at Benjamin Franklin High School. In
his remarks, he referred to Lt. Gov. Melinda
Schwegmann of Louisiana.


Exchange With Reporters in New Orleans
April 30, 1993


Bosnia
Q. [Inaudible]
The President. I'm going to have another
meeting in the morning about it, do a little
more work on the way back today, and then
have another meeting in the morning. And then
I may want to make another round of phone
calls after we meet with the principals. And
I expect then we'll be pretty close to deciding
where we are. I want to get an updated report
on the situation, and I'll ask a lot of questions


about it.
Q. Mr. President, has all this talk about military force already had an impact, sir? Do you
think it's already had an impact?
The President. I hope so. I hope so. I think
it may well have, and I certainly hope so.
NOTE: The exchange began at 1:35 p.m. in the
Health and Physical Education Center at the University of New Orleans. A tape was not available
for verification of the content of this exchange.


Remarks on the National Service Initiative at the University of New
Orleans
April 30, 1993
Thank you very much. I ought to quit while  got a future in politics, don't you? [Applause]
I'm ahead. [Laughter] It is wonderful to be back  And Chancellor O'Brien. I want to thank Senin New Orleans and in Louisiana and to have  ator Breaux for his kind remarks and for his
the first chance I've had since the election to  leadership of the Democratic Leadership Coun

thank you for your support, your electoral votes,
and the education you gave me on my many
trips here during the campaign last year. I'm
glad to be back on this campus. I want to thank
your student body president, Robert Styron. I
thought he gave a good speech. I think he's


cil. I want to acknowledge the presence here
of Senator Johnston and many members of the
Louisiana House and many other Members of
the United States Congress, along with many
others who are here with the Democratic Leadership Council, including my good friend and


543




Apr. 30 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


former colleague, the Governor of New Mexico,
Bruce King, who's here. There are two members
of my Cabinet here, the Secretary of Education,
Dick Riley, and the Secretary of Agriculture,
Mike Espy, also a DLC Vice Chair.
I want to thank all the people who are here
representing volunteer organizations. I met with
some young people just before I came in here
who are scattered around near me from Benjamin Franklin High School just across the way.
[Applause] Absolutely no enthusiasm in that
place. [Laughter] From the Delta Service
Corps., from VISTA, from Summerbridge, from
Teach for America, we also have some students
here, apart from all of you from UNO, we have
some students here who have worked in service
projects at Xavier University and at Tulane. We
also have people here who have been involved
in service for a long time from ACTION, from
the Older Americans Volunteer Program, from
the National Association of Senior Companions
and Foster Grandparents and the National Association of Retired Senior Volunteers. All these
people I am very grateful to.
I'd like to just acknowledge in general the
people who are here from law enforcement organizations and firefighters' organizations and
public employees and teachers' groups who have
helped us on this national service project. And
I want to say a special word of thanks to three
other people. First of all, Gen. David Jones,
a former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
who has worked very hard helping us put together this program, who is here. General Jones,
thank you for being here. Secondly, a remarkable gentleman from New Jersey, an immensely
successful businessman who retired early and
is devoting his entire life to community service
to rebuild the lives and the neighborhoods of
the people in his community in New Jersey and
now helping others around the country, a founding Member of the Points of Light Foundation,
Mr. Ray Chambers, who is here. And I'd like
to pay a little special attention to two members
of Congress who are not here and to one who
is, for their long work on the whole idea of
national service. The two in the Senate who
are not here are Senator Harris Wofford from
Pennsylvania and Senator Sam Nunn from Georgia. And then Representative Dave McCurdy
from Oklahoma, thank you for all of the work
you've done on this over the years.
I am glad to be here. You know, when I
come down here I always sort of relax. I don't


know why that is. I timed it just in time for
the Jazz Festival, but I left my saxophone at
the White House.
This is the 100th day of my administration.
In Washington, some say it marks a milestone.
But in many ways it's just another day at the
office for what we're trying to do in changing
America. In the last 99 days we have worked
relentlessly to address the pressing and longignored needs of the American people and to
bring to the Government something it has not
seen in a long time: an acknowledgment that
bold action is needed, and needed now, to secure and enlarge America's future, and that in
order to do it we not only have to change programs, we have to change the way the Government works and engage the energies of the
American people in the process.
In the last 100 days I think we have begun
to change the direction in which our country
has been going for a long time, and to go toward
a new direction more like the one the American
people demanded last November. We've also
started an unprecedented debate in our Nation's
capital about big ideas and better lives across
our Nation, ideas that in many cases were
shaped and nurtured by some of the people
who are here today, as Senator Breaux said earlier, the members of the Democratic Leadership
Council, of which I am proud to be a founding
member. Unlike most organizations, the DLC
has done more than just talk about the problems
in our country. It has made an honest effort
to develop real ideas about how to restore the
American economy, and make the Government
work, and rebuild the confidence and the link
that exists between the American people and
their Government when things are at their best
here. And it's been a laboratory for experimentation and solutions.
During my years with the DLC we really
tried to refine our philosophy of what it would
mean to take not only the Democratic Party
but the United States of America in a new direction, to make our country work again and to
reward work and family, to encourage education
and enterprise, to establish what I have often
called a new covenant with the American people: Creating opportunity but demanding responsibility from all so that once again we could
be a true American community where we know
and believe and live as if we're all in this together. This group has conceived many of the
ideas that I've advocated since I've been in


544




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Apr. 30


Washington from setting a limit on welfare and
putting people to work to police reform and
community policing to rewarding work of lowincome working people by having an earnedincome tax credit that would lift the working
poor with children out of poverty. So we could
say if you work 40 hours a week in this country,
you have a child in the house, you ought not
to be poor. These are the kinds of things that
this organization has done. They helped to develop the idea I want to talk to you today about
that has so much to do with the future of the
young people here and throughout our country:
national service. This is an organization about
ideas.
Now in Washington, as you might imagine,
we don't always agree with one another. And
that is good-that's why we've got a system
where the Government's divided up and we
have two parties and we have people fighting
all the time-as long as it's about ideas. But
too often we've seen that the debate over big
ideas gets mired in petty politics. I know one
thing: The American people are tired of gridlock
and petty politics. If we're going to fight, they
want us to fight over ideas and the future of
this country.
In the past 99 days we tried to address the
problems the American people told me they
wanted to be addressed. We focused more than
anything else on the economy, passing the outline of a budget that will reduce the deficit
by more than $500 billion, increase investment
in education and technologies and the things
that will create the economy of the 21st century
that all of you need so that you'll have good
and decent jobs and a decent future laying the
groundwork for a more prosperous tomorrow.
Just in 100 days we've announced a policy
to help to convert the defense cutbacks and
the economic opportunities for people who are
losing their jobs because of the military cutbacks; to take a new direction in technology
to create more opportunities for our people; to
be more aggressive in preserving the environment, but do it in a way that creates jobs, not
a way that costs jobs; to have a trade policy
that will really reflect our common interest with
other nations and expanding jobs and opportunities everywhere. We've begun the long-overdue
renovation of the American economic base. The
question now, unlike 100 days ago, the question
is now not whether we're going to reduce the
deficit but how and how much. The question


now is not whether the Government will have
a new partnership with the private sector to
shape the economy but exactly what the details
will be and how much our part will be.
We've also taken on the issue of health care,
something million of Americans cried out for
last year. I got a letter today from a young
woman I shook hands with whose-literally, her
life is on the line, and she cannot get health
insurance. It is wrong that in this Nation-we
are the only advanced country in the world with
34 million people without health insurance. It
is wrong that millions of Americans cannot
change their jobs without losing their health insurance because they or a child or a spouse
has been sick. It is wrong that the price of
health care goes up 2.5 times the rate of inflation every year. And it is wrong that we spend
30 percent more of our income than any other
country on Earth on health care and have less
to show for it. But it is also wrong to assume
that there is some magic, quick answer. That's
why we've been working with a task force headed by the First Lady and over 400 people from
all aspects of health care to do something about
this.
But now, for the American people the issue
is no longer whether we're going to address
the health care crisis, whether we're going to
provide security to hard-working middle class
Americans, whether we're going to cover the
people who aren't covered, whether we're going
to control costs, but how are we going to do
it and how fast and when are we going to begin.
I hope the answer is soon. And not too soon
is soon enough for me.
There was a lot of discussion last year about
how bad the Government was, and it didn't
work, and it was bloated, it needed a change.
Look at the last 100 days: I've tried to set an
example by offering a budget to reduce the
White House staff by 25 percent; by putting
the lid on and reducing the Federal bureaucratic
expenses, the administrative expenses of the
Federal Government by over $10 billion; by
moving dramatically to reduce the influence of
special interests on Executive Branch appointments by having the toughest ethics laws and
restrictions on people becoming lobbyists for
other interests when they leave the payroll of
the President of the United States; by asking
the Vice President to share the most sweeping
review of the way the Federal Government
works in a generation, with a promise of real


545




Apr. 30 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


reform and reinventing Government, something
else this organization has long believed in.
We are moving. And the Congress is moving
to join. The Congress has voted to cut the administrative costs of running the Congress,
something many of you never thought you would
see happen. They did that. The House of Representatives voted yesterday to give the President of the United States a modified line-item
veto, and I hope the Senate will follow their
lead. I hope soon they will send to my desk
the motor voter bill which will make it easier
for young people and other people to vote and
participate in their country's political process.
And there will be campaign finance reform and
lobby reform legislation and a crime bill that
will put more police on the street and give us
the capacity we need to take our communities
back. These things are going on. The question
is no longer whether we're going to reform the
way Government works but how fast and how
much and how well. And those are the right
questions, my fellow Americans, good questions
to ask.
And now I come to the last, and in many
ways the most important issue that we have
tried to address-the economy, yes; health care,
yes; reform in the way the Government works,
yes-but also what about the American people.
How can each American make a contribution?
How can each American do the work that all
Americans must, taking responsibility for himself
or herself and growing up into a vibrant community? We have tried to address those issues as
well. The buzz word now people use is
empowerment. I used to call it responsibility.
I often have said, and I want to reiterate today,
the United States Government cannot create an
opportunity for anyone who will not be responsible enough to seize it. Opportunity is a twoway street and requires responsibility. That is
the only way we'll ever rebuild the American
community.
In the days and months ahead, you will see
the Secretary of Education talk about his remarkable education program to provide tougher
national standards in education but also to give
people at the grassroots level more flexibility
in making public education work. You will see
the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary
of Housing and Urban Development talk about
how we can empower even the poorest Americans to start their own businesses, save their
own money, and take control of their own fu

ture. You will see other people talking about
how we can reform the welfare system. All of
these things are at the core of the notion that
we ought to make it possible for every American
to live up to the fullest of his or her Godgiven ability. And that is what in the end national service is all about: helping ourselves and
helping each other at the same time.
On this 100th day of my administration I want
to recommit myself and those who work with
me to the values that have made our Nation
without peer in all human history, those of opportunity, responsibility, community, and respect
for one another. Today I want to propose applying those values to a revolution of opportunity
for our hard-pressed families and for those who
have been left out. As a first step we're going
to ease the terms of college loans, helping students from middle and lower-middle income
families to clear a major path to the American
dream, the path of higher education. In return
we'll demand responsibility from young people.
We'll make it easier to borrow money and much
easier to pay it off, but this time you have to
pay it off. You can't just default on the loan.
And we will also offer the young people of
America the opportunity of paying their loans
back by serving their communities in a new
program of national service.
In just a few days I will send to the Congress
two bills containing our proposals, first to
strengthen college opportunity and to establish
national service. Together they will revive America's commitment to community and make affordable the cost of a college education for every
American. It's no secret that over the last 10
or 12 years the cost of a college education is
about the only essential think that's gone up
even more rapidly than health care costs. And
middle class parents, and even upper middle
class parents, not to mention lower income people, have borne the burden, paying now about
five percent of median income just to put one
child through a 4 year in-State public college.
It costs an average of over $5,200 a year for
that education. That means families are depleting savings and many students are faced with
cutting back to a part-time course load or having
to drop out simply because of the cost of a
college education. A college dropout is now
more than twice the high school dropout rate.
We cannot afford that, and we can do better.
I propose a new way to finance college for
millions of students who seek loans every year.


546




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Apr. 30


We call it an EXCEL account. With it, students
can repay the loans they take out not with a
percentage of the loan they borrowed but with
a percentage of their actual earnings. Now think
about that. For students driven by debt into
careers with high pay and low satisfaction this
can be very liberating. Take a student torn, for
example, between pursuing a career in teaching
and corporate law. This student now can at least
make the career choice based on what he or
she wants to do and not the size of the outstanding student loan, because we propose to let everybody have the option of paying the student
loan back based on how much they earn not
just how much they owe. That is an incredible
incentive.
However, under the current system, as many
of you know, students faced with big bills or
just inconvenient responsibilities have too often
taken the irresponsible route and defaulted on
their loans or have been found in default because they couldn't find a job. Often times
there's no serious effort to collect the loan because the Government guarantees 90 percent
of it. So if the bank makes the loan, it costs
more than 10 percent to go collect it. What's
the result? The taxpayers every year pay about
$3 billion on other people's loans, money that
could be spent on your education, on the
schools here, on the future of the children here,
just for bad loans. It isn't right.
Under our system, the Department of Education would engage the Internal Revenue Service. We would have the payroll records. And
you wouldn't be able to beat the bill because
you would have to pay the loan back as a percentage of your income, if you choose, but you'd
have to pay it because you pay taxes and because we have your records and because you
won't be able to get out of it. And that is the
right thing to do.
But these EXCEL accounts are just the beginning. We hope they will lead more and more
Americans not only to seize the opportunity of
a college education and to exert a stronger sense
of responsibility but also to seek to serve their
communities through a program of national service. It was Thomas Jefferson who first told the
American people in essence that the more you
know, the more you owe. In his words, and
I quote, "A debt of service is due from every
man to his country proportioned to the bounties
which nature and fortune have measured to
him." This statement reminds us that values


never go out of fashion, that civic responsibility
is as good for democracy today as it was when
Thomas Jefferson said that, and that if you really
want to be the best citizen of your country,
you have to give something back to your country. With national service, we can literally open
a new world to a new generation of Americans
where higher learning goes hand-in-hand with
the higher purpose of addressing our unmet
needs, our educational, our social, our environmental needs, to secure the future that we all
will share. National service will mark the start
of a new era for America in which every citizen,
every one of you, can become an agent of
change armed with the knowledge and experience that a college education brings, and ready
to transform the world in which we live, city
by city, community by community, block by
block. I say to you, we need you.
You know, there's a lot of talk in America
today, and I spend hours every week worrying
about the effect that automation and technology
is having on employment. Indeed, as we see
the productivity of American enterprises rise,
their need for workers goes down because they
can do more with computes that they used to
do with people. So people ask me all the time,
where will we find the jobs for this new generation of Americans? How can we drive this unemployment rate down? But if you look around
this country at all the human problems, all the
homeless people, all the environmental waste
dumps in our cities and our rural areas, all the
problems that we've got in every community
in America, and see all the kids that are in
trouble-15 million of them at risk and needing
somebody to pay attention to-you know where
the work needs to be.
Late last night when I was preparing to come
down here, I took a little time off at my desk
and I read the letters that my staff had given
me. And I got a letter from a woman who
grew up with me. I've known here since we
were in grade school. In this letter she said,
"You know, someone asked me a couple of days
ago: How are we going to save all these kids
in this country that are in trouble?" And she
said, "Without even thinking, I blurted out, the
same way we lost them, one at a time." And
so today my fellow Americans, I issue a call
to national service, to Americans young and old,
Democrats and Republicans, white, black, Hispanic, Asian and you name it, all of us that
make up this great Nation. I call you to national


547




Apr. 30 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


service because it is only that together we can
advance a tradition rooted in our people's history, helping our people to help themselves. And
with national service we can rejoin the citizens
in communities of this country, bonding each
to the other with the glue of common purpose
and real patriotism.
We have many young people here today, students of this place of higher learning where
we're gathered. In you I know I see the builders
of tomorrow. And I say to you, as good as the
education is here and at the other great institutions represented here today and all across
America, the power of academic learning is incomplete unless every American can share in
it. That is the only way we can lift our whole
country up. I say to you further that our country
needs you. We need your knowledge and your
initiative and your energy. We need you because
you are still stripped and free of the cynicism
that has paralyzed too many of your parents
and your grandparents, and led us to spend too
much time talking about what we can't do instead of seizing what we can. You are not afflicted by that, and I pray you never will be.
We need to make sure that we can use your
energies and your talents. One way is by making
sure that the low wages that public service often
offers won't be a route to the poorhouse for
someone with college loans. As I said, we're
going to make it easier for you to pay off your
college loan. But also, if you engage in national
service, we'll make it easier for you to pay off
a college debt or to earn credits toward it before
you go to college, or while you're in college.
For each term of service, 1 or 2 years, participants in national service programs will receive
benefits that can be used toward past, present,
or future obligations, whether for college or advanced job training. You can get a college education and, in addition, through service, perhaps
the best experience of your life. That's a pretty
good investment.
I've talked a lot about the students here. And
they do play a large part in this plan, but they're
not alone. Here in New Orleans many of you
already know what it means to make a difference in your community because you've just
been doing that for a long time. And I'm very
proud, as I said. I'm going to get another cheer
about this, but one of the models that I had
a little something to do with is the Delta Service
Corps, and I appreciate what they're doing. [Applause]


There are people here working to restore
housing. There are people here working in other
ways. I just want to mention three: Lawrence
Williams, a team leader in the Corps who has
helped to restore housing for low-income people
with the local Habitat for Humanity Project;
Jane Sullivan, a retired public schoolteacher and
a former VISTA volunteer who helps rural communities gain better access to health care, housing, and other assistance; and a young person
I met just a few moments ago, Parris MooreBrown, who works with parents in housing programs for drug awareness outreach and now
plans to work with the physically challenged.
She says that she has no tolerance for self-pity,
and she lives what she preaches. She hasn't been
slowed by what her birth dealt her, a brittle
bone disorder that has left her as an adult, and
by her own measure, 4 feet, 2~1/4 inches tall.
Where are you? Stand up on here so we can
see you. After my meeting with her and the
other young people today, I'd say she stands
about 10 feet tall in America today. There are
tens of thousands of people like Parris and Jane
and Lawrence and those of you who are here
with these service programs who are dying to
be called to a new season of service, and we
want to do that.
Another part of our plan is to build on the
National and Community Service Act that was
passed in 1990, and the already flourishing programs that are started and up and going in every
State in this country. National service is not
going to be a Federal bureaucracy; it's going
to operate at the grassroots with the real problems of real people and with the programs that
work today. It will be locally driven because
I trust the communities in this country to make
decisions for themselves.
I also want to say that while we want very
much to have young people in this program
who are working toward earning credits for college or paying their college loans off through
national service, we need so many other people
in service projects. We need our older people
who never will go back to college but have
a lifetime of experience and energy to give to
the young people of this country. We need
young people who may not be old enough to
drive a car or to qualify for this program but
can have a dramatic impact on fellow students
by helping them learn better study habits or
just keeping them out of trouble. I've learned
already that, as the parent of a teenager, that


548




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Apr. 30


the peers can have a big impact on the shape
and quality of a child's life. Even a child can
serve in programs that now begin as early as
kindergarten. We have no upper age limit in
America, or lower age limit for being a good
public servant.
To be successful, this national program will
need the broad-based support of all the American people. Parents and children, churches and
synagogues, colleges and universities and the potential providers and the beneficiaries of our
services. In this vision of national service, everyone is a partner. And that includes, of course,
the business community in this country. We
need businesses to contribute to the effort, to
match Federal money and local programs and
to contribute at the national level, helping to
make sure that the programs we choose are
good ones indeed.
What will set this legislation apart from other
similar efforts in the past that rewarded service
to our country is that it will totally eliminate
the Federal Government bureaucracy. And believe me, no one will miss that. We're going
to set up a national service corporation that will
run like a big venture capital outfit not like
a bureaucracy. And communities, as I said, will
have the flexibility to make their own programs
work. I think that I've seen enough today and
I've heard enough of your applause to know
that the American people are hungry for a
chance to serve their country and to reap the
rewards of civic pride and education in the process.
In answering this call our people are following
a proud history. More than a century ago President Abraham Lincoln signed the Homestead
Act, and the frontier of this country was settled
by countless families who took up the challenge
in exchange for 100 acres to call their own.
In the 1930's President Roosevelt enlisted mil

lions of young people to restore the environment
through the Civilian Conservation Corps. FDR
gave others a chance to support themselves
through the buildings made possible by the
Works Project Administration. I was in the United States Justice Department just yesterday, a
building built in 1934 by people who were giving service to their country, and it's still a beautiful monument to the legacy of that kind of
service. The parents of the baby boom had the
GI bill, which was one of the best investments
our Government ever made. A generation ago,
the young people of my generation saw suffering
in Latin America, Asia, and Africa, and many
rushed to the challenge laid down by President
Kennedy when he created the Peace Corps,
which became our country's greatest ambassador, building bridges of understanding to far
off cultures. And now, three decades later, a
challenge has been presented to all of you, a
new challenge and an old one, as old as America
and as new as your future.
A year ago when the Democratic Leadership
Council met in New Orleans, I asked the following question: I said, I want you to think about
what kind of citizens you're going to be-[inaudible]-administration that this was the day
the American people were empowered to renew
their Nation and their communities, to seize a
better future for themselves, and to help all
of us to be what the-[inaudible]-out of helping our fellow citizens and ourselves to become
what we ought to be, this country will be all
right.
Thank you very much, and God bless you
all.
NOTE: The President spoke at 2:10 p.m. in the
Health and Physical Education Center at the university. In his remarks, he referred to Gregory
O'Brien, chancellor of the university.


Nomination for Chairman of the Merit Systems Protection Board
April 30, 1993


The President today declared his intention to
nominate former Alabama Congressman Ben
Erdreich as a member and Chairman of the
Merit System Protection Board.


"I have full confidence Ben Erdreich will
serve with distinction and dedication at the helm
of the Merit Systems Protection Board," the


549




Apr. 30 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


President said.


NOTE: A biography of the nominee was made
available by the Office of the Press Secretary.


The President's Radio Address
May 1, 1993
Good morning. It's the first day of May, and
for many of our high school seniors it's time
to begin thinking about their last final exams,
packing up their rooms, and setting out on the
adventures that will come in the next stage of
their lives. Whether they are heading to college
or looking for their first jobs, these students
are getting ready to cross a threshold that will
shape them and their futures as people and citizens.
All of us have a big stake in whether these
young people have opportunities for success.
The great promise of American life has always
been expanding opportunities for each succeeding generation, opportunities for education, for
employment, for home ownership, for good
health care for all those willing to work hard
and play by the rules. I am determined that
we won't ever lose that promise of American
life.
I sought this office because the dreams of
working Americans were in deep danger. And
I promised all of you that I would work my
heart out to restore them. All the work we do
in this administration springs from that determination and is rooted in our values, the values
that have strengthened our families and given
generations of Americans brighter futures than
their parents, values that have made this Nation
without peer, those of opportunity, responsibility, and community. With them, we propose putting Government back on the side of America's
hard-pressed families.
In the first 100 days of this administration
we've tried to do that. We've worked hard to
cut the big Government deficit, and interest
rates are down, enabling millions of Americans
to refinance their homes and get interest rates
lower in business and consumer loans. We've
made a long-term commitment to invest in jobs
and education and technology. We've begun to
reform the Government by cutting unnecessary
spending and having tougher lobbying rules and
moving to reinvent the whole way Government
operates. And of course, we're facing the big
crisis of health care, trying to guarantee security
to all Americans and control costs so that we


can move forward with the kind of basic health
care that other people in other countries take
for granted but that threatens to bankrupt
America.
In addition to that, I am determined to open
the doors of college education and to give American students the opportunity to pay for it
through a program of national service. In the
last several years, the cost of a college education
has become more important than ever before.
And yet, those costs have gone up more than
any other basic in American life, including
health care. We've simply got to do something
for all these high school seniors and all those
coming along behind them to open the doors
of college education and to help those now in
college to stay in and to succeed.
As a first step, I will ask Congress to approve
legislation changing the terms of college loans.
By giving our students a new way to finance
college, we will be able to ensure that many
more go and stay. This new method will be
called an EXCEL account. With it, students will
be able to repay the loans on a schedule based
on a percentage of their future earnings and
not just on the amount they borrow, as is the
case today. This will be nothing less than liberating for many students who drop out of college
because of financial strains or who graduate with
big debts and then feel driven into careers with
higher pay but lower satisfaction. A student torn
between pursuing a career in teaching or corporate law, for example, will be able to make
a career choice based on what he or she wants
to do, not how much he or she can earn to
pay off college debt.
Another problem with the current student
loan system is that far too many students default
on their loans, costing taxpayers billions of dollars a year and adding to our deficit. Giving
students the chance to pay their loans back as
a small percentage of their incomes will reduce
the default rate by making it possible for more
students to repay. But we're also going to make
it tougher for those who can repay the loans
to avoid doing it by involving the IRS in the
collection process so that those who work and


550




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / May 2


pay taxes must also repay their loans. With this
new opportunity must come new responsibility.
But these EXCEL accounts are just the beginning. I also want to give tens of thousands
of young people the chance to pay for part
of their college education or advanced job training through a program of national service. With
national service, we can open a new world to
a new generation, one where higher learning
goes hand-in-hand with a higher purpose of addressing our Nation's unmet needs, educational,
social, and environmental. Things that will secure the future, we will all share together.
Americans, without regard to age, will be able
to earn credit against college costs before, during, or after college by working as tutors for
children, volunteers at hospitals, as public safety
officers, or in countless other grassroots community efforts that are working all across America
today but need more help. College graduates
can repay a portion of their loans by working
as teachers or police officers in underserved
areas. National service will mark the start of
a new era for America, one in which every citi

zen can become an agent of change, armed with
the knowledge and experience that a college
education brings and ready to transform the
world in which we live, city by city, community
by community, block by block, person by person. National service will operate at the level
Americans know best, the grassroots. Its programs will be locally driven, because we trust
communities to know what works. And this program is designed and will succeed without a
traditional Washington bureaucracy. And believe
me, no one will miss that.
Expanding opportunity, restoring responsibility, reviving our sense of community: these are
the values that have always made our country
strong. America has always succeeded when
we've understood that we're all in this together.
With national service, Americans can help themselves by helping each other. It's the best investment we could ever make in our future.
Thank you.
NOTE: The President spoke at 10:06 a.m. from
the Oval Office at the White House.


Statement on the Death of President Ranasinghe Premadasa of Sri Lanka
May 1, 1993
I am outraged by the assassination of Presi-  I hope that the people of Sri Lanka will join
dent Ranasinghe Premadasa of Sri Lanka. I con-  together at this difficult time to renew their
demn this brutal act of terrorism.           commitment to the fight against terrorism and
President Premadasa served his country with  to underscore their support for their democratic
great distinction. As Prime Minister and then  institutions.
as President, he worked tirelessly to promote  Hillary and I wish to extend the sympathy
his country's development and raise the standard  of the American people to the people of Sri
of living of all Sri Lankans. His efforts made  Lanka at the loss of their leader. We send our
a real difference to his fellow citizens.    sincere condolences to the family of President
Premadasa at this tragic time.
Statement on the Prospects for Peace in Bosnia
May 2, 1993


The developments in the Vance-Owen process
are a positive step, but we have yet to determine
whether the Serbs are serious about peace. We
will make that judgment based upon their actions on the ground in Bosnia. As Lord Owen


said this morning, "We still have a long way
to go."
Other agreements in this protracted war have
raised hopes but not changed behavior. We will
judge intentions by actions. Accordingly, I have


551




May 2 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


instructed Secretary Christopher to continue as
planned with his consultations through Europe
on the measures we will take if the Serbs do
not act in good faith.
I have spoken in the past 2 days with a number of congressional leaders as well as President
Yeltsin, Prime Minister Major, Chancellor Kohl,


President Mitterrand, Prime Minister Mulroney,
and Prime Minister-designate Ciampi. I will
continue such consultations.
We all hope for a true and just peace in
Bosnia. It must include not only the provisions
of peace on paper but also the practices of
peace on the ground.


Exchange With Reporters Prior to Discussions With Governor Chris Patten
of Hong Kong
May 3, 1993


Bosnia
Q. Mr. President, do you expect the Serbs
to keep their wordThe President. The what?
Q.     the Bosnian Serbs? Do you trust the
Serbs at this point?
The President. Well, I want to reiterate what
we've already said. I want to evaluate them by
their actions. We'll see what they do. I hope
the Serbian Assembly will support the decision
to sign onto Vance-Owen, and we'll just see.
We'll just have to measure it as we go along.
Q. Mr. President, are you still committed,
as you said, to sending in ground troops to help
enforce the peace if it does hold? Would there
be American participation in a peacekeeping
mission?
The President. We said several weeks ago that
the United States would be prepared to support
a United Nations effort, heavily engaged in by
the Europeans, to help to enforce a peace if
a peace was made that we would have no interest in. We were not interested in sending soldiers in there into combat, into a fighting situation but that we thought there would have to
be a peacekeeping force there and that we
would be prepared to participate.
Q. Well, if this peace holds, then, if VanceOwen holds, you've got 10 provinces, wouldn't
that be a very difficult and dangerous mission
for American and United Nations forces?
The President. No, it depends entirely on
what happens between now and then. And before I agree to put one American soldier there,
we're going to watch events, and I will obviously
speak not only to you but directly to the American people about it.
Q. How many do you contemplate sending


in?
The President. I think it's very important now
to point out-let me just restate what's at stake
here-there has been enormous loss of life
under especially brutal conditions there. And it
is a very politically unstable part of the world,
which has significant potential for a wider war.
So the United States has tried to work with
our allies-Secretary Christopher, as you know,
is on this mission now-in an attempt to get
the parties together so that we can present a
united front and so that we can keep the pressure up to end the killing but also to stop the
prospect of a much wider war, which could
cause much more trouble, much more instability. But there has been at this point no decision
made on any of that, and I would not make
any such decisions without further consultation
with the Congress and discussing it directly with
the American people.
Q. Why don't the allies agree with you?
Q. Are you getting cooperation from the
alliesThe President. So far, the meetings are going
great.
Q. Have you talked to Christopher?
The President. I have. I talked to him twice
yesterday, talked to him twice.
Q. You mean, they have signed on your policy?
The President. I talked to Christopher, Prime
Minister Major, President Mitterrand, the Prime
Minister-designate of Italy, to President Yeltsin,
and to Chancellor Kohl. I've talked to a lot
of peopleQ. And they all agreeThe President.   Prime Minister Mulroney.
We have agreed that we're going to keep the


552




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / May 3


pressure up and have a united front and move
forward, and we're developing a policy now.
China
Q. Mr. President, can we ask you a question
aboutThe President. Sure.
Q.     we're just trying find out-the Governor will be here to ask you not to renew
MFN with conditions. You have said that you
will have some conditions. Can you have any
kind of a compromise here? And the other question was, if you do support the Governor's proposals, do you think that will upset the Chinese?
The President. Well, let me answer the first
question first. We obviously hope that we can
maintain the maximum good relationship with
the Chinese. I have no interest in trying to
isolate them. I'm encouraged by the successes
of their economic reforms. And that's got to
be in the interest of the whole world if it is
accompanied with responsible behavior and respect for human rights and movement toward
a more democratic society. There has been some
encouraging news in China on a number of
fronts in the last few weeks. I -still think that
more needs to be done. And I'm hopeful that
Remarks on Signing the Asian/Pacific
Proclamation
May 3, 1993
Thank you very much. Let me begin by extending a warm welcome to all of you, especially
those who have traveled very great distances,
as many of you have, to help celebrate Asian
Pacific American Heritage Month.
I'm pleased to be joined on the stage by Senator Dan Akaka, with whom I played golf last
weekend-less well than he did, I might addand Representatives Bob Matsui, Norm Mineta,
Robert   Underwood,   Patsy   Mink,   Eni
Faleomavaega-did I do a good job? Pretty
good-and Jay Kim. And let us also honor the
memory of the late Senator Spark Matsunaga,
who left such a wonderful legacy as a true friend
of the Asian Pacific community.
My campaign and my administration have
gained so much from the talents of Asian Pacific
Americans, and I'd like to recognize just a few


it will be. But we're not in the position to say
finally what the condition of our relations will
be-and next month when the time runs out
because it's an evolving situation.
And secondly, I just have to say that I think
that the democracy initiative in Hong Kong is
a good thing. And I'm encouraged that the parties have agreed to talk about it. And it's one
of the world's most vibrant, thriving important
cities. It is an incredible center of commerce
and haven of opportunity for millions of people
who literally have-many of them have not a
thing but the clothes on their back when they
came there. And I think the idea of trying to
keep it an open and free society after 1997
is in the best interest of the Chinese. I think
it's clearly in the best interest of the Chinese.
So I think this initiative is well-founded, and
I support it. I hope it doesn't offend anybody,
but how can the United States be against democracy? That's our job; get out there and promote it.
NOTE: The exchange began at 10:31 a.m. in the
Oval Office at the White House. A tape was not
available for verification of the content of this exchange.
American Heritage Month
of them: Barbara Chow, my Special Assistant
for Legislative Affairs; Neil Dhillon, at the Department of Transportation; Atul Gawande, who
has been working on the Health Care Task
Force; Maria Haley on our personal staff; Goody
Marshall with the Vice President's staff; Doris
Matsui in Public Liaison who did such a wonderful job with this event; Shirley Sagawa in
Legislative Affairs; Debra Shon at the United
States Trade Representative's Office; Melinda
Yee at the Department of Commerce; and many
others who are an essential part of our efforts
every day.
Fifteen years ago, Representative Frank Horton introduced the first resolution proclaiming
Asian Pacific American Heritage Week, honoring
the significant contributions of Asian Pacific
Americans in all walks of life. In 1990, Congress


553




May 3 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


designated and President Bush proclaimed the
month of May as Asian Pacific Heritage Month.
And last year, with the help of Representative
Horton and 106 of his colleagues, the designation of May as Asian Pacific Heritage Month
each year became the law of the land.
The month of May was chosen because of
its significance to Asian Pacific American history.
In the first week of May in 1843, the first Japanese arrived in America. And on May 10, 1869,
Golden Spike Day, the Transcontinental Railroad, built partly with Chinese labor, was completed. Today, 150 years after these historic
events, nearly 8 million Asian Pacific Americans
can trace their roots to Asia and the islands
of the Pacific.
It is astonishing to realize the breadth of diversity among Americans of Asian Pacific heritage. The Asian Pacific community stretches
across thousands of miles and encompasses millions of diverse people. In our country the Asian
Pacific American community can trace its roots
to at least 25 different nationalities, more than
75 different languages, and literally hundreds
of different ethnic groups. Now, that's diversity.
And still Asian Pacific Americans have something in common and something to emulate,
a commitment to strong families, to community,
and to instilling in each new generation a respect for educational opportunity and hard work.
These values have been an essential part of success in achieving the American dream, as so
many Asian Pacific Americans know.
And while we realize all the rich opportunities
America has given to all our people, we are
aware also of how much Asian Pacific Americans
have given back to this country. Immigrants
from Asia and the Pacific helped build our
country. Today their descendants are making us


even better. They are prominent among our scientists, artists, doctors, teachers, and other professionals who have enriched the lives of all
of us in America.
I want to talk for a moment about the importance of education. The Asian Pacific community
has demonstrated that a commitment to education is truly the key to bettering our lives.
Among Asian Pacific Americans 25 years old
and over, 82 percent have had 4 years of high
school or more; 39 percent have completed 4
years of college or more. For individuals, education is the key to economic parity and social
mobility. But for America, it is the key to our
strength and our competitiveness in the global
economy.
I want to thank you all again for coming here
today to recognize all the achievements and the
contributions that Asian Pacific Americans have
made to this great Nation. I hope that we can
continue to come together as we have today
to rejoice in our diversity as we renew the bonds
of community that bring all Americans together.
I believe that if we embrace those things which
we share, if we embrace our common values
and our common goals, we strengthen ourselves,
our community, and our democracy, and we
make ourselves free to celebrate the richness
of our diversity.
Therefore, it is with great pride and admiration that I take this opportunity, my first one,
to sign the proclamation proclaiming this Asian
Pacific American Heritage Month.
Thank you very much.
NOTE: The President spoke at 5:40 p.m. in the
East Room at the White House. The proclamation
is listed in Appendix D at the end of this volume.


Nomination for Three Ambassadorial Posts
May 3, 1993


The President today announced his intention
to nominate Laurence E. Pope II to be Ambassador to the Republic of Chad, Joseph A.
Saloom to be Ambassador to the Republic of
Guinea, and Steven E. Steiner to be U.S. Representative to the START Joint Compliance and
Inspection Commission with the rank of Ambas

sador. All three are career members of the U.S.
Foreign Service.
"These three individuals will be excellent representatives of the United States and its interests," said the President. "They have served
their country well throughout their careers, and
I have confidence that they will continue to


554




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / May 4


do so."                                    NOTE: Biographies of the nominees were made
available by the Office of the Press Secretary.
Teleconference Remarks on Empowerment Zones and an Exchange With
Reporters
May 4, 1993


The President. So we've got L.A., Kentucky,
Chicago, Baltimore, York, and New York.
Q. Sounds like a good lineup.
The President. Sounds like a good lineup to
me. I want to thank you all for joining me
today. As you know, I have a new proposal
we're going to be discussing this morning that
I believe is a fundamental departure from traditional programs offered by Democratic administrations and fundamentally different from the
previous enterprise zone proposals offered by
recent Republican administrations.
All of you represent areas of the country that,
while unique, are each joined together by a
common need. The economic potential of your
areas, like other urban and rural communities,
is still stifled because you lack the investment
capital you need and a comprehensive strategy
for jobs and growth. What we want to do is
to help you to revive your communities economically. And our proposals for empowerment
zones and enterprise neighborhoods we believe
is the right way to begin.
Federal aid to these areas is certainly not
new, but in the past it hasn't always worked.
There has often been no coordinated strategy
for using the Federal money. Your growth has
been restrained by a maze of Federal regulations and the need to appeal to an array of
Federal Agencies. And these factors have contributed to an unwillingness on the part of too
many companies to invest in your areas.
We're trying to change all of that. We begin
with a challenge: Under our program not a single dollar will go out without a coordinated
strategy developed at the grassroots level. Yet
your communities enjoy immense and committed talent at that level. Our plan proposes a
partnership between local organizations so that
they can coordinate the use of Federal, State,
and local resources.
I know that your areas need investment capital, both public and private. Our proposal provides targeted investment incentives to draw in

vestment dollars into distressed urban and rural
communities. Your areas deal with a confusing
maze of Agencies and regulations. This proposal
features a single point of contact so that the
Federal Government contributes to rather than
stifles the rebirth of your communities. We're
going to streamline regulations, rules, and paperwork so that we reward initiative at the local
level.
These are innovations and new approaches.
They're going to result in new economic growth,
opportunity, and hope in areas long denied their
piece of the American dream. And just as your
local communities will have a chance to participate in the planning of their economic revival,
we also want to offer you a chance now to
discuss the economic challenges you face, to
discuss this new effort to participate in the revival of your communities.
I just want to emphasize two or three things
here. First of all, we do propose to do something that I discussed with the Mayors a few
months ago, or several weeks ago, and that is
to focus the limited money we have to spend
here in terms of tax incentives and investments
on, first of all, 10 empowerment zones that will
get an enormous amount of concentrated effort
to see if it works, a wage credit, credits for
equipment, credits for rehabilitating existing
housing. With a bottom-up community-based
strategy and with a lot of waiver authority, we're
going to set up an enterprise board that will
provide communities the opportunity to come
and get waivers from all these Federal rules
and regulations. I think that's very important.
In addition to that, we're going to have 100
more enterprise communities that will be targets
for our other community investments, like the
Federal funds we're going to spend on setting
up community policing to make the streets safer,
the initiative we're going to have in community
development banks, and any number of other
initiatives we're going to have coming out of
this Government. Those 100 communities will


555




May 4 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


be target areas for getting first crack at them.
So I think that this is the sort of thing that
will really support what a lot of you have been
doing for a long time, cutting out a lot of the
Federal rules and regulations, letting you consolidate the funds that you're getting from these
different Government Agencies, and getting you
the chance to develop a plan to develop your
communities.
I know it's consistent with what I always
thought ought to be done when I was a Governor, and I think it will meet with a lot of
support out in the country among Republicans
and Democrats. And I hope we'll get that kind
of bipartisan support here in the Congress. I
think there's a good chance that we will.
Well, I've already said a little more than I
meant to. I'd like to now go to our cities and
hear from them one at a time, and of course,
the State of Kentucky, too. But let's begin with
Los Angeles.
Mayor Bradley?
[At this point, Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley
stated his support for the program. Brenda
Shockley of Community Build and Tony Salazar
of  Rebuild   L.A.  then  discussed  what
empowerment zones would do to assist their organizations. ]
The President. Thank you, Tom. And I want
to thank Brenda and Tony for what they said.
And I want to just emphasize that I think we've
got the proper division of labor here. At the
community level, you've got to provide for people who are chronically unemployed: job training, child care, and other supports. But those
needs and the opportunity to meet them are
going to be so different from community to
community. And that's why I think it's so important that what we do here in terms not only
of new investment but in letting you spend the
money that is presently appropriated in the most
flexible way will guarantee that that can be
done.
Then the other thing that I want to say, particularly in response to what Tony said with
the Rebuild L.A. effort, we can't expect, it
seems to me, a lot of new investment in a lot
of our difficult areas until we do a couple of
things that send the right signals to the private
sector, which this plan does: first of all, that
we appreciate the people who are there now
and we recognize that they have a potential to
expand employment in distressed communities,


and we ought to take care of the people that
are there now; and secondly, that the Government needs to take the lead in offering some
significant tax incentives to people who will take
an additional risk to try to give people a chance
who haven't had a chance in a long time. And
so those are the things that are part of this
program. I'm very excited about it, and I'm glad
you're so well organized to try to take advantage
of it.
Let's go on now to Governor Jones in Kentucky. We asked the Governor to join us because we wanted to emphasize that rural areas
will be eligible to participate in both the
empowerment zones and in the enterprise areas.
And I know that Kentucky, like my home State,
has a lot of very poor rural communities, and
I wanted Governor Jones to have a chance to
comment on this.
Governor, can you hear us?
[Gov. Brereton C. Jones of Kentucky spoke in
support of empowerment zones, streamlining
Federal and State government operations, and
the upcoming environmental conference, From
Rio to the Capitals: State Strategies for Sustainable Development.]
The President. Well, thank you very much.
I'd just like to make a couple of comments
about what you said. First of all, most of our
listeners may know, but some may not, that
you had a very distinguished career in business
before you became the Governor of Kentucky
or got into Kentucky politics.
One of the things that I think all of us have
noticed who have been Governors or Mayors
is that an enormous amount of the money that's
appropriated for special programs is often
peeled off before it finally gets to its ultimate
purpose by all the various administrative layers
and regulatory requirements that are on the
money. And one of the things that we're trying
to do here by setting up this enterprise board
and giving people the chance to come up with
plans that would put a lot of these funds together is to make the money go a lot further.
And it dovetails very well with what the Vice
President is trying to do in looking at the whole
structure of the Federal Government and how
we can overhaul it.
And we're up here now trying to cut spending
dramatically and find some money to increase
targeted investments in areas where we need
it, to create jobs and improve education and


556




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / May 4


explore new technologies. And I am convinced
that one of the ways we're going to be able
to both cut the spending programs that ought
to be cut and increase investment is to get rid
of a lot of the layers of regulation and management that we've had.
The second point I want to make is about
your conference coming up in May on sustainable development. One of our great challenges
is to try to figure out how to improve the environment and improve the economy at the same
time. And one of the clear areas of opportunity
there that no one disagrees with is in the area
of environmental cleanup in some of our most
distressed urban and rural communities. And so
I would hope that all the people on this telephone call today as well as all the people who
will hear about this program and will file applications will look very closely at some of the
environmental problems in their communities
and at how many people can be put to work
in cleaning those up and how that can be a
part of the enterprise proposal, because that's
clearly something that we need to do.
Let's go into Chicago now. Mayor Daley is
in Washington today, isn't he?
[Valerie Jarrett, Chicago commissioner of planning and development, discussed the city's holistic community-based approach to planning and
development and the adverse impact of Federal
regulations. Ted Wysocki, Chicago Association
of Neighborhood Development Organizations
(CANDO), then advocated legislation for abandoned land reuse, corporate community involvement tax credits, and grants for community
projects. ]
The President. Thank you, Ted, and thank
you, Valerie. Let me just respond to one or
two of the things that you said. First of all,
the comment Valerie made about diverse neighborhoods is clearly true. I have walked the
streets in every community represented on this
phone call today. And I remember being so
impressed in Chicago more than a year ago at
seeing some new housing construction in one
of the Hispanic neighborhoods from a community group that was the lowest cost, highest efficiency housing I had ever seen in an urban
area. And there are a lot of these things going
on in our country today which need to be supported, not by uniform Federal programs.
Secondly, I want to say that Mayor Daley
was the first big-city Mayor to tell me, again


more than a year ago, that an enormous amount
of money being appropriated by the Congress
was not being well spent because of all the
rules and regulations and that we needed to
focus first on getting more buying for the
present dollar we're getting. And he cited me,
chapter and verse, some of the things that
you've mentioned today.
Secondly, I want to say to Ted, I think we
have got in our economic program and in this
proposal significant incentives from our equity
financing for economic development. But I will
look at the "Community Economic Partnership
Act." And I do agree that we need to be actively
involved in the cleanup of some of these sites
that we can restore to industrial development
in a lot of our urban areas if we can solve
the environmental problems. I see this as a really big job generator for America over the next
few years. It's a big problem just trying to find
work for all of the people who want to go to
work now in our country. It's a big problem
worldwide. And the environmental cleanup and
rehabilitation of a lot of these abandoned areas
in our urban cities and in some of our small
towns and rural areas, too, I think is very, very
important. I thank you for that.
Let's go on to Baltimore now. Mayor?
Mayor Kurt Schmoke. Yes, sir. Good morning.
The President. Are you really at the Parks
Sausage Company?
Mayor Schmoke. Absolutely. And Ray
Haysbert, the chairman of Parks Sausage, is sitting right here next to me.
The President. I want you to send me some.
I admit that I am hereby asking for my own
pork. [Laughter] I plead guilty.
[Mayor Schmoke stated his support for waivers
to provide flexibility at the local level and advocated greater involvement of the Justice Department in community policing as part of community development initiatives. Raymond Haysbert,
chairman, Parks Sausage Co., then endorsed the
President's community development strategy and
his efforts to restructure Government.]
The President. Thank you, Raymond. I've
been very impressed with the work that the
Baltimore Economic Development Corporation
has done there. And I know you've had a lot
of attention to the work that's been done there
over the last few years. It's evidence that if
you've got some committed people and some
land and some physical structures, that you can


557




May 4 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


really do things to put people to work back
in cities and in areas where others have given
up.
I think that all anybody has to do is go out
there and see-I think you've got, my staff has
said, about 1,400 people working in the industrial park now, and all the different businesses
generating taxes, attracting private investment.
That's the sort of thing we're going to have
to do. The Government doesn't have enough
money to solve this problem. We've got to leverage what resources we have to get private sector
people like you to come in and put folks to
work. And I really thank you on that.
And Mayor Schmoke, I should have depended
on you as an old prosecutor to mention the
Justice Department, but I want to assure you
that the Justice Department is an integral part
of  this  project.  These  cities,  both  the
empowerment zones and the enterprise cities,
will be considered for priorities for community
policing, for alternative punishments, for institutions like the drug court which Janet Reno
helped to set up in Miami, all things which
really help communities become safer and handle their crime and drug problems better, as
well as for community development banks and
some of the initiatives that we're going to have
to try to bring capital into these areas.
But the Justice Department will be a big part
of that. And she's very excited about it. You'll
be able to talk to her about it today. But we
think there are a lot of things the Justice Department can do to make both the perception
and the reality of safer streets and safer communities a big asset in developing the economy
and putting people to work.
Mayor Schmoke. Thanks, Mr. President.
The President. York? Mayor Althaus, are you
on the phone?
Mayor Bill Althaus. I sure am, Mr. President.
The President. The first night I spent on my
bus trip was York, Pennsylvania.
[Mayor Althaus, chairman of U.S. Conference
of Mayors, endorsed the President's urban strategy. Robert Simpson, executive director, Christmas Addicts Neighborhood Association, then advocated cutting redtape and implementing a
grassroots approach to community development.]
The President. Thank you, Robert. You know,
I think you might be able to be a model for
what we're trying to do in some other cities.
But I'm sure that this works.


A few years ago as Governor, I set up a
program quite similar to this in our poorest
counties, and I required all of them to come
up with community-based development plans
and then we worked hard to try to make sure
all the resources of the State were put at their
disposal. And we even got the Federal Agencies
involved. But I always had the feeling that we
could have done so much more if the Federal
Government had been able to fully join our
efforts. But I'm very impressed by what you've
done there.
I want to say a special word of thanks to
you, Mayor Althaus. You know, we find, I think,
that partisan differences tend to evaporate the
further you get away from Washington. And
when more people get down to the grassroots
and have to face each other across the table
and deal with real problems, it's obvious that
there are certain things that work and certain
things that don't, and people tend to work on
what works.
I can't tell you how much respect I have
for the leadership you've given the U.S. Conference of Mayors and the willingness that you
have expressed to work with us in trying to
find American solutions to these problems. I
am convinced that at the very basic human level
we need to make a departure from the approaches of the past. And you've been willing
to do that, and I take my hat off to you. And
I hope that we can do that more and more
and more on all these problems, because a lot
of these problems are America's problems, and
they don't have a partisan label after them. And
I think if all of us take our blinders off and
roll our sleeves up, we'll get a lot further. And
I really appreciate you.
Thank you.
Mayor Althaus. Mr. President, thank you. I
have to say, the partisanship in Washington is
not at your end of Pennsylvania Avenue right
now. It's really not. It's been a joy working
with you.
The President. Thank you, Mayor.
New York?
Mayor David Dinkins. Yes, sir.
The President. Hello, Mayor.
[New York City Mayor Dinkins complimented
the President on members of the administration,
discussed the success of New York City's community policing effort, and stated his support
for the empowerment initiative. David Jones,


558




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / May 4


president and chief executive officer of the Community Service Society, then stated his support
for the President's approach to community development and administration initiatives on health
care reform, job training, and voluntarism. ]
The President. Thank you, Mayor, and thank
you, David Jones.
Let me just comment first on what Mr. Jones
said. I think we do have to provide some assistance to build up these community-based, nonprofit organizations. And I do think the National
Government has to take the lead in health care,
in trying to put together the kind of system
that will work on job training and apprenticeship
programs, as well as trying to take a little different direction, as you know I feel we should,
on the drug front. And that's one reason I asked
Lee Brown to be the drug czar.
But I'm also convinced that if we do this,
that building these things at the grassroots level
and having everything driven by that is the only
way to ever get anything done, in my opinion.
You know, we've got to help people to help
themselves, and that's what this whole thing is
about.
The other point I wanted to make in response
to what you said, Mayor Dinkins, is, first of
all, thank you for the compliments on the people
in my administration. Andrew Cuomo had a lot
to do with putting this initiative together, and
he's sitting here in the Oval Office with me.
Actually, he's standing in the back, so he grew
about 4 inches when you were bragging on him
in front of America.
Mayor Dinkins. Very good.
The President. And I thank you for that. And
let me again once again emphasize that I am
convinced that the experience of New York in
community policing demonstrates beyond anything I could say that if we can put these programs in place in all the major neighborhoods
of this country that have crime problems, we
would immediately make them not only more
livable and more attractive, we would make
them far more apt to get private investment.
This is a huge economic issue as well as a
personal security issue. And that's why we've
just got to wrap the Justice Department and
crime control initiatives into this whole effort.
If we don't do it, we can't be successful in
some areas, and if we do, of course, the flip
side is that we can.
I want to thank all of you so much for giving


me a little of your time today and for your
support of this initiative. I hope you'll talk to
your colleagues across the country, to the Members of Congress, and again reach out across
party and other lines and say this is something
that will be good for America. I need your help
now to pass it, and I'm ready to go to work
to do that.
Thank you very, very much.
Mayor Dinkins. Thank you, Mr. President.
The President. Goodbye.
[At this point, the teleconference ended, and the
President took questions from reporters.]
White House Staff
Q. Mr. President, now that you've had yourwhat changes do you plan in the White House
staff to make your administration more effective?
The President. Keep in mind that, before you
ask that question, this administration is the only
one in 17 years to pass a budget resolution
within the legal time limit. Nearly as I can tell,
we have put more major initiatives out there
in 100 days than any of my recent predecessors,
and we're working on some very major problems. So I think, on balance, the staff has done
a good job.
We've lost one initiative in the Congress that
took way too long, dealing with a relatively small
program to put some people to work. What I
think we need to do, frankly, is to get the focus
back on the things that I have been working
on from the beginning, passing the major economic program, making sure the Congress will
adopt the spending cuts, reaffirming that I have
no interest in raising taxes until spending is
cut-no tax increases without the spending
cuts-getting the budget program so that we
can keep interest rates down.
I talked to more people today, just people
around here; I asked how many people have
refinanced any housing loans or other loans that
save money on that. That's going to be the biggest stimulus we can ever provide if we can
keep the interest rates down with deficit reduction. And then going on to health care and passing these empowerment initiatives, that's the
one we're here talking about today.
So will we make any changes in the way our
process works, to try and improve it? I hope
we can make some. We've got that under review. We've been discussing it for, oh, about


559




May 4 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


5 weeks now: What we can do to be more
effective. After all, I just got here. I've never
operated here before, and there are some things
that are very different about the way Washington works, some good and some not so good.
But I think we're on the right track, and
I just want to focus now on the work before
us, which is passing this budget. If we don't
pass the final budget with the spending cuts
and the revenue increases and keep them focused on the people who got all the benefits
out of the eighties, having the upper income
people pay the vast bulk of the load but not
taxing them until the spending cuts were in
place, that's what I think we have to do now.
And that's what I'm focusing on.
Q. Specifically, sir, will Mack McLarty be hiring a deputy to tighten things up in the operation?
The President. One of the things that we've
looked at-keep in mind one of my first spending cuts was committing by the end of the next
fiscal year to have a White House staff that
was 25 percent smaller than my predecessor's.
But when I got to looking at it, every other
Chief of Staff has always had basically three
major; the recent ones, at least have had three
major aides, and Mack's been functioning with
one. So I'm trying to figure out how to give
him at least one more. He still wouldn't have
as many-if he had two instead of three, he
wouldn't have as many as most of his predecessors have.
But we think that there needs to be a little
tighter coordination here to make sure that
we've got our priorities straight and that those
priorities are communicated all the way down
to the staff, and a little better focus. One of
the things that you risk when you try to get
a lot of things going in a hurry-and we tried
to get a lot of things going in a hurry because
4 years passes in a hurry-is that you wind
up having people work very, very hard, but
maybe getting a little out of focus. And I think
we can tighten the focus a little, and I think
that's what we ought to do.
The Economy
Q. Leading economic indicators are pretty
grim. Do you think anything beyond what you've
done, the empowerment zones, the economic
stimulus package, has it got you thinking about
either delaying the tax cuts further or any other
kind of emergency push at this point?


The President. I'll answer the specific question
first. The best thing we can do for the economy
this year, this year, is to clearly pass a multiyear
deficit reduction plan because of what it will
do to interest rates. As Americans borrow money
at lower rates or refinance their existing debt,
the economists estimate that over the next year
and a half, that will put $110 billion back into
this economy if we can get the interest rates
down. That's a huge stimulant to the economy,
totally in private sector investment to refinancing
debt.
So my present feeling is that we have got
to pass the multiyear deficit reduction package,
which requires the spending cuts first and the
tax increases, focused on people who have basically benefited from the last 12 years of lower
taxes. Now, I think we're going to have towe need to pass that, keep the interest rates
down, and see what happens.
What I tried to do was make a down payment
on the jobs plan. And I still would say what
I've been saying since-well, all last year and
even after the election, I tried to say that we
were part of a global economy, where there
was a lot of economic slowdown in Europe and
elsewhere, and that people could not expect immediate results, and we were going to have to
really focus on what it took to create jobs.
I will say that again: My major focus-if I
can pass the budget, then we will move on to
health care and job creation. And I think that
we may try a lot of things over the next 4
years because we're in a period of new and
different economic forces which are all working
to make it more challenging for us to create
large numbers of new jobs.
But I'm not at all surprised. I started saying
back in November that there's too much recession in the rest of the economy, and we have
cut defense spending in America without offsetting investments in our people and new jobs
on the civilian front. And we were being burdened by enormous debt. But I can't tell you
that I think we ought to come off the deficit
reduction. I think bringing that deficit down and
keeping interest rates down is the best investment program we've got right now.
But we are going to have to keep our ears
and eyes open, because this is a new and difficult and unprecedented time, and we've got
to put the work of the American people first.
So I wouldn't rule out anything down the road,
but I'm confident we need to pass the budget


560




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / May 4


first.
Bosnia
Q. Are there special forces in Bosnia on the
ground?
The President. There aren't any. I saw the
report, Ron [Ron Fournier, Associated Press].
I don't know what the basis of it is. I have
not authorized that at all.


NOTE: The teleconference began at 10:30 a.m.
The President spoke from the Oval Office at the
White House. In his remarks, he referred to Andrew Cuomo, Assistant Secretary-designate for
Community Planning and Development at HUD.
A portion of the teleconference could not be verified because the tape was incomplete.


Nomination For Deputy Director of the United States Information Agency
May 4, 1993


The President today announced his intention
to nominate Penn Kemble, Board for International Broadcasting member and a longtime
advocate of democracy abroad, as Deputy Director of the United States Information Agency.
Mr. Kemble will serve as Deputy to Joseph
Duffey, recently named by the President as Director of USIA.


"Throughout his career, Penn Kemble has
worked hard to promote the cause of freedom
abroad," the President said. "I am certain he
and Joe Duffey will work well together to use
all of USIA's resources to continue pursuing that
ideal."
NOTE: A biography of the nominee was made
available by the Office of the Press Secretary.


Remarks at the Democratic Congressional Dinner
May 4, 1993


For a minute there, I thought I was at a
meeting of the Republican Senate caucus.
[Laughter] I'm so glad to see all of you. I can't
tell you how much I appreciate that warm greeting, how very much I appreciate being here
with Speaker Foley and Senator Mitchell and
Majority Leader Gephardt and Senator Graham,
Senator Boxer, Congressman Fazio, Congressman Torricelli, and all of you out in the audience tonight who did so much to make our
victory possible last November and who have
done so much to try to help us make a difference to America.
I also want to say a special word of thanks
to the Vice President. We have developed a
remarkable partnership. And you know, sometimes when I hear him introduce me, I really
think he believes it. He almost convinced me,
I believe it. [Laughter] I can tell you this, that
when the record of this administration is written,
one thing will go down in the history books:


There will never have been a Vice President
in the history of the Republic who played such
a constructive role in helping to advance the
public interest.
I come here tonight on two missions: First
and obviously, I want to support this fundraising
effort. I want more Democrats to win in '94.
I need every one of you. I want all of you
to be reelected. And I know that in major part[applause]-yes, that's worth clapping for. I'm
in a little different position than a lot of Presidents; I got elected because I wanted to do
something. If you don't want to do anything,
you don't really need the Congress. If you want
to do something, you have to have a partnership,
an unprecedented one, to get things done and
move things forward. But this is about more
than winning elections. It's about what the elections themselves are for.
Today I had a wonderful experience. I invited
the man who brought me into the Congress


561




May 4 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


the first time when I was a college student,
Senator J. William Fulbright, who will be 88
tomorrow, I invited him to come have lunch
with me at the White House today. And he
told me he had not been there since President
Nixon was in office. It was wonderful. We had
lunch there, and then we went up to the Oval
Office and sat around, and we started talking
about some of the great people who served our
party and our country. And we got to talking
about Senator Mike Mansfield, who as you probably know is 90 and walks 5 miles every day,
one of our most distinguished Ambassadors to
Japan ever. And he told me that he had dinner
with Senator Mansfield about a month ago. And
Mike looked at him and he said, "Now, Bill,
how old are you?" He said, "I'm 87." And he
said, "Oh, to be 87 again." [Laughter]
I say that to try to give some perspective
beyond the moment to the work we are about.
I ran for this job not just for the privilege of
living in the White House and even for the
wonderful privilege of being with all of you on
a regular basis but because I thought together
we could make a difference in the history of
this country. If we live to be 87, 88, or 90
and we look back on our lives, we will doubtless
measure the quality of those lives by whether
we did something with the jobs we hold, or
whether, if we are in the private sector, we
did something to help affect and shape the public interest.
No one ever said this was going to be easy,
but I think it is clear that fundamentally we
have changed the direction of the Government.
A few days ago there was a remarkable article
in the Wall Street Journal by the political columnist who said that, beyond all the smoke and
fight, look at what's happened in the last 100
days. The question used to be, would the Democrats ever really lower the Government deficit?
Now the question is, how much and how fast?
The question used to be, would we ever do
anything about health care? And now the question is, what and how quickly? The question
used to be whether the Government really had
a role working with the private sector to help
revitalize the economy in a tough global economy. Now the issue is, what is the nature of
the partnership between Government and business to create jobs and help Americans compete
again? The question used to be, the columnist
went on, whether Government was intrinsically
bad or whether it could be made to work for


people. And this crowd believes you can make
Government work, believes it can be different,
believes it can lead us into the future, believes
we can work together. Now, I don't know about
you, but I think that's a pretty good start.
And it is very easy, my fellow Americans, to
say you want to put Government on the side
of the middle class, and you want to reward
the values of work and family, that you want
to offer opportunity and demand responsibility
and reestablish the bonds of American community. But I'll tell you something: It's a lot easier
to say it than it is to do it.
Everybody knows the broad outlines of the
last dozen years, that most working-class people
have worked longer hours for lower pay to pay
higher taxes; that there has been a dramatic
increase in inequality; that there have been almost no private sector jobs created for the last
3 years; that even when we have increases in
productivity, they don't yet manifest themselves
in higher employment. Everybody knows that
we had this gaping deficit that was caused by
big tax cuts, big spending increases, first in defense and then when defense went down, exploding health care costs and costs to maintain
interest on the debt.
The question is, will we do anything about
it? Will we really move to deal with the enormous debt, to invest in our future and create
jobs, to make the Government work again for
ordinary people? Well, in the first 100 days,
we've shown both the up and the down sides
of that. We've shown what happens when the
President and the Congress work together, and
we've also seen a little bit of the hazards of
gridlock.
I'm proud and grateful for those of you who
stood with me in our efforts to change, because
I think the people prefer action over inaction,
innovation over inertia, and decision over delay.
I believe more than anything else, two-thirds
of the American people want us to do what
I saw on a sign when I was on my way with
Senator Moynihan up to Hyde Park to Franklin
Roosevelt's home a few weeks ago. There was
a guy standing out in the road-it was 8 degrees
and several hundred people standing alongside
the road-one guy had a sign that said, "Just
do something." I believe the people want us
to do something. I believe they're tired of donothing Government.
Thanks to the leadership of this Congress,
just 17 days into this administration, after 8


562




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / May 4


years of gridlock and vetoes, we made the family
and medical leave law the law of the land. That's
something to be proud of. Because of innovations in the executive branch with people who
never had their opinions asked before, just 44
days into this administration when we extended
unemployment benefits, we did it for the first
time with a program that provided new opportunities for job training for the unemployed. I
don't know about you, but I'm tired of paying
people to be out of work. I want to invest in
putting them back to work. And that's what
we're trying to do.
In record time and for the first time in 17
years within the legally mandated time, the
Democratic leadership in the Congress passed
a blueprint of our budget which, I want to remind you and all the American people tonight,
reduces the deficit by over $500 billion over
the next 5 years, with over 200 specific budget
cuts-over 200 specific budget cuts-and tax increases, the overwhelming burden of which fall
on people like us in this room, because we're
Democrats and we want to relieve the middle
class and the working people of the burdens
of the last 12 years.
And you know, when I hear all this talk from
the people who hear our adversaries talking
about taxes, they say, no taxes without the
spending cuts. I say, I agree, but that's what
we're going to do. The Democrats are not about
to raise taxes unless we cut spending. That's
what we're about. But the difference between
us and the other side is we asked them for
their spending cuts and we're still waiting. We're
the ones that are cutting unnecessary Government spending, and we're going to bring this
deficit down. And it's time to tell the American
people the truth.
The Vice President already mentioned it, but
you look at what's happened to interest rates
just since the election and we made clear that
we were going to bring this deficit down. I
don't know that they can get a lot lower than
they are. The economists estimate that if we
can keep interest rates at their present level
for a year, that will put over $110 billion back
into this economy as people refinance their
homes and their businesses and are able to get
credit who couldn't get it before. Just think of
that.
Now, the other guys talked about it for 12
years, and they took our national debt from $1
trillion to $4 trillion. We've had 100 days, and


we've done something about it. And if we can
keep these interest rates down and be serious
about this budget, it's going to put $100 billion
back into the pockets of ordinary Americans to
invest in this economy and to grow it.
We also are working hard to deal with the
health care crisis, without which we will never
bring our budget into balance, we will never
make our American industries fully competitive,
and we will never restore real security to America's families. How can we, any of us, tolerate
going on 1 more year, 2 more years, 3 more
years with a health care system that costs a
third more than any other system in the world,
leaves 37 million of our people without insurance, and strikes terror into the hearts of millions of people who have health insurance but
are so scared they're going to lose it because
of problems with their business or because
someone in their family will be sick and they'll
never again be able to change jobs without losing their health insurance.
I believe we can do better. This is a problem
others have solved. We are up to the task, and
the time has come to do it, to liberate this
country's economy and restore security to America's families.
This administration has proposed an education
bill that will establish the national education
goals as the law of the land, establish tough
new standards for our schools, and give flexibility for people all over the country to try new
experiments to see what can be done to make
these schools work better. We're not just talking
about it; we're trying to do it. We are trying
to open the doors of college education to all
Americans by making it possible for anybody
to borrow money and pay it back as a small
percentage of their income and by letting thousands and tens of thousands of young people
do national service to pay off a part of their
college loan or earn credit to go to college.
That will be the best program we could ever
pass for this country.
When I have heard the rhetoric of family
values for years and years and years now, I
see every year more pressure on families, less
evidence we're valuing families. That's what the
family and medical leave law was all about. You
think people who have to work ought to be
good parents. Give them the right to do it. And
that's what we want to do. That's why our welfare reform program will move people from dependence to independence. That's why we want


563




May 4 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


the earned-income tax credit to be increased,
so we can say a simple thing to America's families: If you work 40 hours a week and you've
got a child in your house, you shouldn't live
in poverty. Your country is better than that,
and the tax system ought to reflect it.
Now, you know it's a lot easier to talk about
than it is to do, because we have to do in
ways that require all of us to change. And now
the United States Congress is getting to the
hard part. They are going to be called upon
to make the decisions on the budget to make
good that commitment to reduce the deficit by
over $500 billion without throwing large numbers of Americans out of work, because we have
to continue to invest in education and technology and the things that will make us competitive in the future. That is the test. We know
how to do it. It is hard to get from here to
there. There will always be those who really
don't have much of a stake in change and love
to complain; who will say, well, we should do
it this, that, or the other way. There will be
those who sing the siren's song that there is
somehow a painless way to change. I don't know
about you folks, but I'm 46 years old; I've been
trying to lose 15 pounds for 2 months. There's
no painless way to do that. [Laughter] There
is no painless way to do that.
This is a time not just for vision but for discipline and for maturity and for understanding
that if we are going to turn this country around,
as I have said so many times, we are not going
to be able to ask, "What's in it for me?" We're
going to have to say, what is in it for us? How
can we all give something so we can all get
something? How we can give today to get tomorrow, that is the test before us. So I ask
all of you to support the Members of Congress
with the budget cuts, with the revenue increases, with the targeted investments that will
change this country and lift up this economy
and keep going what has happened that is good
already. We have got to have the courage to
do it.
And finally, let me say that I think it is important that we do our best to reconnect people
to the political process who voted in record
numbers in November, could never afford to
come to a dinner like this, but desperately care
about their country. You would not believe the
volume of letters we are getting in the White


House. We've already gotten as much mail in
the first 3 months, somebody told me yesterday,
as my predecessor did in a whole year. And
I say that not to criticize him or to laud myself.
That has nothing to do with it. A lot of it's
critical; that's good. We've opened the doors
of possibility to people, and they think maybe,
just maybe, their Government is going to listen
to them again.
That's why I feel so strongly about all these
political empowerment bills. That's why I believe in the motor voter bill-I'm glad we got
a conference report on it-because it will say
to kids, we want you to vote. That's why I believe in the work the Vice President is doing
to literally not just save money but change the
whole way Government operates and make it
more friendly to people who want to access it.
That's why I feel so strongly that the House
did the right thing in passing that enhanced
rescission bill. That's why I believe we ought
to pass a campaign finance reform bill, not because I don't want you to give but because
I want them to be able to give, too. And I
want people to believe that everybody has got
a stake in the system. Because if we can
reconnect those people to the system, then they
will understand that change is a long and hard
road.
In 1918, the famous German sociologist Max
Weber said that politics is the long and slow
boring of hard boards. We have come to the
hard part. Mario Cuomo used to say, "You campaign in poetry, and you have to govern in
prose." The time has come for the prose. And
people need to read it straight and clean and
clear from the shoulder, with all the varnish
off, as honestly as we can.
We are being called upon now to see whether
we have the courage and the discipline and the
will and the vision to change. I believe we do.
And I came here tonight not only because I
want you to keep your jobs but because I hope
if we can live to be 88 or 90 years old, like
Bill Fulbright and Mike Mansfield, we can look
back and say this was a time when we lifted
America to new heights, we met our challenges,
and we did our jobs.
Thank you, and God bless you all.
NOTE: The President spoke at 8:50 p.m. at the
Washington Hilton.


564




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / May 5


Remarks on Welcoming Military Personnel Returning From Somalia
May 5, 1993


To all of our distinguished guests from all
the services, to General Powell and the Joint
Chiefs, Secretary Aspin, Mr. Vice President, ladies and gentlemen, and especially to General
Johnston and the men and women of the Unified Task Force in Somalia.
General Johnston has just reported to me:
Mission accomplished. And so, on behalf of all
the American people, I say to you, General,
and to all whom you brought with you: Welcome
home, and thank you for a job very, very well
done.
You represent the thousands who served in
this crucial operation, in the First Marine Expeditionary Force, in the Army 10th Mountain Division, aboard the Navy's Tripoli Amphibious
Ready Group, in the Air Force and Air National
Guard airlift squadrons, and in other units in
each of our services. Over 30,000 American military personnel served at sometime in these last
5 months in Somalia. And serving alongside you
were thousands of others from 20 nations.
Although your mission was humanitarian and
not combat, you nonetheless faced difficult and
dangerous conditions. You sometimes were subjected to abuse and forced to dodge rocks and
even bullets. You saw firsthand the horror of
hunger, disease, and death. But you pressed on
with what you set out to do, and you were
successful. You have served in the best tradition
of the Armed Forces of the United States, and
you have made the American people very, very
proud.
In the weeks to come, we will formally recognize the contributions of those who participated
in Operation Restore Hope. But earlier today,
to honor their accomplishments and that of all
who supported that effort, I awarded to General
Johnston the Defense Distinguished Service
Medal in recognition not only of his extraordinary service but also of all those who served
with him so well. Thank you all for your dedicated work.
To understand the magnitude of what our
forces in Somalia accomplished, the world need
only look back at Somalia's condition just 6
months ago. Hundreds of thousands of people
were starving; armed anarchy ruled the land and
the streets of every city and town. Today, food


is flowing; crops are growing; schools and hospitals are reopening. Although there is still much
to be done if enduring peace is to prevail, one
can now envision a day when Somalia will be
reconstructed as a functioning civil society.
If all of you who served had not gone, it
is absolutely certain that tens of thousands
would have died by now. You saved their lives.
You gave the people of Somalia the opportunity
to look beyond starvation and focus on their
future and the future of their children. Although
you went on a mission of peace, eight Americans
did not return. We salute each of them. We
thank them and their families. America will
never forget what they did or what they gave.
To their loved ones we extend our hearts and
our prayers.
As we honor the service of those who have
returned and those who did not, it is fitting
that we reflect on what the successful mission
signifies for the future. This, the largest humanitarian relief operation in history, has written an
important new chapter in the international annals of peacekeeping and humanitarian assistance.
You have shown that the work of the just
can prevail over the arms of the warlords. You
have demonstrated that the world is ready to
mobilize its resources in new ways to face the
challenges of a new age. And you have proved
yet again that American leadership can help to
mobilize international action to create a better
world.
You also leave behind a U.N. peacekeeping
force with a significant American component.
This force is a reflection of the new era we
have entered, for it has Americans participating
in new ways. Just hours ago, General Johnston
turned over command to General Bir of Turkey
as UNTAF became UNOSOM II. You set the
stage and made it possible for that force to
do its mission and for the Somalis to complete
the work of rebuilding and creating a peaceful,
self-sustaining, and democratic civil society.
Your successful return reminds us that other
missions lie ahead for our Nation. Some we
can foresee, and others we cannot. As always
we stand ready to defend our interests, working
with others where possible and by ourselves


565




May 5 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


where necessary. But increasingly in this new
era, we will need to work with an array of multinational partners, often in new arrangements.
You have proved again that that is possible. You
have proved again that our involvement in multilateral efforts need not be open-ended or illdefined, that we can go abroad and accomplish
some distinct objectives, and then come home
again when the mission is accomplished.
Some will ask why, if the cold war ended,
we must still support the world's greatest military forces, the kind that General Johnston and
his comrades represent. I say it is because we
still have interests; we still face threats; we still
have responsibilities. The world has not seen
the end of evil, and America can lead other
countries to share more of the responsibilities
that they ought to be shouldering.
Some will ask why we must so often be the
one to lead. Well, of course we cannot be the


world's policeman, but we are, and we must
continue to be, the world's leader. That is the
job of the United States of America. And so
today, America opens its arms in a hearty welcome home.
General, to you and all the men and women
who served with you, you have the admiration
of the world and the thanks of your country
for continuing the tradition of our Armed Forces
and the values that make us proud to be Americans and for proving that we can lead and serve
in new ways in a new world.
In the words of the Scriptures: Blessed are
the peacemakers. Thank you very much.
NOTE: The President spoke at 10:37 a.m. on the
South Lawn at the White House. In his remarks,
he referred to Lt. Gen. Robert B. Johnston,
USMC, commander, Operation Restore Hope.


Exchange With Reporters Prior to a Meeting With Congressional Leaders
May 5, 1993


Bosnia
Q. Mr. President, will you be going to Congress to get authorization before any troops
would be sent to Bosnia?
The President. We're here consulting about
Bosnia today, and I have been extensively consulting, and no decision has been made by this
administration about this yet. So when I do,
then we'll continue to have proper process.
Q. Do you think the War Powers Act is constitutional?
The President. Ask my lawyer. I don't play
lawyer. I think it's worked reasonably well.
Q. How do you think the vote will go in
the Serb parliament?
The President. I don't know. I hope they'll
not only vote for it, I hope they'll observe it,
which is two different issues. We have to start
our meeting here in a minute, but I think one


of the things that we have to discuss is that
we want an agreement in words and an agreement in fact. And that's what we've got to watch.
Q. Are you feeling any comfort in what Mr.
Christopher is saying? It sounds as though he's
running into roadblocks.
The President. No, I talked to him several
times since he's been on the trip. I'm pretty
pleased, actually, with the progress he's made.
We're in a much different place and much nearer agreement than we were 10 or 12 days ago.
Q. Have you and Senator Dole made up?
The President. Absolutely. I agree with what
he said yesterday.
NOTE: The exchange began at 11 a.m. in the Cabinet Room at the White House. A tape was not
available for verification of the content of this exchange.


566




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / May 5


Remarks on the Observance of National Nurses Week and an Exchange
With Reporters
May 5, 1993


The President. Thank you very much, Ginny,
for that wonderful statement and the introduction. And thank you, Secretary Shalala, for everything you said. I noticed a few groans in
the audience when you pointed out that Dorothea Dix worked for nothing. I don't think she
was suggesting that you do that, I think she
was volunteering to do that, don't you think?
[Laughter]
I want to say, you know, I knew nurses were
miracle workers, having been raised by one. But
I don't see how you staved off the rain today.
When I first heard 100 nurses were going to
be here I thought to myself, what else can I
do? I've given up junk food. I run every day.
What more do you want of me? [Laughter] I'm
doing my part.
I want to say a special word of acknowledgement, too, to the nurses who are in this audience who work here at the White House, who
care for me and my family and are available
to the other people who work here. They do
a wonderful job, and I'm very grateful to them.
And they're here and there and around, and
I thank them for their presence here.
I'd also like to pay a special word of tribute
to your president, Ginny Trotter Betts, for hanging it out there with us in the election and
bringing the support for the American Nurses
Association and also for being such a forceful
advocate of sweeping reforms in our health care
system. Hillary and I very much appreciate the
work that she and the Nurses Association have
done. And I know that she's also an old friend
of Al and Tipper Gore's, and they're grateful,
too, for her contributions.
I'd also like to recognize some of the other
people who are here today, including a remarkable nurse whose presence in the Congress is
a symbol of your political strength, Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson from Dallas and
my dear friend. She's really a tribute to the
practice of good health. I've known her for 20
years, and I look much older, and she looks
younger than she did the first time we met.
I also want to thank all the nurses who have
advised our Health Care Reform Task Force
and brought such a valuable perspective to that


effort. You've really made a difference, and
we're grateful to you.
We're here today to mark the beginning of
National Nurses Week, a time for our country
to recognize the services that you and your colleagues provide 24 hours a day, 7 days a week,
365 days a year. From inner city hospitals to
rural clinics, from the Red Cross to the armed
services, America's nurses always answer the
call.
Today we're reminded that our Nation's 1.8
million working nurses are the backbone of a
health care system, the largest single group of
health care providers in America, and I might
add, a group that will have to do more and
should do more in primary and preventive care
if we're going to bring the cost of medical care
down.
You know better than anyone else what is
wrong with this system. You see all the people
who show up at the emergency room to get
the most expensive care too late because they
didn't have a basic primary and preventive
health care package. You see the enormous burden of paperwork squandering more and more
hours of nurses and doctors, requiring more and
more precious health care dollars to be diverted
to clerical expenses instead of to investing in
the health of our people. Every day you see
these kinds of problems as the Nation continues
to wait for action on a health care front. I'm
here today on this beginning of your week to
reaffirm to you my commitment that now is
the time to do something about health care and
to do it right.
One of the most challenging things we have
to do in this city at this time is to break a
mindset that we have one problem at a time,
and we'll get on it, and we'll only think about
that. I believe that this country has at least
three huge problems that relate one to the
other. One is, there are too many people who
are unemployed and too many people who are
working harder with no gains in their incomes.
And it's been that way for a long, long time.
Two is, the cost of health care is exploding
at an unacceptable rate, and yet, too few people
have coverage, or their coverage is too limited.


567




May 5 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


Third is, we're absolutely being consumed by
a massive national debt and a growing deficit.
And these things are all related one to the other.
Now, people say to me, "Well, we just do
one thing at a time." Well, look back over time
where that's gotten us. People just say, "Well,
we ought to just spend money and give it to
people, and maybe that will work." That hasn't
worked. Then for 12 years we heard the worst
thing in the world is taxes; we'll just cut taxes,
especially on wealthy people, and that will make
everything wonderful. Well, that hasn't worked
out very well either. So the guy said to me
yesterday, "I know a bunch of people who got
tax cuts last year, because they used to be making $40,000 a year, and now they're making
$10,000. They all got a tax cut."
And what I say to you is that we don't want
to just keep trying to give people things in a
system that is broken. You can't give people
Government money. You can't give people tax
cuts if the system is broken. What we have
to do is to attack all these problems at once
and not keep giving people things but give them
the means to take care of themselves and to
create lives that are productive and good and
strong for themselves and their families, their
children. That's what we have to do.
That's why, yes, we have to reduce spending
and increase taxes, mostly on wealthy people
who got their taxes cut in the 1980's, to bring
the deficit down. But we also have to invest
carefully in programs that will create jobs and
raise incomes, new technologies for the 21st
century, and the kind of education and training
that will give people work. If everybody in this
country who wanted a good job had one, we
wouldn't have half the problems we've got.
And then the third thing we have to do is
to attack the health care crisis, because if we
don't we will never get the Government deficit
under control. We will never balance this budget, and more importantly, we will never provide
the security that most families need and deserve
in a rapidly changing and increasingly insecure
world.
There are millions of Americans today who
cannot change jobs, because somebody in their
family has been sick. There are millions of others who have no health insurance. There are
millions of others who have some health insurance but very little, because they work for small
businesses who cannot afford a basic package
of health care because of the insurance system


that we have in this country. There are untold
billions of dollars being spent that should not
be spent by the people who pay the full price
and more for health care because they have
to pay for somebody else's health care who's
not covered when it's too late and too expensive
or because they're paying an unbelievable bureaucratic burden for the paperwork burdens
of this system.
So I say to you, these are false choices. People
cannot say to us you must choose between having a healthy country, an employed country, a
country bringing its deficit down. We must do
all three of those things because that's the only
way we can-instead of trying to give people
something that's not there to give, empower
people to seize control of their destiny and bring
this country back. That's what we've got to do.
There will always be defenders of the status
quo. It is easy to say, "Well, let's just write
somebody a check." Even easier to say, "Taxes
are evil. They're out to get you."
Right now, you know as well as I do, the
lobbyists are lining up strategizing about how
they're going to pick this health care proposal
to death. But I'll tell you something, the worst
thing we could do, in my opinion, after 400 -and-something people have worked their hearts
out for months and months and months, is to
take a dive on the health care thing, to turn
away from it, to deal with the inconveniences
of it.
People say, "Well, it may cost somebody else
some money." Let me tell you something, all
those people who don't have health insurance
today, they're being paid for by everybody else
who's paying the bill. What about fairness to
them? Who's thinking about them? I'll tell you
something else, we've been reducing defense
spending quite steeply and about all we can
for the last 5 years. And all the savings we
hope to have in the peace dividend have been
exploded away by rising health care costs and
interest payments on this deficit.
So it is all related. You've got to have a job
strategy. You've got to have a deficit reduction
strategy. And you've got to have a health care
strategy. Because if you don't have a health care
strategy, the American people can't stay well,
the American economy can't get well, and you
cannot reduce the deficit to zero in this decade.
Those things must be done together. We cannot
be forced to make that false choice.
And so I ask you-you represent 1.8 million


568




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / May 5


people who know the heartache, the heartbreak,
and the problems of this system, and who also
know that that which is right about our system
makes it the best in the world for those who
can access it. We are determined to come forward to the Congress with a plan that keeps
the best of America's health care system, keeps
the private provider system, keeps a lot of
choice in the system, but deals with the awful
problems that you know better than anybody.
And I ask you to commit today not to let the
special interests tell us that we can't deal with
health care, not to let the special interests spook
and scare the Members of Congress away from
doing what is our manifest duty to the people
of this country who are working hard and playing by the rules and falling further behind, and
instead, to give us all a chance to do the work
of a generation.
And that is really what's being given us in
this time, in this Congress: the opportunity to
do something that comes along once in a generation to change the whole course of America's
future. By dealing with these things together,
providing security and quality and control of
cost in this health care system, bringing this
deficit down and pursuing a long-term strategy
for a high-wage, high-growth, low-unemployment economy. And they're all together. If you'll
help me take that message to the Congress,
this will be one of the best years the American
people ever had.
Thank you very much.


Bosnia
Q. Have you heard anything from Bosnia, sir?
The President. No.
Q. How quickly are you prepared to move
once you do?
The President. Well, let's wait and see what
they do first.
Q. Mr. President, there is word that the parliament has agreed to the peace agreement. Mr.
President, there is
The President. I hope they-I'm waiting for
a call from Secretary Christopher right now. Let
me go take the call, and I'll give you -
Q. And then what, sir?
Child Immunization
Q. Sir, what happened to your immunization
program on the Hill? Why did you have to dog
back on that?
The President. Well, Secretary Shalala says
we're going to get a program that can immunize
a lot more people. We did the best we could
with the money we had. You know, a lot of
these things are going to be a function of how
much money we have. But I feel pretty good
about it. I talked to her about it. She feels
good about it. We think it's a big advance over
where we are.
Thank you.
NOTE: The President spoke at 4:27 p.m. in the
Rose Garden at the White House. A portion of
the remarks could not be verified because the tape
was incomplete.


Message to the Congress Transmitting a Report on the Canada-U.S. Free
Trade Agreement
May 5, 1993
To the Congress of the United States:       taken by the United States and Canada to imPursuant to section 304(f) of the United   plement the Free-Trade Agreement.
States-Canada Free-Trade Agreement Imple-                         WILLIAM J. CLINTON
mentation Act of 1988 (Public Law 100-449;
102 Stat. 1875), I am pleased to transmit the  The White House,
attached biennial report regarding the actions  May 5, 1993.


569




May 5 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993
Nomination for an Assistant Secretary of State
May 5, 1993


The President announced his intention today
to nominate Robin Lynn Raphel to be Assistant
Secretary of State for South Asian Affairs. Ms.
Raphel is a career member of the Foreign Service.
"I am very glad that Robin Raphel has agreed
to serve as Assistant Secretary for South Asian


Affairs," said the President. "Having lived in
the region as a diplomat and as a visiting teacher, she brings a tremendous understanding to
the post."
NOTE: A biography of the nominee was made
available by the Office of the Press Secretary.


Nomination for Director of the Office for Civil Rights at the Department
of Health and Human Services
May 5, 1993


The President announced today the appointment of Asian-American civil rights attorney
Dennis Hayashi to be Director of the Department of Health and Human Services' Office for
Civil Rights.
"Dennis Hayashi has had a distinguished career of both legal and public advocacy for equal


rights," said the President. "I am counting on
him to continue his good work as part of Secretary Shalala's team at HHS. We need to continue to work for fair treatment for all Americans.
NOTE: A biography of the nominee was made
available by the Office of the Press Secretary.


Remarks at the Tribute to Senator J. William Fulbright
May 5, 1993


Thank you very much. It's good to know that
I did get a vote out of the press. [Laughter]
Roger, I'm delighted to be here, and I'm so
glad that you're here. I'm glad to be here with
Senator and Mrs. Gore. Senator Gore, after you
spoke and you said you resented the fact that
Senator Fulbright was 88 and you were a mere
851/2 when you went over to him, I heard him
say what the crowd did not. Senator Fulbright
looked at him and said, "Albert, if you behave
yourself, you'll make it, too." [Laughter]
I want to say that it is a deeply humbling
experience for me as an American to be here
with all these wonderful people. Many people
in this audience have made remarkable contributions to our Nation and to the world over the
last half century or so. And I thank you all,
as part of the contingent of Arkansans who are
here who feel very protective of Senator Ful

bright and feel that in some ways he is still
our own. It's a great pleasure and sense of pride
for me to look out and see all of you here.
I also want to say a special word of appreciation to Harriet. You know, when Senator Fulbright announced that he and Harriet were
going to be married, all the people from Arkansas started telling cradle robbing jokes. [Laughter] And I've got an 88-year-old uncle, and for
kicks, he goes out once a week and drives two
ladies around. One of them is 91, and one of
them is 92. And I asked my uncle, I said, "You
like these older ladies?" And he said, "Yes, it
seems to me like they're a little more settled."
[Laughter] I'm glad Bill didn't give into the
temptation for being settled and instead found
Harriet.
You know, somebody ought to put a little
levity into this evening. Senator Pryor and Con

570




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / May 5


gressman Thornton are out there, and Jim Blair,
who once ran one of Senator Fulbright's campaigns. Those of us who grew up in Arkansas,
I have to say, had this incredible image of Senator Fulbright. First of all, if you grew up in
our State and you knew anything about politics,
it was immensely gratifying after it, to see the
way people sort of dumped on our State back
in the forties and fifties and said we were all
a bunch of back-country hayseeds, and we had
a guy in the Senate who doubled the IQ of
any room he entered. [Laughter] It was pretty
encouraging. You know, it made us feel pretty
good, like we might amount to something.
When Hillary first came to Arkansas she said,
"You know, you all beat better people down
here than most States elect." Unfortunately,
there were two occasions when that might have
applied to me. [Laughter] But anyway, Hillary
finally developed this theory that the reason all
of our good people went into politics is that
we couldn't make an honest living in the depressed economy. And it increased the quality
of political life.
I say this to try to give you some texture.
You know, a lot of people are out here in this
audience tonight who worked for Senator Fulbright in his campaigns, worked for Senator
Pryor, Congressman Thornton, and worked for
me. And some of us have been so controversial
that we are, to use the Arkansas colloquialism,
we are quite a load to carry. [Laughter] And
I wish I could take every one of you back tonight to Senator Fulbright's 1968 reelection
campaign. I mean, I wish you could have been
there. Now remember, here we are, '68: The
country is embroiled in the Vietnam war, split
right down the middle, except in the South
where it wasn't down the middle-more people
were still for it than "agin" it. The country was
torn up. There had been riots in the streets.
There was great division over poverty and race.
Everybody was wound tight as a drum. George
Wallace was moving through the South faster
than Sherman did and carried Arkansas that
year. And here we are, all of us kids, trying
to reelect Fulbright in this environment, right?
Now, let me give you a flavor. Senator Fulbright had an opponent in 1968 who decided
to make trade an issue. Now, the distinguished
Japanese Ambassador is here. You know, people
write as if we're having bloody fights when we
have arguments over trade policy. We didn't
have arguments in '68. This guy got up at a


platform and held up a shoe to his opponent,
and he said, "This shoe was made in Communist
Romania." This is a verbatim account, right?
"Communist Romania," he said. "And Bill Fulbright is letting these shoes into your country,
throwing our good, God-fearing people out of
work to let the Communists from Romania have
the job." That's a sample of what we had to
deal with. [Laughter]
So you know, we worked hard on him, and
we got him to wear a checkered shirt. That
picture you saw up there in a checkered shirt,
that's the only time he ever came home without
a necktie. [Laughter] So he's wearing this checkered shirt, you know, and we think we finally
got him where he can sort of at least tolerate
all this insanity that was going on there. All
he had to do was kind of halfway be nice to
people, and we thought he could get reelected.
So, I was driving him around one day, and at
the middle of all this tension we come to this
little country town in southwest Arkansas, one
road in, same road out. And we go into a feed
store. And you remember what Lyndon Johnson
used to say? If you can't look at a person in
the eye and tell whether they're for you or
against you, you've got no business in politics.
No one could have mistaken the atmosphere
in the feed store this day. [Laughter] This guy
in overalls looked at Senator Fulbright and said,
"I wouldn't vote for you if you were the last
person on Earth." And Senator Fulbright sat
down on this bale of hay or this-it was a big
sack of seed, and he said, "Well, why?" And
I thought, be nice. The television cameras were
on, you know. He said, "Because you're letting
the Communists in. They're everywhere. Today
it's Vietnam; tomorrow it will be-they're everywhere." And he looked around, and he said,
"I didn't see any when I came into town." He
said, "Where are they, and what do they look
like? I wouldn't recognize one." [Laughter]
Well, anyway, he got reelected anyway. I say
that because, you know, in all this highfalutin
talk, it's important not to forget that the American political system produced this remarkable
man. And my State did, and I'm real proud
of it.
Senator Fulbright always believed there were
some things that he should defer to the judgment of his constituents on, and others that
he was charged with knowing more than they
were and that he should do what he thought
was right. And it did get him into a lot of


571




May 5 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


trouble, but it helped our country get through
a lot of rough times.
In addition to those things which have been
mentioned and written about, I can't help noting
one of the things that drew me to him as a
young man, and that is that he stood up to
Joe McCarthy, something that meant a lot to
a lot of us. The other thing he always tried
to do was to get all of us who were around
him to look at the other side of an argument.
I remember when I was a young man working
for him in that campaign, I was driving him
around, and sometimes I'd get so exasperated
arguing with him because I could never win.
We just argued all the time. And one day we
were in a town, and I drove back out the same
way I drove in. I was going to take us 100
miles in the wrong direction until he corrected
me, which meant that the professor was not
as absent-minded as the student. [Laughter]
But all during this time, it is impossible for
me to fully capture for you the impact that
he had on young generation after young generation in my State, how he made us believe that
education could lift us up and lift this country
up, how he made us believe that our obligation
was to develop our minds to the maximum of
our ability and then to use it, wherever it took
us. He believed in reason and argument, and
he believed in the end democracy could only
prevail if we knew enough and were thoughtful
enough to face the truth and try to search it
out. It's still a pretty good prescription for what
we ought to do. He also deeply believed that
the racial, religious, and ethnic differences and
the political differences that divided the world
so deeply during almost all of his public career
were vastly less important than the common
bonds of humanity which could unite us if only
we could take our blinders off. He was among
the first Americans to try to get us to think
about the people in Russia as people; he was
among the first Americans to try to get us to
see people in the Islamic world as people;
among the first Americans to try to get us to
understand the different and various and rich
cultures of Asia, which have now produced some
of the most amazing achievements in all of
human history. And that is one of the reasons,


I think, Mr. Ambassador, that Japan, thankfully,
has become the most outstanding supporter of
the Fulbright scholarship program, something
for which we are all very grateful.
I close with this thought. About 4 years ago,
Senator Fulbright's hometown of Fayetteville,
which is the seat of the University of Arkansas
where Hillary and I used to teach and where
we were married, threw a big party for him
and invited me as the Governor to come up
and speak. And so I went up there. It was
a wonderful day on the square. It was a Saturday. And afterwards the farmers market was
there, and I walked around the square and
talked to all the farmers. We shot the bull about
Bill Fulbright and talked about his career. And
then I went up to the hotel room where Senator
Fulbright, believe it or not, was watching a football game. And when I walked in and sat down
with him-we watched this ball game, and this
young man kicked a field goal about 2 minutes
after we sat down. He looked at me, and he
said, "You know something, I can't believe it's
been 64 years since I did that." I say that to
make my final point: It doesn't take long to
live a life. He made the most of his. And I
think his enduring legacy to us is trying to help
us all to have a better chance to make the
most of ours. Thank you very much.
Sit down; we're going to do one more thing.
The job I now have, in the eyes of my mentor,
is probably not quite as good a job as being
a United States Senator, mostly because I have
to take all that criticism. But it does give me
some prerogatives. In spite of what you may
have seen or heard in the last several days,
there are some things I can do without anybody
agreeing to it. And tonight, for the first time
as President of the United States, I intend to
do one of them. And I'd like to enlist the aid
of my distinguished military aide. Major
Schorsch, would you please read the proclamation.
NOTE: The President spoke at 9:49 p.m. at the
ANA Hotel. Following the President's remarks,
Senator Fulbright was awarded the Presidential
Medal of Freedom.


572




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / May 5


Remarks at the "Latino USA" Reception
May 5, 1993


Thank you very much. Thank you. I started
to apologize for being late, but now I'm glad
I am. You're in a good humor. [Laughter] I
have, as you can tell by my outfit, been somewhere else tonight, but I'm awfully glad to be
here. I want to say to Dr. Cardenas and to
all of you, happy Cinco de Mayo. Viva public
radio. And thank you for letting me be here
tonight.
There are a lot of friends of mine here, and
you see with me Secretary Cisneros and Secretary Pefia. They've talked already, I think. I'm
very proud of them. I'm very glad they're a
part of my administration, along with Regina
Montoya, who is my Special Assistant for Intergovernmental Relations. That means when Governors and Mayors are happy, it's her fault.
When they're mad, it's because I made a mistake. [Laughter] I also would like to thank the
Members of Congress who are here: Congressmen Esteban Torres, Carlos Romero-Barcelo,
Bob Menendez, Solomon Ortiz, Ed Pastor, and
Luis Gutierrez, my good friends here. I also
want to note the presence here of three people
from KUAR-FM in Little Rock, Arkansas: Regina Dean, Ben Frye, and Tim Edwards.
Last year at this time I celebrated Cinco de
Mayo on the town square in San Francisco with
tens of thousands of people. It was an ecstatic
day, 4 weeks from the end of the primary season. I am deeply honored to be here with you
tonight to acknowledge this important day,
which was a day of victory and a new beginning
for the people of Mexico.
Tonight we celebrate another new beginning,
and I want to offer my congratulations and best
wishes to all who have worked so hard to launch
"Latino USA." I believe it will be a new forum
for all the diverse voices throughout America's
Latino communities and a new way for more
Americans to learn more about the importance
of the many Latino cultures in the United States
and the many leaders who have brought and
are bringing hope and inspiration to all Americans. I think tonight I'd like to say that we
ought to have a special word of thanks for the
life and work of the late Cesar Chavez. [Applause]
I want to say a special word of thanks to


the Members of the Congressional Hispanic
Caucus; I have introduced many of them to
you. They have met with me extensively, and
they've helped to make me more aware of the
needs and opportunities in Latino communities
throughout the United States and in Puerto
Rico. That's all part of the United States. I'm
still for self-determination, by the way. That's
my position, and I want to follow it.
I want to say also that the Health Care Task
Force, which my wife is chairing, has benefited
immensely from the contributions of Latinos in
community-based health movements all over the
United States who have helped us to understand
some of the special needs that we must respond
to in putting together a real program to provide
health security for all the people of the United
States, something that we are determined to do
this year. And I want you to support us in that.
I also want you to know that-I don't know
if this is a commendation or a condemnation
in the world of electoral politics-but my wife
and I are NPR junkies. When I was Governor
of Arkansas, we woke every morning for more
than a decade to the NPR station at home,
kicking on at 6 a.m. Our radio would come
on, and I would hear some thoughtful news
broadcast but desperately want to go back to
sleep. But the earnest sincerity of NPR always
got me up and got me going. As a matter of
fact, I was so impressed with the quality-yes,
I am-[laughter]-the quality of the programs
that I asked NPR's president, Douglas Bennet,
to leave his post and join my administration
as Assistant Secretary of State for International
Organizations. Now, I want you to know that
Doug has his hearing on Friday. And after all
these years, he's going to get a feel for what
it's like to be on the other side of the microphone. That was almost worth making the appointment for. [Laughter]
I also want to say a word of congratulations
to NPR's news division and its vice president
for news, Bill Buzenberg, for "All Things Considered," which celebrated its 22d anniversary
on Monday, a great program. I hope that
"Latino USA" does for its audiences what programs like "All Things Considered" and "Morning Edition" do for audiences all across America


573




May 5 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


today. Perhaps 22 Cinco de Mayos from today,
you too will be able to look back and remember
what an important beginning this really was.
And let me say in general, I am trying to
make this administration one of new beginnings.
I'm doing my best every day to get up and
go to work with people like Henry and Federico,
knowing that we don't have all the answers and
knowing that you can't just turn the ship of
state around overnight, but believing that our
solemn obligation is to get up every day and
try to change this country for the better and
try to make it possible for Americans to honestly
and maturely and with discipline and vision and


will face our problems and seize our opportunities, trying to make absolutely sure that our diversity is a cause of strength not a source of
division so that every person in this country
and every child, like that beautiful little girl
I held up a minute ago, can grow up and live
to the fullest of their God-given capacities. That
is our job.
Thank you, and God bless you all.
NOTE: The President spoke at 10:35 p.m. at the
Sequoia Restaurant. In his remarks, he referred
to Gilbert Cardenas, executive producer of
"Latino USA."


Message to the Congress Transmitting Proposed Legislation on National
Service and Student Loan Reform
May 5, 1993


To the Congress of the United States:
I am pleased to transmit today for your immediate consideration and enactment the "National
Service Trust Act of 1993" and the "Student
Loan Reform Act of 1993." These Acts represent innovative public policy founded on traditional American values: offering educational opportunity, rewarding personal responsibility, and
building the American community. In affirming
these values, the Acts reject wasteful bureaucracy-instead reinventing government to unleash
the ideas and initiative of the American people.
Also transmitted is a section-by-section analysis.
Throughout the Presidential campaign last
year, Americans of all backgrounds and political
persuasions responded to national service like
few other ideas. The reasons are clear. Higher
education is fundamental to the American
Dream, but complex procedures and inflexible
repayment plans have created serious problems
for many students with education loans to pay
back. Defaults are too high today-and taxpayers
are left to foot the bill. Americans are yearning
to reaffirm an American community that transcends race, region, or religion-and to tackle
the problems that threaten our shared future.
The two Acts are designed to meet these
basic American needs. The National Service
Trust Act of 1993 establishes a domestic Peace
Corps, offering hundreds of thousands of young
people the opportunity to pay for school by


doing work our country needs. The Student
Loan Reform Act of 1993 overhauls the student
loan system. Through a one-stop direct student
loan program, the Act will save taxpayers billions
of dollars, lower interest rates for students, and
simplify the financial aid system. And through
new EXCEL Accounts and other repayment options, the Act will offer borrowers greater choice
and lower monthly payments while reducing the
chance of defaults.
The National Service Trust Act of 1993 establishes a definition of national service that is clear
but broad. National service is work that addresses unmet educational, environmental, human, or
public safety needs. It enriches the lives of those
who serve, instilling the ethic of civic responsibility that is essential to our democracy. And
national service does not displace or duplicate
the functions of existing workers.
Building on the National and Community
Service Act of 1990 and the flourishing community service programs of nonprofit organizations
and States, the initiative rejects bureaucracy in
favor of locally driven programs. In the spirit
of reinventing government, the Act will empower those with the greatest expertise and incentives to make national service work.
The Act enables citizens of all backgrounds
to serve and use their educational awards where
they see fit. While many participants will be
recent college graduates, Americans will be eligi

574




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / May 6


ble to enter the program at any time in their
adult lives. Both full-time and part-time service
will be encouraged. And whatever their education level, those who complete a term of service will receive an award of $5,000. The award
will be payable toward past, present, or future
educational expenses in 4- and 2-year colleges,
training programs, and graduate and professional
schools.
The Act demands that programs meet tough
guidelines for excellence and requires measurable performance goals and independent evaluations. Within these limits, however, the Act enables the people who run programs to design
them. The smallest community-based organizations and largest Federal agencies will be able
to compete for funding. A variety of program
models will be eligible, ranging from youth corps
that enable at-risk youth to meet community
needs, to preprofessional programs that give college students ROTC-like training and then
placements in specific problem areas, to diverse
community corps that involve Americans of all
backgrounds in meeting common goals.
With the economic market as a model, there
is competition at every level of the system: programs compete for State approval, States compete for Federal approval, and programs at the
national level compete against each other and
States for Federal approval. To build public/
private partnerships that earn support far beyond government, the Act requires programs to
make a cash match and to increase nongovernment support as time passes.
The Act is designed to reduce waste and promote an entrepreneurial government culture.
The Act establishes a new Government Corporation for National Service that combines two existing independent agencies, the Commission on
National and Community Service and ACTION.
With flexible personnel policies and a small, bipartisan Board sharing power with a Chairperson, the Corporation will operate as much
like a lean nonprofit corporation as a Government agency.
The State level will mirror the Federal level
and build a strong partnership between the two.
Bipartisan State commissions on national service
will be responsible for selecting programs to be
funded by States. To ensure genuine Federal/
State cooperation, a representative of the Corporation will sit on State commissions and a
representative of the States on the Corporation
Board.


The National Service Trust Act of 1993 encourages Americans to join together and serve
our country-at all ages and in all forms. The
Act enhances the Serve-America program for
schoolage youth; extends and improves the
VISTA and Older Americans Volunteer Programs authorized under the Domestic Volunteer
Service Act; supports the Civilian Community
Corps and Points of Light Foundation; and pulls
these efforts under the new Corporation. The
Act will help instill an ethic of service in elementary and secondary school students, encourage them to serve in their college years, and
give them further opportunities later in their
lives.
The Student Loan Reform Act of 1993 will
taken an important first step toward comprehensive reform of the student loan system. It saves
money, makes loan repayment more affordable,
and holds students more accountable. The measures in no way replace the Pell Grant program,
which will remain the cornerstone of financial
aid for millions of students.
The Student Loan Reform Act of 1993 replaces the current Federal Family Education
Loan program with the Federal Direct Student
Loan Program over a 4-year period. By eliminating subsidies to private lenders and making loans
directly to students, direct lending will save taxpayers $4.3 billion through Fiscal Year 1998 and
still allow interest rates to drop for student borrowers. Many schools will make loans directly
to students on campus, though none will be
forced to do so. In addition, no institution will
service or collect loans. This reform simplifies
the system for many students, enabling most
to receive all their aid through "one-stop shopping" at their institutions' financial aid offices.
The lending reform expands choice and reduces burdens for all student borrowers by offering a variety of repayment plans-including
fixed, extended, graduated, and income-contingent schedules. In the same way that multiple
financing options help homeowners, these plans
offer real choice to all and lower monthly payments to those who want them. Income-contingent repayments-through the new EXCEL Accounts-also encourage service by students who
do not participate in service under the National
Service Trust Act. With more manageable
monthly payments, more students will be able
to take jobs that pay less but do more for their
communities, without risking default. And whatever plan they first choose, students will be able


575




May 6 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


to change their repayment schedule as their circumstances change.
The Student Loan Reform Act of 1993 will
also reduce default rates. By electing incomecontingent repayment schedules, students with
lower incomes will be able to repay their loans
on a manageable plan, without defaulting.
Through cooperation with the IRS, the Act will
improve collection and monitoring of student
loans. And for those who are able to pay but
do not, the Act will give the Secretary of Education authority to require payment on an income-contingent basis.


Opportunity, responsibility, and community go
beyond politics. They are basic American ideals.
Enactment of these two Acts will express the
Nation's commitment to these ideals and to our
shared future. I urge the Congress to give the
legislation prompt and favorable consideration.
WILLIAM J. CLINTON
The White House,
May 5, 1993.
NOTE: This message was released by the Office
of the Press Secretary on May 6.


Remarks to the Export-Import Bank Conference
May 6, 1993


Thank you very much. Good morning everyone. I'm delighted to see all of you here in
such large numbers. I want to thank my good
friend Ken Brody for inviting me to come and
speak with you for a few moments. He's the
President-designate of the Ex-Im Bank. That's
a delicate way of saying that it takes a long
time to get confirmed in today's Washington.
[Laughter] I know a little about that in another
context.
I have thought a good deal about what I
wanted to say to you today about the subject
which brings you here. I hope you will understand if I ask for a few moments to address
the situation in Bosnia first, not only because
the national press is here but because you are
very much a part of the world which will be
affected by what happens there and how that
impacts our friends and neighbors in Europe
and particularly in the Mediterranean area.
Over the past week we saw some very encouraging progress toward a negotiated settlement
of the tragic conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Two of the three Bosnian parties signed the
Vance-Owen agreement. The third party, the
Bosnian Serbs, signed contingent on approval
by their self-styled parliament. Progress unfortunately was stopped by the Bosnian Serb assembly's de facto rejection yesterday of the VanceOwen agreement. Their action is a grave disappointment to all of us who seek an early and
peaceful resolution to what has been a very brutal conflict. It abrogates the earlier approval of


the peace plan by the Bosnian Serb leader
Karadzic.
Their call for a referendum on the peace plan
can only be seen as a delaying tactic to further
consolidate the gains they have made because
of the enormous advantage they have in heavy
artillery coming as it does from the former
Yugoslav army. It ignores the reality that everybody else in the world has recognized: Sooner
or later, an enduring peace can only come from
good-faith negotiations that lead to a peace plan
acceptable to all the parties.
The international community, I believe, must
not allow the Serbs to stall progress toward
peace and continue brutal assaults on innocent
civilians. We've seen too many things happen,
and we do have fundamental interests there,
not only the United States but particularly the
United States as a member of the world community.
The Serbs' actions over the past year violate
the principle that internationally recognized borders must not be violated or altered by aggression from without. Their actions threaten to
widen the conflict and foster instability in other
parts of Europe in ways that could be exceedingly damaging. And their savage and cynical
ethnic cleansing offends the world's conscience
and our standards of behavior.
Therefore, I have this morning directed Secretary Christopher to continue to pursue his
consultations with our allies and friends in Europe and Russia on tougher measures which can


576




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / May 6


be taken collectively, not by the United States
alone but collectively, to make clear to the Serbs
that we are embarked on a course of peace,
and they are embarked on a costly course.
The vote last night simply makes this Christopher mission more important. Secretary Christopher will be insistent that the time has come
for the international community to unite and
to act quickly and decisively. America has made
its position clear and is ready to do its part.
But Europe must be willing to act with us.
We must go forward together.
Your presence here, your understanding of
the importance of exports to America's future,
to the blending of our Nation and our culture
and our values with those of like-minded persons throughout the world should only reinforce
our determination to confine, inasmuch as the
international community can possibly confine,
savage acts of inhumanity to people solely because of their ethnicity or their religion, and
to confine insofar as we possibly can as an international community the ability of one country
to invade another and upset its borders, and
certainly to try to confine this centuries old series of ethnic and religious enmities to the narrowest possible geographical boundaries.
That is what we seek, not to act alone, not
to act rashly, not to do things which would draw
the United States into a conflict not of its own
making and not of its own ability to resolve
but simply concerted action that the international community can and should take to deal
with these issues. I'll have more to say about
it later, but in view of what happened today,
I thought I ought to say this.
For 59 years, since President Franklin Roosevelt created it to help increase foreign aid
and trade with the Soviet Union, the Ex-Im
Bank has assisted United States companies to
sell more than $270 billion in our exports all
around the world. And now the Bank's role in
helping our economy and helping our exports
has never been more important. You are the
people who generate an enormous portion of
our high-wage, high-growth jobs. Without expanding our exports, this country cannot grow,
cannot grow economically and cannot create
more jobs.
In the global economy which we now are
shaped by we see a critical part of every economy's functioning is related to its level of productivity, especially in the export sector. We also
know that America has some special problems


entirely of our own making without regard to
what we may or may not think of every aspect
of our trade policy. We have relatively low savings and investment. We have an enormous
budget deficit which we ran up not in investing
in productive investments at home that would
produce later wealth but largely in increasing
consumption. Indeed, for the last 5 years, the
spiraling growth of the Government's deficit has
been related almost entirely to paying more for
the same health care and to bigger and bigger
interest payments on accumulated debt. This is
a terrible burden on the economic performance
of this country as well as on our future.
Finally, we have, as I said earlier, in putting
more of our Government's money to health care,
we've also seen more private sector dollars go
to health care, so that now we are spending
35 percent more of our national treasure on
health care than any other nation in the world,
imposing significant new burdens on American
businesses as they seek to compete within the
American market and beyond the American
market.
We now, therefore, face an interesting set
of challenges, particularly for a country used
to looking for simple answers and dealing with
one issue at a time. That is, indeed, one of
the great debates in which I am engaged here.
Some people say, "Well, you just ought to do
one thing. just reduce the deficit, no matter
what." For the last 12 years we were on a track
that, at least at election time, was focused on
one thing: just lower taxes, no matter what.
Never mind what happens to the deficit. Never
mind what happens to the investment of the
country. Never mind what happens to the longterm economic health.
Do we need to reduce the deficit? Yes, we
do. Do we also need a targeted program of
investment in the education and training of the
American work force and in the technologies
that will shape this economy into the future?
Yes, we do. Do we have anything so far to
replace the steep, steep cuts in defense spending
which have gone to the very heart of a lot of
our high-wage, high-tech economy, with many
spinoffs benefiting the commercial economy to
date? No, we don't. But we need a technology
policy and a defense conversion policy that attempts to replace that. So we need to bring
down the deficit, and we need a targeted program of investments in jobs technology and
training.


577




May 6 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


Thirdly, I would argue that we will never
reduce the deficit to zero and never restore
fundamental health to this economy until we
address the health care crisis in terms of providing security to Americans and controlling the
cost. And that is obviously a big part of what
we're about up here.
I do not believe we should be forced into
the false choice of saying we must do one or
the other. In the past, our governments have
come to people saying, well, we'll just spend
money and solve your problems for you, or we'll
just cut taxes and solve your problems for you.
Today, we have to have a much more disciplined
and coherent approach that says we are going
to bring the deficit down, we are going to target
investments ini technology and training, and we
are going to do something about the health care
crisis. But we must have an economic policy
that is more than investments, that involves
doing the right things with technology policy,
the right things with defense conversion, the
right things with the Ex-Im  Bank, the right
things to expand our commitment to exports.
Indeed, the economy, I think, must continue
to be the number one priority of our country,
and therefore, the number one priority of this
administration.
The work that exporters and the Ex-Im Bank
do to expand jobs and growth is fundamentally
important, because every time we sell $1 billion
of/American products and services overseas, we
create about 20,000 jobs. In all, more than 7
million Americans clearly owe their jobs to exports. And because those workers in export-related jobs make about 17 percent more than
the average worker, we need more of those jobs.
I have this chart here I wanted to show. It's
the only one I brought today. I'm trying to resist
my policy-wonk impulses. [Laughter] But I do
want to-you can't see it over there-it shows
that in all industries, export-related jobs have
average hourly wages of $11.69 as compared
with $10.02 for nonexport-related jobs. In manufacturing, the figures are virtually the same,
$11.93 to $10.83. And in services, the margin
is even bigger, $11.30 to $9.83. It is clear, therefore, that one of the answers to the wage stagnation which has gripped the American economy
for almost 20 years now with most hourly wage
workers in the country working longer work
weeks for stagnant or lower wages-one of the
answers to that is to increase our exports.
In the last 5 years, exports have accounted


for almost half of our Nation's economic growth.
Goods and services exports made up 10.7 percent of our GDP in 1992, up dramatically from
only 7.5 percent in 1985, just 7 years earlier.
Your work is important, because if U.S. technology, whether it is related to the environment,
energy, transportation, or telecommunications, is
to secure its preeminence, it must have a global
reach. Only with world markets can we afford
the research and development to stay competitive. Export expansion obviously encourages our
most advanced industries. I am committed to
promoting these exports, and what's where the
Ex-Im Bank plays an important role.
In fiscal year 1992, the Ex-Im Bank fostered
more than a quarter million American jobs that
were an outgrowth of the Bank's support for
$14 billion in exports. That's pretty impressive,
but it won't be enough just to hold our own
ground. I know we can top that by strengthening
the partnership between our Government and
the private sector through the Ex-Im Bank.
It's helped to send abroad everything from
machine tools to computer software. It's been
at the forefront of the new export industry that
our Vice President has championed, the environmental industry, one that is so important that
I have directed Commerce Secretary Ron Brown
to work with the Ex-Im Bank, the EPA, and
the Department of Energy to craft a national
strategy for environmental exports. These efforts
will not only help to clean up the planet, they
will put a lot more Americans to work.
We have several environmental services exporters with us here today. One of them, Harza
Engineering of Chicago, helped a rural community in Venezuela to fight off the threat of cholera and other diseases by channeling a fresh
water supply. At the same time it created more
than a thousand jobs for Americans. That's just
one case among many.
We want to increase exponentially these successes in all areas of exports. We can also make
ourselves more competitive by streamlining our
programs, an action long overdue. Right now,
there are more than 150 different export promotion programs in more than 10 Agencies.
They are tangled like a ball of yarn. And our
goal is to untangle them. We want to end the
duplication and overlap to make sure all these
programs are customer-driven. We want our
guide to be the needs of the exporters and the
lenders.
Our vehicle to a coherent export promotion


578




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / May 6


plan will be the Trade Promotion Coordinating
Committee, an interagency group created by the
Congress largely through the efforts of Senator
Don Riegle. The Secretary of Commerce Ron
Brown chairs the group, which has been meeting daily. And once he is confirmed, Ken will
also have hands-on involvement in that effort.
With the Department of Commerce and the
Trade Promotion Coordinating Committee, ExIm will help lead the way toward developing
an export mentality throughout our Government
and throughout our Nation. At the same time,
the Bank will become more of an active
consumer-friendly bank, one that will give more
attention to small and medium-sized businesses.
For every applicant, the Bank will aim to bypass
unnecessary redtape.
Right now, it takes the staff about 6 months
to process a preliminary commitment application
and only one in six such preliminary commitment leads to an actual export sale. But with
new procedures the Bank will be able to respond to most requests within 7 days. Now,
that's reinventing Government.
The staff will be able to process more cases
and support more real deals. In short, the ExIm Bank will use better management measures
to do more without spending more. In these
days of deficit reduction, the Bank will have
to live within its means like all other Government agencies. But Ken has assured me that
he has a number of ways to make your tax
dollars work harder and more effectively.
What we do domestically and how we do
internationally are inseparable. As I said earlier
in my remarks, as the Ex-Im Bank builds exports
markets abroad, we have to do more to assure
that our workers are equipped with the skills
that they need. The average worker will now
change jobs eight times in a lifetime. We have
to do a better job of their education and training.
We need to become better students of economics. The old ways of doing business simply
don't translate into reality today. One of the
first things I did when I became President was
to establish a National Economic Council. It
just made good sense to me. We had a National
Security Council that met with the President
on a regular basis to deal with security issues,
but a great deal of our security is in the economic area. And there was no regular discipline
mechanism by which all the economic decisions
were considered in terms of their impact on


one another, and the United States could develop a coherent policy.
Today, we have that mechanism, and it works.
It works well, and we're working hard to make
it work better.
One of the reasons I was so gratified to get
congressional approval of the overall budget plan
that I presented in record time-it was the first
time in 17 years that Congress had passed a
budget resolution within the legal mandatewhich reduces the deficit by over $500 billion
through spending cuts and tax increases. And
there will not be one without the other, I can
tell you that; I'm not about to raise your taxes
unless the spending cuts are there first. There
will be no budget without both.
This is very important in the export area. I
can't tell you how many years-you probably
know this as well as I do-how many years
the United States would show up at some meeting of the G-7 or another international meeting
and all of our trading partners would spend all
their time telling us that we ought to get our
financial house in order, we ought to bring our
deficit down, we ought to do something to clean
up our own backyard before we lectured our
trading partners about changes in policy.
But now we're in a different position. When
I go to the G-7 meeting in July in Tokyo, the
United States will be a success story in the
making. For starters, we have a responsible
budget plan that does reduce the deficit. Our
interest rates as a result have fallen in many
areas to historic lows, allowing American homeowners and businesses to refinance with ways
that, if we can keep these rates down for a
year, virtually all economists concede will put
$100 billion-plus back into this economy, simply
because of lower interest rates.
In this room today I bet there are scores
of people who have refinanced their home mortgages or been able to have lower business loans
as a result of these interest rates. This is the
ultimate stimulus for the American economy if
we can pass the budget that reduces the deficit
and keep these rates down. It is very, very important.
When we can point to these accomplishments
it makes it much easier for us to work with
the Japanese in getting them to stimulate their
economy and buy more exports. It makes it
much easier for us to argue to our friends in
Germany that it's a good thing to keep bringing
interest rates down. It makes it easier to try


579




May 6 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


to help work together with a coordinated economic policy to lift the world out of the economic stagnation that we now see in Europe
and the Pacific, as well as in North America.
These things are very, very important. But
there is more that we have to do. After 7 years
of talks, I would very much like to see a successful completion of the Uruguay round of the
GATT by December the 15th. World economic
prosperity depends on it. It's the foundation of
the global trading system. A few days ago, I
met with the Finance Ministers and the Central
Bankers of the G-7 nations, and I told them
that the United States was prepared to make
extraordinary efforts to complete the Uruguay
round successfully, that we were willing to go
the extra mile in doing that, but we needed
their help and support. And I hope we will
get it.
The GATT agreement would be a blessing
for the United States exporters because it will
lower foreign tariffs, curb subsidies that tilt the
playing field, and strengthen the protection of
intellectual property, the piracy of which costs
our companies about $60 billion a year. In the
GATT and in all of our trade talks, we have
put our trading partners on notice that I expect
access to their markets comparable to the access
we want to extend to them. But we welcome
foreign products and services and investments
here, as long as our products, services, and investments have a chance to be welcomed in
other countries as well. It's fair, and it's good
business.
These are the principles that will underscore
not only our multilateral but our bilateral relationships as well. With the right markets at
home and the right rules in international markets, our export opportunities are virtually limitless.
I want to say a special word about our opportunities in our own backyard in Latin America.
Latin America is reining in its debt and what
is emerging from a more stable economy is a
populace clamoring for consumer products and
entrepreneurs who are shopping for capital
goods. It's a market for our exports that is growing at 3 times the rate of any other market
in the world. That is why I strongly support
the North American Free Trade Agreement,
with the supplemental agreements we are presently negotiating with Canada and Mexico relating to labor and the environment.
NAFTA will help us to unlock a market that


will create hundreds of thousands of high-paying
jobs. And NAFTA, therefore is a high priority
for this administration. The reason it is so controversial is that the American people have seen
12 years in which their wages have gone down
and 3 years in which we actually have fewer
private sector jobs. And everybody is afraid of
change. But the only way a rich country can
grow richer is by exporting more and by having
more partners in economic progress. And if we
can make this agreement with Mexico work,
then we can move forward to the other market
economies of Latin America, to Chile, to Argentina, to any number of other nations who want
to be a part of this kind of partnership. I think
it is very, very important.
Just listen to this: Exports to Canada already
support 1.5 million American jobs. And in the
past 5 years, the number of American jobs tied
to Mexico have grown from 300,000 to 700,000
jobs, almost exclusively because of the unilateral
reduction of trade restrictions by Mexico, which
have allowed the volume of trade two-ways to
go up and the trade deficit to be erased. These
are very encouraging signs. We project another
200,000 good jobs if we can have a successful
implementation of the NAFTA process.
Mexico is a valued customer for another reason. We also believe that this new economic
thinking, if it works, will help to spread all
across the developing world. We know that there
are an impressive array of political and economic
leaders in Mexico, and I know that the Secretary
of Finance Pedro Aspe is with us today. I want
to welcome him and extend my best wishes to
President Salinas for our emerging partnership.
Outside this hemisphere, I think we have to
look increasingly to the newly industrializing
countries of Asia. I know we have someone here
from Indonesia. Indonesia is the fifth biggest
country in the world. Indonesia is now the leader of the nonaligned nations. They have a resolution on Bosnia actually being debated in the
Untied Nations today. Maybe they can figure
out how to do a better job with this.
We have enormous opportunities there. When
I go to the G-7 meeting in Japan, I'm going
to meet with the President of Indonesia to send
a signal to the nonaligned nations, to the emerging nations of the world, that the United States
wants to be their partner in new trade relations,
that there are all kinds of things that we can
continue to do that we have not done before.
Finally, let me say just a little word about


580




1_ _ _ _ _


Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / May 6


Russia. The Bank is now setting out to do what
it was originally set up to do because Russia
may be able to absorb its efforts. To date, the
Bank has approved $205 million in final commitments to Russia. It's working on an oil and
gas agreement framework that could support as
much as $2 billion in American goods and services for Russia's energy sector. As I told President Yeltsin when we met in Vancouver, the
United States once had a famous citizen named
Willie Sutton who was asked why he was devoting his entire life to robbing banks, and he said,
"Because that's where the money is." [Laughter]
In Russia, energy is where the money is. If
we can work it out, we can make a huge partnership there in ways that are enormously beneficial for the American economy and good for
the Russians as well.
At different junctures in this century, our
country has shown itself to be a catalyst for
global reform. We have faced off facism and
communism. We helped to build the international institutions after World War II that
made so many good things happen in the noncommunist world and now, because of the collapse of communism, are coming into their own
with the real potential to fully flower.
The world of tomorrow will reward those of
us who not only have the values which made
Exchange With Reporters on Bosnia
May 6, 1993
Q. Mr. President, the Serbs are now saying
that they're going to cut off all but humanitarian
supplies to the Bosnians. Do you have any reaction to that?
The President. Well, that would be a good
start. We'll see. We're working today on a lot
of options. I want to see what happens over
the next few days.
Q. Have you gotten back to the Europeans,
sir?
The President. Oh, of course.
Q. Today I mean, with either Mitterrand or
Major?
The President. I talked with President Mitterrand today.
Q. Mr. President, is military action inevitable


these institutions possible but which behave in
ways that will be rewarded in the hard glare
of international economic competition.
I just saw today another set of figures showing
that in the first quarter of this year, there was
another huge increase in productivity in the
American manufacturing sector. We want those
manufacturers who are increasing their productivity. We want their workers who are the source
of that increased productivity to be rewarded.
I am convinced that the only way we can do
it is by opening markets to the United States
and giving the American people the chance to
enjoy the benefits, the fruits of their labor and
giving other countries the chance to grow
through mutual trade and development.
You are on the frontlines of that. I came
here to salute you and to assure you that
through the Ex-Im Bank and every other means
at this administration's command we will do our
best to have the kind of trade policy that will
grow the American economy and benefit the
entire world.
Thank you very much.
NOTE: The President spoke at 11:02 a.m. at the
J.W. Marriott. In his remarks, he referred to
Radovan Karadzic, leader of the Bosnian Serbs.


at this point? Do you have to do something
like that?
The President. I don't want to say anything
else. You know what we're doing, and the Christopher mission is proceeding. And I don't have
anything to add to what I said earlier except
any welcome signs would be welcome. Let's see
if anybody changes their conduct.
Q. It doesn't sound like you're getting a lot
of welcoming from the Europeans on the Christopher mission.
The President. Oh, I have talked to Mitterrand today. We'll see what happens.
NOTE: The exchange began at 4 p.m. in the Oval


581




May 6 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


Office at the White House, at a meeting with   not available for verification of the content of this
former baseball player Stan Musial. A tape was  exchange.
Exchange With Reporters on Health Care Reform
May 6, 1993


Q. Mr. Clinton, has your health care program
slipped into June?
The President. No. What do you mean
"slipped into June"?
Q. The announcement of it.
The President. I don't know when we're going
to announce it. We haven't decided exactly. But
we're working on it. The most important thing
is we're going to finish, outline the details on
time. Then we're going to-and one more round
of extensive consultations. When we come forward with it depends in part on how we're doing
with the consultations. You know, I had lunch
today with leading Republican Senators and
Members of Congress. We'll just see what happens.
But the critical thing is, we want to introduce
it and reveal it in time to make sure it is considered this year. The American people need
health security. We need to control the cost
of the health care system. We need to be able
to guarantee that the American people are not
going to lose their health coverage if some misfortune befalls them. And we're going to give
the American people that kind of plan. It will
be exciting, and it will be dealt with this year.


Q. Do you want to make sure it doesn't get
caught up in reconciliation?
The President. Well, I think it's going to be
caught up to some extent in it regardless. But
I think there is a limit to-I don't think Congress can consider it until they consider the
reconciliation. The real issue-it's really almost
a technical one-it is at what point in the calendar must a bill be introduced in order to
go through all the processes to be considered
and voted on by the end of the year. No one
thinks it will be considered at the time reconciliation is. The only question is, how quickly do
we have to get it in so that it could actually
be voted on if we can persuade the Congress
to vote on it in this calendar year. That's the
issue. And it's almost a mechanical question as
much as anything else. But we're going to have
a good program. I'm encouraged.
NOTE: The exchange began at 4:25 p.m. in the
Oval Office at the White House, at a meeting with
the Goodwill Industries National Graduate of the
Year. A tape was not available for verification of
the content of this exchange.


Remarks on Presenting the Commander in Chief Trophy to the U.S. Air
Force Academy Football Team
May 6, 1993


Thank you very much. Please be seated. I
want to say what a great pleasure it is for me
to welcome the seniors from the United States
Air Force Academy football team to the White
House to receive the 1992 Commander in
Chiefs Trophy. With me to honor the Falcons
are the Secretary of Defense, Les Aspin, the
acting Secretary of the Air Force, Michael Donnelly, General McPeak, the Chief of Staff of
the Air Force, and Congresswoman Pat Schroe

der, Congressman Martin Lancaster, and of
course, the Commander of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, General Colin Powell-Chairman-I said
the wrong word, didn't I? It's been a long day,
folks. We were inside looking at cartoons making
fun of the President. That's what General Powell
and Secretary Aspin and I were doing. [Laughter] It's all I can do to regain my composure
here. I also want to welcome the Air Force
Academy Superintendent, Lt. General Bradley


582






Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / May 6


Hosmer, and the Academy athletic director,
Colonel Ken Schweitzer.
This is my first chance to present the Commander in Chiefs Trophy, but I know it's the
Air Force's eighth trip to claim it-and the
fourth year in a row, something no other team
has done. Now, I know the Falcons are smart
football players, the epitome of student athletes.
But they don't seem to understand the concept
of a traveling trophy. I mean the idea is the
trophy should travel among the service academies, not for the Air Force to travel with it
between Colorado and Washington every year.
[Laughter]
Of course, the Army and the Navy made it
tough this year: both games were hard-fought
to the final gun. But the spirit and determination of this team carried the day. Now the class
of 1993 has the distinction of being the first
service academy class to go undefeated against
the other academies. And who would have
thought that the Air Force would have accomplished all this with a relentless ground attack?
In the early eighties Air Force's head coach
was Ken Hatfield, a native of my State and
later the head coach of the University of Arkansas. His offensive coordinator was Fischer
DeBerry. When they installed the wishbone offense, they found a winning combination. Since
Coach DeBerry took over as head coach in
1984, his teams have won the Commander in
Chiefs Trophy six times and have earned their
way to seven post-season bowl games.
But more importantly than the victories or
the trophy are the life lessons Coach DeBerry
has taught in word and in deed. In his own
inimitable mile-a-minute style, the coach instills
the values of discipline, teamwork, and faith that
produce success on the gridiron and in life. His
guidance and the leadership of the team seniors
sustained the Falcons through the challenges
and triumphs of a 7-5 season that closed with
a heartbreaking loss to the University of Mississippi in the Liberty Bowl.
The University of Arkansas has lost some Liberty Bowl games, too; I know about that.
Through it all the 1992 Falcons lived up to
their credo: Together, one at a time. Sticking
together, believing in each other, taking one
game at a time brought them here today. I
might add, it will take us as Americans a long
way if we can follow those rules.


In honoring the team spirit of the Falcons
today I can't overlook one special player, Cadet
First Class Carlton McDonald, whose efforts set
a standard of All-American excellence at corner
back. If you don't believe me, just ask the quarterbacks and the kickers who were terrorized.
Whether intercepting passes or blocking kicks,
he wreaked havoc on opposing offenses. I'm
glad that he will be on our side as an Air Force
officer.
In fact, I am proud that in 20 days-26 days
and a wake-up-all of you will be commissioned
as second lieutenants in the United States Air
Force. I encourage you there to carry on your
spirit of dedication and selflessness as you become leaders for our Nation.
So now it is with great pride that I present
this 1992 Commander in Chiefs Trophy to the
team captains of the Air Force Academy Falcons, Jarvis Baker, Chris Baker, and Carlton
McDonald. Will they please come up, along with
the coach?
Let's give them a hand.
[At this point, the President presented the trophy, and the team then presented gifts to the
President. ]
I want you to know that a couple of years
ago my wife and daughter went to visit the
Air Force Academy, and I think it was one
of the most important events of her childhood.
She came back with brochures and pictures, and
we talk about it all the time. Just last week
we had another conversation about it, and she
asked me if her eyes were too bad to fly.
[Laughter] She really loves the Air Force Academy.
I also want to say something to you, coach.
I'm glad the Air Force Academy has a coach
who doesn't speak with an accent. [Laughter]
And I can't close, General McPeak, without
a little word of personal pride here. The President's military aide from the Air Force, Major
Johnson, over here, was herself a distinguished
athlete at the Air Force Academy in basketball.
She can still run the President into the dirt
on any given morning. [Laughter] I thank the
Air Force Academy for her, and I thank all
of you for being here today. Thank you.
NOTE: The President spoke at 4:44 p.m. in the
Rose Garden at the White House.


583




May 6 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


Nomination for Posts at the Department of State
May 6, 1993


The President named two experienced environmental leaders to Senior Executive Service
positions at the State Department today. Rafe
Pomerance will serve as Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources, and Jessica Tuchman Mathews will
serve as Deputy Under Secretary for Global Affairs.
"The global environment is one of the most


serious issues facing our Nation," said the President. "These two nominees have a lifetime of
experience and knowledge in working on this
critical issue. I look forward to working with
them to attack the pressing problems of global
pollution."
NOTE: Biographies of the nominees were made
available by the Office of the Press Secretary.


Remarks on Campaign Finance Reform and a Question-and-Answer
Session
May 7, 1993


The President. Thank you very much. Mr.
Vice President, distinguished leaders of the Congress, ladies and gentlemen from Close Up. I'm
delighted to have the Close Up students sitting
with us today at the White House. A little more
than 30 years ago, when I was about your age,
I came here, and the experience changed my
life forever in terms of my dedication to try
to do more to help our country work. Thirty
years from now I hope that all of you will look
back on this day and believe that you were
witness to an event that helped to change the
course of America, for on this day we seek to
reform our political process, to restore the faith
of the American people in our democracy, and
to ensure that once again the voice of the people as a whole is heard over the voice of special
interests in Washington.
Today we're announcing the most comprehensive reform of the political system in the history
of this country, a proposal that limits spending
by candidates for the House and the Senate;
a proposal which bans contributions to Members
by lobbyists who lobby them; a proposal which
curbs the power and influence of political action
committees; a proposal that levels the playing
field between challengers and incumbents and
pays for it by taxing lobbyists and not the American people; a proposal that plugs loopholes in
the financing of Presidential campaigns by eliminating so-called soft money contributions.
We take these extraordinary steps in the bill


proposed today and commit ourselves to adopting it into law for one fundamental reason.
Without fundamental change in the way we finance campaigns, everything else we seek to
improve in the lives of our people, from creating
jobs to providing a secure system of health care,
to educating our people better and enabling us
to compete in a global economy, everything will
be harder to achieve. Economic reform, health
care reform, and political reform must go handin-hand. The system has to work to produce
good results.
Today, by one estimate, Washington, DC, has
at least 80,000 people working directly or indirectly to lobby the National Government, a veritable influence industry. The more we seek to
change things, the more we draw lobbyists to
Washington to see if they can stop the change.
To be sure, these lobbyists often represent
points of view that genuinely deserve to be
heard, and we in Government often benefit
from their views. But there are times when
these powerful interests turn debate into delay
and exert more influence over decisions in
Washington than the people we were elected
to serve do.
We're fighting hard to reform our health care
system. Soon we'll put forward a plan to ensure
health security for every American and to control the exploding costs of health care. Already,
some special interests have gone beyond consulting about what the best way to do this is, to


584




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / May 7


preparing to carve the plans to bits to make
sure that the present system stays intact, which
is good for the people they represent but bad
for the public interest.
We're fighting to ensure that the tax burden
falls more fairly on those who can afford to
pay and less on the middle class, whose incomes
went down and tax burdens went up over the
last 12 years. And already, special interests are
clogging the halls of power, whispering that they
deserve to continue the advantages which have
pertained for too long.
We're fighting to make it possible for every
young person to go to college and to pay back
your loans as a percentage of your income after
you go to work so that you can never be bankrupted later by heavy student debts today. And
already, banks and their allies are out in force,
since they profit inordinately from the current
system, seeking to frustrate our plans.
It's quite clear, Government will work for the
middle class and for the average American only
if Washington is free to work for the national
interests and not narrow interests. And that
won't happen unless we change the way we finance campaigns in this country. It's time to
curb the role of special interests and to empower average citizens to have their voices heard
once again.
Campaign finance reform is a tough issue to
grapple with. It requires those of us who set
the rules to change the rules that got us all
here. That's not easy to do. Last year, Congress
passed a good campaign finance reform bill only
to see it vetoed in the past administration. As
I promised, we would support campaign reform
this year with a bill that is even tougher and
better than the bill which passed the Congress
and was vetoed last year. Particularly we have
taken aim at the lobbyists who symbolize the
reason that nothing ever seems to get done here
in this city.
And that's why I'm pleased to stand here with
these congressional leaders, some of whom have
worked for years and years and years on this
issue, and others, including the leadership of
the House and Senate, who have made it possible to us to bring this bill forward in a way
that has a real chance of passage. We're moving
forward with this. This bill is for real. Even
if special interests object, even if they try to
filibuster or delay, eventually I believe we will
pass campaign finance reform, and I will sign
it, because the people will support it and de

mand it.
This plan will change the way Washington
works, the way campaigns are financed, the way
that politics is played. First, the plan will impose
strict but voluntary campaign limits on spending
in congressional campaigns as required by the
United States Supreme Court. Spending has
gone up too far and too fast. Last year alone
spending on congressional campaigns shot up
by 52 percent over the previous election. When
campaign spending is out of control, candidates
without access to big money simply cannot compete.
Second, this plan will rein in the special interests by restricting the role of lobbyists and
PAC's or political action committees. For the
very first time, our plan will ban contributions
from lobbyists to lawmakers they contact and
lobby. It will even bar them from raising money
for those officials they lobby. If enacted, this
proposal will plainly change the culture in Washington in a very fundamental way. This proposal
curbs the role of political action committees.
It caps the amount of money any candidate can
receive from PAC's. It limits PAC contributions
to $1,000 to Presidential campaigns, to $2,500
for Senate candidates. And while it leaves the
present limit on the House candidates, it limits
the percentage of any candidate's budget which
can come from political action committees, a
dramatic change in the present system.
Third, our political reform plan will open the
airwaves and level the playing field between incumbents and challengers by providing communications vouchers to candidates who agree to
the spending limits. This was an important part
of my campaign last year. I think we have got
to open the airwaves so that there can be honest
debate and all the people who run, including
challengers, have access to them. These vouchers can only be used to communicate with the
voters through broadcast, print, or postage. Let
me make clear, these vouchers, no matter what
you will hear from the people who want to
protect the present special interest system, these
vouchers will not be paid for by middle class
taxpayers. They will be funded by closing a
major tax loophole that allows many businesses
to deduct the cost of lobbying and the costs
they pay for their lobbyists through repeal of
the deductibility of lobbying expenses. Corporate
lobbying, believe it or not, has only been deductible since 1962. It's time to close a 30 -year-old loophole and instead use the money


585




May 7 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


to give the political process back to the American people. And there will be the voluntary
tax checkoff, which will let citizens choose to
have $5 of their income tax go to make this
system work. It is entirely voluntary, but I think
a lot of Americans will like this system better
than the one we have.
Our reform plan won't just affect congressional campaigns. During the Presidential campaign, I promised to propose legislation that
would shut down the system of soft money that
increases spending so dramatically in national
campaigns. Today this legislation does exactly
that. Make no mistake, this legislation will cost
me and the Democratic Party, like the Republican Party, significant sums of money. But it
is the right thing to do.
We envision a new Democratic Party and a
new party system built on the energy of millions
of average citizens who believe that politics is
once again a thrilling collective endeavor, who
want to give the small amounts of money they
can afford to give to the political process and
to the party of their choice because they will
know that that money will count and will not
be overwhelmed by special interests.
This proposal can change the status quo. And
the special interests surely will mobilize against
it. They don't want to see their ability to give
campaign contributions curbed. The status quo
suits many of them fine. The problem is that
even when a lot of these people are making
their voices heard in legitimate ways, the totality
of their efforts has served to paralyze this process, to paralyze this city, and to keep meaningful
change from occurring long after everybody acknowledges that it has to occur in fundamental
areas of our national life, such as economic policy and health care.
I believe the winds of change are too strong.
At the beginning of my term, I imposed the
strictest ethics restriction ever on my top officials. They'll be prohibited from lobbying their
Agencies for 5 years after they leave, and they
can never lobby for a foreign government. We've
already seen progress in the United States Congress. Earlier this week, the United States Senate passed a historic lobby disclosure bill, a bill
which opens the activities of lobbyists to the
sunshine of public scrutiny. If this bill passes
the entire Congress now, every time a lobbyist
spends more than a small amount of money
to lobby a bill on any Member, it will all have
to be reported. And this is the kind of thing


that we ought to be doing.
I worked for this sort of reform for a decade
in my own State. I know how hard it is. Finally
I had to take my proposals to a vote of the
people to pass them. In the Presidential campaign, from the snows of New Hampshire onward, I talked about these kinds of changes.
Now we see, from the vote in the Senate yesterday and from the strong support we're receiving
on the campaign finance reform bill today, the
prospect of real political reform in Washington.
I hope the House will act quickly on the measure that the Senate passed yesterday on lobby
registration and disclosure.
I believe the season of political reform has
finally arrived. Today we are here united in our
commitment to enact these kinds of reforms.
We need your help, your parents' help, the help
of the people that you go to school with, the
help of the people that you represent all across
this country to overcome the resistance that inevitably accompanies this kind of change. But
when we do overcome the forces of inertia, we
can once again make our political system workwork more quickly, work more efficiently, work
less expensively, and most importantly, work for
the people who work hard and play by the rules.
Thank you very much.
[At this point, Senator George J. Mitchell,
Speaker of the House of Representatives Thomas
S. Foley, Senator David L. Boren, and Representative Sam Gejdenson made statements in
support of campaign finance reform legislation,
and the Vice President invited questions.]
The President. We'll take some from the students. But I'll take a couple from the press
and a couple from the students.
Q. [Inaudible]
The President. As you know, I favor a smaller
PAC limit, and I wanted-in our legislation we
go to $1,000 in Presidential campaigns, which
is more broadly dispersed. I think there were
two reasons. One is the House Members believe
they have less access to raise funds on a Statewide basis, particularly those who come from
very poor congressional districts, and obviously
very limited ability to raise money beyond their
States. So they were insistent on keeping the
limit higher. But they did do something that
I never proposed when I ran for President that
I think provides an equally important limitation
on the influence of PAC's, and that is to set
a very strict limit on the percentage of total


586






Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / May 7


campaign contributions which could come from
PAC's, one which is, as Senator Boren has already noted, is lower than the average that
Members of Congress received last time in running for reelection. So they have agreed to dramatically reduce the impact of PAC money on
their campaign treasuries over and above what
they have been getting. And I thought that was
a reasonable agreement.
The   Vice  President.  And  the  lobby
contribution
The President. And of course, they also, the
leadership and the sponsors of the bill, have
also agreed to a dramatic change-I want to
emphasize this; this is new from the last billto say that lobbyists give money to or raise
money for Members of Congress whom they
have lobbied within the previous year. And if
they do that, then they cannot lobby them for
a year after this. That is a very significant
change. Did you say I got the facts right?
Q. Mr. President, you have no Republicans
here. I know you have been trying to get some
bipartisan support. Do you think now this is
fated to be filibustered and won'tThe President. Why don't I ask maybe one
of the Senators to discuss that. Senator Boren
and I have already talked about it. Senator
Mitchell.
Senator Mitchell. We've reached out to Republican Senators. Senator Boren and Senator
Ford have met individually with a large number
of Republican Senators. And as you know, yesterday a group of five of them sent me a letter
detailing concerns they have and principles they
hold with respect to campaign finance reform.
And we're going to continue our dialog with
them. Having received the letter, it's my hope
that we can shortly meet with them, talk with
them, and work together to try to achieve a
bipartisan bill.
Q. Well, is the issue of public financing negotiable?
Senator Mitchell. Well, we think that the bill
the President has presented is the right way
to go. Obviously, we're going to listen to, consider thoughtfully and seriously suggestions
made by anyone, especially and including the
Republican Senators who sent the letter and
others. We hope very much that we can reach
a bipartisan agreement. We passed this bill last
year with Republican Senators' votes. We hope
we can do so again this year.
The President. I'd like to make two points,


if I may. First of all, the House Members reminded me in response to the previous question
that this bill also does something that we don't
do now. This limits the contributions from individuals that House Members can get above $200
to one-third of the total, which is a pretty dramatic change.
Secondly, I think we ought to hone in on
the question you just asked, Andrea [Andrea
Mitchell, NBC News], in terms of the expressed
reservations. And I had talks with Senator Boren
and Senator Ford as well as Senator Mitchell
before we came out here. The people who will
oppose this bill and will say, well, this is public
financing, and we're against public financing,
and we have so many other needs, how can
we spend tax dollars on it-I want to make
two points. First of all, this bill will be financed
entirely by repealing the lobbyist tax deduction
and voluntary contributions from the American
people. No taxpayer who's paying anything now
will pay any more to finance this bill. No expenditure now going to the education and welfare or national defense of this country will be
diverted to pay for this bill, not one red cent.
The second point I want to make is this:
If you wish to limit the expenditures on congressional races, as we limit the expenditures in
Presidential campaigns, it can constitutionally
only be done if it is tied to the receipt of public
financing, because the Supreme Court has ruled
that a millionaire or a billionaire can spend as
much money as they want and that anybody
can spend as much money as they can raise
on any campaign, unless there is some benefit
tied to it. Correct? So there is no way, we will
never limit spending in national races unless
we can tie it to a broad-based stream of financing, accountable to all the people. That's why
some Republicans voted for this bill 2 years
ago. They understood this-or last year. And
I hope they will again.
Yes, sir.
Q. You're stressing no public support here,
but on the Presidential checkoff and presumably
the congressional checkoff and also the loss of
a deduction of lobbyists, wouldn't that revenue
be useful for things such as jobs programs and
other areas that you favor? How is it not public
support? Could you go into that a little more
deeply?
The President. Well, that's only if the individual taxpayers want it to be diverted to that.
If they make a decision to do that in the context


587




May 7 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


of a very large budget, it would be a tiny
amount that they can divert. But their lawmakers will not divert it; the taxpayers can do
it. The taxpayers won't pay extra. They can say,
well, we'll spend up to $5 of our money on
this. But that is their decision. That's not our
decision. I like that. I wish we could give people
more control over their lives, not less. So I
think that's an advance.
Q. Mr. President, on a different subject, now
with the Christopher mission over, can you tell
us what you and the Europeans have accomplished? The impression is that despite all of
his diplomatic skills, that nothing on the ground
in Yugoslavia or Bosnia is going to change, at
least for the foreseeable future.
The President. I'll be happy to answer that,
but if I might, can I just answer-and I'll come
back to you before I leave, but could weif there are any other questions on this subject
from the press, on the campaign finance reform.
Yes.
Q. Mr. President, how do you intend to convince the public to spend tax dollars on Federal
election campaigns? Because, back to Frank's
[Frank Murray, Washington Times] question,
they haven't been checking off that dollar. One
of the reasons it has to be raised to $5 is because the fund is running out of money.
The President. Why don't you answer this?
[At this point, Representative Gejdenson, Senator Mitchell, and Senator Boren each responded
to the question on the voluntary taxpayer checkoff, and the Vice President commented on public
support for campaign finance reform.]
The President. One of the reasons that I think
people will participate, by the way, is exemplified by the enormous way that lobby registration
and disclosure bill carried through the Senate
yesterday. I think that when it finally got on
the floor it was 95 to 2. The only argument
against this will be, well, there's public money
involved. But people are smart enough to know
that we're paying for it by repealing the lobbyist
deduction. The public knows that they're not
going to get the money in their back pocket,
and they're not going to get the money spent
on their favorite program. We're either going
to repeal the lobbyist deduction and do this
and open up this system, or we're not. And
I think we ought to.
Let me also say that I think one reason more
people will participate is, they can see some


tangible evidence of political reform which is
worth their money. I remind you, we had a
big outpouring of voters in the last election.
I don't take full credit for it; they voted for
all three candidates. But there was a big increase in voter participation, a huge increase
in voter participation among young people. This
White House has already received more letters
in 1993 than came into the White House in
the entire year of 1992. People are interested
now. They're concerned. They want their country back. They want their Government back.
And I think they will seize this opportunity if
we give it to them.
Now, we had a couple of young people who
had questions there on this. Go ahead.
Q. I was wondering, because incumbents
don't have to spend as much money as their
challengers, how are you going to make that
equal for everyone?
The President. Well, the truth-you can't give
the challengers more than the incumbents,
but-I have two responses. One, as a practical
matter, what often happens is the incumbents
hugely outspend the challengers unless the challengers are very well-known or independently
wealthy, 4 to 1 is the average. So this will even
it up. That's a long way from 4 to 1.
The second thing is that all of us who have
run in elections know that there is a core, a
threshold amount of money you have to have
to make sure your voice is heard. After that,
if somebody's got a little more, it's not as important. But this will even up the spending, number
one; and number two, it will bring everybody
to that threshold where they can be known by
the voters and their message can be heard.
Q. My question is this: Do you feel that
PAC's like Emily's List that aren't funded by
big business and big corporations should be exempt from your proposal?
The President. That's a hot issue up here.
The answer is, I don't, from the bundling proposal. The question is whether Emily's List or
any other list not tied to a specific interest group
like labor or manufacturers or whatever but instead tied to a set of ideas should be able to
go and gather up contributions from people all
over America and then send them to the candidates of their choice who may or may not
be known to the people who gave the money
to Emily's List. I can only tell you this bill
does not explicitly address that.
My own view is-and I really appreciate the


588






Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / May 7


work that Emily's List has done-is that you
can't just make an exemption for Emily's List.
Anybody who says, we stand for certain ideas
and certain values, whether you like them or
not, could do the same thing. So I think there's
a way that can be compromised. I think, you
know, you might have Emily's List, for example,
or any other similar PAC be able to send specific envelopes to their contributors and have
the contributors send them directly. But my own
personal view is that the law should be the
same for everyone.
Q. My question is, with the bill that was
passed through the Senate, and if it is passed
through the House, would that hurt or will it
help your bill if it is passed through legislation?
The President. It will help. Let me tell you
what the difference is. The bill that the Senate
passed yesterday requires much more extensive
registration by people who lobby the Congress,
so that the press will be able to find and tell
you who is lobbying on what issues, who they
are and where they live and what they do. It
furthermore now requires the Senate and the
House Members who receive any kind of benefit
like a trip, a hunting trip or something like
that, that is over a certain amount of money,
that that has to be disclosed. I think it's over
$20, isn't it? Over $20. There has to be a record
made of that. That will almost certainly discourage a number of those things. And if they occur,
then you'll know what kind of lobbying is really
going on. A lot of money is spent on that every
year. So getting that into the light of day is
a big deal. If that were to pass the House,
that would not-I think it would help to pass
this, because that bill only deals with the activities of lobbyists. It doesn't deal with the activities of lobbyists and spending limits and political
action committees in campaign financing. So I
see these two things as going hand-in-hand.
When I ran for President, I said I wanted
to have lobby reform and campaign finance reform and motor voter registration and a lot of
those things which will all fit together to open
the system to the people. So I think it will
help. If the Senate bill passes the House, I
think it will help campaign finance reform.
That's a very intelligent question, by the way.
The Vice President. They're recommending
that you just take one more because of the
group from theThe President. They say I can-go ahead. I


have a crowd waiting for me. I'm sorry. And
then I've got to answer your question.
Q. If the bill doesn't pass, what aspects of
it would you be willing to change, if any?
The President. Well, I don't want to say that,
because if I do that, then the people who don't
want it will try to go to the lowest common
denominator. Senator Boren I think made the
comment, or Senator Mitchell, one of them
talked about the letter that was received from
the five Republican Senators. So we will see
what they have to say as we go along. But let's
see, first of all, let's see if it can pass the House.
Let's see how the Democrats feel about it and
whether there are some Republicans who favor
it. And if we can pass it, then we'll go forward.
I think the key thing, frankly, is whether you
could say we shouldn't spend taxpayers' money
on this when there are so many other needs.
If that can really be presented, then the opponents will have won an enormous victory. They
will just keep the system just the way it is.
When the truth is that we're going to pay for
it with voluntary contributions and repealing the
lobbyist deduction that they've enjoyed for 31
years. I think if people see this as a way of
controlling spending, limiting lobbyists, and limiting PAC's, then the support for it will be overwhelming. And that's why we've been so careful
in the way it's been drawn up.
Bosnia
Now, to your question. First, when Secretary
Christopher gets back, I expect to see him. I
also expect to see Senators Nunn and Lugar
at a minimum from the representatives of-the
three Republican and three Democratic Senators who have been in the area. Secretary
Christopher and I will meet with the other
members of our national security group, and
we will see where we go from there.
But I've been keeping up with this trip as
well as with events and been making some calls
overseas myself. I expect we will be able to
reach a consensus fairly shortly on which approach to take. And as soon as we do, we will
announce it and go forward.
Thank you very much.
NOTE: The President spoke at 9:40 a.m. on the
South Lawn at the White House. A part of the
question-and-answer session could not be verified
because the tape was incomplete.


589




May 7 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


Exchange With Reporters Prior to Discussions With European Community
Leaders
May 7, 1993


Bosnia
Q. Mr. President, what makes you so confident that you're going to get a consensus, and
a consensus for what? Air strikes? Lifting the
arms embargo?
The President. First of all, I think I should
receive a report from Mr. Christopher before
I make a final comment on that. The Secretary
is coming home, and we're going to meet. We're
going to meet with our principals, and we're
all going to compare notes. I want to get a
good personal briefing from Senator Nunn and
Senator Lugar and any of the other Senators
who want to talk to me who went on that trip.
I just have the feeling based on my conversations in the last week and the reports I've been
getting that we can reach a common policy,
particularly in light of the events of the last
2 days. And we'll just see how we do and go
forward.
Q. Mr. President, do you feel that you could
reach a common policy that would not include
military force if the allies are resistant to that
but a policy that could still be successful and
that wouldn't undermine your authority?
The President. I think we have to turn up
the heat and keep the pressure on. You know
what our policy has been, what we've been
pushing. I think I shouldn't say more until after
I see Secretary Christopher.
Q. Mr. President, how does Belgrade's action
yesterday change the equation, if at all?
The President. It's hard to say. It was welcome
if it's real and if it can be followed through
on. But I have to get an intelligence report
on what the practical impact of that is. That's
one of the things we'll be discussing. Our weekends the last few weeks have been given over
to these kinds of matters, and I expect tomorrow
morning I'll talk about it quite a bit.
Q. While the deliberations are going on, won't
the Serbs be simply confirming their hold on
all this land and killing more people? How do
you
The President. We'll have to wait, and we'll
have to see. But that will obviously, at least
for me, it will affect how I view this and what


I will do.
Q. Is it strange to have Milosevic on your
side?
The President. Is it strange to what?
Q. To have Milosevic on your side?
The President. Yes, it's an unusual feeling.
And I hope he'll stay there.
[At this point, one group of reporters left the
room, and another group entered.]
Q. Mr. President, do you expect the Europeans to come along now and support the use
of force in Bosnia?
The President. Well, I think that we have to
take stronger steps. We have to keep turning
the pressure up. I think that obviously some
of what has been done is having an effect, even
though the so-called assembly did not approve
the Vance-Owen plan the Serb leaders seem
to be in favor of.
I'm going to discuss that with the Prime Minister and with President Delors, and then we're
going to talk tomorrow among ourselves. My
Secretary of State is just coming home now,
and after that I'll have more to say.
Q. Mr. President, do you find Mr. Milosevic's
actions and the sanctions against the Bosnian
Serbs encouraging?
The President. Yes, I hope it's real. I haven't
had time to be advised about the practical impact of it in the short run, but perhaps it will
have a psychological impact. I would think these
fights between the Serbs and the Bosnia Muslims and the Croats, they go back so many centuries, they have such powerful roots that it
may be that it's more difficult for the people
on the ground to make a change in their policy
than for the leaders. And so I think it may
be that over the next several days some change
can be effected on the ground. And if it is
a genuine effort by Mr. Milosevic, then of
course I would be quite happy about that, and
we'll see what we can do with it.
NOTE: The exchange began at 10:40 a.m. in the
Oval Office at the White House. A tape was not
available for verification of the content of this exchange.


590




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / May 7


The President's News Conference With European Community Leaders
May 7, 1992


President Clinton. Good afternoon, ladies and
gentlemen. We have just completed our first
meeting of the leaders of the United States and
the European Community. I would like to offer
a warm welcome to Washington and the White
House to Prime Minister Rasmussen and to
President Delors.
I had the pleasure of meeting with President
Delors earlier, in March, and I'm delighted now
to have the opportunity to see the Prime Minister of Denmark and the leader of the EC.
Before I comment on some elements of the
meeting, I want to describe first the attitude
of this administration toward the European
Community.
It often seems to be the case that there is
a great deal of focus, understandably, on some
of the trade disputes that divide us rather than
the bonds which unite us. It's useful to recall
that our common ground is far, far wider than
the areas of disagreement. The United States
has long been a strong proponent of European
unity and the importance of our transatlantic
ties. Thirty-one years ago, President Kennedy
made a statement that I believe holds as true
today as it did then. He said, "We see in Europe
a partner with whom we could deal on the basis
of full equality in all the great and burdensome
tasks of building and defending a community
of free nations." That same vision guides this
administration.
The European Community is our largest single trade and investment partner. Our relationships with Europe are directly responsible for
an inordinate number of American jobs, and
if we cultivate that relationship properly and
grow our trade and investment, it will mean
more economic opportunities for the American
people.
Even more important perhaps is our shared
commitment to democratic values, to the protection of basic human rights, and to our collective
responsibility to assist others who aspire to those
values in their own society. We fully support
Europe's efforts toward further integration, and
we will work with the European Community
to achieve our common goals.
We believe a strong and united European
Community as a key partner in the pressing


problems around the world is very much in the
interests of the United States. I want our partnership to be effective in finding solutions to
the problems that we face together and to those
few problems which continue to divide us.
Today we agreed to provide leadership to assure a successful conclusion to the Uruguay
round. A new GATT agreement could spark
economic recovery in Europe and create waves
of growth around the world. I have worked quite
hard on this in the last several weeks. Just a
few days ago I met with the Finance Ministers
and the Central Bankers from the G-7 countries. And I said to them what I said today
to Prime Minister Rasmussen and what I reiterated to President Delors: The United States
wants a successful GATT round, and we are
prepared to take a lot of trouble to get it done.
We agreed that we would do that. My guests
and I are committed to wrapping up these negotiations by the end of the year. We directed
our negotiators to proceed urgently with other
trading partners to restore momentum to the
negotiations. Our aim is to have tangible
progress to report when Prime Minister
Miyazawa hosts us in Tokyo in July.
We also reviewed the continuing tragedy in
the Balkans. We agreed to work closely to avert
further aggression against innocent populations.
I've already answered some questions about this
today, and I think I will let my guests make
their statements before we make further comments.
We discussed our common efforts to support
democratic reform in Russia, Ukraine, and the
other newly independent states of the former
Soviet Union. The results of the referendum
in Russia clearly indicate support for the approach that we have taken. We agreed that the
G-7 summit partners must continue to demonstrate their support for reform in Russia and
in these other countries.
I thank the EC leaders for the role they have
played in encouraging the Middle East peace
talks and the support they have given to the
United States in working toward a successful
conclusion to those talks. We also had a brief
discussion about the growing similarity of our
approaches toward protection of our environ

591




May 7 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


ment and other global problems. These are areas
in which we can do more together. I asked
the Prime Minister for some advice on health
care and how they dealt with that in Denmark.
We talked a little bit about the role of training
the work force and its impact on productivity
and how we need it to make both Europe and
the United States more competitive in the global
environment. And we agreed that we had a lot
of things that we could learn from each other
on and work together on.
We believe, finally, that we have proved in
Europe and the United States that you can have
societies that are diverse and strong, societies
that have a rich mosaic of different cultures
but band together in common values of democracy and economic freedom and human rights.
We know from the hard experiences of this century the importance of collective action in Europe to advance our common security. For all
these reasons, I believe today more strongly than
ever that we share a future of cooperation and
progress.
Thank you both for coming to Washington.
I look forward to the progress we can make
together in the weeks and months and years
ahead.
Mr. Prime Minister.
Prime Minister Rasmussen. Thank you, President. Mr. Prime Minister, ladies and gentlemen,
I wish to join the President of the United States
in his positive appreciation of the result of this
meeting.
We had, throughout, constructive talks. And
of all important issues, I think we have been
basing our talks on openness and on common
ground. In view of the initiative of the Danish
presidency to strengthen the transatlantic dialog,
I find that the consultations today were most
encouraging. May I mention that we have underlined and we did agree today, I think, that
the American-EC consensus on the need to
strength our cooperation, not least on the economic growth area and the need for creating
new employment, is so important that it did
play a major role in our discussion. And I feel
that we also, as the true upholders of democracy
and free markets, have a wide range of jobs
to do together.
That leads me, Mr. President, to the subject
you mentioned yourself, which I feel that the
whole world are waiting upon the next answer
to give. We have had an extensive and useful
discussion on the tragic conflict in the former


Yugoslavia, in particular in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
We both confined and confirmed ourself in having responsibility here. We both agreed upon
the need to go forward together. And it is my
view that this will happen. On Monday the Foreign Ministers will meet in Brussels of the EC.
We have seen some new developments during
the last couple of days. Let me mention the
most important ones:
The leadership in Belgrade have said they
will isolate the Serbs in Bosnia. Consequently,
we must keep President Milosevic to his word.
Secondly, this means that the Bosnian Serbs
now defy the whole international community's
acceptance of the Vance-Owen plan. We, therefore, do not take the so-called Bosnian parliament's "no" for an answer.
And thirdly, I think that the international
community, in particular the United States, the
European Community, and Russia, is considering ways to increase the pressure on the Serbs
in Bosnia. And may I confirm also, Mr. President, that the effectiveness of the sanctions has
been a very, very important-has an important
effects, and I want to thank you for the effective
cooperation on that area also.
Let me finalize my comment about the
Bosnian case. We keep all options open. We
must continue to follow the path we have taken
up until now, namely that any additional measure should be taken and that we should take
it together under the auspices of the United
Nations Security Council.
Allow me to turn to a few other major issues
which I think is important. You mentioned yourself, Mr. President, the revitalization of the war
of the economy. I was very happy today to state
that after comments by President Delors and
yourself, we did confirm each other once more
in more detail the progresses on the GATT negotiations and the Uruguay round should be realized and would be realized also so that we
together at the G-7 meeting in summer can
present some positive results.
I feel also that our discussion about Russia
was very promising, and I want to thank you
about these interesting positive attitude. And
may I finalize by underlining our environmental
common issue and goals. Once more I feel that
what we have done today is the next important
step also in environmental question. What we
do in Europe and what you do in the United
States do have important issues and effects on
both countries and situations.


592




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / May 7


So what we shall do once more is to cooperate, be it economics, be in foreign policy, be
it the tragic war in Bosnia. Thank you so much
for a good meeting and very constructive attitude, Mr. President.
President Clinton. Thank you.
Mr. President.
President Delors. President, Prime Minister,
just a few words after the declaration of Mr.
Rasmussen. My colleagues and myself thank
President Clinton to give us the opportunity to
discussion. I don't come back on Bosnia, but
discussion was very fruitful just before an important meeting of the minister of foreign relations
next Monday in Brussels.
On the other subject, we have deepened our
discussion on the Uruguay round. And since my
first visit to President Clinton, I note that we
have made progress together in terms of procedure and also in terms of substance. We concentrate our mind on the market access with
the hope to finalize concrete results and to come
back to Geneva through a multilateral declaration.
We have also spoken about the economic outlook. For the first time, the Community has
taken an initiative at the European level, mixed
initiative with Community action and national
action to improve the situation of the economy.
We expect more growth with this first package,
but we intend to rule over the situation and
to complete, if possible, this package as far as
the room to maneuver of the Community and
each country allow the possibility to complete
this package.
And we have also discussed about the future
framework of the large Europe with the efforts
met by the Community to open their market
to the Eastern European countries and also to
have this country's close cooperation, not only
on the economic field but also in the political
field.
Thank you.
Bosnia
Q. Mr. President, does this mean that you
are closer now to getting the European Community to match up tougher military action in
Bosnia?
President Clinton. Well, I think it means that
the Prime Minister's words mean exactly what
they say. The Prime Minister said to me in
our conversation that he thought that some of
the reports of the journey of Secretary Chris

topher across the European capitals had minimized the extent to which European leaders
and citizens in Europe feel responsible to do
more to try to put an end to the killing and
the suffering in Bosnia, and that as long as I
was committed to the idea that we ought to
do these things together, he thought we would
move forward together to take more aggressive
steps.
I told you, I can't be more specific than I
have been. You know pretty much where I am,
but I think I have to wait until Secretary Christopher comes home and gives me his report.
Q. So far, though, they have not gone along
with you.
President Clinton. That's not entirely true.
There has been a lot of agreement on what
should be done. There is still some disagreement around the edges about what the overall
specific tactical steps should be, but I think that
there is a lot more agreement than you think.
And I think in the next few days you will see
a common approach emerging.
Q. Mr. President, you talk about a common
approach. Does that automatically assume the
use of force? And is the United States willing
to provide arms to the Bosnians?
President Clintonm I think you know how I
feel about that. I think that the imposition of
the arms embargo by the United Nations, before
actually this country was even created and recognized, had the unintended consequence of
giving the Serbs an insurmountable military advantage, which they have pressed with ruthless
efficiency.
So I feel very badly about what happened
there. I think that's certainly one of the options
that we have urged that be considered, and I
think it's certainly one of the options that's still
on the table. I think we've got to keep the
heat on.
Let me ask first-we ought to rotate this.
Is there a member of the European press here?
Anybody here from Denmark or from the European Community covering the European Community?
Prime Minister Rasmussen. I see a couple of
Danes over there.
President Clinton. Could you call on them,
Prime Minister? We're going to have some
equal opportunity here.
European Community
Q. Mr. President, do you understand the


593




May 7 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


many things people don't want to join the EC?
President Clinton. Don't want to join the EC?
Q. Yes.
President Clinton. Of course. That's a decision
that's up to Denmark, of course. You'll get to
vote on the Maastricht Treaty. But I can onlyit's not for me to tell the people of Denmark
how to vote, but I support the European Community. I support the Maastricht process. I hope
it will prevail, but that's, of course, up to you.
Bosnia
Q. Mr. President, it appears, sir, that however
things go, you may soon be asking Congress
for some sort of approval or authorization for
further action in the Balkans. Have you thought
through, sir, what form you would want that
to take and what it would be?
President Clinton. I have given some thought
to it, Brit [Brit Hume, ABC News]. I'm going
to be heavily guided there by the leadership,
the bipartisan leadership in the Congress and
people who care most about these issues. I think
that, again, before I make a final decision on
that, I'm very, very anxious to talk to Senators
Nunn and Lugar and the other four Senators
who went across the region and all the way
to Moscow in the last week. And obviously, it's
important that I have my report from Secretary
Christopher, but I've given some thought to it.
I think it depends in large measure on the sense
of the Congress about how we ought to proceed
as wellQ. Mr. President, our bombing campaign during the Gulf war had only limited effectiveness.
The Air Force was unable, for example, to take
out the mobile SCUD missile sites. Given that
fact, what rationale would there be for going
to air strikes in Bosnia which is much more
difficult terrain with artillery and installations
that could be moved very easily?
President Clinton. Well, let me answer you
in this way. If I decide to ask the American
people and the United States Congress to support an approach that would include the use
of air power, I would have a very specific, clearly defined strategy to pursue and very clear tactical objectives for the use of that air power,
which would have a beginning, a middle, and
an end, and which not only I but our military
advisers had advised me could be achieved.
To be fair to the military in the Gulf, that's
exactly what they said. If you remember, we
had a different set of objectives in the Gulf


and a very different opponent. The land was
more open and easier to bomb, but they also
were more heavily armed with missiles. So it
was a completely different situation.
I assure you today that if I decide to ask
for the authority to use air power from the
Congress and from the American people, I will
make it very clear what the tactical objectives
are, and they will be objectives that our military
leaders say can, in fact, be achieved.
Health Care
Q. You said that you asked Mr. Rasmussen
about the health care in Denmark. What about
social affairs? Could you use anything from Denmark or the Scandinavian welfare system?
President Clinton. Perhaps. One of the things
that we talked about, generally, was the extent
that which all of our countries are now facing
common problems. But each nation in Europe
and the United States has perhaps done one
thing better or more completely or in a more
advanced way than another nation. And I
think-something that's important is not to
reinvent the wheel.
Yesterday I had a meeting with Republican
leaders of the House and the Senate on the
question of health care, and one of the things
that encouraged me quite a lot is that some
of them had actually traveled to Europe to look
at some of the health care systems there. I think
the more we can share with each other and
learn from one another across a wide range,
the better off we're going to be.
Andrea [Andrea Mitchell, NBC News].
Bosnia
Q. Mr. President, why do you think the Europeans have been so reluctant on the issue of
lifting the arms embargo, whereas they have
considered other options, but on that they seem
to be fairly well stuck? And then I'd like it
if Prime Minister Rasmussen could comment
on his views on lifting the arms embargo.
President Clinton. Well, I don't think it's for
me to speak for the Europeans. I think the
arguments against lifting the arms embargo are
fairly clear. You might argue that it will only
widen the violence. You might argue that during
the time between when you vote to do it and
when it has an impact, it will only encourage
the Serbs to intensify their efforts to kill and
to gain territory. I think you might argue that
it might make it difficult in the end to have


594




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / May 7


a settlement. I understand all those arguments.
For me, they are outweighed by other considerations. But there are very serious concerns about
that.
Q. Mr. Prime Minister?
Prime Minister Rasmussen. Yes. First of all,
I think that what the President said, that we
want to go together; and that, point two, we
haven't closed any options, any options; and
point three, I think that the discussion about
lifting the weapons embargo, you cannot take
that isolated.
You have, as the President said, to evaluate
and to take decisions upon the first step, the
next step, and the next step. And you have to
have clear political goals: what should you obtain, and what is at stake, and what is your
means. So, in my mind-and I think we had
a quite useful and constructive discussion-in
my mind, you cannot exclude any options, which
I have underlined, including the question you
mentioned. But, on the other hand, I feel that
you cannot discuss weapon embargo lifting without placing it in a whole range of issues with
other steps. That is at stake in the discussion
right now.
The President. Susan [Susan Spencer, CBS
News].
President's Approval Rating
Q. A non-Balkan question. We have a poll
out tonight that shows that your job approval
rating has gone from 64 to 49 percent in the
last 2 months, with particular erosion on the
economy, which is what most people think you
were elected to fix. Why do you think this has
happened, and what, specifically, do you think
you can do about that?
President Clinton. I think there are two reasons. One is that I've been forced to deal with
a lot of other issues. Most voters in this country
don't like it when you spend any time on foreign
policy because of the economic problems of the
country. Secondly, I think even though the voters overwhelmingly supported the job stimulus
package, what they really want is for the gridlock
to end. And thirdly, I think that there is an
inevitable sense that things take-people want
things to happen immediately that don't happen
immediately. And finally, I think that the stimulus got more publicity than the budget resolution. I think that, for example, I bet not 5 percent of the American people know that we
passed a budget which has record-breaking defi

cit reduction and a long-term investment plan,
and it passed at the most rapid point of any
budget in 17 years. I bet not 1 in 20 American
voters knows that because we did it, and success
and the lack of discord is not as noteworthy
as failures. So a multi-trillion-dollar budget resolution got-I'm not criticizing you; this is just
part of the deal-got less play than a $16 billion
stimulus failure. So I think that people only
can vote on and express what they know.
I think the other big problem is, I haven't
been out there as much as I should have been
engaging the American people directly since
February. I've been here doing huge, heavy lifting and long meetings on health care and the
economy. That's what I've been working on, and
I've been forced to deal with a lot of other
issues. I think when the American people see
that the program that I promised them on February 17th is still intact and on the boards and
going forward, when they realize that we are
going forward with health care and that that
is, notwithstanding, what the perception is, taking the lion's share of my time and attention,
and when I get back out there and engage them
again on it, I think that those things will turn
around.
But you know, you can't operate this job by
polls. Anybody who thinks they can be President
by polls-I didn't run the Governor's office that
way. The only thing that matters is the polls
that come around on election day, those are
the things that matter. And you have to be willing to take on tough decisions. It takes a certain
amount of time to do things, to make difficult
decisions and to work through them, and you
can't carry on a totally continuous campaign.
It's simply not possible.
Middle East Peace Talks
Q. Mr. President, on the Middle East, you
mentioned the Middle East talks. Do you think
the U.S. should now offer proposals to bridge
the gaps? Should the Syrians offer a full peace
before Israel agrees to withdraw from the Golan
Heights? And could you accept or see a Palestinian state eventually emerging from the
talks?
President Clinton. If I answer any of those
questions I will undermine the Middle East
peace talks. The real answer to that question
is, if those parties can agree among themselves
in good faith to proposals which will bring an
end to the hostilities between Egypt and Syria

595




May 7 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


I mean, between Israel and Syria, between Israel and the Palestinians-they can get the multilateral talks going, if they bring in the Jordanians, the Lebanese, that the United States
will be prepared to be supportive of their agreements. That is the answer to that. And I hope


they can reach them.
Thank you very much.
NOTE: The President's 14th news conference
began at 2:03 p.m. on the South Lawn at the
White House. In his remarks, he referred to
Slobodon Milosevic, President of Serbia.


Nomination for the Board of Directors of the Tennessee Valley Authority
May 7, 1993


The President announced his intention today
to nominate two Tennesseans, Johnny Hayes and
Craven Crowell, to serve as members of the
Board of Directors of the Tennessee Valley Authority. Following his confirmation, Mr. Crowell
will be designated by the President as Chairman
of the Board.
"The Tennessee Valley Authority is one of
the great success stories of the 20th century,"


said the President. "It transformed the life of
an entire region, and still has tremendous impact today. Through their years of service to
their State and their Nation, Johnny Hayes and
Craven Crowell have proven themselves capable
of exercising stewardship over this important institution."
NOTE: Biographies of the nominees were made
available by the Office of the Press Secretary.


Nomination for the National Council on Disability
May 7, 1993


The President announced today that he intends to nominate five new members to the
National Council on Disability and that he has
approved the nomination for reappointment of
two others.
"I am pleased to announce these additions
to the National Council on Disability," said the
President. 'With the passage of the Americans
with Disabilities Act, people with disabilities are
now able to fully participate in our society.
These outstanding people will ensure that all
Americans are judged by their abilities, not their
disabilities."
Among those the President will nominate is
Marca Bristo, the president and executive director of Access Living of Metropolitan Chicago.
Following her confirmation and appointment,
Bristo will be designated by the President as
Chair of the Commission.
The other new members the President will
nominate are:


Michelle Alioto, television director, producer,
writer, and host, and cofounder of the
American Paralysis Association
Bonnie O'Day, executive director, Boston
Center for Independent Living;
Hughey Walker, chairman, Georgetown (SC)
County Council
Katie Pew Wolters, executive director,
Steelcase Foundation, and member, Michigan Developmental Disabilities Council
The members being nominated for reappointment are:
John Anthony Gannon, president emeritus,
International Association of Fire Fighters,
and founder, John A. Gannon and Associates
Lawrence Brown, Jr., business and community
relations manager, Xerox, and former running back for the Washington Redskins


596




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / May 8


The President's Radio Address
May 8, 1993
Good morning. In the early days of our administration we've moved quickly to deal with
the problems that concern you most. Our endeavors are ambitious and none will be accomplished easily, some will require time and repeated struggle. But all of them relate directly
to improving our economy, to creating more jobs
and better incomes and opportunity for hardpressed working families.
Many of the efforts we're making are opposed
by lobbyists, defenders of the status quo and
special interests. We're fighting, after all, to do
something that no generation of Americans has
had to do before: to make dramatic reductions
in the Federal deficit, even as we ask for new,
very targeted investments in the education and
training of our people, in incentives for our industries, in new technologies for new jobs in
the 21st century.
Many special interests are trying to stop our
every move. They don't believe in a program
which cuts spending in areas they don't want
to have spending cuts or which raises most of
the tax burden from wealthy people whose incomes went up and taxes went down in the
eighties, while the middle class paid more in
taxes while their incomes went down. We want
to reverse that, but most working people don't
have lobbyists here to help them.
We're fighting hard to reform our health care
system. And soon, we'll put forward a plan to
provide real security and health care for every
American family. And already, special interests
are trying to carve the plan to bits.
We're trying to make it possible for every
young person to go to college, to borrow the
money that he or she needs and then to pay
it back as a small portion of their incomes after
they go to work. And already, banks and their
allies are out in force since they make enormous
profits from the current student loan system,
even though it imposes great burdens on many
students.
Well, this is what always happens in Washington. Narrow interests exercise powerful influence. They try to stop reform, delay change,
deny progress, simply because they profit from
the status quo. Because big money and the special access it buys are the problem, we have


to reform the political system even as we try
to improve the economy, and open opportunities
to all our people.
Unless we change fundamentally the way
campaigns are financed, everything else we seek
to do to improve the lives of our people will
be much harder to achieve. Economic reform
and reform of the political system go hand-inhand. It's time to curb the role of special interests and to empower average citizens in the
way our country is governed.
Yesterday I announced a comprehensive campaign finance reform proposal, a proposal to reform the political process, restore faith in our
democracy, and ensure once again that the voice
of the people is heard over the voices of special
interests. The plan will change the way Washington works, the way campaigns are financed, and
the way the game of politics is played. Here's
how it will work: First, it will impose strict
spending limits on congressional campaigns.
Spending has gone up too far and too fast.
When spending is out of control, candidates who
lack access to big money simply can't compete.
In the last 2-year election cycle, spending on
congressional campaigns increased by 50 percent
over the previous 2 years.
Second, this plan will rein in the special interests by restricting the role of lobbyists and
PAC's, political action committees. For the very
first time, our plan will ban contributions from
lobbyists to the lawmakers they lobby. It will
bar lobbyists from raising money for the lawmakers that they lobby. If adopted, believe me,
this proposal will change the culture of Washington. And it will curb the role of political
action committees. We want to cap the amount
of money any candidate can receive from PAC's.
And we'll limit PAC contributions to $1,000 for
Presidential candidates and $2,500 for Senate
candidates.
Third, our political reform plan will open the
airwaves and level the playing field between incumbents and challengers by providing access
to the broad airwaves, for candidates who agree
to the spending limits.
Let me make this clear, this broadcast time
will not be paid for by middle class taxpayers.
It will be funded by repealing a major tax loop

597




May 8 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


hole that allows many businesses to deduct the
cost of their lobbyists. Corporate lobbying has
only been deductible since 1962. We can close
that loophole and use that money to open the
airwaves to all candidates.
This proposal will change the status quo. And,
believe me, the special interests will mobilize
against it. They don't want to see their ability
to give or to raise campaign contributions
curbed. They don't want to see the influence
of PAC's curbed. They don't want to see limits
on election spending.
But Government will work only for middle
class America, if Washington works in the national interest and not just for narrow interests.
And that won't happen unless we change the
way we finance campaigns in this country.
This political reform bill is for real. It goes
hand-in-hand with another bill we're supporting,
which has already passed the United States Senate. That bill requires all lobbyists to register
and now requires them to report all the money
they spend on particular Members of Congress
to try to influence or support their causes. And
even if the special interests object to these efforts, even if they try to filibuster this campaign
finance reform legislation or delay, I believe we
will pass it. And I'll sign it because I think
you will support it.
When all is said and done, this issue is really


about our liberty. It's a matter of preserving
our personal freedoms and expanding our opportunity by revitalizing the political freedoms on
which they rest. To create jobs, as we must,
to increase incomes, to make our health care
system better, to open more educational opportunities, we need a democracy where more, not
fewer, Americans play a role and have a real
say in the decisions that powerfully affect their
lives.
Last November, we had a huge increase in
turnout, especially among our young people.
Since then, I have received more letters in the
first 31/2 months of my first year than my predecessor did in the entire year of 1992. The American people want to be heard in their political
system. If you want to do it, we've got to pass
the lobbying bill and we've got to pass this campaign finance reform bill which will pay for
equal access through lobbying contributions,
control the influence of lobbyists, limit PAC's,
and limit campaign spending.
These are changes I'm fighting for. But they
won't happen unless you'll fight for them, too.
If you'll help we can win this battle and we
can keep turning America around.
Thanks for listening.
NOTE: The President spoke at 10:06 a.m. from
the Oval Office at the White House.


Remarks to the Community in Cleveland, Ohio
May 10, 1993


Thank you very much. Thank you, Congressman Stokes, Senator Metzenbaum. I want to
thank Lou Stokes and Howard Metzenbaum for
the support that they have given to this administration to making a new beginning for America,
to putting the American people back to work,
and to giving Washington back to you.
I also want to say a special word of thanks
to my friend Eric Fingerhut for coming here,
the leader of the freshmen in Congress and
a great Representative, someone who believes
in the cause of reform. I want to thank your
fine Mayor, Mike White, who labored mightily
to try to get some more money for jobs here
in Cleveland.
I wish people all over America who think


that our cities aren't working would come to
Cleveland and see houses being built, the stadium going up, new malls being built, and
things happening. I think it is very, very impressive what is happening here under the leadership of Mike White. And I appreciate him very
much.
I also want to thank Congressman Hoke for
coming here. I'm glad to see a bipartisan Representative. I'm trying to govern in a bipartisan
way, and some of those fellows in the Senate
don't want me to. But if we get together on
America's problems as America, we'd do a lot
better than pointing partisan fingers.
Finally, I want to thank attorney general Lee
Fisher and your State treasurer, Mary Ellen


598




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / May 10


Withrow. And I want to say a special word of
thanks to Lee for his leadership in our campaign
last year. I haven't been to Cleveland since the
day before the election-that's right, that's what
Lou said. I have been to Ohio once since I've
been President. I look forward to coming back.
I want to talk to you a little today about
why I came to the middle of the country in
the middle of the day to reiterate what is at
stake in Washington. I just walked through the
Galleria here. I want to thank the people who
opened it up to me and Mr. Cleary and Mr.
Masters. I want to thank all the store owners
who came out to see me. Some of them gave
me some things and some of them sold me
some things, which is, after all, the most important thing. They did a good job.
I wanted to come back here to remind you
that the reason I did all that work last year
and came here and asked the people of Ohio
and Cleveland to vote for me was not so I
could live in the White House but so I could
give the Government back to you.
The struggles in which we are engaged now
are very important ones. It may seem strange
to you, but there are really people in Washington who believe the most important thing we
can do is to avoid change at all costs. It may
seem strange to you after years of living with
a Government where the debt of this country
went from $1 trillion to $4 trillion between 1980
and 1992, where unemployment went up and
wages went down and we began to lose our
competitive position, where we cut defense but
had no plan to put our defense workers to work
building the domestic economy, with all the
troubles we've got, where we've got 37 million
Americans with no health insurance and others
in small businesses terrified they're going to lose
it and people who can't change jobs because
they've had somebody in their family sick and
they know they can't get health insurance in
a new place, it may seem strange to you, but
there really are people in the Nation's Capital
who say no more change. Well, I think most
of you want us to do something, and I think
you want us to be bold. I think you want us
to try to turn this country around, and I think
you would rather see us err on the side of
effort than on the side of just preserving the
status quo.
You look at these children here, these schoolchildren, or those fine schoolchildren back there
or these young naval cadets. This whole deal


is about whether they are going to have the
American dream, about whether people who
work hard and play by the rules are going to
wind up better off or worse off.
We've got a lot of complicated problems. I
knew when I got there it wasn't going to happen
overnight. I tried to make it happen overnight.
I've been criticized for doing more than one
thing at once. I've always felt-can you do one
thing at once? Wouldn't it be nice if all you
had to do was go to work and not take care
of your family? Wouldn't it be nice if you could
pay your bills and not earn any money to pay
them? I don't understand this whole-you can't
do one thing at once. But anyway, that's what
they say.
We are trying to do a lot of things, but they
all relate to restoring the economic vitality of
this country and restoring the middle class and
the values of the middle class to a central part
in American life. That is what this whole economic program is about and what I came to
talk to you about again today.
No one said it would be easy, but it has
been immensely rewarding. In about 110 days,
after two vetoes, I can look back and say we
signed the Family and Medical Leave Act to
guarantee you don't lose your job if you've got
somebody sick in your family. We have put forward comprehensive plans to use technology to
generate new jobs, comprehensive plans to help
move people from defense jobs into domestic
jobs and to make sure that our young people
who come out of the service after serving this
country are not just left out in the cold because
of the cutbacks. And we got a record approval
of the outline of a budget that cuts the deficit
of this country over $500 billion in the next
5 years with over 200 specific budget cuts and,
yes, with some tax increases. Seventy percent
of them fall on the upper 5 percent of the
American people whose taxes went down and
whose incomes went up in the 1980's. I think
it's a good plan, and it will restore health to
the American economy.
You know, we're trying to do something no
generation of Americans has ever had to do.
I came into office with a record debt. And then
after the election I was told the deficit was
really about $50 billion higher in 3 of the next
4 years than we'd been told before. And yet,
we looked around, and we saw we'd reduced
our investment in education and training, reduced our investment in new technologies, had


599




May 10 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


no plan to deal with people who lose their jobs
because of defense cutbacks. And so we had
to do something nobody had ever done. We
had to try to find out how to bring the debt
down and invest in our people, their jobs, and
their future. I think we have got to do that.
If we don't do both, we're going to be in big
trouble.
Now look at the result. Since the election,
since it became absolutely clear that this administration was dead serious about bringing this
deficit down. Interest rates in many areas have
hit an all-time low, home mortgages are at a
20-year low. I know there are people in this
audience who have refinanced a home mortgage
in the last 5 months. I know there are people
here who have lower credit card rates, lower
business loan rates, lower other rates because
of interest rates going down. That's going to
put $100 billion back into this economy to spur
investment and growth and jobs and income if
we bring the deficit down.
Now, we're going to go into a fight where
everybody's going to say cut more spending and
raise fewer taxes. And you know, what that really
says is cut somebody else's spending and raise
somebody else's taxes. I wish it were possible
for us all to hide behind a tree and point at
somebody else. But let's face it, in the last 12
years we got into this mess not overnight and
we're not going to get out of it overnight. We
also, whether we like it or not, got into it together. We're all in it together, and we'd better
get out of it together. We're going to have to
climb out of it together, march out of it together, and walk out of it together.
But this plan is fair. This plan has a big increase in the earned-income tax credit to try
to relieve families with income of under $30,000
of the burden of the energy tax I proposed,
which will raise money and help to clean up
the environment. This plan has an increase in
this earned-income tax credit so much that if
you work 40 hours a week and you've got a
child in the home, if you will apply for the
tax credit, you will be lifted out of poverty.
That is an elemental principle and a fundamental departure in America. We're going to reward
work and not welfare for a change. If you work
and you've got kids, we're going to lift you out
of poverty. This will work. It will bring the deficit down. It will be fairer to working families.
It will help us to keep interest rates down. It
will help us to grow the economy. And over


the next 5 years, we'll have some money to
invest in education and training and new technologies and jobs and trying to help all those
people in those high-tech jobs that are losing
them, because of defense cutbacks-they can
make us strong here at home if we do it right.
But we've got to do it as a package.
If everybody goes around saying, "What's in
it for me?" instead of what's in it for us, the
thing will come apart. That's what paralyzes
America. Every time we've got to make a tough
decision, somebody says, "Let somebody else do
it." There's nobody else to do it but us. We're
going to have to lift our country up, and we're
going to have to do it together.
One of the things that I do want to do is
to repeal the tax breaks that lobbyists get. There
are 80,000 lobbyists in Washington making sure
that I can't take care of your interests.
One of the things that we also have to do,
I think, is to reform the political system. I told
you if you would elect me President, I'd do
my best to reduce the influence of lobbyists
and special interest groups to increase your influence, to make it possible for all of the Members of Congress, without regard to party, at
least to feel freer to follow their conscience and
their constituents and to listen to them with
an open ear and an open heart.
Well, there are two bills moving through the
Congress now that will do just that. When I
took office the first thing I did was to sign
an Executive order saying that people that had
top jobs for me couldn't go back into lobbying
for 5 years and could never lobby for a foreign
government. Then a bill was introduced into
the Congress that just passed the United States
Senate which, for the first time, requires all
the lobbyists to register and requires them to
report all the gifts they give to Members of
Congress over a small amount, so you'll know.
And at the end of last week we announced
a new campaign finance reform bill, which will
do this: It will reduce the influence of big
money; it will reduce the influence of political
action committees; it will reduce the influence
of lobbyists; it will give political campaigns back
to you. It does it by limiting the amount of
money that Members of Congress can take from
political action committees by reducing the maximum contribution in many areas. It does it
by saying that lobbyists cannot give money or
raise money for Members of Congress that they
personally lobby. And by repealing the tax ex

600




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / May 10


emption that lobbyists get, we're going to take
that money and give it to Members of Congress
as communication vouchers so we can open the
airwaves to honest debate, and nobody is denied
the opportunity to be on the television or the
radio just because they're not an incumbent or
just because they're not wired to the lobbyists.
It is a good plan. It will give the Government
back to you, the middle class of this country,
and we ought to pass it.
There are some other things that I think you
need to know about that we're trying to do.
We've introduced our plans for national service
and to make college available to all Americans,
and here's how it works. But I need your help
to pass it, because there are interest groups that
are against it. There are interest groups against
everything.
This plan would say to every American family:
You can borrow the money to go to college
without fear of going bankrupt because you will
not have to pay it back until you go to work.
And when you go to work, you can pay it back
as a percentage of your income. So that no
matter how much you borrow, you can't be required to pay more than a certain percentage
of your income; you can't be bankrupted to secure your future.
The bill also will give tens of thousands of
young Americans the opportunity to pay their
college loan, or a portion of it, off through service to our country as teachers, as police officers,
working with kids in trouble. They can earn
it before they go to college, while they're in
college, or after they get out. But I think people
ought to be able to work to make Cleveland
and Ohio a better place and pay their college
loans off.
And believe it or not, if we just have the
courage to change the way we're financing the
college loan program, we can pay for most of
this, particularly in the early years. Why? Because the way the college loan programs work
now, we are losing billions of dollars a year
in huge transaction fees to banks and in loan
defaults, because the Government guarantees 90
percent of every one of these loans. So what
happens? If somebody wants to default on the
loan, what incentive does the bank have to go
collect it? It would cost you 10 percent to pay
the lawyer. So the taxpayers pay. I say let's
make the loans direct. Let's cut out all the fat
fees. Let's make people pay them back at tax
time so they can't beat the bill, more respon

sibility and more opportunity for everybody.
Let me just make two other points. First of
all, while I have proposed over 200 specific
budget cuts to take the lead in reducing this
deficit by over $500 billion, I want you to know
that nothing we can do will reduce this deficit
over the long run to zero, which is what we
want, until we finally face the fact that the biggest culprit in Government spending today is
the exploding cost of health care. If we don't
have the courage to try to provide a basic system
of health coverage to all Americans, to try to
give security to small businesses and working
families who have health insurance but are terrified that they're going to lose it-if we don't
do that, then you will never get this deficit down
to zero because the cost of Government health
care is going up by 12 percent a year. And
100,000 Americans a month are losing their
health insurance.
Now there is no easy answer to this. If it
were easy, somebody else would have done it
already. It's hard. Why? Because we're spending
too much money on health care, but it's in all
the wrong places. And the question is: How
are you going to move the money from where
it shouldn't be, in administrative costs and extra
procedures and duplicated technologies and a
lot of other things, to where it should be, covering people who don't have health insurance
without bankrupting small business, without imposing undue financial burdens, without imposing new taxes on people that are already paying
too much.
Can it be done? You bet it can, but it won't
be easy, and it will require people who have
been making a killing out of the present system
to accept some change. But I'm telling you,
the worst thing we can do is to do nothing.
When we come out with this plan everybody
will say-well, whatever we say to get the money
to people who don't have health insurance now
or to provide health security to those who can't
change jobs now, they'll call that a tax. But
when we lower by millions and millions and
millions of dollars a year the health insurance
premiums of people who are paying too much
or the paperwork burdens of the doctors and
hospitals who are spending too much money
filling out paper, they don't want to count thatthe defenders of the status quo-as an offset.
We are going to have to change, folks, but
most of what we have to do is to move the
money from where it shouldn't be to where


601




May 10 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


it should. We're already spending plenty of
money, but we've got to move it around. And
you ought to be able to see that not only will
it cost some people some more money to have
health insurance, but a lot of people who are
paying too much will save. And that is what
we have to do. If we don't have the courage
to change, we will not get the Government
budget under control. But most important,
working-class families in this country and small
business people will never have the health security without which it is virtually impossible to
have a good life over the long run. We have
got to do this. And I am determined to see
that we do.
Let me just close by saying this: This is a
difficult time. I told somebody the other day
that I was absolutely convinced after 100 days
as President that all the easy decisions had already been made by somebody else. Every day
I meet with my staff and I say, send me just
one easy one. Let's declare a moratorium. We
won't talk about anything hard today. Send me
an easy one. I'm still waiting. [Laughter]
But I want you to know that we can turn
this country around; we can secure our future.
It is in our power. We can bring the deficit
down. We can increase our investment in eduRemarks to the Cleveland City Club
May 10, 1993
Thank you very much. Well, I don't know
what you had for lunch, but I wish I'd had
some of it. [Laughter] I do want to say I'm
delighted to be back in Cleveland and glad to
be back at the City Club. And I hold here
in my hand a membership to the City Club
given to me by Senator Metzenbaum. Now, I'd
rather have his vote on all the issues, but I'll
take this. [Laughter]
Actually, I want to thank Howard Metzenbaum and Lou Stokes and Eric Fingerhut and
Congressman Hoke, and all the others who are
here, your Mayor, your State treasurer, your
State attorney general. I'm delighted to be here
with all of you. I saw in the introduction that
you mentioned something I was going to say
in my own remarks. I very much enjoyed being
here last year and having the opportunity to


cation and jobs. We can meet the competitive
challenges ahead of us. We can face the health
care challenge. But we have got to have the
courage to change. And we will win if we do
that. I wish to goodness I could just say to
every one of you, you don't have to do any
of this. I'll just go to some other State and
make them do it. [Laughter] But I can't.
Everybody will always be able to find some
fault with every comprehensive proposal like
this. There's no such thing as a perfect proposal.
I don't like everything about everything that we
have presented in the hope of passing and securing change. But the test for this generation,
the test for this whole generation is whether
we are going to have the courage to make these
changes, to rebuild the middle class, and to lift
up the economy of this country and to lift up
all these children in this audience today. I believe you have that courage, and together we're
going to do it.
Thank you, and God bless you all.
NOTE: The President spoke at 11:10 a.m. at the
Galleria Mall. In his remarks, he referred to Martin Cleary, president, Richard and David Jacobs
Group, and Keith Masters, general manager,
Galleria and Tower Erieview.


talk in Cleveland about family values.
Two years ago, I came here; the Mayor
hosted the Democratic Leadership Council's national convention. And I said at that time that
I thought the time had come for us to move
beyond the political debate in Washington between one party which seemed to have advocated the politics of abandonment and another
which seemed to advocate a politics of entitlement. It seemed to me that time had come
for us to face our problems squarely as a country
and to try to do something about them, but
not to pretend that the Government could give
a solution to the American people, solutions to
problems that require all of us to give something
ourselves and to do more. I feel that even more
strongly today.
For 110 days, I have lived and worked in


602




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / May 10


Washington, DC. I think that all of us would
agree that for too long our great Nation's Capital, which is filled with monuments to men
and women who have done so much to bring
us to this point in history, has practiced more
politics than progress. I'm glad to be back here
in a place like Cleveland where it's not possible
to produce more politics than progress. Here
you have to produce steel or automobiles or
biomedical technology, real things with real
value. This debate in which we are all engaged
about America's future should properly take
place here in the Industrial Belt and in the
Grain Belt and in the Sun Belt and in the Bible
Belt, all across America where people live in
a world that is determined by consequences and
not by talk.
If you're a Mayor in a city like Cleveland,
you either provided more houses and people
moved into them, or it didn't happen. There
either are more economic opportunities, or
there aren't. You can measure that. In Washington, we're told that the most important thing
to do is not more than one thing at a time.
[Laughter] And some want you to do one thing
at a time because it's easier to stop one thing
at a time than it is a whole range of things.
But I would argue to you, my fellow Americans, that the challenges of the moment require
both a focus and a discipline on the big problems of our Nation and a determination to face
them in a comprehensive way. The challenge
of international competition, new technologies,
soaring health care costs, defense cuts without
an offsetting strategy to invest in America, a
global recession, a global inability of wealthy
countries to create new jobs in an open and
competitive environment, all these things create
great new challenges for our country.
Here in the heartland, I've seen you stepping
up to the challenges. When the Mayor and I
rode in from the airport today, he talked to
me about how people were moving from the
suburbs back into the cities, how more houses
were being built. I looked at some of your economic development projects. I see a partnership
between the public and private sector here that
does not require someone to check his political
label in when you roll up your sleeves and go
to work. That is the sort of thing we need to
do in Washington and the kind of spirit I hope
to be able to bring to our Nation's Capital.
I believe very strongly that in the last 12
years, our Nation's Government has collectively


produced two immense problems. Problem
number one, obviously, is the enormous explosion of the national debt and the continuing
growth of the annual Federal deficit. In 1980,
our debt was $1 trillion. Today, it's $4 trillion
and rising to about two-thirds of our annual
national product, a much bigger percent of our
annual deficit than, for example, the debt in
Japan is. Now, how did it happen? It happened
partly because we liked it when politicians told
us what we wanted to hear. It happened because
we had big tax cuts and big spending increases
at the same time. First the spending increases
were in defense. And then when defense began
to be cut, they were totally offset, those cuts,
by even bigger increases in health care spending
through Medicare and Medicaid, the fact that
one-tenth of America is now on food stamps,
and by huge increases in interest payments on
the national debt.
The deficit is also aggravated by the fact that
we index both payments to people and income
taxes. Now, it's fair to index income taxes. If
you get pushed by inflation into a higher bracket, we adjust the brackets upward. For the first
time, that's happened in the last few years. No
one can doubt that is fair. But consider the
impact on that if you offset on the one-hello,
Congressman Brown, I didn't see you out
there-you offset, on the one hand, your income, and at the same time you promise to
pay more out. So everybody that gets a salary
or a retirement check, their payments go up
with inflation even as your intake comes down
with inflation. So these are the two things that
have created the kind of problem we have in
the budget deficit.
The second thing that happened, interestingly
enough, is that that portion of our Government
budget which is in partnership with the private
sector, making investments in our future and
promoting economic growth, actually shrank as
a percentage of the whole and often in absolute
terms. So that at a time when we are more
dependent than ever before on how skilled our
work force is, the Federal commitment to education and training of the work force went down,
as other nations were exploding their commitment. At a time when we were cutting high
technology in the defense sector, the peace dividend was not automatically reinvested in new
technologies in the commercial sector and new
partnerships. Why? Because, as any Member of
Congress here will tell you, the easiest place


603




May 10 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


to cut spending is in that broad category known
as discretionary nondefense spending. That
doesn't mean anything. That's a lot of gobbledygook. But when you strip it away, a lot of it
is our investment in our future. So we wind
up with this unusual difficulty: a huge debt,
an increasing deficit, and a diminished commitment to invest in our future.
The results have been clear: a limited ability
to create new jobs, even when productivity is
growing. We're allegedly in an economic recovery of some 17 months in duration, and yet
the unemployment rate is higher this month
than it was at the depths of the recession. We
had a huge increase in productivity in the last
3 months of last year and in the first 3 months
of this year, another big increase in output for
a person in the manufacturing sector. But that
money now is being plowed back into new technologies or kept for profit, not to increase new
jobs. As any small business person here knows,
it is difficult to increase employment in a small
business because of the extra added costs. By
the time you pay the Social Security and the
worker's comp and all the other costs, you've
got more and more small businesses using overtime workers or part-time workers and fewer
new jobs being created there.
So here we are. What are we to do? I have
asked the United States Congress to adopt a
plan that I believe over the next 5 years will
do something to make real, measurable change
in both those areas. It will substantially reduce
the Federal deficit in the most disciplined deficit reduction plan ever presented to Congress,
and it will permit some very disciplined, targeted increases in those investments which are
critical to our future. We do it by a combination
of things: cutting spending, raising taxes, and
targeting investment.
Because this involves a whole lot of change,
as you might imagine, it challenges a lot of
established interests in Washington who would
prefer that things go on as they are. Because
while as a whole our country is disadvantaged,
I would argue, by what we're doing, certain
specific groups benefit from everything that is
done. Now, the lobbyists are lining the corridors
of Washington as never before. There are about
80,000 of them there. And unless all the American people speak out loud and clear, it's going
to be hard for us to hold this program together.
There are those fighting for the national interests and those who are properly there to be


heard about more narrow interests. There are
those who believe we can make things better
and those who believe that any change will make
things worse for them. There are those who
believe we can spend money more productively
and less wastefully and others who believe that
we ought to just keep on spending it the way
we are now.
This is the oldest conflict in our history and
the eternal battle of any great democracy. The
impetus for inertia is always strong, and very
often a country does not have the courage to
change until it is almost too late. But I believe
with all my heart that the voters said last November-not just those who voted for me, either-but all the voters said, we know this country has got to take a different course. We know
we can't keep drifting. We know we can't wander. We have to have a plan; we have to follow
it. We have to try to make some things happen
that will lift this country's spirits again, lift this
country's prospects again, and yes, that will insist
that all of us have the discipline and will and
vision to change.
Now, I think that there are a lot of, I would
call them preachers of pessimism in our Nation's
Capital who underestimate the capacity of the
American people to know the cost of what is
happening to us right now. I readily admit that
none of these changes can occur unless a vast
majority of us understand the cost of what is
happening to us right now: the cost of maintaining this deficit at its present level; the cost of
maintaining the present health care system; the
cost of maintaining a system which is
underinvesting in our future compared to all
of our major competitors in a high-wage, highgrowth economy; the cost of maintaining the
credit crunch on small business; the cost of having no technology policy; the cost of having no
plan to convert from a defense to a domestic
economy. I would argue that those costs are
very high. The cost of having no strategy to
put young people to work in our cities, and
instead spending money to pay for the cleanup
and the consequences of drug problems, gang
problems, gun problems-the costs of the status
quo are very, very high, even when you don't
see it directly attributed on the Government's
ledger books. I believe we don't see that
enough.
So I think we can do more than one thing
at once. I think we can reduce the deficit and
provide the opportunity for all of our young


604




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / May 10


people to go to college. I think we can reduce
the deficit and provide decent job training and
education for our working people when the average worker will change jobs eight times in
a lifetime. I believe we can reduce the deficit
and put more police on our streets to protect
our communities better. I believe we can reduce
the deficit and offer more targeted incentives
for real investment to American businesses and
to their workers. I believe we can reduce the
deficit and change the welfare system so that
we move people from welfare to work after a
certain amount of time. I believe we can do
these things. I believe we're strong enough to
provide for a budget that reduces the deficit
and invests in the future in a prudent way. And
I can't help noting that some of those who say
that we can't do that are the very ones that
brought the debt from $1 trillion to $4 trillion
over the last 12 years.
Our greatest Republican President, perhaps
our greatest President, Abraham Lincoln, used
to tell the story about when he was practicing
law in Illinois. It kind of reminds me about
some of these folks today talking about the deficit in Washington. He said it reminded him
of a man who killed his parents and then threw
himself on the mercy of the court because he
was an orphan. [Laughter] I think we've all got
to understand that we didn't get where we are
overnight. We have to accept where we are.
I don't care about who should bear the blame,
but I don't think we should have people pointing fingers who helped to create the current
course of events.
We should pull together. My whole approach
has been to try to say to the American people,
we are all in this together. If we ask, what's
in this program for me, instead of what's in
it for us, we'll all find something we don't like,
including me. If the issue is going to be now,
what's in it for me, instead of what's in it for
us, we are defeated before we begin. But the
what's-in-it-for-me decade didn't work out very
well for us over the long run, and I think we
can do better.
Now, shortly after I took office I submitted
to Congress a blueprint of a budget that makes
now over 200 specific budget cuts, reduces the
deficit by over $500 billion over 5 years, and
refocuses the priorities of our Government from
consumption to investment in our future. Both
Houses of the Congress passed that blueprint
in record time; the first time in 17 years the


budget resolution had passed within the calendar required.
Our commitment to cut the deficit clearly
boosted confidence on Wall Street, and it's beginning to be felt on Main Street. It is beginning
to change lives for the better already. Starting
after the November election, when we announced a clear determination to bring the deficit down, interest rates have been going down.
The trend line is steady, with only minor interruptions whenever there's some sense that
maybe we won't really reduce this deficit after
all. The plan that I announced and the outline
that Congress adopted clearly played a major
role in bringing interest rates down to historic
lows, mortgage rates to 20-year lows. There's
been a huge wave of refinancing. I'll bet you
anything there are lots of people in this room
that since November have refinanced their
home mortgages. I know that there are people
in every city in America who have gotten business loans, whose consumer loans have gone
down, whose costs of car financing have gone
down.
It is estimated that in the aggregate, if we
can keep these rates down just a few more
months, this will lead to enough refinancing of
debt that it will release another $100 billion
to be reinvested into this economy. That's one
and two-thirds percent of our total gross domestic product in a given year. That is a huge impetus to stay on the track we're on to bring this
deficit down. According to a bipartisan survey,
a poll recently conducted in these conditions,
74 percent of all Americans now believe that
homeownership is within reach for most young
people. Do you know that it was a year ago?
The reverse, 47 percent. The reason for the
change is obvious: lower interest rates.
Businesses are paying less to borrow. That
means new investments and new jobs. The taxpayers, by the way, are saving billions of dollars
in financing the Government debt. We've already brought the deficit down this year because
of those interest rates. Along with that, we have
launched a real effort to attack the credit crunch
in partnership with community banks all across
America, and that should mean that farmers,
small business people, and homeowners will be
able to do even more in the weeks and months
ahead. These are things that happen when a
people take some responsibility for their financial future. Having passed the budgetary blueprint, the Congress is now about to move into


605




May 10 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


the specifics in what is called the budget reconciliation process. That means they've got to
take the targets that were adopted in the budget
resolution and specify how we're going to meet
those targets: What kind of taxes are going to
be raised? What kind of spending is going to
be cut? What kinds of investments are going
to be made? That is the process now beginning.
And that is the kind of thing that will require
us all to make tough choices to make good on
the results that are being achieved. I've asked
Congress to join me in making real spending
cuts, and that process is now unfolding.
Our budget contains, as I said, over 200 specific cuts. I thought I should start as President
by setting an example. In the new fiscal year
we'll be operating the White House with a staff
that is 25 percent smaller than my predecessor's.
I must say, I made that commitment, and we're
going to do all that work. I have to say, in
parenthesis, I didn't know that I'd receive more
letters in the first 100 days than came into the
White House in all of 1992. So if you haven't
gotten your letter answered, hold on, I'm coming. [Laughter] We're trying to do it. We are
going to reduce just in our office alone $10
million in payroll and perks and costs of Government.
In the executive branch, I have ordered over
the next 4 years a 14 percent cumulative reduction in the administrative costs of the Federal
Government, 100,000 person reduction in the
Federal payroll by attrition. That will save well
over $9 billion. I have asked the Federal employees to have a pay freeze in this coming
year and reduced raises in all the rest of this
first term. I just left the Galleria, and right
across the street there's a big Federal office
building, and a lot of those Federal employees
said they weren't looking forward particularly
to doing without a raise next year. We have
put the clamps on Federal spending, and we
have asked Federal employees to make a sacrifice. I didn't see how I could ask people to
raise their taxes unless the people who were
getting the tax money also made a sacrifice.
I come from a rural State where the Rural
Electrification Agency, the REA, has been very
important to my family and our people. They
have brought life and hope to millions of Americans. But now our country is about 100 percent
electrified, and I have recommended that we
reduce the interest subsidies to the REA, something that is tough to do for Members of Con

gress from rural areas' and for this President
who came from that place. I may get shocked
instead of light when I go home. [Laughter]
I've asked the Congress to join me in repealing the special interest exemption for lobbying.
It's only been in the Tax Code since 1962. Before that, it didn't exist. You had to pay if you
wanted to go lobby. Now the taxpayers actually,
at large, bear the burden of people's lobbying
costs. Now, again, I'm all for people lobbying,
and frankly, it's a good thing if it's in balance.
But I don't see why the taxpayers should subsidize someone's costs when they go and try
to influence the outcome of legislation in Washington.
I've asked to cut urban programs that don't
work. While I plead guilty to trying to get more
community block grant funds for Mayor White
so he could build more houses in Cleveland,
I also called for the abolition of a designated
project program at the Housing and Urban Development Department because it had no real
accountability to the taxpayers and cost over
$100 million a year.
I also believe that after all these cuts are
in place, if you really expect this deficit to be
brought down, we have got to raise some more
tax money. And I believe that we ought to do
it in a progressive way. I can tell you this just
to start out, I have proposed more budget cuts
and more taxes than I thought I would when
I was running, and the reason is simple: After
the election the Government said the deficit
was going to be $50 billion a year bigger in
3 of the next 4 years than we thought, and
$15 billion in the 4th year. The deficit was announced after the election in each year to be
much, much bigger than had previously been
forecast.
So we asked for about 73 percent of the
money to be paid for by people with incomes
above $100,000; the rest to be paid for, 27 percent, by the 93 percent or so of us that are
under $100,000. And then there is an exemption
in effect for the energy tax burden for lower
middle income working people and middle income working people with children up to the
levels of about $29,000 by the increase in the
earned-income tax credit, which will offset the
impact of the energy tax. I think it is a very
fair program, and I hope it will be adopted.
We take on the entitlements in this plan. People say, why don't you take on the entitlements?
I'll tell you why, because people get mad at


606




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / May 10


you when you do that. We asked Social Security
recipients who are in the top 20 percent of
income to pay taxes on more of their income
than they do today, coming from Social Security.
We have done our best to restrain the exploding
costs of Medicare. We have taken on these
tough issues to cut spending and to raise some
money. But I would also argue to you that we
must have some disciplined increases in investment. And I'll tell you where my recommendations are.
I recommend, first of all, that we focus on
rewarding work, strengthening families, and creating more jobs, especially for the middle class.
These ideas include the following-this is where
we spend money: First of all, in tax cuts to
encourage investments for new jobs. Private enterprise is, after all, the engine of this economy,
not the Government, and we need to get it
running as close as we can to full throttle. So
there are substantial new incentives in this program for both large business and small business
to lower their taxes through direct investments.
Investments mean lower taxes and more jobs
and, therefore, more revenue to the Government by putting people to work if you target
it to investment. I think it's very important.
Secondly, we focus especially on the depressed areas of the country, both rural and
urban, with establishing a new network of community development banks to make loans to
people who want to go into business in these
areas with special incentives to get others to
do the same thing. With special kinds of enterprise zones, especially in the urban and rural
areas which are particularly depressed, that will
at least give us a chance to see if free enterprise
alone can revive these areas if the Government
gives them enough incentives. These are things
I believe that will make the private sector work
for all Americans.
The plan also strengthens our schools by providing access to Head Start to all children who
need it, by setting higher standards throughout
the country and enshrining in the law the national education goals and the standards that
they will produce. The plan encourages experimentation with things like public school choice
and charter schools in public school. It contains
a bold national apprenticeship program where
the Federal Government is a partner with the
private sector and State and local government
in helping to retrain the work force for a lifetime. We are the only advanced country, the


only one, that doesn't worry about having a systematic way of training high school graduates
who don't go on to college. And yet we now
have clear evidence, in the 1990 census, that
anybody who graduates from high school but
gets no further training or who drops out of
high school who goes into the work force is
likely to have declining earnings. This is good
money, and it will be really shaped by private
sector people and public trainers at the local
grassroots level, not a national program but a
national partnership. And it will really, really
increase the productivity of the American work
force.
This plan also will open the doors of college
education to all Americans by changing the nature of the student loan program. And I want
to explain this. Today, the way the student loan
program works, you can go down to your bank,
you borrow the money, you pay it back based
on how much you borrow. If you don't pay
it back, the Government gives the bank 90 percent of the loan. That's the way it works. The
college dropout rate is more than twice the high
school dropout rate, in part because of the cost
of a college education. The student loan program is very profitable for many banks and for
the national mortgage organization that's behind
it. They have made a killing out of it. It's terrible for the taxpayers. Why? Because if somebody defaults on the loan, there's no incentive
to go get it because there's a 90 percent Government guarantee. And no offense to all of
us lawyers in the crowd, but it's going to cost
you more than 10 percent of the loan to pay
a lawyer to go get it. Not only that, the repayment terms are often too burdensome.
Here's what we want to do: Set up a system
to make the loans directly. Let people pay back
the loans only when they go to work, and then
as a percentage of their income. So no one
will ever not be able to repay, and no one
will be discouraged from taking a lower paying
but perhaps more rewarding job as a teacher
or a police officer or whatever, but collect the
money at tax time so you cannot beat the bill.
Don't let people welch on their student loan
anymore. And we estimate this system can save
you $4.3 billion in the next 5 years. That's a
lot of money. Let me tell you what we'd like
to do with that money, or some of it, anyway.
We'd like to give tens of thousands of our young
people the opportunity to earn credit against
college or pay off their college loan by doing


607




May 10 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


community service before, during, or after they
go to college: working with housing projects,
working with environmental projects, working to
help keep streets safer, working after they graduate as teachers or police officers in underserved areas. We can have a program of national
service that is community based that will help
us solve so many of our problems.
I got a letter from a friend of mine, with
whom I was in grade school, the other day,
reminiscing about all kinds of things. And she
had a very wise thing in this letter. She said,
"You know, somebody came up to me the other
day and said, 'How are we going to save all
these kids that are in trouble? How are we
going to get them back?'." And she said, "Without even thinking I said, 'We're going to get
them back just the way we lost them, one at
a time'." Now, you think about that. That's what
this national service proposal could do. It could
give all kinds of young people a chance to do
something meaningful to help earn credit to go
to college and to help solve the problems of
Cleveland and Cincinnati and Columbus and
Dayton and every other community in this country. That's the kind of thing that I think is
money well spent. And we can pay for it if
we just have the discipline to make the student
loan program make sense again. I think we have
to do it.
Let me say, there are many other issues I
could talk about, but I want to mention one
other. I have spent a lot of the last 6 years
working on the issue of welfare. I have probably
spent more time than any elected politician talking to people who live on welfare checks. And
I can tell you that nobody likes the system,
least of all most people who live on it. But
if you want to move people from welfare to
work, you have to realize three or four basic
things. First of all, you've got to make work
pay; welfare can never be a better deal. Secondly, we've got to realize that it's not the welfare check that keeps people on welfare as much
as it is the child care and the medical coverage
for the children. Most people on welfare have
kids. The third thing you've got to realize is
that most people, not all but most people on
welfare are woefully undereducated and can't
claim a very good paycheck in the market that
we're in, not all but a lot. So what is the answer? The answer is a comprehensive plan that
will empower people to go to work, require
them to take jobs when they can, and set a


date certain beyond which no check comes without an effort being made either in a public
or a private job. That's what I think should
be done. We should do away with the system
as we know it forever. It is a shackle on the
spirit of millions of Americans, and we can
change it.
Now, here's what we're going to propose.
One, in this plan, increase the earned-income
tax credit. You can fill out a form on your taxes
and get money back if you're eligible for the
earned-income tax credit. And let's fix it so that
any American who works 40 hours a week and
has a child in the house is not in poverty. That
is a simple, elemental principle that will reduce
the incentive of welfare. Second, strengthen the
system of child support enforcement. Don't lose
$20 billion a year for people who beat their
bills and won't support their kids. Let it cross
the State lines. Third, provide a system of education and training so that people are empowered to do what can be done in this economy.
Fourth, deal with the health care issue through
the national health initiative that I'll say more
about in a minute. And then finally, set up a
system, it will take us a while to do it and
to work out the financing, but set up a system
so that after a certain amount of time, if there
is no private sector job, to keep drawing a check
you must make an effort. I think that will be
a very good thing. And most people on welfare,
once you take care of these other issues, will
applaud the American people for changing that
system. Nobody likes the system we've got.
We've got to have the courage to change it,
and I think we will this year.
Finally, let me say a word about the last issue,
which incorporates so much of the other. If
you want to bring the deficit down to zero,
which is what our goal ought to be, over a
period of years, we must face the biggest exploder of the deficit and perhaps the biggest
human dilemma America faces, and that's the
health care crisis.
This year we're going to spend 15 percent
of our income on health care. The next nearest
country will not spend 10 percent. Now, we
should be spending more than everybody else
for a number of reasons: Number one, we do
more on medical research than any other country. Number two, we rely more on new technologies, and we enjoy that when we need it,
as opposed to somebody else needing it. Number three, we have a more diverse population


608




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / May 10


with more poor people than most other advanced countries, more cases of AIDS than most
other advanced countries, and we are a more
violent country than any other advanced country.
So we pay more money, keeping emergency
rooms open on the weekend for people getting
shot and cut up. [Laughter] You can laugh about
it; these are true things. Anybody comes and
paints some miracle picture on health care without telling you the truth is not credible.
We cannot get our costs down to the level
of other nations unless we make changes dealing
with these big structural things. We can do
something about this violence if we wanted to,
and I'll have more to say about that as we go
through this term. I've already tried to do too
much at once, according to the experts. But
let me tell you, we cannot continue to have
health care costs go up at the rate of inflation
anymore. We cannot do that here. This deficit,
no matter how much we bring it down in the
next 5 years, will start to go right up again
because health care costs are going up at a
projected 12 percent a year for the Government.
A hundred thousand Americans a month are
now losing their health insurance, coming right
onto the Government rolls: people giving up
jobs because they have sick children; people giving up health insurance to keep the small business from going broke; people giving up health
insurance because they have to change jobs, and
they have somebody in their family sick.
And there are things that can be done about
this. We are spending about 15 percent of every
dollar in health insurance on administrative costs
and insurance profit. That is exorbitant. It's
about a dime a dollar more than any other country in the world is spending. The average doctor
in 1980 was taking home 75 percent of all of
the money that came into the clinic that he
or she brought in, 75 percent. Do you know
what it is now? Fifty-two percent; lost 23 cents
on the dollar. Why? Because of paperwork. The
blizzard of insurance requirements, the blizzard
of Government requirements, and a few other
things as well. We can do something about this.
Now, the trick is going to be not to spend
a lot more money but to move the money from
where it shouldn't be to where it should. And
some people will have to pay some more. But
we are going to do the very best we can to
make sure that the people who are entitled to
a reduction in their insurance bills start to get
it right away, and that we phase in the burdens


of this so that no small business is bankrupt,
so that the providers are relieved of a lot of
these paperwork burdens, and so that we can
actually both lower the costs to the millions
and millions of Americans who are entitled to
it and stabilize the rate of increase for everybody
else.
Now, the nay-sayers can always call any new
responsibility that anybody assumes, that they
are not assuming now, a tax. Five will get you
ten, they'll never want to give any credit for
all the cost reductions that will go to the tens
of millions of Americans who are paying too
much now. We have got to do something about
this. We are the only advanced country in the
world that has no system for covering everybody,
maintaining health security for working families,
and trying to keep costs somewhere near inflation. We can do that and preserve everything
that is best about the American system, keep
spending more than everybody else is, but not
run this country into a ditch. And we've got
to do it.
In order to do it, all of us will have to take
a view about the national interests that will not
enable us to say, what's in it for me? We'll
have to say, what's in it for us? There are a
couple of things moving through the Congress
that are very hopeful in that regard. One is
the Senate passed a bill this week, that I strongly support, that requires all the lobbyists in
Washington to register for a change. Did you
know they didn't have to register before? A
whole bunch of them never even registered.
And limit very strictly the gifts that any Member
of Congress can receive without reporting them.
They're going to have to report the money that
all the lobbyists make, and the lawyers.
And now, we introduced last Friday a new
campaign finance reform bill that will limit the
cost of congressional campaigns, limit the influence of political action committees, and open
the airwaves to challengers and incumbents alike
so that the people get a real race every time,
and pays for it by repealing the deduction for
lobbyist expenses. I hope that those two things
can pass. To get economic reform, you're going
to have to have political reform. I'm sure of
that.
Bring down the deficit; do it with spending
cuts and tax increases. No tax increases without
the spending cuts. Invest in education and training, new technologies, incentives to business,
changing the welfare system. And have political


609




May 10 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


reform; face health care. That is a big agenda,
but that is America's agenda. If we're going
to bring this country back, that is what we must
do. I hope you and every American, without
regard to political party, in good faith, will ask
the United States Congress to engage these issues this year so that we can move this country


in the future.
Thank you very much, and God bless you.
NOTE: The President spoke at 12:45 p.m. at the
Statler Tower Building. In his remarks, he referred to Representatives Lou Stokes and Eric
Fingerhut.


Question-and-Answer Session With the Cleveland City Club
May 10, 1993


Homosexuals in the Military
Q. Mr. President, based on the congressional
hearings so far, how do you expect to resolve
the issue of gays in the military this July?
The President. I can only tell you what I think
should be done and what my guess is will be
done. And I'm glad you asked this question.
Let me say one thing by way of background.
The difference between my position and that
of many people in the military, including most
folks in the military, is over a very narrow category of people, actually. That is, in the last
few months, the armed services have, on their
own initiative after meeting with me, stopped
asking people when they join up whether they
are homosexual or not. That is not being asked
anymore. For many years that question was not
asked. It only started being asked in the relatively recent past. That will solve most of the
problems.
I do not propose any changes in the code
of military conduct. None. Zero. I do not believe
that anything should be done in terms of behavior that would undermine unit cohesion or morale. Nothing.
Here is what this whole debate is about. It
is about whether someone should be able to
acknowledge, if asked or otherwise, homosexuality and do nothing else, do nothing to violate
the code of military conduct and not be kicked
out of the service. And my position is yes. Others say no. Others say if you let someone acknowledge it, it amounts to legitimizing a lifestyle or putting it on a par with-I don't see
it as that. I just believe that there ought to
be a presumption that people ought to be able
to serve their country unless they do something
wrong. But you need to know, that is it is not
such a big difference. That is what we're arguing


about. We're arguing not about any kind of conduct but about whether people can acknowledge
that. Like that young man who was the 6th
Army soldier of the year and who's now about
to be mustered out because he acknowledged
being homosexual.
It is not about asking the American people
to approve a lifestyle, to embrace it, to elevate
it, anything else. The question is if you accept
as a fact, as we now know and as the Pentagon
has said, there have been many, many thousands
of homosexuals serve our country and serve it
well with distinction, should we stop asking?
They say yes, and I say yes. So we solved most
of the issues. They say yes, and I say yes.
Should we change the code of conduct? They
say no, and I say no, not at all, not on the
base, not any way, no changes in the code of
conduct. So the issue is over this: What will
happen in this narrow category of cases? And
that is what is still to be resolved. I hope my
position will prevail. Frankly, I think most people believe as a practical matter, most people
who have studied it, that the position I have
taken can be worked out and is fairest to the
good men and women who serve in the service
who have done well. I think they're frankly worried about having that position look like they
are embracing a lifestyle or legitimizing a lifestyle they don't agree with. And I keep saying,
'That's not what I think we're about." What
I think we're about is acknowledging people's
right to do right and to be judged by what
they do. And that's sort of my position.
Economic Program
Q. Mr. President, as a resident of Ohio, what
action can I take, what can I do to express
my outrage at Senator Dole and his cohorts
who block a legitimate vote like the stimulus


610




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / May 10


package?
The President. Let me make a constructive
suggestion. I appreciate your sentiments, obviously, but let me make a constructive suggestion.
What I think we need to do is to go on now
and pass this budget and then just see where
we are.
Let me back up and say what I think happened in that deal. I believe that I won the
debate with the American people that we needed more investments to create some jobs now,
because this economy is not producing a lot
of jobs. On the other hand, the Republicans
said, "Well, that's fine, but we ought to pay
for it."
Well, I had announced this stimulus program
as a part of this 5-year deficit-reduction program. So it had already been incorporated by
the financial markets and everybody else who
evaluated this. It was paid for in the sense that
it was part of the program. But to pass it in
time to get the summer jobs and some other
things out, we had to, in effect, take it out
of sequence, if you see what I mean, to put
it up now so we can get the money out to
create the jobs in 1993 before Congress could
have actually acted on the budget of which it
was but a small part.
So what I think, to be constructive, what I
think you should do is to do whatever you can
to encourage the big budget to pass, long-term
deficit reduction, and investment increases.
Then let's watch this unemployment rate. And
once we have proved that we have the discipline
in Washington to cut spending and reduce the
deficit, if we don't generate new jobs, if the
economy doesn't pick up in terms of employment, then I think we can come back and look
at that.
Now, that doesn't solve a couple of the severe
problems, like the summer jobs. We're still trying to assess where we are on that. But the
larger question of creating jobs is something that
I think that we need to recognize is primarily
going to be dealt with by the big budget, the
big issue. But if we need to come back, then
I'll need you and all your folks, because we
need to get ahead of the curve on this one.
Because we were not trying to increase the deficit, this was part of a big, 5-year plan where
we had to take it out of sequence because of
the summer jobs issue and because we wanted
a lot of these jobs created in 1993.
Thank you for asking.


National Service Program
Q. What is your prognosis for the success
of your proposed aid for college students who
do public service?
The President. Oh, I think it's got very great
prospects of success. We've had wonderful bipartisan support; for several Republican Congressmen in the House of Representatives already asked to be cosponsors. We have at least
two supporters, Republican supporters, in the
Senate. And as far as I know, virtually every
Democrat is for it.
We've worked very hard to try to work out
all of the objections, and I think it will be very
helpful. We're going to move as quickly as possible. The national service part I think will fly
through. The question of cutting down on the
cost of the loan program will be more difficult,
because many of the bankers and others who
like the system as it is will oppose it. But it's
unconscionable for us to lose $3 billion a year
on loan defaults and $1 billion on transaction
fees which could be put into direct loans which
could then be collected. So there will be a lot
of dispute about the loan issue. But I think
the national service part of it will go through.
It wouldn't hurt for you to express your support,
though, to your Member of Congress.
Thank you.
Environmental Initiatives
Q. Mr. President, what legislations do you
hope to pass in order to help protect the environment while cutting the national deficit?
The President. There are several things that
we want to do. As you know, the Vice President
and I have both worked very hard on this issue
since we took office. I want to sign the
biodiversity treaty, and I expect to do it, committing the United States to help preserve wildlife species. We want to be part of an international effort to preserve wildlife and plant life
in the United States and in the rainforest, especially, around the world. We want to reduce
the emissions of greenhouse gases in this country to 1990 levels over this coming decade,
which I think we can do.
And we want to invest some of the money
that is coming from defense cutbacks into environmental technologies and environmental
cleanup here at home, so that those technologies
can produce American jobs, many of which can
also lead in exporting. The biggest new commercial market in the world in the next 10 years


611




May 10 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


will be the market for various environmental
technologies and services. It is a huge gold mine
out there waiting to be tapped. When the countries met in Rio last year, regrettably the Germans and the Japanese were much ahead of
the United States in total in environmental technology companies and services. But we have a
lot of very successful ones here in the United
States, and I hope we can galvanize more of
them. If we do this right, cleaning up the environment won't cost us jobs, it'll save us jobs.
It'll have a big positive impact.
He asked a good question. Give him a hand.
Isn't he good. [Applause] Thank you.
Health Care Reform
Q. Mr. President, perhaps this is a bit premature. But does your health care program incorporate a focus on wellness as well as merely
curing illnesses? And what I mean by wellness
is universal immunization, health examinations,
and so forth. Or, perhaps Mrs. Clinton might
answer that a little bit better. [Laughter]
The President. Well, let me say that it will,
and that if it were just up to the two of us,
it would focus on wellness much more. You
may know that, for example, there are a lot
of countries, in France for example, where even
working-class families get a family allowance
when a woman is pregnant. You can only draw
the family allowance if the mother can prove
that she has followed a certain regime of maternal health designed to produce a healthy baby.
I saw the other day in the paper that some
Republican Congressman had suggested that we
ought to do the same thing with immunizations,
for people on public assistance having to immunize their kids. I thought that was a good idea.
I think that we should have a big wellness prevention component of this. That's another point
I wish I had made in my remarks. But we
are exploring what our options are there.
There will be every effort made to have a
strong education and prevention and wellness
component of this health care effort. And I
might add that if we can have more clinics in
chronically underserved areas and more health
educators there, I think we can do that. That's
one way you can save a ton of money in the
system, and I think you must know that or you
would not have asked the question.
Thank you.


Taxes
Q. Mr. President, your administration has proposed two new taxes: first, a value-added tax
in which goods would be taxed at each stage
of production; secondly, an energy Btu tax in
which coal, gas, oil, and other forms of energy
would be taxed at each stage of use. Are not
these taxes inflationary in that they compound
at each stage? And secondly, they push up the
consumer price index to which wages, prices,
and Social Security and other entitlements are
indexed to the consumer price index.
The President. Well, first, let me say I have
proposed a Btu tax, and I'd like to come back
to that. I have not proposed a VAT tax. I have
not. There have been a lot of rumors about
it.
It's interesting that you should know with
whom a VAT tax is popular. Hillary's health
care group, the First Lady's health care group,
was asked to consider a VAT tax by an unusual
coalition of big business and labor interests.
Why? Because other countries have a VAT tax.
Most other countries have a VAT tax of some
kind, and we don't. And a value-added tax is
one of the few ways that you can-somebody
who advocated it now wants to get off of it.
[Laughter] Anyway, a value-added tax is one
of the few ways that you can avoid taxing your
own exports and tax someone else's imports.
That is, it is placed on things sold in your country. So when our competitors in Europe, for
example, have a value-added tax, when they
produce things for sale in the United States,
it's not subject to the tax. When we sell our
stuff over there, it's already carried the full burden of our taxes, and it gets hit with the VAT.
So there are a lot of business and labor interests who believe that, conceptually, even if we
lower some other tax, we should embrace the
VAT tax because it helps us in international
trade. I had never thought of it as an answer
to the health care problem, because I thought
it would aggravate the maldistribution of paying
for the problem. It would allocate the burden
of paying for the problem in ways that I didn't
think were particularly fair. But that's what it
is.
Now, on the Btu tax, let me say that America
taxes energy less than any other country. There
were a lot of suggestions for how we might
raise funds to reduce the deficit. The energy
tax clearly is the thing which, for all kinds of


612




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / May 10


reasons, had the biggest impact on the financial
markets.
I was reluctant-there were people who said,
"Well, you ought to have a carbon tax. That's
the most polluting." I thought that was unfair
to the coal-producing States. Then there were
people who said, '"Well, we have real low gas
taxes." We do, but States also set gas taxes.
'We have real low gas taxes. You ought to have
a gas tax." I thought that was unfair to the
rural areas, particularly west of the Mississippi
where they have much higher per-vehicle usage.
The reason we decided to go with the Btu
tax is that you can put it uniformly on all sources
of energy so that it doesn't fall with incredible
disproportion on any given sector. Now, the
problem is that for the sectors that are especially
energy-intensive, it hurts them more than a gas
tax. And it hurts people who don't pay anything
for their energy now. So farmers, for example,
that had a fuel tax exemption are dealing with
this burden. And you know, we've tried to come
to grips with that. I don't think there is a perfect
solution. But I like the Btu tax, because it promotes energy conservation, it's good for the environment, and it's fairer, I think, to every region than any other energy alternative that we
could devise.
Let me follow up on that. We tried to increase the earned-income tax credit-that is, the
proposal-so that for people with earnings of
$29,000 a year or less, $30,000 a year or less
with families, the impact of the Btu tax would
be offset by the increase they'd get in the tax
cut under the earned-income tax credit.
Economic Program
Q. Good afternoon, Mr. President.
The President. Good afternoon.
Q. What I'd like to know is, first of all, your
economic plan is twofold. It is to cut spending
and, secondly, to encourage more Government
spending in the private sector. Well, obviously
there's a lot of support for the first part, cutting
spending. What I'd like to know is, there seems
to be a lack of enthusiasm for the second part.
One is: How do you plan to get that through?
Basically, how do you plan to garner more support for it? And, once you get your economic
package through, how much input are just ordinary people going to have to this? And when
will we feel it at our level?
The President. Well, depending on whether


you borrowed any money since November,
you've already felt it. From the minute Secretary-designate of the Treasury said after the
election, Lloyd Bentsen said we were going to
attack the deficit and how we were going to
do it and what was going to be in it, we began
to have pretty steep drops in interest rates. So
if you're paying any kind of interest payments,
you've already felt it.
The reason I was for the job stimulus program-to go back to the jobs program that the
gentleman asked me in the back-is that I wanted to be able to lower the unemployment rate
by another half a percentage point this year
through an investment program, because all over
the world, I will say again, all over the worldEurope's got a higher unemployment rate than
we do. Japan has a much lower unemployment
rate than we do because it's got a more closed
economy, but they also are not creating jobs,
and many of their firms are laying off for the
first time in modern history. So I wanted to
do that.
So you will-let me just tick them off-you
should be able-if we pass the budget, I think
we will secure a healthier financial environment
for the next year, and I think that will help
everyone. If we can pass health care, I think,
by next year people will begin to feel the impact
of greater health security. If we can pass itit's a big job and it's going to take a lot of
work.
The student loan program, if it passes, it will
affect people immediately. People will be eligible who are now in college for it, as well as
those who would wish to go, the same thing
with the apprenticeship program. The welfare
reform program should begin to have effect next
year. Those are just some of the things that
I think will actually touch people's lives and
make a big difference.
I think the trick on-to go back to the question the other gentleman asked-to getting people to support the targeted spending for education, training, and technology is to make sure
that you lock the spending cuts in first before
you do the taxes, and that overall, that the
spending increases are small compared to the
spending cuts, which they are, in our plan. So
I think to me, that's the trick, and that's what
I'm trying to achieve, and I hope you'll be with


613




May 10 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


me when we do it.
Thank you.


NOTE: The question-and-answer session began at
1:50 p.m. in the Statler Tower Building.


Nomination for Posts at the Department of Energy
May 10, 1993


The President announced today that he intends to nominate Victor H. Reis to be Assistant
Secretary of Energy for Defense Programs and
that he has approved the appointment of Michael Gauldin to be Director of the DOE's Office of Public Affairs.
"I am very pleased to be adding these two
people to the leadership of the Department of
Remarks and a Question-and-Answer
in Bensonville, Illinois
May 11, 1993
The President. Thank you very much, Brian.
Thank you, Dr. Meredith. And thank you, ladies
and gentlemen. I'm glad to be here at this fine
high school. I should also note before I begin
that one of many reasons that I decided to come
here is that this high school is the alma mater
of an important member of my White House
staff, Kevin O'Keefe, who graduated from Fenton High School. Where are you? Where's
Kevin? Stand up. He didn't have that gray hair
when he was here. I met, in addition to your
principal and your superintendent, I met Charlotte Sonnenfeld on the way in here, who said
she was a teacher of Kevin O'Keefe but was
not responsible for him in any way. [Laughter]
I also want to thank a number of other people
who are here, including several Members of
Congress over here to my left, Bobby Rush,
Luis Gutierrez, Cardiss Collins, and George
Sangmeister. I think they're all here. And I want
to thank Richard Dent of the Chicago Bears
for coming. Stand up, Richard.
I also want to-is Michael Cruz over there?
Is he here? No? Where is he? Here he is.
Come here. This young man was on the President's town hall meeting with students. Did any
of you see it? Did you see that? And he became


Energy," said the President. "Victor Reis is one
of our country's leading defense researchers, and
Mike Gauldin has been a valuable aide to me
for years. They will each play a key role in
helping Secretary O'Leary to meet her goals for
the Department of Energy."
NOTE: Biographies of the nominees were made
available by the Office of the Press Secretary.
Session With High School Students


a television star because he is a good student.
He goes to school in Chicago, and he said he
was worried about the safety of the schools and
the streets. And he asked the President to try
to make all the schools safe for students in every
part of America, no matter how tough the neighborhoods were. And I was really proud of him,
so I invited him to come here today. I think
you ought to give him a hand. [Applause]
I know we've got students from other schools
here. Where are you, all the students from the
other schools that are here?
Audience members. Boo-o-o!
The President. Hey, hey. [Laughter] No, no,
today's the day when you're supposed to welcome them here.
I want to say how very glad I am to be
back in Illinois where I met so many people
who shaped the thoughts and the feelings that
I carried into the Presidential campaign last
year. People who asked me to fight for their
families and the future of their children, to help
to fix our economy, to create more jobs, to
bring the terrible budget deficit down, to deal
with the health care and education challenges
facing America. A lot of what I learned in that
campaign last year I learned from talking to


614




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / May 11


people on the streets in the cities and towns
of Illinois, and I'm glad to be back.
This week, some of the Members of Congress
whom I hoped would be here are in Washington
working on things of importance to you. Your
two United States Senators, Paul Simon and
Carol Moseley-Braun, are in the Senate today
because they're going to vote on the motor voter
bill, which will make it easier for young people
to register and vote, an issue that's been a big
issue for MTV and all the MTV watchers in
the country who want to make young people
a bigger part of the political process. And Congressman Rostenkowski and the other members
of his committee are back in Washington, working on a plan that will help to bring the budget
deficit down by over $500 billion over the next
5 years, so that you can grow up in an America
that is not paralyzed by a crushing debt, as
we have seen in the last 12 years.
But I don't want to talk just about those issues
today. I also want to talk about tomorrow, about
your tomorrows and about what it will take for
you to make the most of the future all of us
who have already been in your place and school
are trying to make.
I've spent a lot of my time in Washington,
in fact, most of my time, working on the economy and the health care crisis today, because
I know that unless we can bring the deficit
down and invest in jobs and technology and
building a strong economy, America can't be
what it ought to be. And I believe that unless
we attack the problems of health care security
and coverage and the enormous contribution
that health care costs are making to the financial
problems of this country, we can never restore
real security to the American family or strength
to the American economy or reduce the terrible
deficit of this Government so that we can bring
our budget into balance. So that's what I spend
my time doing.
But I also know that no matter what we do
on these issues, unless each and every one of
you is a productive, well-educated, well-trained
citizen able to take advantage of the opportunities of the world you will live in but also able
to meet the highly competitive challenges of
people from all over the world who will be
struggling for many of the same opportunities
that you want, that nothing I can do will change
your individual lives. You have to do that. And
that's why the provision of excellence in education and real educational opportunities are so


important.
Those of you who have been able to go to
this school or the other schools here represented
can leave your high school with the confidence
that you've had the opportunity to get a good
education. But you should know that in the
world you're living in, the average young American moving into the work force will change
work seven or eight times in a lifetime. And
more than ever before in the history of the
country, what you are able to do in your work
life, what you are able to earn, will be directly
related not just to what you know today but
what you can learn tomorrow. In the last-yeah,
you can clap for that. That's a pretty good idea.
Thanks. [Applause]
Now, in the last 12 years, there has been
a dramatic difference, a widening growing-out
between the earnings of young people who have
at least 2 years of good education after high
school in a community college, a good training
program, or a 4-year college degree, and young
people who drop out of high school or only
finished high school. The clear evidence is that
in the world in which you will live, you will
need not only to make a personal commitment
to learning and relearning throughout your lifetime but to getting at least-at least-2 years
of education beyond high school and hopefully
more.
Now, more and more people have got this
figured out. College enrollments have grown up;
explosive enrollment increases at 2-year community colleges and technical schools have been
seen. Young people have figured that out. But
there are still some problems with it, one of
which is purely financial. The college dropout
rate is more than twice the high school dropout
rate, and one big reason is, a lot of people
cannot afford to go or, having gone, cannot afford to stay.
How many of you want to go on to some
form of further education when you get out
of high school? Raise your hand. How many
of you think you're going to need to borrow
some money or get a scholarship or have some
financial help to do it? Raise your hand. [Applause] I think it's nice that you can be enthusiastic about that.
You know, last year in Illinois alone, almost
180,000 educational loans were made. Five million educational loans were made in America
last year. Higher education is really important.
It's important to you economically. It's impor

615




May 11 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


tant for reasons far more important than that,
even. It promotes personal growth and gets you
in contact with things that have happened in
the past and ties you into this great civilization
of ours. But it's all academic, to use an appropriate word, if you can't afford to go and stay.
Interestingly enough, the cost of a college
education is perhaps the only essential in a family's spending patterns that has gone up more
rapidly than health care in the last 10 years.
And that's one big reason that the college dropout rate has increased. More and more young
people have to deal with this.
On the average, in the country as a whole,
tuition fees and room and board cost $5,240
a year at public institutions of higher education
and $13,237 at private schools. The cost of these
educations has gone up 126 percent in the last
10 years. That means that a lot of people who
try to borrow money drop out and then can't
repay the debt; others borrow the money and
leave college with massive debts and don't know
how to repay them. Still others might prefer
when they graduate to be a teacher, for example, but they're afraid they can't meet their loan
repayment schedule. They might wish to be a
law enforcement officer or a police officer;
they're afraid they can't meet their loan repayment schedule. That's a bad case of the tail
wagging the dog. People actually deciding what
to do with their lives based on the crushing
burden of debt they have to get an education,
the purpose of which was to be free to choose
to do whatever you want to do with your life.
We can do better than that.
One of the reasons that I ran for President
is that I wanted to change that, because I know
no economic policy, no health care policy, no
reduction in the deficit can change what is in
your mind and whether you are able to do well
in the world that you will live in. You have
to do that. But my generation owes it to you
to give you the chance to be able to afford
to get a good college education, to go and to
stay.
A couple of weeks ago I unveiled a plan to
do that based on four simple principles: First,
we ought to lower the interest rates on the
college loans that you borrow from-that you
make. I don't know how many seniors here have
already looked into college loans, but if you
want a college loan that's guaranteed by the
Federal Government, there's a lot of paperwork
involved and a lot of hassle. That's because there


are a lot of extra costs in there, from middle
men, from banks, and from corporations, who
profit from the current loan program.
Your Senator, Paul Simon, was the first person who ever came to see me well over a year
ago to say that we ought to make loans directly
to students from the United States Government
in a financially secure way so that we could
cut out paperwork, cut out all the time it takes
to apply for them, and eliminate excess profits
from middle men. Every student borrower can
enjoy a lower rate if we do this. And if we
adopt the plan that I have basically developed
in cooperation with Senator Simon and others,
we can save the American taxpayers $4 billion
over the next 5 years and make loans available
to you at cheaper rates. I'd say that's a pretty
good idea.
The second thing we have to do is make
it easier for students to pay the loan back.
Today, the loan repayment obligation is directly
related to how much you borrow, whether you
have a job or whatever your job pays. What
I want to do is to give every American young
person who borrows money to get a 2-year or
a 4-year education after high school the option
of paying the money back based on how much
you make, so that you can never be saddled
with a debt burden greater than a certain percentage of your income. That way, there will
never be an incentive not to be a teacher, not
to be a police officer, not to work with kids
in trouble, not to do whatever you want to do.
You will be able to pay your loan back because
it will be a percentage of your income. Regardless of how much you borrowed, we'll work it
out so that the monthly payment is never too
burdensome. That means nobody will be able
to say they can't afford a college loan.
The third thing we want to do is to give
tens of thousands of you the chance to earn
credit against these loans before you go to college or while you're in college or to work them
off after you get out of college, not by paying
them off but by serving your country in a community service program, working with the elderly, working with other kids, working with housing programs, working with things that need to
be done in the neighborhood or in nearby
neighborhoods, or if you do it after you get
out of college, working as teachers or police
officers or in other needed areas in underserved
communities in America. Just think of it. We
could have tens of thousands of people who


616




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / May 11


could pay off their loans entirely by giving a
year or two of their lives to make their countries
and their communities better.
Finally-this is the one kicker-I hope you
will clap for this, too, because it's important.
[Applause] Wait until you hear it. [Laughter]
A lot of people don't pay off their college loans
at all. There is an unbelievable default rate.
We lose about $3 billion a year from people
who don't pay their loans back. Now, there's
a reason for that, and I'll explain it more later.
But one of the things we do, if we're going
to loan you the money directly, we're going to
collect the money directly, too, involving the
tax records at tax time so you can't beat the
bill. People who borrow money, once you make
it possible for them to repay it, should not be
able to welsh on the loans. That undermines
the ability of children coming along behind you
to borrow the money. People ought to have
to pay the loans back if we make it possible
for them to do it. Everybody ought to have
to do that.
Now, this will make it possible for millions
of young people to borrow money to go to college. I don't propose to weaken the Pell grant
programs and the other scholarship programs;
we want to keep strengthening them. But this
will make it possible for millions of people to
borrow money, never have to worry about
whether they'll be able to pay it back. You won't
have to pay it back until you go to work. When
you do go to work, you can pay it back as
a small percentage of your income. You will
have to pay it back and will do it all at lower
cost. This will open the doors of college education to millions of Americans.
Now, you might ask yourself, "Well, if it's
that simple, why is this man here talking to
me about it? Why don't you just go do it?"
Here's why. A lot of people are doing well with
the present system. They're making a lot of
money out of the present system. There are
7,800 lenders today, people making the student
loans. There are 46 different Agencies that guarantee these loans against failure. Then, there
are all these people who service the loans and
who buy the loans in big packages in ways that
you couldn't even begin to understand, probably,
but they're all making good money out of the
present system. It's confusing and it's costly, and
the more money that goes to other things, the
less money that's available to provide low-cost
loans to the students of America.


Typically, the student takes out a loan from
a bank, and then the bank takes the note that
you sign when you get the loan and sells it
to a corporation. The corporation then makes
a profit by packaging the loan to someone else.
And the loan is ultimately guaranteed by whom?
All of us, the American taxpayers. So nobody
can lose any money on it. Now, the biggest
middle man in the whole thing is called Sallie
Mae, the Student Loan Marketing Association.
Last year, lenders made a total profit of $1
billion on student loans. Sallie Mae made $394
million. And between 1986 and 1991-listen to
this; this is a group that helps us get student
loans, right, which should not be a big profitmaking operation-the costs of this corporation
went down by 21 percent and its profits went
up by 172 percent. But you didn't get the benefits of it; someone else did.
Interestingly enough, banks make more profits
and more guaranteed profits on student loans
than on car loans or mortgages, but there's no
risk. They don't have to worry if the student
doesn't pay back the loan. Why? Because the
Government will send them 90 cents on the
dollar. And as all of you know if you follow
this at all, there's not much incentive for a bank
to come recover the loan because it costs more
than 10 percent of the loan to hire a lawyer
and go through a lawsuit and file all the papers
and do all that. So every year, the Government
just writes a lot of checks to people for the
loans that students don't repay. The taxpayers
foot the bill, and that's all money that we can't
spend loaning money to you and people like
you to go to college.
The system is not very good. The lenders
do well, but the people who need to borrow
the money for a college education are hurt as
a result. And the taxpayers get hit coming and
going: not enough money made available for
student loans, too much money going out to
increase the deficit by paying off loans that
never get repaid.
So, you might say, "Why don't we change
this?" Because in the system we have, the people that are making plenty of money out of
the present system will fight it. And they will
hire lobbyists who make their money by trying
to influence the Congress. No sooner had I even
mentioned changing this system than Congress
was deluged with lobbyists. The biggest organization, Sallie Mae alone, supposed to be in the
business of helping you get money to go to


617




May 11 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


college, has already hired seven of the most
powerful lobbyists in Washington to try to stop
this process from changing.
Now, there are a lot of people in Washington
who want to keep the status quo. A lot of people
don't want to lower the deficit, either. How
did we get such a big national debt? How did
the debt go from $1 trillion in 1980 to $4 trillion
in 1992? Because we cutAudience member. Republicans.
The President. No, because we did what was
popular. It wasn't just the Republicans; they had
the White House, but let's be fair. Because how
do you run up a big deficit? How do you run
up a big deficit? The President proposes, and
the Congress disposes. And it's popular in the
short run to cut taxes and increase spending,
right? I mean, that's popular. It's easy. I'll cut
your taxes and send you a check. That's good,
right? The problem is, is that at some point
you run up debt after debt after debt after debt.
So what am I trying to do? What's not popular? I'm trying to cut spending and increase
taxes, mostly on very wealthy Americans but not
entirely, because we all have to try to recover
our financial future. And I'm trying to do it
in a way that preserves some money to invest
in your education and new technologies for your
jobs. But there are a lot of people who are
making money out of a system that cuts taxes
and increases spending, and it's not very popular
to raise the money and cut the spending. That's
the way it is here. There are a lot of people
who are doing very well out of this system.
Now, why am I telling you this? Because it
is your future on the line, and if you would
like to have a system in which it is easier to
borrow money to go to college, 2 or 4 years,
and which it will be easier to pay it back and
in which more of your tax money will be spent
to benefit you and your education and your future, then you need to tell your Members of
Congress, without regard to their political party,
that you would like to have a better future,
and this is a change that you want made.
This country is a very great country. It has
been around for more than 200 years because
every time we had to make real changes, we
did it. Now the challenges we face are very
much within our borders. It really bothers me
that there are so many kids every year who
are lost to the future as well as to themselves
because of crime and drugs. It really bothers
me that so many people drop out of college


and don't get the future that they ought to have
just because of the money involved. It bothers
me that we spend so much more than any other
country in the world on health care, but we
don't provide health coverage to all our people,
and all the other advanced countries do. And
it bothers me that we're not creating jobs for
you, but we're piling up debt for your future.
I believe we can do better. But we can only
do it if we'll tell each other the truth, keep
our eyes wide open, and if you will say, hey,
it is my future. Look, I've lived most of my
life. Unless I beat the odds and live to be 94,
I've lived more than half my life-or 92. I can't
even add anymore. I've lived more than half
my life unless I live to be 92 years old. It
is your life that's on the line. It is your future
that's on the line. And our job now is to open
it up for you and to face the problems of this
time so that you have the same chance to live
the American dream that your forebears did.
That is our job, and you can help us do it.
Again, let me say, I thank you for letting
me come here. I look forward to answering your
questions. But when I'm gone, if you don't remember anything else I said, just remember
this: There's a plan in Washington to provide
more student loans at a more affordable rate
so that more people can go to college and stay,
but we have to have the courage to change
to adopt it.
Thank you very much.
Moderator. Thank you, President Clinton. We
understand that you have some time where you
could answer some questions from our students.
So if you'd have a seat, ladies and gentlemen,
and raise your hand, we'll begin by asking you
some questions.
Yes?
Student Loans
Q. My name is John Snodgrass. I'm a junior
from Fenton High School, and I am wondering
what the Government is doing about the families
that are defaulting on the student loans?
The President. Well, we try to collect it. But
the problem now is that very often the people
who don't pay are unemployed, or very often
the people who don't pay-there's another problem with this, by the way-are people who got
educations from trade schools that couldn't deliver what they promised. That is, they said,
"We'll train you, and you'll be able to get a
good job, and you'll be able to get a high sal

618




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / May 11


ary." And a lot of these schools have been able
to rip off this system for years because they
could charm-they would get all their kids into
these programs through student loans, and then
they didn't have to worry about whether they
finished the program or got jobs, because they
already had the student loan money.
So what we're trying to do is, number one,
be tougher with the schools. If they're not good
schools and they're not really educating the students so the students can repay the loans, we're
trying to stop those schools from being eligible
for it. Number two, we're looking at ways to
toughen up the enforcement.
Here's the way I want to change it so we
can collect from almost everybody. If I said to
you, look, I'll give you a loan and you don't
have to repay it until you actually get a job
so you're earning the money. And then you may
borrow-let's say you borrow $5,000 and she
borrows $10,000 and she borrows $20,000, and
you all take jobs earning $30,000 a year, right?
The people who borrowed more money would
be given the option of paying that loan back
as a limited percentage of their income, even
though it would take them longer to pay it back.
At least they would be able to make the payments, and they wouldn't be defaulting. And
then if they didn't pay it back, we would know
that they didn't because the Government would
have the records, and we would enforce it just
like we enforce taxes. In other words, you
couldn't beat the bill. If you had a job and
you had an income, you would have to pay
it back.
But right now, we get the worst of all worlds.
We let somebody else make the loan, and we
tell them if it's not paid back, we'll pay 90
percent of the loan, and then after all the time
goes by, we've got to figure out how to collect
it. So we're doing better, but we can do much,
much better if we clean out a lot of the system
that's there and go at it directly.
Who had a microphone? Anybody? Yes, in
the back.
Drug Policy
Q. Going back to that point you made before
about drugs, I was wondering which direction
the national drug policy is going, whether you
want to support more law enforcement in getting drugs off the streets or if you're going to
move more towards rehabilitation and education?


The President. Well, I don't think you can
do one without the other. But let me say, I
believe we need to increase the emphasis on
education, prevention, and rehabilitation because
we know that's what works. That is, for several
years in the 1980's, drug use went down among
most groups of young people, largely because
they figured out it would kill them. In other
words, people decided to change their behavior
from the inside out.
Now, that does not-you can't sacrifice law
enforcement to that. I think we should do two
other things. Let me just run it out real quickly.
The second thing we should do is to adopt law
enforcement strategies that will reinforce people
taking responsibility for themselves and increase
the likelihood that they will move off drugs or
out of the drug culture. I'll just give you two
examples.
One is community policing. Thirty-five years
ago there were three policemen on the street
in America for every crime committed. Today,
there are three crimes for every policeman. It's
very hard, therefore, to have enough police to
walk the streets, to know the neighbors, to know
the kids, and to be a force for preventing crime.
Where that has happened, it has worked.
The man I named to be the drug czar in
our administration, Lee Brown, was the police
chief in Atlanta, Houston, and New York City.
And when he left New York, in the areas where
they had put in community policing, the crime
rate was going down. In some of those neighborhoods, for the first time in 30 years, there had
been a reversal in the crime rate. So I think
you have to do that.
And the final thing I want to say is we still
have a big stake in working with our friends
and allies in other countries to try to stop drugs
from coming into this country. And we are in
the process now of reexamining whether there's
anything else we can do to reduce the flow
of drugs into the country. But I'll tell you one
thing, if we all decided we'd stop taking them,
the flow would dry up because there wouldn't
be any demand. So we can't just worry about
blaming people from outside.
Go ahead. Where's the microphone? Yes?
Defense Spending
9. A big issue that has been in the newspaper
and on the news is military cutbacks. What I'm
curious about is, what is being cut back in bases,
arms, manpower. My curiosity is because I've


619




May 11 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


enlisted in the U.S. Army. And is it going to
effect my future if I decide to use it as a career
and go my 20 years or anything like that. Will
it affect me?
The President. Can you all hear his question?
I'll repeat the question. He said he was concerned about military cutbacks. He wants to
know what the nature of the cutbacks are, how
far they will go. He's enlisted in the Army. Will
that undermine his ability to make the Army
a career because of the cutbacks.
Let me say, first of all, you know why the
cutbacks are occurring. The cutbacks are occurring because an enormous percentage of our
military force was directed against the Soviet
Union, and it no longer exists. A lot of our
nuclear arsenal was because they had a big nuclear arsenal, and we were positioned against
them, and we had planes and ships supporting
that, as well as people on the ground with landbased missiles. A lot of our military forces were
positioned against all the troops they used to
have in Eastern Europe, which have been withdrawn, and the military positioning they had
around the world. So we have been able toin fact, we've been obligated to reduce defense
spending, starting in about '86 or '87 because
of the receding nature of the threat. And that's
good on the whole.
Now, the world is still a pretty dangerous
place, and the United States is still the only
comprehensive military power. And we have to
be careful how we reduce that defense spending
and how much we do it.
Right now, we're doing it across the board
in three areas: We're reducing military personnel with the view toward going down to a base
force of about 1.4 million over the next 5 years,
down from over 2.5 million just a few years
ago. So that's a lot of people that have been
mustered out, including all volunteers, people
who wanted to serve their country, many of
whom would like to have stayed longer. So the
answer to your question is, if we have a smaller
base force, it will be more competitive to get
into and to stay in the Armed Forces. The recruitment has already been scaled back. So if
you've been recruited and if you're going in
under the new, smaller recruitment quotas,
you'll probably have a reasonable chance to stay
in a good, long while if you choose to do it.
But not so many good young people will. In
that way, it's kind of sad, because the military
has done a magnificent job of training and edu

cating people, of inculcating them with good
values and good work habits as well as good
education. So that's one of the-kind of the
down sides. The second thing we're doing is
closing bases, and that's very unpopular. But
you can't just cut the forces and not close the
bases. And the third thing we've had to do is
to cut back on a number of weapons procurements, which cost jobs in the defense industry.
So, on balance, this has been a good thing,
but I want you to understand there are some
bad consequences to it. And one of the struggles
that I expect to have constantly for the next
4 years is to try to convince people in the Congress that as we cut defense we need to be
reinvesting that money in education and technology in America to create jobs to replace those
lost in defense.
And thank you for being willing to serve your
country.
Government Gridlock
Q. Mr. President, I think the American people have become increasingly disenchanted with
the lack of progress in our Government. How
are you going to convince the American people
and all the Members of Congress that your programs are good ones, and how are you going
to break the filibusters that have beenThe President. Well, we've only had one. We
broke them all but one. Keep in mind that I've
just been there 100 days, and I had 12 years
of a different direction before I took office. It's
hard to turn it around in 100 days. I'm actually
quite optimistic.
The Congress passed the outline of the budget I presented which, as I explained earlier,
is a very tough thing, you know, to bring the
deficit down in a record time, the first time
in 17 years under Democrats and Republican
Presidents the Congress had ever passed the
budget resolution within the time limit. So I
think we're moving fairly rapidly.
Just shortly after I took office, Congress
passed the Family and Medical Leave Act, guaranteeing people the right to take a little time
off from work when they have a sick child or
a sick parent or a baby is born, without losing
their jobs. That had gone through 8 years of
fights and two vetoes. The Congress is trying
to pass today this motor voter bill, which would
really open up the political process to millions
of Americans. So I think we are making
progress.


620




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / May 11


Now, let me also tell you that some of this
stuff is really hard. I mean the reason that these
things have not been done before is that we've
done easy things for 12 years. What I'm asking
the Congress to do are things that are really
hard, and it may take a while to do it. But
I'm not prepared to say, at the moment anyway,
that we've lost the battle to gridlock. I don't
agree with the minority of Senators who filibustered the jobs bill. But that was not just a political battle; that was an idea battle. A lot of them
thought that we shouldn't spend any money on
anything until we pass the overall budget which
reduces the deficit, even though I knew we were
going to.
My view was: We're going to pass this budget,
we're going to reduce the deficit, and we've
got to get some jobs in this economy. So that
was an issue I didn't win on. I'm not going
to win every issue I'm fighting. But I believe
that we have a real chance to make this Government work, and I'm basically quite optimistic
about it.
The one thing I would urge you not to do,
any of you, is to put too much faith in just
the day-to-day development of the news. You
have to take a long-term view of this. And we've
had this health care problem for a long time.
We've had this economic problem for a long
time. And in just a very short time we've been
able to put these issues back on the national
agenda and move them forward. So I think what
you need to do is to remind everybody you
can remind-if you want to know what you can
do and what the American people can do, it's
to try to make everybody think in a less partisan
way, not worry about the fights between Republicans and Democrats, and think more every day
about what are the problems of this country.
And if you don't like what President Clinton
says, what's your alternative?
In other words, let's just keep moving the
ball forward. What I try to do is to put these
problems high on the national agenda and try
to ask people to lay down their partisan armor
and look at these problems in a new and different way and keep pushing the ball forward.
So if you don't like what I want to do about
it, then if you're not going to support that, then
come up with some alternative so we can do
something. The worst thing we can do is stay
in paralysis. Let's do something. That, I think,
ought to be the message.


Financial Aid for Education
Q. In the past, the financial aid has been
based upon a quota system for racial and ethnic
minorities. I'm wondering if you're planning to
continue this quota system or will it be based
on talent and merit and needs straight across
the board?
The President. There may be certain minority
scholarship programs in certain universities. But
the program that I would speak of, both national
service and the student loan program, would
be available across-the-board. I mean-and I believe-and the student loan program should be
available across-the-board virtually without regard to income once you can guarantee that
the repayment is going to be there so you don't
have to worry about loaning too much money.
That's what I think. I favor broad-based and
inclusive programs and national service will also
be broad-based and inclusive.
I think you have to make efforts to include
people from all races and income groups, and
I would want to see that done because we have
a big stake in making sure that we close the
disparity in income and race of people getting
an education, because if you come out the other
end of the educational system, then the income
differences tend to vanish. But I don't think
anyone should be excluded, and I don't want
to ration this program. I want to open this program to all Americans.
Space Program
Q. Mr. Clinton, I'd like to know what your
views are on the space program, if you are in
favor of cutting anything or improving anything?
The President. In general, I support strongly
the space program and the NASA budget. I
have some problems with the space station itself
for a couple of reasons. One, it's a hugely expensive program, and there's a lot of debate within
NASA itself about whether the old designs
should be continued, whether we need that
space station design. Secondly, it's had staggering cost overruns. Every time we turn around
they're coming back for hundreds of millions
of more dollars. And with the deficit the way
it is and all these other problems, we can't afford it. So what NASA is doing now is trying
to redesign the space station and come up with
a multi-year space program that I hope we can
get strong bipartisan support for.
I think it would be a big mistake for America


621




May 11 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


to drastically cut back its role in space. Now
I've been criticized for cutting back on the space
station, but I haven't cut back the NASA budget.
We have cut back the rate of increase that they
want to cover all the cost overruns for anything
that happens. I just don't think we can do that
with the old space station design.
So we're now looking at three alternatives for
the space station to take a new and modified
course. But I think it would be a great mistake
for America to withdraw from space exploration
and from work in space. For one thing, it's
one of the ways that we may find answers to
a lot of our environmental problems as well
as to continue to build our scientific and technological base after we cut defense. So I hope
we can continue to support it.
Q. Mr. PresidentThe President. Go ahead. We'll take one more
and then I'll take this young man's. Go ahead.
Bosnia
Q. Mr. President, I was wondering with all
the news about Bosnia, do you see any differences in sending troops to Bosnia where you
were strongly opposed to civil war in Vietnam
in the late sixties?
The President. Well, first of all, I do. That's
a good question. But I have never advocated
the United States unilaterally sending troops to
Bosnia to fight on one side or the other of
the civil war.
Let me just say what's complicated about it.
There plainly is a civil war in Bosnia that is,
among other things, a fight primarily between
the Serbs and the Muslims but also involving
the Croatians. It is complicated by the fact that
Serbia, a separate country, has intervened in
it, and complicated by the fact that the United
Nations before Bosnia, the nation of Bosnia was
even recognized, imposed an arms embargo in
the area. But the practical impact of the arms
embargo that the United Nations imposed was
to give the entire weaponry of the Yugoslav
Army to the Serbian Bosnians and deprive any
kind of equal weaponry to the people fighting
against them. So the global community had, not
on purpose, but inadvertently, has had a huge
impact on the outcome of that war in ways
that have been very bad.
My position has been pretty simple and
straightforward from the beginning. I think that
without the United States unilaterally getting in,
or without even-I don't think the United Na

tions should enter the war on one side or the
other. But I think there is much more that
we can do to induce the parties to stop the
fighting, to do what we can to stop this idea
of ethnic cleansing: murdering people, raping
children, and doing terrible acts of violence solely because of people's religion. Biologically,
there is not much difference between the Muslims, the Croatians, and the Serbians there. The
ethnic differences are rooted in religious and
historical factors.
Thirdly, we want to try to confine that conflict
so it doesn't spread into other places and involve
other countries, like Albania and Greece and
Turkey, which could have the impact of undermining the peace in Europe and the growth
and stability of democracies there.
So I think the United Nations, the world community can do more in that regard. That's quite
a different thing than what happened in Vietnam
where the United States essentially got involved
in what was a civil war on one side or the
other. There are some remarkable similarities
to it which should give us caution about doing
that. There are similarities to that. There are
similarities to Lebanon. But that does not mean,
just because-I wouldn't propose doing exactly
what the United States did in Vietnam. That
does not mean that the United States should
not consider doing something more, especially
if we can get the Europeans who are after all
closer to it, who have a more immediate stake
in it, to try to help us to stop the ethnic cleansing, the continued fighting, and minimize dramatically the risk of the war spreading.
So that's what we're struggling for an answer
to. It's a very, very difficult problem.
Students and the Educational System
Q. Mr. President, what do you feel we as
students can do to better the U.S. educational
system?
The President. Read more. Read more. I think
you can read more. I think you can establish
tutoring groups in schools where the students
that are doing well help those which aren't.
There's a lot of evidence that by the time somebody reaches your age that you all have more
influence on one another than I would on any
of you. And there's a lot of evidence in schools
that are succeeding that when students work
with each other either in the same classroom
or across grade lines, that the overall performance of the school goes up.


622




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / May 11


Interestingly enough, there are a lot of studies
even showing at elementary schools that this
is true and certainly true in high schools. So
I think one of the things that I have seen work
repeatedly over the last dozen years that I've
spent countless hours in schools with students
and teachers is that kind of working together.
The third thing that I think you can do is
to speak out in a way for a culture of learning
and for good values in the schools. I think that's
important. I think if the students want a school
to be a place where learning is valued and
where everybody counts and where violence or
drugs or other bad behavior are not tolerated,
the students can have more to do with getting
rid of it than anything else if it is a bad thing,
if everybody looks down on it. And I think that
can make a huge difference.
It's so limited what the rest of us can do
to help the schools unless there is a right sort
of feeling in the hearts of the young people
involved. And I think anything we can do to
convince all students that they count, that they
matter, that we need them all, that they
shouldn't drop out, that they can learn, anything
we can do in that regard school by school, class
by class, year by year, is going to make education in this country a lot better.
The last thing I think you can do is to decide
what you think is wrong with education and
how we can make it better and tell people like
me about it. In other words, tell us from your
perspective how we can make your schools a
lot better, what you need, how we can give
you a better future, what we're not doing that
we could be doing. Those are the things you
can do.
Moderator. President Clinton, I understand
we have time for one more question.
Women in the Armed Forces
Q. Yes. I have a question about women in
the military. I heard that they're going to be
able to go in combat now. Is it going to become
a law that they're going to be drafted also?
The President. I'm sorry I didn't hear you.
Go ahead.
Q. I've heard rumors that women are going
to be able to be in combat now in the military.
So I'm wondering, are they going to be able
to be drafted like men?
The President. First of all, men are not drafted. We have an all volunteer service. There


are no draftees. Anyone who goes into the service is like this young man. The men or women
choose to go. And we have a lot of people
who want to go now because of the justifiably
high esteem in which our military is held. I
can tell you that you can talk to any career
service officer, and he or she will tell you that
we have the best educated, best trained, best
equipped, highest morale military service we
have ever had. And it also, by the way, is the
most diverse one we've ever had, opening up
more opportunities to women and to all members of all races that we've ever had. And yet
it's the best educated, best trained, best
equipped, best able military service we have
ever had although it's under a lot of stress now
because of all the downsizing.
The Service Chiefs in the Joint Chiefs of Staff
have decided that they ought to open up some
more combat roles to women, principally on
combat ships. The Navy, for example-I bet
a lot of you don't know this-the Navy now
has three noncombat ships under the command
of women, the United States Navy does.
But Admiral Kelso, the Chief of Naval Operations, had decided that some more combat ship
roles should be open to women. And then there
was also a decision made that women ought
to be eligible to fly combat missions in the face
of clear evidence that the airplanes they fly
today require not strength so much as response,
the capacity for quick and agile response. And
there's a lot of evidence that women are at
least as good in some of those functions as men,
so the Joint Chiefs made that decision. That
was a military decision in which I did not intervene at all. I think if the evidence supports
it, it's a very good decision. But I want you
to know it was made based on the evidence
in the case and made by the military, and they
deserve the credit.
Well, I could do this all day long. You have
been terrific and I'm very proud of you, and
you've asked wonderful questions, all of them
were very good. I wish you well. Have a good
day. And don't stop thinking about these educational issues. Thank you very much.
NOTE: The President spoke at 9:55 a.m. in the
gymnasium at Fenton High School. In his remarks, he referred to Brian Shamie, student council president; John G. Meredith, superintendent


623




May 11 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


of schools; and Kevin O'Keefe, Special Assistant  answer session could not be verified because the
to the President. A portion of the question-and-  tape was incomplete.
Remarks to the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights
May 11, 1993


Thank you very much, Mr. Vice President,
for that wonderful introduction and for being
such a great partner in the campaign of 1992
and in this administration. I think it is fair to
say that Vice President Gore has already exercised a larger role in this administration than
perhaps any Vice President in the history of
this country. And I hope he will continue to
do so.
I'm honored to be here with Ralph Neas and
with my longtime friend Benjamin Hooks. Don't
you just love to hear Ben talk? I mean, really,
I could hear him intone those poems from now
until tomorrow morning, reminding me of the
rhythms of my childhood and the faith of our
parents.
I'm proud to be here with all of you tonight
not only because of what you have done for
the last four decades and more but because
of what together we must do now. I'm proud
of your commitment to civil rights. I'm proud
to be here with our Attorney General, Janet
Reno, who is the embodiment of that.
I thank you for the vote of the national board
of the leadership conference today to support
the nomination of Lani Guinier to be Assistant
Attorney General for Civil Rights. I want to
say a special word of support for Lani Guinier.
I went to law school with her, and I announced
at the Justice Department the other day when
we announced all of our Assistant Attorneys
General that she had actually sued me once.
[Laughter] Not only that, she didn't lose. And
I nominated her anyway. So the Senate ought
to be able to put up with a little controversy
in the cause of civil rights and go on and confirm her so we can get about the business of
America.
I want to say, too, how honored I am to
be here with your honorees. My friend Dorothy
Height: From the freedom schools in Mississippi
to the Black Family Reunion, what a guiding
spirit she has been to all of us.
I want to take my hat off to Raul Yzaguirre


for his leading voice. Over 20 years ago, I first
came in contact with La Raza as a movement
and a commitment. And I have watched them
over these years help people all across the country with the practical problems of life which
give real meaning to the idea of civil rights,
when you can actually live in a decent house
and have a decent job and know your kids are
going to get a decent education and know that
you're going to be treated fairly no matter what
your race is.
I want to say, too, how very much I admire
Justin Dart for all the work that he's done as
Chair of the President's Commission on Employment of People with Disabilities and leader
in making the Americans with Disabilities Act
come to life. You know, Justin, every time we
went anywhere in the campaign and had a rally,
we always had a section for people with disabilities. Today I went to a suburb north of Chicago, in a heavily Republican community, as it
turned out, to meet with a bunch of students
from the high school that I was visiting and
other high schools and people in the community.
And we had a big section there for the students
with disabilities. And I was thinking as I was
coming over here tonight, a lot of those kids
are where they are today because of what you
did-and you ought to be proud of that-sitting
in the front of the row so they can ask the
President their questions and shake hands with
the President; instead of being overlooked, being
uplifted.
I say that to you to make one introductory
point. I've been here for 100 days and a sum,
fighting to break the gridlock in Washington.
And sometimes I think the biggest gridlock of
all is the gridlock in our minds, the hold that
foolish notions have on our imaginations. I have
been roundly attacked by people on the extreme
right trying to make me look like some radical
leftwinger because I had this crazy notion that
I ought to have an administration that would
have some diversity and give women as well


624




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / May 11


as men and people of color as well as people
who look like me the chance to serve if they
could meet high standards of excellence. And
there are people who say, well-and I see these
relentless articles in the paper-oh, that's why
no appointments are being made. Well, so in
100 days I show up at the Justice Department,
and I ask for the totals: Pass me the envelope,
please. [Laughter] And it turns out that in spite
of my commitment to diversity and excellence,
after 100 days my predecessor had made 99
appointments,  his  predecessor,  President
Reagan, had made 152 appointments, and I'd
made 173. Where are they? And I expected
to see the shameless right in sackcloth and
ashes, saying that we had falsely accused this
poor President in promoting gridlock. But they
have no shame. [Laughter]
Let me tell you something: Today when I
was in Illinois, a young, handsome, fine-looking
Hispanic man stood up and said, "I have joined
the United States Army. And I'm proud that
I'm going to serve my country. And I know
we've got to cut the military budget, but I want
to know if you're going to cut it so much that
I can't give my whole career to my country
if I want to." And I thought to myself, why
doesn't somebody point out to all these people
who have attacked us for trying to open the
doors of opportunities that the number one,
most successful institution in the United States
of America for giving opportunities to women
and people of color are the United States military branches. They have done it with a commitment to excellence and opportunity. And what
we've got to do is to prove that the rest of
us can do so as well. And we ought not to
make this a partisan issue, and the guardians
of gridlock should stop trying to use it to move
arguments around that indicate that there's
somehow something wrong with the President
who believes that everybody who can serve
ought to have the chance to do so.
This administration is committed to the enforcement of the civil rights laws. This administration is also committed to programs like national service that give everybody the possibility
of being part of a new era of civic responsibility.
This administration is committed to guaranteeing that every American is entitled to a fair
chance at the brass ring but even more important, to empowering people to seize those opportunities, to moving beyond the incredible
gridlock in the mind of this town that you either


have to give somebody something for nothing
or take it all off the table.
Why don't we behave in Washington the way
people behave in their normal lives? We need
opportunity and responsibility. Why don't we
stop making these nutty arguments that imply
that everything in life is an either-or proposition:
We're either going to write somebody a check
and bust the Government budget, or we're just
going to stick it to them and walk away. That's
not the way life works.
You know, civil rights should embody a country that works. We don't want to guarantee everybody equal employment opportunities when
there are no jobs. Does that mean that we have
to sacrifice one and not the other? No, it means
you should have a President who will pursue
both, walking and chewing gum at the same
time. That's what this is about. Is that right?
We want to guarantee everybody an equal
opportunity to get an education, but wouldn't
it be nice if the education you're getting is also
better? It's not either-or. We want to guarantee
everybody the right to health care and family
security through health care, but wouldn't it be
nice if you live in a rural area or in the heart
of a big city if there happens to be a clinic
to visit?
I just am amazed after 100 days to find that
a lot of the gridlock that has gripped this city
for so long is in the imposition of what one
writer had called false choices on all of us who
are supposed to make policy. It never occurred
to me that I should appoint somebody who
wasn't qualified to a job. You know, I don't
wake up in the morning thinking, you know,
I need to find some female Latino who is totally
unqualified to put in a job. [Laughter] Or neither did it ever occur to me that every white
man I appoint is going to hit a home run every
day. But that is the kind of rhetoric you see
running beneath so much of the characterization
when we try to change 12 years of attitudes.
The same people that were criticizing the previous administrations for being insensitive to
civil rights immediately turned around and say,
"Oh, there's too much, too much attention being
given to ethnicity and gender, and that's why
no appointments are being made." So the record
comes in, and I'm still waiting for the acknowledgement.
I tell you, folks, I refuse to believe that we
cannot go forward together, that we cannot set
an example, that we cannot make progress. I


625




May 11 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


refuse to believe that you can't be committed
to civil rights and to civic responsibility. I refuse
to believe that we can't create economic opportunity by empowering people to seize control
of their destiny and changing the Government's
policies.
I think that if this leadership council should
have any mission today, it should be to break
through those barriers that push us all into one
extreme camp or the other and make us mute
in the face of reality and common sense. Surely
we can bring the experience of our own lives
and the lives of our fellow Americans beyond
the borders of this city to the policymaking process that will dominate Washington for the next
year. That is what we ought to do if we want
civil rights to come alive in this country.
You know, when I ran for this job I spent
a lot of time in African-American churches because I always had, and because I felt at home.
When I got this job and I sought to protect
the religious and civil liberties of every American, it was because I wanted mine protected
and because I have a sharp memory of what
it was like to live in a society where half the
people I knew, because of their color, were
treated as second-class citizens.
I also have a sharp memory of those who
had the courage to try to change that position.
And now that I am President, I want you to
know that I'll make my mistakes from time to
time, but I'm going to keep trying to move
the ball forward. I believe we can make advances. I don't believe that our fights are over.


I know that there are still civil rights battles
to be fought, but I know that they need to
be fought today in the context of making a real
difference in real people's lives. And we should
not be intimidated, those of us who believe in
the cause of civil rights for all Americans, into
thinking that somehow that can be separated
from the fight for economic justice and economic progress and making our free enterprise
system work better.
We should not let people who basically don't
care whether we make progress in civil rights
think that you can separate civil rights from
the fight for substantive improvements in education and for meaningful advances in health
care or any other area of our national life. Let
us resolve tonight that we're going to spend
the next 4 years breaking down the gridlock
by tearing down the artificial barriers in people's
minds to bringing us together, saying we don't
have a person to waste and lifting up
everybodys God-given potential and doing what
we can to see that they achieve it.
Thank you very much, and God bless you.
NOTE: The President spoke at 8 p.m. at the Hyatt
Regency Hotel. In his remarks, he referred to
Ralph Neas, executive director, Leadership Conference on Civil Rights; Benjamin L. Hooks,
former executive director, National Association
for the Advancement of Colored People; Dorothy
I. Height, president and CEO, National Council
of Negro Women; and Raul Yzaguirre, president
and CEO, National Council of La Raza.


Appointment for Members of the Commission on Presidential Scholars
May 11, 1993


The President today appointed 32 members
of the White House Commission on Presidential
Scholars. Among them is New Jersey Governor
Jim Florio, who will serve as Chair of the Commission.
The Commission on Presidential Scholars is
responsible for selecting 141 graduating high
school seniors from around the country to become Presidential Scholars, the Nation's highest
honor for high school students. The scholars are
chosen on the basis of their accomplishments
in many areas, such as academic and artistic


success, leadership, and involvement in their
schools and communities.
"The Presidential Scholars Program is an important vehicle for recognizing the efforts and
accomplishments of our country's young people," said the President. "I am glad that Governor Florio and the rest of this distinguished
group of Americans have agreed to serve on
this Commission, and I look forward to welcoming the students they choose to the White
House."
In addition to Governor Florio, the members


626




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / May 11


of the Commission are:
Margaret R. Blackshere, Illinois, assistant to
the president of the Illinois Federation of
Teachers; former elementary school teacher; holds a master's in urban education
from Southern Illinois University
Francis J. Bonner, Jr., Pennsylvania, chair of
the department of physical medicine and
rehabilitation at Mt. Sinai and Graduate
Hospitals, Philadelphia, and Sacred Heart
Hospital, Norristown
Thomas E. Britton, New Hampshire, chair of
the Monadnock Region District School
Board; marketing representative for the
Millipore Corp. and North American Pharmaceutical Field Marketing
Rev. S.C. Cureton, South Carolina, pastor of
the Reedy River Baptist Church; member
of the president's executive board of the
National Baptist Convention, U.S.A.
John Davidson, New Mexico, member of the
New Mexico Commission on Higher Education; shareholder and director in the law
firm of Erwin and Davidson
Joseph D. DiVincenzo, New York, commissioner of the Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority; president of DiVincenzo
& Associates Insurance Agency; adjunct
professor at the Rochester Institute of
Technology
Jim R. Fotter, Wyoming, president of the Wyoming Education Association; member of
the Education Commission of the States;
delegate at the 1992 Democratic National
Convention
Susan F. Friebert, Wisconsin, former teacher
and currently a high school team leader
for guidance counselors and community volunteers to develop and implement programs to direct student academic planning
and achievement
Susan E. Gaertner, Minnesota, director of the
human services division of the Ramsey
County, MN, attorney's office, where she
directs legal services for child support enforcement, paternity actions, and civil commitments for the second largest jurisdiction
in the State
Felicia Gervais, Florida, president of Leonard
L. Farber, Inc., a shopping center development firm; also serves on numerous nonprofit boards, including Outreach Broward
(a program for troubled adolescents) and
Center One (the Nation's first AIDS


center)
Freman Hendrix, Michigan, assistant Wayne
County executive for legislative affairs;
member of many civic groups, including the
Northwest Detroit Community Leaders
Council
Patricia Jean Henry, Oklahoma, president of
the National PTA; member of the boards
of the Oklahoma State Chamber of Commerce and the Academy for State Goals;
co-founder of Pathway House, a rehabilitation program for drug-addicted children
Barbara Holt, Maine, director of Franklin
Pierce College in Portsmouth, NH; served
as the chair and director of Victory '92 in
Maine
Gloria Jackson, Florida, retired public school
administrator in Ft. Lauderdale; alternate
delegate to the Democratic National Convention
Nathaniel Hawthorne   LaCour, Louisiana,
president of the United Teachers of New
Orleans; vice president of the American
Federation of Teachers; national board
member of the A. Philip Randolph Institute; member of the National Board for
Professional Teaching Standards
Dhyan Lal, California, principal of Carson
High School in Los Angeles; focus of a
PBS documentary exploring how a principal
communicates with a culturally diverse student population to create a positive learning
environment in post-riot Los Angeles
Ronnie Fern Liebowitz, New Jersey, partner
in the Newark law firm of Hellring,
Lindman, Goldstein & Siegal; former general counsel to Rutgers University
Bill Marshall, Ohio, law professor; served as
the Maine State director for the Clinton
campaign
Penny Miller, Kentucky, assistant professor of
political science at the University of Kentucky; chair of the Kentucky Commission
on Women
Sandy Miller, Nevada, First Lady of the State
of Nevada; former teacher and advocate for
children with learning disabilities
Marilyn Monahan, New Hampshire, secretarytreasurer of the National Education Association
Dan Morales, Texas, attorney general of
Texas; first Hispanic elected to a statewide
constitutional office in the State of Texas
Daniel Morris, Colorado, former teacher and


627




May 11 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993
president of the Colorado Education Association; former Peace Corps volunteer
Carla Nuxoll, Washington, President of the
Washington Education Association; chair of
the board of PULSE
James Shimoura, Michigan, former special assistant attorney general for the State of
Michigan; shareholder in the law firm of
Kemp, Klein, Umphrey, and Edelman
Eddie L. Smith, Jr., Mississippi, former high
school teacher; Mayor of Holly Springs, MS
Dawn Steel, California, president of Columbia
Pictures from 1987 to 1990, the first
woman to head a major motion picture studio
Niara Sudarkasa, Pennsylvania, president of
Lincoln University in Chester County, PA;


previously the associate vice president for
academic affairs at the University of Michigan, where she was the first African-American woman to receive tenure
Nancy Verderber, Missouri, administrative liaison for disability-related issues for the St.
Louis County School Districts; member of
the Coalition of Citizens with Disabilities
in Greater St. Louis
Margaret M. Whillock, Arkansas, executive
vice president of the Baptist Medical Systems Foundation in Little Rock; director
of development at the University of Arkansas
Tracey Bailey, Florida, National Teacher of
the Year


Nomination for Posts at the Interior and Transportation Departments
May 11, 1993


The President named a total of four officials
at the Departments of Transportation and the
Interior today. He expressed his intention to
nominate Frank Kruesi to be Assistant Secretary
of Transportation for Transportation Policy and
Ada Deer to be Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Indian Affairs. The President also approved the appointment of Richard Mintz to
be the Director of Transportation's Office of
Public Affairs, and Patricia Beneke to be Associate Solicitor for Energy and Resources at Inte

rior.
"I am gratified that these individuals will be
joining me in Washington," said the President.
"Frank Kruesi has been an innovative and successful policy adviser to Mayor Daley. Ada Deer
has been a powerful and eloquent voice for
changing national Indian policy. Both will be
valuable parts of this administration, as will
Richard Mintz and Patricia Beneke."
NOTE: Biographies of the nominees were made
available by the Office of the Press Secretary.


Interview With Don Imus of WFAN Radio, New York City
May 12, 1993


Mr. Imus. Good morning, Mr. President.
The President. Good morning. How are you?
Mr. Imus. I'm fine. How are you?
The President. I'm all right.
The First 100 Days
Mr. Imus. Let me ask you something. What
the hell is going on down there in that White
House? What do you mean, you've lost your
focus? [Laughter]
The President. I haven't lost my focus. You've


just been seeing me through the foggy lens of
television instead of the direct one of radio.
[Laughter] There's a big headline in the Washington Post today, "Clinton Wins Third Major
Victory In Congress." I think we're doing fine.
You know, we lost one bill, and a lot of people
think it's like the last days of Pompeii. I mean,
if you're going to fight for change, you've got
to be prepared to lose a few as well as win
some. But I think we're well on track.


628




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / May 12


Let me just point out that when the Congress
adopted my budget outline, it was the first time
in 17 years that they'd adopted it within the
legal time limit, faster than they've moved in
17 years. Everybody complained about the appointments process. When 100 days went by,
it turned out I'd made more appointments during the period than my two predecessors did.
We just passed the motor voter bill yesterday,
a big issue for younger voters, making it easier
for them to register to vote. We've got the economic program on track. I feel good about the
way things are. But you know, change is not
easy and people- if you want to keep score after
100 days, where we had 4,500 days of trickledown economics, you know, I haven't done everything I meant to do in 100 days, but I never
promised to do it in 100 days. I think we're
doing fine.
Mr. Imus. I think that looked good last night,
breaking that Republican filibuster, because it
looks like Bob Dole-it's like the "Friday the
13th" movies, you know, where you think you've
finished him off and then next thing you know
that hand comes popping up out of the lake
there and, of course, in this case there was
a pen in it. [Laughter] But this is an indication
that it doesn't look like the Republicans are
going to be able to waylay everything you're
trying to do, does it?
The President. Well, I don't think so. You
know, the filibuster on the jobs bill was an unusual thing, I think, not that they tried to do
it but that they never let the majority vote.
And I think the American people have got that
figured out. And there are always going to be
Republicans, or most always, that agree with
some aspect of what we're doing. And when
you reach out to them and you try to work
out compromises, there are, almost always, there
are some who want to go for the national interest over the partisanship, and that's what happened here. We worked out some problems with
that motor voter bill, and it rolled right through.
The same thing with family and medical leave.
So I think if we just keep working at it, we'll
have some success.
We've had 12 cloture votes-that's the attempt to get 60 percent of the Senate just so
a majority can vote their will-12 already in
the first 3/2 months. So I imagine they'll make
us do this a lot, but I think there are always
going to be some Republicans who want to be
part of a bipartisan movement for change, and


I'm encouraged by it.
Mr. Imus. Or Republicans who want to be
President.
The President. There are always going to be
people who want to be President, and some
days I like to give it to them. But if I did
that, at least I'd have a telephone conversation
with you before I give it up so you can call
me President Bubba. [Laughter] See, I've been
waiting for this all this time.
The Economy
Mr. Inus. Well, Mr. President, I don't know
what you've heard about what's been going on
in this program, but it's always been very respectful. And anything you've heard to the contrary would just be further evidence of the collapse of the intelligence community in this country. [Laughter] And I mean, these guys didn't
even know that the Berlin Wall went down until
they saw it on CNN. So you can't trust what
you hear from them.
I was talking to my friend Jeff Greenfield
over at ABC, and he had a good observation.
He said, is this economic program of yours
tougher to sell now, you think, because for whatever circumstances you weren't able to run on
it?
The President. No, I don't think so. The difference in the program that we're advocating
and the one I ran on over a 5-year period is
not very great, but what happened was after
the election-I want to emphasize this-after
the election the Government came out-the
previous administration-and said that the deficit was going to be $50 billion a year bigger
than they had said before in 3 of the 4 years
of the term that I now occupy. So I had to
do more to cut the deficit, and we had to put
that up front. And it's worked pretty well so
far.
You know, ever since we announced serious
intentions to cut the deficit and were specific
about it, interest rates began dropping very
steeply, mortgage rates were at a 20 year low.
You're going to have a $100 billion-that's a
lot of money-in refinancing of home mortgages
and business debt and other things which I
think will really help the economy.
But that meant we had to put off some of
the plans or scale them back in the early going
and put them back into the later years of my
term to invest money in things that I think
are also important. But we've got to get control


629




May 12 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


of this deficit. It's been spinning out of control
now, getting worse and worse for a dozen years,
and we don't have the funds we need to invest
in jobs to grow the economy, and I think it's
very important.
Mr. Imus. I think William Greider pointed
it out in Rolling Stone-and you either agree
with it obviously or don't-that during the campaign that the focus was on and the debate
was on jobs. And it seemed that because of
Bush "cooking the books" and not realizing that
the deficit was going to be a little bit bigger
than it was, that then the agenda switched to
this 5-year plan to reduce the deficit. Let me
ask youThe President. But wait, let me make one
point. I think they're two sides of the same
thing. That is, if I didn't think that reducing
the deficit over the long run would help us
to create more jobs and if I didn't think we
could also get some increased investment in new
technologies and education and training and to
rebuild our cities and to do these things that
have to be done, I wouldn't be doing this.
I think they're two sides of the same coin.
I think until we show we can get control over
the Government's budget and we can make
some spending cuts, as well as restore some
of the tax loses that we had in the early years
of the trickle-down revolution, I don't think we
can get a job program going in the country.
So I think this getting the deficit down is part
of a long-term job growth strategy. Jobs are
the issue; reducing the deficit is a means to
get control of our economic future. The whole
purpose of it is to put people to work.
Mr. Imus. To talk about it just a second,
this economic plan and some of these numbers
that we see now suggest that the public isabout half, 50 percent of them don't think it's
going to work. And let me tell you what filters
down to people like me, you know, aside from
the esoteric proposals and figures and stuff that
many of us don't understand, but what we hear
is that the numbers we hear is that, for every
$3 and so in new taxes, we're looking at about
a dollar or so in spending cuts. And there are
some people that think the ratio's even higher
than that. Is that accurate?
The President. No, no. But I'll tell you, if
you look at this thing over a 5-year period we
have more spending cuts than we do tax increases. And that's true even though we have
some targeted increases in investment, in edu

cation and training, and new technologies. Now,
the people who argue this the other way, they
play clever games. For example, if you're going
to cut a program that's in place, you may have
to phase in the cuts over a 5-year period; if
you raise a tax, you can raise a tax immediately.
You've got to look at this whole budget.
In this budget we have more spending cuts
than tax increases. We do have some spending
increases, but if you don't believe that there
are differences in different kinds of spending,
I don't know what we can do. We have some
spending increases to give a nationwide apprenticeship program to help retrain the work force.
We have some spending increases to get into
new technologies to make up for defense cuts
because we're losing a lot of high-tech, highwage jobs.
You know, up in Connecticut we've had a
lot of employment dislocation because of defense cutbacks, but you've got a whole highwage work force that needs to have something
else to do. And every other government in the
world is investing in new technologies to try
to create those jobs for their people. If we don't
do it, we're going to be left behind. So we
have to target some investments. But this budget
has over 200 very specific budget cuts over the
last budget adopted in the previous administration. And if you look-it's 5-year budget, that's
what the law requires us to do, to adopt 5 -year budgets-we've got more spending cuts
than tax increases, and we should.
Mr. Imus. Is it important what the ratio is?
And if it is, what should it be, do you think?
I mean, because that's the-you know, that's
kind of the way we relate to it.
The President. Well, the issue is how many
cuts can you get without pulling the economy
into a recession. What do you have to cut, how
many cuts can you get without unfairly cutting
the elderly? The same people who say we don't
have enough cuts are also often saying we
shouldn't cut what we're cutting. And the truth
is, if you want to get to a balanced budget
through spending reductions, the only way to
do it now is to get control of health care costs,
and that, basically, in the later part of this decade, if we can adopt a national health system
and-you know, Hillary has been working on
that with hundreds of others-and we can bring
the Government's deficit down to zero, but you
can't do that overnight. And the biggest part
of our deficit growth now is in health care costs


630




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / May 12


and interest on the debt.
We're not spending a bigger percentage of
our income on Social Security-our national income-than we were 10 years ago. We're spending a smaller percentage of our income on Federal aid in education than we were 10, 12 years
ago. What's happened now is we started cutting
defense, but health care increases overcame the
defense cuts. So what I'm trying to do is to
cut everything I can now, get health care costs
under control and look toward not only cutting
the deficit but bringing it down to zero over
a multi-year period. You just can't do this overnight.
You know, we took the national debt from
$1 trillion to $4 trillion in 12 years with a $300 -plus billion a year deficit when I took office.
You can't just eliminate that overnight without
having serious economic dislocations. You've got
to do it in a disciplined way and take it down.
Mr. Imus. There's already been some compromise with some members of your own party
in Congress. Do you anticipate any more of
that, or is itThe President. Well, I think there have been
some changes that make it better. After all, we
put this plan on the table only 30 days after
I had taken office, and I invited people to comment on it but to keep its essential features
intact. That is, we had to have the spending
cuts before I would agree to tax increases. The
tax increases had to be largely progressive; that
is, they ought to be on people at higher income
levels whose tax rates went down in the 1980's
while their incomes went up, that we ought
to have a earned-income tax credit. That's taxpayer jargon for giving a tax break to working
class people with children, particularly who
would be especially hard hit by the energy tax,
and that affects people with incomes up to about
$29,000 a year, where they'll get an offset on
their income tax to make up for the energy
tax. And there ought to be some incentives for
investment in the American economy, either
mine or some others. And we emphasize small
business, and we emphasize new plant and
equipment for big business. And those things
are all going to be in the ultimate tax package.
So I feel good about it. I think that, you know,
the changes that are being made basically, at
least so far the ones that have been discussed
with me, don't in any way undermine the fundamental principles of the tax program and the
spending cut program I laid out.


Bosnia
Mr. Imus. There is a dramatic picture of you
and an agonizing Lyndon Johnson on the cover
of the current issue of Time magazine asking
the question if Bosnia is going to be your Vietnam. One, let me ask you, do you think it has
that potential? And two, what is the United
States policy in Bosnia?
The President. Well, let me answer the first
question. There are similarities to Vietnam in
the sense that there is a civil war and there
is a national dividing line, that is, between
Bosnia and Serbia, which doesn't fully coincide
with the ethnic cohesion of the Serbs in Bosnia
and Serbia; same thing on the other end of
the  country  with   Croatia  and  BosniaHerzegovina. It's a very complicated thing.
Those folks have been fighting with each other
for a long time.
There are also some differences, however.
You have the continuation of a principle of ethnic cleansing that you didn't have in Vietnam,
people getting killed or raped just because of
their religion, just because they're Muslims and
because of their historic conflict in that area.
And you have a United Nations resolution which
has, in effect, given a military victory to the
Serbians. That is, the U.N. imposed an arms
embargo which had the effect of opening up
for the Serbs the entire arms cache of the Yugoslav Army and denying weapons to the Bosnian
Muslims and to a lesser extent, the Croatians.
So the international community has been involved. The third and the big difference from
the point of view of the average American is,
I've made it very clear that the United States,
unlike Vietnam, is not about to act alone. It
should not act alone. This is a European issue.
It's an issue for the world community to address.
We have worked very carefully with our allies
to make the sanctions tougher and to keep the
pressure on to try to do two things: to try to
contain the conflict and to try to put an end
to the slaughter. And our policy is that it is
in the United States national interest to keep
this conflict from spilling over into a lot of other
countries which could drag the United States
into something with NATO that we don't want
and to do everything we can with our allies
to stop the slaughter and to end the fighting.
And that's our policy. Our policy is not to do
what we did in Vietnam, which was to get in
and fight with one side in a civil war to assure


631




May 12 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


a military victory. That is not what we're involved in. We are trying to promote a settlement, and we have signed on to a plan-two
of the three political factions in that area have
signed on to it, and we have committed ourselves to working with our allies. So the policy
is very, very different than the policy the United
States pursued in Vietnam.
Mr. lmus. Any scenario, anyplace down the
road-this may be a dumb question, but I ask
a few-that you see ground troops somehow
getting involved there? Does it ever reach that
point? Say all the allies get on board and
The President. We believe that there could
be a United Nations force which we could take
part in that could help to enforce the peace
agreement or keep the peace. We've been involved in peacekeeping operations of this kind
in many places. But the United States is not
going to unilaterally enter the conflict on the
side of one of the combatants and do what we
did in Vietnam. That is not our policy, and that's
not what we're going to do.
Mr. Imus. You know, I agreed with you when
you said during the campaign that history has
shown that you can't allow the mass extermination of people and just sit by and watch it
happen, and that really is driving this, isn't it?
The President. Yes. It is a difficult issue. Let
me say that when we have people here who've
been involved in many previous administrations
that are involved in national security including,
obviously, a lot of people who were involved
in the two previous ones-everybody I talk to
believes that this is the toughest foreign policy
problem our country has faced in a long time.
And I'm trying to proceed in a very deliberate
way to try to make sure there isn't a Vietnam
problem here. But also to try to make sure
that the United States keeps pushing to save
lives and to confine the conflict. I don't think
we can just turn away from this. Just because
we don't want to make the mistake we did in
Vietnam doesn't mean we shouldn't be doing
anything. There are things that we can do, and
we're trying to do more to try to push this
thing toward a settlement.
I also think that in terms of our clear selfinterest, in addition to the humanitarian issue,
if we can stop this conflict from spreading, and
it has powder-keg potential, that that is clearly
in our interest.


Media Criticism and President's Agenda
Mr. Imus. You know what I've always wondered, Mr. President, you read the editorials
in the Washington Post, the New York Times,
and the Wall Street Journal and you read these
op-ed pieces-do you ever read one of those
and then call Al and say, "Man, that's a good
idea. Why don't we do that?"
The President. Often. [Laughter] Actually, I
do.
Mr. Imus. Do you?
The President. Absolutely, I do. I also often
read editorials that question our policies or oped pieces that question our policy, and I send
it to the Vice President and to other people
in the administration, and I say, "If we don't
have an answer to this we shouldn't go on. This
is the best case against our policy. What's our
answer to it?" I think that's important.
You know I don't mind, frankly, I don't mind
criticism. In fact, I welcome it when it's rooted
in ideas, when people are questioning whether
a policy is right or wrong. But what I try to
do is to have a new spirit of possibility here.
I want a sense that, you know, we stop all this
sort of political give-and-take and real harsh partisanship and calculating personal advantage and
just talk about the ideas and the issues at stake
and try to keep our focus on what's best for
the American people. We're really in a new
and unchartered time in many ways. It's very
exciting. There are all kinds of economic opportunities out there for the United States, but
there are also a lot of very, very stiff challenges
that we have to meet. And I think in order
to do the right thing, we're going to have to
keep our minds open and our ears open and
be willing to experiment and to try some things
until we find a course that will clearly work,
that helps to support the security of the American people.
Mr. Imus. You know, I was talking at the
beginning of our conversation, Mr. PresidentI was actually just kidding about this focus
issue-but you know, what looked great was
when you and Hillary went up to Capitol Hill
and when you had that first town meeting in
Michigan, and now you are-in Cleveland and
Chicago and this telephone call. You know, it
began to look for a time-I remember I was
watching Willie Nelson and Neil Young out
there at Farm Aid, and they were talking about
you and Al Gore, and they said, 'What change?"


632




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / May 12


And I think, you know, from the outside looking
in, it's like we had 8 years of watching old
Reagan get on and off that helicopter, and we
wanted to see you do stuff like this. And I
think this is great, and I can't tell you how
much I appreciate you calling.
But I would say this: Let's not wait until
these approval ratings get down to single digits
before you call me again, because
The President. Let me tell you, one of the
things I did, though, and you may think this
is a mistake, but I mean-put yourself in my
position. Partly, when I get out of focus with
the people is when I'm not communicating directly with them, when I'm just answering other
people's questions, and I'm at the mercy of
whatever is on the evening news.
But I came to this city with a determination
to work with the Congress and to try to get
some things done. In the first 3 months, I
thought that, having been out across the country
for the last year and a half, I should spend
a great deal of time in intense efforts to develop
the economic package, a health care package,
and to get the basis of our national security
and foreign policy down so that I would have
a framework to proceed in. Most of the time
I've been here, I've spent on the economy and
on health care. In other words, my time has
been sharply focused. I don't think the American people know that because I haven't been
out here talking to you and people like you
out there.
But there's been a big difference between
the way I've spent my time in the efforts of
the administration and, I think, what the perception is. That's my fault, in a way, and I'm going
to get out and correct it. But I had to spend
a couple of months, I think, just going to work
in the office, getting the details down, working
through the procedures, making sure I understood how the thing worked. And now I can
go back on the road and do the things that
I think are important to connect the American
people to their Government. And I recognize
that that's my responsibility. Only the President
can do that, and if I don't do it, it won't be
done.
Sports and Physical Fitness
Mr. Imus. I know, Mr. President, you're coming to New York this afternoon. Do you want
to go to the Knicks game tonight, or-[laughter]


The President. You're betraying you're allsports radio. I know you're trying to convince
your listeners that you know something about
this. You're trying to get your approval ratings
up on sports. I know that.
Actually, I'd like to do it. But I'm going to
speak at the Cooper Union this afternoon. And
then I'm going to a Democratic Party event
tonight. So I can't go to the ballgame, although
I'd like to. I'm a big baseball fan, as you know.
Mr. Imus. Well, of course, this would be basketball, Mr. President.
The President. Oh, did you say Knicks? I
thought you said Mets.
Mr. Imus. No, nobody wants to see the Mets.
The President. Are you kidding? Let me tell
you something. My wife grew up in Chicago
as a Cubs fan. Once you get for a baseball
team, you can't quit it just because it doesn't
win.
Mr. Imus. WellThe President. I thought you said Mets. No,
I'd love to go to the Knicks game, but I'm
otherwise occupied. I watched two of those
games last night on television. Do you think
the American people would think less of me
if they thought I stayed up late and watched
basketball?
Mr. Imus. No, I don't think that; in fact,
I read you've been watching the Houston Rockets and the Clippers.
You know, I'll let you go here. Just one final
observation that I thought was kind of funny.
Did you see any clips of Strom Thurmond interviewing one of those gay sailors? Here he isI don't know if you saw this or not, but he
was saying, "Have you seen a psychiatrist?"[laughter]-and I thought, man, if I could be
90 years old and have it that together, there
really isn't any other goal. Let's hope the same
happens for you, Mr. President.
The President. Since we're on an all-sports
network, let me give Senator Thurmond a plug.
He still works out for 50 minutes a day, and
that's why he's still out there doing it. So if
everybody listening to us will start spending 50
minutes a day taking care of themselves, a lot
of them will be 90, 91 and still plugging away
like Strom.
Mr. Imus. May I ask you a question about
your jogging?
The President. Sure.
Mr. Imus. What are your mile splits? We have
an estimate here that's right around 12 minutes.


633




May 12 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


The President. No. When I ran with the Boston Marathon runners, we ran a 5k, and this
is allergy time for me so I have to start out
slow. We ran the first mile in 9 minutes, the
second mile in 8 minutes, and the third mile
in 7 minutes.
Mr. Imus. Man, that's a lot faster than I do
it.
The President. When I run here in town, I
average probably about an 8.5 minute mile. But
I can run it faster. On Valentine's Day the Vice


President and I did 2.5 miles in a Heart Association run at about 7.5 minutes a mile.
Mr. Imus. That's terrific. Mr. President, thank
you very much. Thanks for coming on, and good
luck.
The President. Thanks. Talk to you again, I
hope.
NOTE: The telephone interview began at 7:38 a.m.
The President spoke from the Oval Office at the
White House.


Remarks on the Swearing-In of Small Business Administrator Erskine
Bowles and Presentation of the Small Business Person of the Year Award
May 12, 1993


Please sit down, ladies and gentlemen. Good
morning. It's great to see all of you here in
the Rose Garden. I want to thank the Members
of Congress who have joined us for this ceremony, and welcome all of you small business
people and your families from all across America
here to the White House for this important day.
This is an extra special day to celebrate the
winners of the small business people of the year
awards, because today we're also going to have
the oath of office for the new Administrator
of the Small Business Administration, Erskine
Bowles. I chose Erskine for a very simple reason, because he's a business person and not
a politician.
Too often in the past, the SBA has been the
province of politics too much and business too
little. This man has devoted his life to helping
people start businesses, to helping them grow
their businesses, to helping them reach out beyond the borders of their communities, to State
and regional and national and international markets. He really understands what it's like to start
and to keep going a business enterprise. His
plans for the Agency include a plan to improve
the management and outreach to determine
what we can do to actually create more success
stories in the small business community.
He's already met, I know, with many of you
who are here for this celebration. But that's
just the beginning. I think you will see the most
energetic, connected, and continuous effort to
reach out to small business that the SBA has
ever given to the American small business com

munity.
Now, I'd like to introduce Erskine and Judge
James Dixon Phillips, Jr., of the Court of Appeals of the 4th Circuit in Durham, North Carolina, who will administer the oath of office.
Erskine's wife, Crandall Bowles, will hold the
Bible, and then they will take it over from there.
Judge?
[At this point, Judge Phillips administered the
oath of office. Mr. Bowles then expressed his
gratitude to the President and enumerated his
priorities for SBA.]
Thank you very much. I predict that over
the next 4 years, small business men and women
in every State in America will come to see Erskine Bowles as the best advocate they ever
had. And I assure you that he is going to have
a real influence on our economic policy.
Some evidence of that is the presence here
today of the two other Members of my Cabinet,
Ron Brown, the Secretary of Commerce, and
Mickey Kantor, our U.S. Trade Representative.
We are going to have a coordinated policy for
small business. We have to have the Commerce
Department, we have to have the Trade Office,
we have to have the Treasury Department if
we're going to attack all these issues. And I'm
very, very proud of the team that we've got
working on it.
Let me just mention one or two other things
about the small business economy. We have
spent most of our time in the last 3 months
or so in meetings in this White House talking
about the economy and talking about health care


634




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / May 12


and its impact on the economy. Over and over
and over, we come back to a central fact of
the American economy in the last 12 years. In
every year of the last 12 years, the biggest companies in America have reduced employment in
this country, even as they were increasing productivity, even as their profits went up, even
as their stock values went through the roof and
Wall Street reached all-time highs, in every year.
Some of that is because of being involved
in other countries in a global economy. A lot
of it is just using the technology of new productivity to have machines do more work, or have
people do more work, overtime, and more parttime workers. But the bottom line is, in every
year employment has been reduced by the biggest businesses in this country.
In every year until about 3 years ago, the
reduction in employment by big business was
more than offset by the increase in employment
by small businesses in America and by the startup of new businesses. Then, about 3 years ago,
that too came to a halt because of a national
and international recession, because of the credit
crunch, because of the burgeoning costs of
health care on smaller businesses and all the
extra additional costs of hiring one more worker,
whether it's worker's comp or some other cost
or the Social Security costs.
The extra added costs to small business of
hiring additional workers meant that, over the
last 2 or 3 years, small businesses, even when
they were growing, have relied more and more
on overtime, more and more on temporary
workers, and less on adding to the job base
of America. We have talked about this endlessly
in these walls here, trying to come up with
policies that would address that, trying to reward
the spirit, the grit, the entrepreneurialism, the
creativity of you and millions of Americans like
you all over this country.
I have seen, I suppose, being a former Governor of a small State, as many small businesses
up close as virtually anybody who ever occupied
this office. I have more than a healthy respect
for the fact that you now employ a majority
of America's workers and create a huge majority
of America's new jobs.
Just a couple of days ago, as I'm sure you
all know, I went out to Ohio and to Illinois.
And when I finished my speech in downtown
Cleveland to the City Club, before we went
out to the airport, I told my entourage with
no planning that I wanted to go back to a small


business that I came across in the primary in
Parma, which is a suburb of Cleveland, to visit
a woman named Mary Poldruhi, who became
a friend of mine in the election. She started
a business called Parma's Pierogis. And she did
it as a Polish American, and no bank would
loan her any money. So she got a telephone
book and called hundreds of people in the telephone book with Polish surnames until she
found 80 people who agreed to put up $3,000
apiece to start her business, which she runs with
her family and a couple of friends and which
has done very, very well indeed.
That is the sort of spirit and creativity that
I'm sure-I see a lot of you nodding because
you identify with that experience in your own
lives. I was so impressed with this woman and
her family that, literally, I was sitting there in
Cleveland-we just decided to go back and see
her and see how the business was doing and
what could be done to try to stabilize this environment and make it better.
I want to talk about just two or three of
the things we're trying to do. Erskine already
mentioned the initiative that Secretary Bentsen
organized to have the five major financial Departments of the Federal Government work on
trying to simplify regulations and end the credit
crunch. A lot of business people tell me that
it takes a little time for the orders we issue
in Washington to manifest themselves in the
bank down the street. And if that's not happening, that is one of the things that Erskine Bowles
is here to address. We are determined to change
the environment which has led to so much withdrawing of capital when it ought to be out there
plentiful now, given the economic conditions,
for new loans for good prospects.
Secondly, in the proposal that the Congress
is now considering to bring the deficit down,
there is a sweeping new proposal to provide
a huge capital gains cuts for new investments
and new enterprises to try to start more small
businesses, and I hope it will have your support.
We've also asked for an extension of the 25
percent deduction of health care costs for the
self-employed, which I think is very important.
Finally, we are in intense negotiations at this
moment, as we speak, to guarantee that whatever comes out of the House Ways and Means
Committee in the tax bill will include a substantial increase in incentives for small business people to reinvest in their own companies. So these
are the kinds of things that I hope will help


635




May 12 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


us to generate more jobs and will support your
efforts.
There is also a community development bank
initiative and a big enterprise zone initiative that
I think will help to spark more small businesses
in distressed areas and rural communities and
big cities. But over the long run, we also have
to have a healthy financial climate in the country. And that means that we must pass a budget
this year that takes a strong step to bring this
deficit down.
Ever since the election was over when the
then-Secretary-designate of the Treasury, Lloyd
Bentsen, went on television and said we are
going to have a tough deficit reduction plan
and outlined some of the elements of it, interest
rates have been going down in this country.
Mortgage rates are at 20-year lows. The business
journals say that if we could keep interest rates
down this low for another few months, over
$100 billion will be released into this economy
through refinancing of home mortgages and
business loans and other things for new investment and new opportunities. Now, we know
that someday interest rates will go up again,
but we want it to happen when the economy
starts to boom again. And we want the interest
rates to stay down while we refinance and get
as much new money as we can at low interest
rates back into this economy.
A year ago, only 47 percent of the American
people thought, for example, that the next generation of Americans would be able to afford
a new home. Just a couple of weeks ago a bipartisan poll said 74 percent of the people now
think that, because we're making a strong effort
to bring the deficit down to hold the interest
rates down. I wish there were easy and painless
ways to do that, but it requires cuts and tax
increases.
I'm going up to New York after I leave you
today to announce at the Cooper Union that
I am going to support, strongly, the proposition
that we guarantee the American people two
things: number one is, no tax increases without
the spending cuts, and number two is, that tax
increases will go to reduce the deficit, by creating a legally separate deficit reduction trust fund
which will tell you where your money is going.
I think that this will do as much as anything
else we can do to make your lives healthier
over the long run.
Let me finally make one last point. We didn't
get into our economic difficulties overnight nor


at the hand of any particular party. There is
enough blame to go around, and there will be
enough credit to go around, if we work our
way out of it. I want to reiterate what I have
tried to say since the day I became President:
I do not seek a Democratic or a Republican
resolution of America's problems. I would like
for us to define an American solution that goes
beyond the paralyzing debates of the past. In
spite of the fact that we've had a little of that
here, there's also a lot of evidence that we are
moving beyond it. We've passed a budget resolution in record time. The Congress passed the
motor voter bill yesterday which had strong opposition, but it's a great thing, and the young
people of this country are very excited because
it will make it easier for them to vote.
In the last election we had more young people voting than any time in 20 years, and there
was a sense that we could give our political
system back to the people who are the true
owners of it. So I think there is every reason
to hope that we can still build a sense of possibility and hope and progress among people of
good faith in both parties, and I want to encourage that. And it ought to be rooted in ideas
and in action, because that's really the sort of
thing that brought all of you here today.
I hardly ever have had what you would call
a conventional political discussion with a small
business person. You know, I mean, if I go
in and I talk to somebody about, can you afford
health care? What's your coverage? What are
the options? What's the matter with the insurance coverage? How big is the pool you're in?the words Democrat and Republican never
come up. Somebody says they went down to
the bank, and they couldn't get a loan, and
here were the problems, and look at this stack
of paper from the Small Business Administration
I had to fill out. Nobody ever put a political
context on it. And I hope that we can focus
our attention here on our problems and ask
openly what should be done about them in the
same way that you and I would engage if we
were just having a personal conversation in your
place of business.
The triumphs of the people we honor here
today it seems to me, are the triumphs of America. The idea that you've got a right to take
a chance. You've got a right to fail so that you
have the right to succeed. You're given the opportunity in a free-market economy to bring
your ideas to bear and see if people respond.


636




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / May 12


I have been terribly impressed-I've read the
life histories of a lot of the award winners that
are here today, and not just the three that we
come to recognize. And I wish I could say something about all of you who are represented. But
as you know, the purpose of this ceremony is
to recognize the second runner-up, the first runner-up, and the Small Business Person of the
Year. I just want to say to all the rest of you,
we honor your achievements, and we know that
these people, in a fundamental and profound
sense, are reflective of what all of you have
done.
For David Parker, success has been what you
might call an open-and-shut case. His Pelican
Products of Torrance, California, began as a
scuba supply manufacturer but now is best
known as a maker of suitcases and containers
that are so hardy they're used in the environmental safety industry. They've even survived
on a trip to Mt. Everest, something I'm not
sure I could do. Now, that is a real climb to
success. I want to ask David to come up here
and receive our congratulations as a second runner-up in the Small Business Person of the Year.
Carol Rae was hired as a consultant to the
Magnum Diamond Corporation. But in no time,
she was asked to run the company. Now, I can
tell you, as somebody who has fooled with a
lot of consultants, that in itself is an incredible
compliment. As president of the business, she's
made it a leader in surgical tools for eye surgery.
The Rapid City, South Dakota company has
grown from 7 employees to 68 in about 4 years.
That's a very impressive achievement for Carol


Rae, our first runner-up. Would you please
come forward and be recognized?
Did you hear what she said? "I'm one of
his customers." [Laughter]
Bill Engler, Jr., is the CEO of Kaytee Products, and that makes him the biggest employer
in Chilton, Wisconsin. Kaytee is a case study
of making change your friend and not your
enemy. The business has been in his family
since 1866 when it sold feed and grain, something I know a little about. [Laughter] But it
wasn't until Bill took over 9 years ago that the
business began a growth explosion. Kaytee now
sells only wild bird and pet food, and it's gone
from 64 employees to 365 workers. Sales went
up from $10.6 million to more than $70 million.
And for his amazing accomplishments, Bill
Engler, Jr., has been chosen the Small Business
Person of the Year. Let's bring him up with
a hand. [Applause]
[At this point, the President presented Mr.
Engler with the award.]
I want to salute you all. I want to wish you
continued success. I want to pledge you continued access to this administration. I want to ask
you now as you leave here to give us the benefit
of your ideas, your suggestions, your constructive
criticisms and help us to bring to the White
House the kind of entrepreneurial spirit that
you have brought to your businesses and that
we must all bring to the United States.
Thank you very much.
NOTE: The President spoke at 11:02 a.m. in the
Rose Garden at the White House.


Exchange With Reporters Following the Small Business Person Award
Ceremony
May 12, 1993


Bosnia
Q. Mr. President, have you changed your
views on the arms embargo at all?
The President. No.
Q. Does the fighting
The President. I haven't changed my views.
I just don't know if I've changed anybody else's,
but I haven't changed my views.


Associate Attorney General Nominee
Q. Do you still back Webb Hubbell's nomination?
The President. Of course. Why wouldn't I?
Q. What about the Republican calls for him
to resign?
The President. A little inconsistency in their
position. Look how they voted on a lot of other
people.
Q. Such as who?


637




May 12 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


Deficit Reduction
Q. Mr. President, why do you feel you have
to make this guarantee on deficit reduction?
The President. I just think it will help to reinforce the commitment that we already have: no
taxes without spending cuts; all the taxes go
to the deficit. I think that's what we ought to
do. That's the way we set it up. Now we'll
just put it into the law. It will be even better.
Q. What effects do you think it will have
on Congress?
The President. It's consistent with what I did


as the Governor at home, too. When I raised
money at home for education, we put it into
education, and it can only be spent on that.
Q. Is it a compromise?
The President. Gosh, no. It makes it better.
I mean, I don't know who-compromise-I
don't know if anybody's against it. But I think
it's the right thing to do.
NOTE: The exchange began at 11:40 a.m. in the
Rose Garden at the White House. A tape was not
available for verification of the content of this exchange.


Remarks at Cooper Union for the Advancement of Science and Art in
New York City
May 12, 1993


The President. Thank you very much. It always seems to be a good thing for me when
I'm introduced in New York by Governor
Cuomo. [Laughter] I must confess to having
mixed feelings as I sit on this revered stage
with all these distinguished citizens. And President Iselin made his eloquent remarks and then
your fine Mayor spoke so forcefully, and the
brilliant chairman of the Senate Finance Committee brought us back to Woodrow Wilson.
And then Governor Cuomo once again gave me
a hard act to follow, and they all left the stage.
I thought to myself, pray this is not a metaphor
for the battle ahead.
This is the second thing I have had in common with President Wilson. I received a fascinating letter the other day from Johnston and
Murphy, the shoe manufacturers from Nashville,
Tennessee. They have made shoes for every
President going back to the 1850's, so they made
a pair of shoes for President Lincoln. And they
send you a little catalog, and you pick the shoes
you want, and they send them to you with your
name in them. It says "Johnston and Murphyevery President served." And so I ordered these
rather simple plain black shoes, and they wrote
me this wonderful letter in which they said,
"We're from Nashville, Tennessee, and we know
what's in your heart. So here's an extra pair
of shoes." And they sent me a box of blue
suede shoes. [Laughter]
And then in the letter they recounted the


choices of all the previous Presidents. And they
said that in one way my choice was not particularly innovative, that five other Presidents had
chosen the same style I did, including Harry
Truman, which made me very proud. But they
said, "You do have the biggest feet of any President since Woodrow Wilson." [Laughter] So you
had two sets of big feet here from the Presidents.
President Wilson said in an address that Senator Moynihan quoted: "I have been dealing
with young men most of my life"-he wasn't
so gender-sensitive as he should have been"and one of the things I have tried most to
impress upon them is not to stay young too
long, but to take themselves seriously." Now
at one level I want us all to stay young forever,
but I do think the time has come for us to
take ourselves and our purposes more seriously.
This celebrated institution and the community
of scholars and activists it embraces is the result,
as President Iselin said, of Peter Cooper's determination more than 130 years ago to create an
institution intellectually vigorous with free tuition, the first nondiscrimination policy in American history, and a genuine commitment to social justice. He believed you could do more
than one thing at a time. [Laughter]
Here Mr. Lincoln asked our country to
confront the cost of the spread of slavery, to
ask hard questions about the conditions that had
plagued our Nation since its beginning. Remem

638




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / May 12


ber it was Thomas Jefferson, not Abraham Lincoln-Thomas Jefferson the slave owner-who
said, "I tremble when I think of slavery to consider that God is just." There were people who
knew in their hearts the truth but had denied
it a long time.
Lincoln said that to continue to do that
threatened to tear our country apart. He knew
the Nation would be destroyed if slavery spread
and that unless the country's drifting stopped,
the very drift would carry within it the seeds
of our destruction. And so, here at Cooper
Union he asked those hard questions and gave
strong answers. Soon after, he won the nomination of the fledgling Republican Party and went
on to win the Presidency by only 39 percent
of the popular vote, receiving virtually no votes
south of the Mason-Dixon line. Soon after that,
the war came, and Lincoln's fight for the Union
grew into a determination to abolish slavery.
Several days a week I walk alone into the
room in the White House where Abraham Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation and
try to remember the purposes of the United
States of America. The fight for the Union and
the fight against slavery cost Abraham Lincoln
his life, as well as the lives of hundreds of thousands of his fellow countrymen. But America
prevailed in form and spirit. And America has
endured in form and spirit because in times
of crisis and challenge, leaders have asked the
hard questions and given the strong answers.
And the American people have rallied.
Look at the condition of America today. How
can we avoid asking those questions? To be
sure, we are still the strongest Nation in the
world politically, economically, and militarily. To
be sure, more than anyone else in the world
we have accommodated the incredible diversity
of our land with remarkable harmony. When
you look at what is happening, the heartbreak
in the former Yugoslavia today, where there are
three ethnic groups that genetically have no ethnic differences at all but call themselves ethnically different solely because of the accidents
of religion and history, it is an incredible tribute
that in this country, in this great city and across
the country in Los Angeles and in all places
in between, that we live together as well as
we do with our diversity.
But still we cannot avoid the hard questions.
If we're so great, why are most middle class
families working longer hours today than they
were 20 years ago for wages that in real terms


are less than they were a decade ago? Why
are one in 10 of our people so impoverished
they're on food stamps? Why are over 8 million
of us out of work if we're in the 17th month
of a recovery? Why are there over 35 million
of us without health care and millions more
Americans terrified of losing their health coverage, with 100,000 Americans a month losing
their health insurance, and millions of others
who can never change jobs under the current
system because they or someone in their family
has been sick and so they have a preexisting
condition which makes them unemployable with
health insurance elsewhere?
Why? Why that half the people on welfare
not get off of it as a safety net after just a
few months? Why is there a whole class of new
poor people, mostly young women and their little children, many of those children never born
into an integrated family? Why? Why was-only
35 years ago, only 35 years ago-there conditions even in New York City in which there
were three police officers on the street for every
violent crime, and today there are three crimes
for every police officer?
Why does the Government fail to deal with
the problems that this age has brought to us
and engaged the American people in dealing
with them? Why have we seen the Government's debt grow from $1 trillion to $4 trillion
in the last 12 years, while we reduced our investment in the people of America and their
promise and their ability to compete? Why in
the world would we reduce all this defense
spending, including jobs for engineers and scientists and factory workers, with no plan whatever to put that money back to work to create
opportunities for them, cleaning up the environment or exploring the frontiers of technology
here at home or helping us to compete with
people all around the world?
The American economy finds itself in the
middle of a global marketplace, challenged on
every hand by nations who have made wise investments in their people, their workers, and
their technological edge. Yes, there is today a
global recession which is making our problem
more difficult. But if you take the long view,
those who have made the investments in the
eighties and those who are doing so now will
be rewarded over the long run. For a decade
or more, we have both expanded our debt and
reduced our investment in areas key to our future.


639




May 12 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


We also have in this country a crisis of belief
and hope. When President Kennedy took office,
younger than I was when I took office, over
70 percent of the American people fundamentally believed that their leaders would tell them
the truth and that their system could succeed.
Now it seems as if half the people just stand
around waiting to be disappointed, waiting to
be told what's wrong and who's failed and how
the special interests once again have strangled
the national interests and why they should go
on about their business without believing things
can be different. I believe that the nature of
our challenge is this: We must both restore our
economy and restore the confidence of our people in our democracy. And I do not believe
we can do one without the other.
This is a strange and, in a way, wondrous
moment in our history when citizens everywhere
desperately want things to change but still are
wary of it and reluctant to place their faith in
anyone's prescription. We must begin with the
economy. We must change the way the Government works if we expect the economy to improve. And we must rebuild the confidence of
the American people based on the three words
which were the watch words of my campaign
for President: more opportunity for all, more
responsibility from all, and the clear understanding that we are a community and we're all in
this together, going up or down together.
Whether we like it or not, that is clearly the
truth. And we must begin to act as if it were.
How can we reduce the deficit? Let's start
with the big problem of the debt. Well, the
answer is not popular. To reduce the deficit
you have to reverse what produced the deficit.
What produced it? Tax cuts and spending increases. Doing what people like. The most popular thing in the world is for me to cut your
tax and write you a check. And that was what
was done by Government for the American people for 12 long years. I'll cut your tax and I'll
write you a check-that's a good deal. It used
to be known as a free lunch when I was a
kid.
We have to begin to reverse this process. And
because Government has been at fault, first you
should ask Government to change. So I have
asked in Washington that we begin with significant spending cuts below the budget that was
adopted last year to reduce the deficit and to
free up resources for targeted investment in the
future of our economy and of the young people


here present in this hall.
We should look at every program for possible
savings, including ones that Democrats have favored for a long time. And there should be
no tax increase, not a dollar, without the spending cuts. That is the meaning of the budget
resolution that was passed a few weeks ago in
record time. It contains the largest deficit reduction proposals in history, over $500 billion in
deficit reduction over a 5-year period with more
than 200 very specific cuts in programs. Those
were tough to make, but necessary in the face
of a $4 trillion debt that will continue to grow
until the deficit itself is reduced to zero.
That deficit is robbing us of our ability to
invest in our future. More and more of our
money just goes to pay interest on the debt.
If we don't change it, by the end of the decade
over 20 cents on every dollar you pay in taxes
will go just to service the debt. Now, that is
also a redistribution of wealth away from middle
class taxpayers to the upper income people who
hold the debt, instead of to invest in the jobs
and the education and the infrastructure of the
future of New York and the rest of America.
We made cuts in Medicare, a thing that is
difficult to do. We asked upper income Social
Security recipients to pay tax on more of their
incomes, a thing that is difficult to do. In spite
of the fact that I value public service greatly
and I believe public employees too often have
been used as whipping boys for the difficulties
and frustrations of the moment, still I asked
the public employees of the United States of
America to have a pay freeze for a year and
to keep their wage increases below inflation and
cost of living allowances for each of the next
3 years.
I come from a rural State, heavily electrified
by the Rural Electrification Agency, but I asked
that the subsidies to the REA be reduced. I
asked that certain programs that benefit cities
but that don't have the accountability of the
normal budgeting process also be reduced. All
these were not easy. But it seems to me essential, if we're going to ask the American people
to sacrifice, that the Government take the lead
and show the way.
We're also fighting, however, to do something
no Government has done before, to both reduce
the deficit and increase targeted investments in
areas that are designed to secure the future
of this country, in the ones Governor Cuomo
mentioned: in Head Start; in the program to


640




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / May 12


get children off to a healthier start in life with
immunizations and nutrition; in better programs
for apprenticeship training for our work force;
in opening the doors of college education to
all Americans through reforming the student
loan process and a program of national service;
in new incentives for our industries to develop
new technology. These are things which other
countries do as a matter of course and take
for granted and which lead to huge increases
in productivity. The case for them should be
plain in America once inessential spending has
been cut.
The cuts, however, must be credible. And
credibility is difficult to come by in Washington
today. They must be legally enforceable. They
must be plain to the American people. After
12 years of rising deficits and Americans feeling
deceived about the issue, I don't blame the people of this country for being distrustful about
what they hear from Washington when it comes
to bringing down this deficit. That is why I
have decided today to propose that we establish
a deficit reduction trust fund and put every
penny of new taxes and the budget cuts proposed in my budget into the trust fund so the
American people know that it has to go to deficit reduction.
There are several members of the New York
congressional delegation here today. I thank
them all for being here, and I thank especially
Congressman Schumer for his leadership on this
issue. I thank Senator Moynihan for his support
of this issue. Senator Moynihan said on the way
up here that he thought we ought to do it
to win a victory for the clarity of our determination to reduce the deficit. Senator Bradley had
an op-ed piece in the paper today endorsing
the idea. The time has come to prove that when
we say we're going to do something with the
people's money, we actually do it.
Let me repeat what this means. We will create a trust fund in which every dollar that is
raised will go to deficit reduction and in which
all the net budget cuts which have been approved will do so also. This is very important.
This seriousness, however, should not relieve us
of our obligation to recognize that over the long
run we must also bring down the investment
deficit in this country. I am as dedicated to
that as I ever have been. I know that longterm economic growth depends on high-quality
and comprehensive education and training, converting the workers and the investments from


defense that is being cut to new technologies
which must be increased, establishing new and
innovative partnerships with the private sector
and, as I said earlier, opening the doors of college education to all Americans. But bringing
the deficit down will give us the freedom to
do that.
This budget saves, as I said, about $500 billion. And the trust fund will ensure that we
do just that. It will be a change in the way
Washington does business. It has broad support.
But I also want to emphasize that it will only
confirm the direction on which we have embarked. The financial markets here in New York
have already understood the seriousness of this
administration. Look what's happened to longterm interest rates just since the election, just
since the election: mortgage rates at a 20-year
low, many other interest rates at record lows.
All the analysts say that if this can continue
a few more months in this period, we will see
about $100 billion freed up for investment in
America through people refinancing their home
loans and business loans and taking out car loans
and consumer loans at lower interest rates. This
is a job stimulus program that is big and important. And bringing the deficit down so that the
huge overhang of private and public debt of
the 1980's can be refinanced is a great strategy
to begin the economic renewal of America, and
we must stick with it.
More can be done. But to do more we have
to actually rethink the whole way the Federal
Government operates: How does it operate on
its own terms? How does it relate to the States
and the private sector? I asked the Congress
to give me some more money for technology
so I could run the White House with many
fewer people than my predecessors had. I asked
that we have a 14-percent across-the-board cut
in the administrative costs of the Federal Government over the next few years: 100,000 reduction in the payroll by attrition, over $9 billion
in savings simply by administrative changes
alone. But that is just the beginning.
I have also asked Vice President Gore to head
a task force which will reexamine every agency
of the Federal Government, every program of
the Federal Government, and the whole way
it is organized. Every major company in America
had to go through a wrenching reexamination
process in the 1980's. The Federal Government
had many of its Departments cut, but the way
it operated continued to be largely unexamined.


641




May 12 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


It is time that we impose the same sort of
reexamination process on the National Government. When we do it, we will find more savings,
and more importantly, we will increase the quality of service to the American people.
Finally, I want to compliment the House of
Representatives last week on passing a bill with
the mind-boggling title of "enhanced rescission."
But when you strip it away, what it amounts
to is a modified line-item veto, which is enjoyed
by most Governors and which will enable the
President to strike out spending items that he
believes are unnecessary but will give the Congress the freedom to put them back in after
voting on them individually so, that the people
can make their own judgment and so can the
Members of Congress.
These things will make the Federal Government more efficient and will set us on the path
to long-term reform. We ought to also think
about our partnership with the private sector
and our partnership with State and local government. Mayor Dinkins mentioned it. I was gratified to see a couple of mentions in the press
recently about the fact that our administration
had tried to give cities more relief from unnecessary regulations and States more leeway in
promoting various kinds of reform in health
care. I just told Governor Cuomo that I was
very excited about the health care reform package that he put forward in New York, and Hillary's task force has been very much influenced
by the New York reforms.
We believe that a lot of the problems of
America can be solved by cities and States if
the National Government will have targeted investment and then will give people their head
to do what they know needs to be done. You'd
be amazed how many programs have quite a
bit of money in them, but most of the money,
or a great deal of the money, never reaches
the ultimate beneficiaries at the State or the
city level because of all the layers in between.
You'd be amazed. I was in Chicago a couple
of days ago, and the Mayor of Chicago told
me that there are one or two programs that
his staff wouldn't even let him try to get for
Chicago because the administrative hassle of securing the funds was so great. We're going to
change that. We're going to have a new and
different and vibrant process that trusts the people of New York and their elected leaders, and
the State of New York and their elected leaders,
and people throughout the country to have real


innovation in the same way that I think we
want in the private sector in the United States.
But finally, let me say-[applause]-the Mayor,
the lone clapper.
We also have proposed to change the relationship between the Government and the private
sector in a tax reform package that Senator Moynihan will soon take up if it passes the House,
and I hope it does. There will be significant
incentives for businesses, large and small, to increase their investment in this country and to
be rewarded for it. We will have initiatives that
will empower neighborhoods and give people
significant incentives to go into neighborhoods
in small towns and rural areas and in big cities
to put real investment there to create real jobs.
We'll provide people real incentives to end welfare as we know it and require them to move
forward with that. We will do things that are
different from what either party has done before
to try to empower people to live up to their
God-given potential in a new and different partnership between the United States and people
in the private sector.
When you strip it all away, there's still one
more tough question that has to be answered.
If you want the deficit brought down, we have
to face the fact that in 1981, taxes were cut
by 6 percent of the national income of this
country, twice what President Reagan originally
recommended when he was elected President.
And that gap has never been made up.
David Stockman, President Reagan's Budget
Director, has an interview in a magazine called
the New Politics Quarterly this month in which
he says, "I don't agree with all of President
Clinton's spending plan, but at least he's telling
the truth. You cannot fix the deficit without
a tax program, because we cut taxes more than
twice as much as we proposed to do it when
we came in. We got into a bidding war. We
got carried away. What we did was irresponsible.
And then all the politicians since then never
had the stomach to tell the American people
the truth. And it was just more fun to cut taxes
and pass out money than to do the reverse."
Now, that is the hard truth.
I really believed in the campaign that we
could raise revenues modestly on upper income
people, close some corporate tax loopholes, and
do some other things, do the spending cuts,
and bring the deficit down. After I was elected,
the Government announced that the annual deficit was going to be $50 billion a year bigger


642




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / May 12


in 3 of the 4 years that I would serve as President, $50 billion a year bigger, and $15 billion
bigger in the fourth year. And it became clear
to me that under those circumstances we could
not begin by cutting anyone's taxes; that we
ought to have a responsible, balanced energy
tax and that most of the tax burden should be
borne by those who had their taxes lowered
in the eighties while their incomes went up,
people in higher income groups; but that we
ought to have a balanced and fair package, not
to "soak the rich" but to share the burden,
to try to say this is our job.
And so I say to you, yes, I will put this money
in a trust fund, but that does not mean the
money does not have to be paid. If you want
the interest rates to stay down, if you want the
profits of lower interest rates, you must undergo
the pain of the spending cuts and the tax increases, because that's the only way to really
bring the deficit down.
Now, the question is, are we going to do
this, or not? Are we going to do this, or not?
Audience members. Yes, we are.
The President. I think we are.
There are some who say no. Today in Washington there are 80,000 lobbyists. It's a growth
industry. I'll guarantee you one thing, I created
some jobs since I got to be President.
But the Congress is now dealing with two
bills which will help to reform the way our
politics work. They just passed the motor voter
bill, something young people of America really
wanted and which I'm very proud of, which
I hope and pray will continue the trend of increased voter participation. But now Congress
is dealing with two tough other issues. The United States Senate passed last week a bill-finally,
believe it or not, in the year 1993-finally requiring everybody who actually lobbies them to
register as a lobbyist and requiring that the gifts
that they give to Members of Congress or the
expenditures they make on trips or whatever
all be reported. Believe it or not, they weren't
done before now. The Congress passed that with
only two dissenting votes-the Senate did. The
bill is now going to the House.
In addition to that, last Friday I proposed
a comprehensive campaign finance reform law
which will lower the cost of congressional campaigns, reduce the influence of political action
committees, and open the airwaves to challengers as well as incumbents for more honest
debate. It is a tough, good bill. If we can pass


these bills, they will help to open the system
too.
People are full of hope now. We've received
in 31/2 months more letters than the White
House got in all of 1992. If you haven't gotten
yours answered, I hope you'll be patient. We've
got over 200 volunteers coming in just to open
the mail and trying to sort it and read it. But
it is a wonderful reaffirmation, the critical and
the complimentary and support letters alike, that
Americans really want their system to respond
to them again. And we must do that.
If the first issue is the economy-or in the
vernacular of my old campaign sign, "It's the
economy, stupid"-that means deficit reduction,
investment for jobs and technology, and education. It means controlling health care costs
and dealing with that crisis. I should tell you
that no matter how much we reduce the deficit
in the next 5 years, it will go right back up
again if we don't address health care costs, because that's the fastest growing part of the Federal budget deficit.
It must include all these things, as well as
political reform and changing the way Government works. And change is hard. It doesn't happen overnight. You have to do what Lincoln
did: Ask hard questions, give strong answers,
and hope the American people rally.
We can move forward. We can have a whole
new partnership in this country, one that goes
beyond the things that normally divide us, beyond the dividing lines of party, of race, of gender, of region, of income. We can do that. Ideas
and energy can replace drift and delay. We can
grow in wealth and wisdom and liberty.
But this requires more than good ideas and
more than political energy. If I may say, if you
don't remember anything else I say, I hope
you'll remember this: The human condition in
the end changes by faith. And faith cannot be
held in your hand. The Scripture that I carry
to my place of worship every Sunday says,
"Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the
conviction of things unseen." But make no mistake about it, it is by far the most powerful
force that can ever be mustered in the cause
of change.
Today we are seeing too much cynicism and
too little faith, an obsession with the moment,
an obsession with the politicians and their wins
and their losses, an obsession with blame and
division, an obsession with paralysis, an obsession with always pointing out the pain of change


643




May 12 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


and never embracing its promise. Without faith,
in the end we always wind up resorting to the
easy and the immediate: Tax the other guy; cut
that other program, not mine; wait for somebody
to deliver the goods to me, or wait for it not
to happen till I can blame somebody else for
what didn't.
But faith changes all that. Lincoln's cause in
1860 was to keep our house from dividing. Our
cause today is to put our house in order. If
"a house divided against itself cannot stand,"
surely a house in disarray will not provide shelter and a home. Surely a house where problems
are denied or blamed on someone else in the
next room can never be a home for America.
To preserve the American dream in our time
and for your future, yes, our leaders must ask
tough questions and give strong answers. But
people must rally to the cause of change with
faith. We have to believe again, believe through
the "frustrations and the difficulties of the moment," as Martin Luther King characterized
Remarks at the Democratic National
York City
May 12, 1993
Thank you very much. To Bruce and to Lew,
and to all of you, I've had a wonderful time
tonight. These lights are so bright. I only know
half the people I've shaken hands with. It has
been a wonderful time. I want to thank all the
people who made this dinner possible, and I
want to thank the wonderful entertainment. The
choir was terrific. The group doing all the wonderful old songs from Dionne Warwick in the
sixties were magnificent.
I was delighted to see Barry Manilow again
in such wonderful voice, and grateful for his
many contributions to our common efforts. I
appreciated Phil Hartman saying he voted for
me, but it's not quite enough for all the abuse
I've put up with in advance. [Laughter] And
I want to say to my friend, Whoopi Goldberg:
Mayor Dinkins has a telephone call for you over
here if you will go over and get it. [Laughter]
Ladies and gentlemen, all of you who made
this night possible-Lew and Bruce, Bob Rose
and the other committee members, Bob Barrie,
Bill Boardman, Paul Montrone, George


them, believe through the inevitable rocks in
the road to the ends of the journey. We must
believe through the smallness and the spite that
conflict always brings out in all of us. We must
believe through that, to the spirit and generosity
and courage that is America at its essence.
Mr. Lincoln closed his Cooper Union speech
with the following words: "Let us have faith
that right makes might, and in that faith, let
us to the end dare to do our duty as we understand it." My fellow Americans, our clear duty
is to revive the American dream and restore
the American economy. And for as long as it
takes, with energy and joy and humility, let us
dare to do that duty.
Thank you very much.
NOTE: The President spoke at 3:50 p.m. at the
college. In his remarks he referred to Jay Iselin,
Cooper Union president; Mayor David Dinkins
of New York City; and Senator Daniel Patrick
Moynihan, Senate Finance Committee chairman.
Committee Presidential Gala in New
Norcross, Felix Rohatyn, Ann Sheffer, John
Sweeney, and Steve Swid, thank you all. Thank
you, Roy Furman. Thank you, David Wilhelm.
A lot of you were here with me a long time
ago. I remember once, more than a year ago,
when I came to New York and there were hundreds of people here in a hotel for a fundraiser
for me. I was dropping like a rock in New
Hampshire. All those experts said I was dead.
I hear their call again. [Laughter] People who
couldn't see the long road and didn't want to
think of the fight as something that was bigger
than any person were all preoccupied. And I
just couldn't believe all these folks were even
showing up for a dinner in New York. It was
so dark in the campaign, I thought, well, people
will go ahead and send their checks and then
stay home. I imagined going into this vast ballroom and making a speech to eight people.
And I was feeling pretty sorry for myself,
frankly. And I told this story many times, but
a man stopped me in the hall who was working
at the hotel and said that he was a Greek immi

644




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / May 12


grant and he was going to vote for me because
his son asked him to-was only 10 years oldthat if I got elected, he wanted me to do something for his son. He said, "Where I come from,
we were poor but we were free. Here, I make
more money, but my boy's not free. He can't
go across the street and play in the park without
accompaniment from me. He can't even go to
his school safely without my going with him.
And I want you to work to help make my boy
free." And it made me remember what politics
was all about. I don't even remember what I
said that night, but I know all of a sudden
I had forgotten about me and started thinking
about the rest of America. And I think that
is what we ought to think about tonight.
When we talk about a program, it only counts
if there are people behind it. New York City,
for all of the problems you may think you have,
has registered the first decline in the crime rate
in 36 years, because you did something about
community policing. So we know now that there
is a strategy which can make people freer. That's
what personal safety is. And there is no excuse
for not doing something about it. And that's
what politics is about: focusing on the dreams
and hopes and fears and needs of people. Sometimes I think that when we have these wonderful dinners, which are delightful to me, I've
gotten to see some of you that I haven't even
seen since the election, just to say a simple
thank you to you. Remember, we all did it so
that we can make a difference in people's lives.
I want to say a special word of tribute here
with all the people from New York and New
Jersey and Connecticut, and my friend Mayor
Rendell and others here from Pennsylvania, and
there's even a handful of folks here from my
home State. They were the ones who were clapping when Lew Katz gave his Arkansas pander,
which I appreciate. I want to say a special word
about one person who is here. I want to congratulate my friend Jim Florio on winning the
John F. Kennedy Profiles in Courage Award,
for facing the financial problems of his State,
for facing the educational problems of his State
and, yes, for being willing to stand up for the
police officers and the people of his cities and
State who wanted to be safe from crime, standing up to the gun lobby, and being for safe
streets. That's why he got the award, doing real
things, even if they weren't so hot in the polls
at the time.
Now our country is being called upon to

gether to try to do the things that we just talked
about in the campaign. Governor Mario Cuomo
said again today when he introduced me at the
Cooper Union that we campaign in poetry, but
we must govern in prose. It's another way of
saying, and a more eloquent way of saying, it's
a lot easier to talk about change than it is to
do it. I was overwhelmed today to have the
opportunity to speak on the same spot where
Abraham Lincoln spoke at the Cooper Union
in 1860. And I went back and read large portions of Mr. Lincoln's speech. He came to the
Cooper Union and catapulted himself into the
nomination of the Republican Party, into the
Presidency, and into the history and hearts of
America. He did it by saying this is a difficult
time, we have to ask hard questions and give
strong answers. He said that we could not allow
slavery to continue to expand; and that if we
did, it would destroy the United States. He said
in many other places that if the house is divided
against itself, it could not stand.
Lincoln went on to become President, and
he expanded his vision, and he eventually signed
the Emancipation Proclamation abolishing slavery. In the White House we have a painting
called "Waiting for the Hour," of black slaves
watching a clock at 5 minutes to 12, waiting
for the stroke of midnight, January 1st, 1863,
for the Emancipation Proclamation to become
effective. Several times a week, often late at
night, I go alone into the room where Lincoln
signed that proclamation, and I remembered
what the Presidency is really for: to help the
American people move forward.
It is for us now to put this house in order.
And the beginning is to stop denying our problems and to accept some common responsibility
for solving them. The first thing we have to
do is to prove that the Government can be
trusted with your money by passing a budget
that will bring the deficit down. Look what has
happened. Look what has happened just since
the election, because finally the country has an
administration trying to do that: long-term interest rates going down very low, 20-year low; billions of dollars, tens of billions being recycled
into this economy, giving people the opportunity
to make new starts. We have got to do that.
We also have to deal with this health care
crisis. You know, so many of you said nice things
about Hillary tonight, and I want to say I appreciate it, because about every third day she stops
speaking to me because I asked her to run the


645




May 12 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


health care project. [Laughter] It is the most
complex, the most daunting task in our domestic
life. But it is also perhaps the most urgent.
If we cannot give working families the security of knowing they're not going to lose their
health care, if we can't give businesses the security of knowing that health care doesn't have
to go up at 2 or 3 times the rate of inflation,
if we can't provide coverage to the 35 million
Americans which don't have it, if we can't face
the crises of AIDS and the lack of health care
in rural areas and big cities, and if we can't
invest in research in those things that we have
not come to grips with in health care, what
can we do as a country? Every other nation
has done a better job of many of these things
than we do, and so we must.
They say, well, you should only do one thing
at a time. "You can't walk and chew gum at
the same time in Washington," that's what they
say. But I say we will do one thing at a time,
but we have to honestly put it all out there.
If you want to bring the deficit down, you have
to do health care. The only purpose of bringing
the deficit down is to make the economy
healthy. You have to invest in new technologies
and give people incentives to create opportunity
for others. It is not so simple as to say, well,
just think about this and let another idea cross
your mind a year or two from now. We have
got to be about the business of rebuilding America. And we can do that if we keep our eyes
on the whole picture: bring the debt down, invest in our future, deal with the health care
crisis, deal with the special problems of special
people in special areas that have been left out
and left behind. I believe we can do these
things.
I also have to tell you here at this magnificent
fundraiser tonight that I am so humbled that
so many of you have helped me for so long
and asked for nothing in return, and others have
done it in spite of the fact that many of the
changes that I have advocated are not in your
personal, immediate, short-term interest. You
ought to be proud of that, because I'm proud
of you.
One of the problems that has just killed this
country is that all of us have had our blinders
on and we've been able to see about 6 inches
in front of our eyes. And all of Washington
for too long has been dominated by that: 80,000
lobbyists, because of the absence of a compelling national public vision, each picking apart


the public interest. Now I think we have to
follow through also on our commitment to political reform, to campaign finance reform, to
lower the cost of campaigns, reduce the influence of PAC's, and open the airwaves to challengers. It'll also be nicer for you if you could
only go to one dinner a year instead of four
or five. It's a good thing. We should do it.
I also believe that we have to continue on
this whole reform track. We passed a modified
line-item veto in the House of Representatives.
The Senate ought to pass it and let the President take the heat for controlling unnecessary
spending. We ought to continue to work to open
up the political process. Hallelujah, the gridlock
was broken yesterday, and the United States
Congress passed the motor voter bill to open
up the political process to young people all
across the country.
These are things that can make a difference.
We have to begin to think about America in
terms of what's in it for all of us together so
that we can move forward together. Let me
just mention one or two things tonight. A couple
of days ago I was in Cleveland, and on the
way out of town, I went by a little pierogi place
started by a wonderful young woman who wanted to start her own restaurant, couldn't get a
bank loan. She came from a big Polish family,
so she just took the Cleveland phone book and
called hundreds of people with Polish surnames
and asked them to invest in her business until
she got 80 folks who'd give her $3,000 apiece,
and she's doing real well now. They're the kind
of people that we ought to be fighting for.
When I got to another one of my meetings,
I saw a woman who had six children and was
supporting these children all by herself, making
a handsome salary that she had to give up because one of her children was so desperately
ill the only way she could afford the child's
health care was to become eligible for Government assistance, because we don't have a health
care system. And she was there in my speech
with her beloved child and their $100,000-amonth medical bills. They're the people who
are worth fighting for.
I received a letter yesterday from a wonderful
young man and his wife who became friends
of mine in New Hampshire and had a desperately ill child who had troubles at birth. And
he lost his health insurance and he had to
choose between working and not working to get
on public assistance, and he struggled on. And


646




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / May 12


the letter says that he just had to file for bankruptcy, but he hasn't given up on himself or
his family or his country, and he wants me to
keep fighting to make the economy better.
That's what this whole effort is all about. There
are real people and lives and dramas worthy
of the greatest admiration behind so many stories in this room, so many stories in this country.
I ask you for your continued support. I ask
you to support the suggestion I made today that
we're going to put all this money we're trying
to raise into a deficit-reduction trust and say
to the American people, every dollar of the tax
will go to reduce the debt, and none of the
taxes will be raised without the spending cuts.
Tell the Congress that we ought to do it, instead
of just fooling around with it and talking about
it.
But I ask you, finally, to remember that the
atmosphere in which we labor, you and I, is
still heavily laden with cynicism and skepticism.
People have been disappointed on and off for
20 years. I was looking the other night at a
little bit of history, an account of the Kennedy
administration, reminding me that when President Kennedy was elected, the same sort of
time, the same sort of moment, except that over
70 percent of the American people, when he
went in, believed that leaders told the truth
to the American people and believed they could
trust their leaders to do the right thing. We
don't have that today. One of the things that
those of you who had some personal contact
and personal involvement in this administration
can do is to help to restore the sense of faith
that the American people used to take for granted.
We simply can never succeed, ever, if every
step along the way is burdened with people
who are denying their own responsibility, waiting for someone to deliver them while making
no effort, waiting for someone else to blame,
letting the spite that comes out of every conflict
overcome the larger vision and purposes that
we are about. I am telling you, if we could
do one thing tonight that would guarantee the
success of everything else we're going to do,
it would be all of us in our own way to walk
out of here and say, let's try to put aside all
of our differences and think about how we can
lift up the people of this country. Let us, for
a few months, suspend all of our cynicism and
instead put our faith in the process that took
us to the polls last November. Let us try to


bring out the best in one another even in the
most heated debates in the Congress.
I worry from time to time only about one
thing, and that is that the people who have
to make these decisions will not feel the energy
of the American people desperately saying,
"Change, have the courage to change. Challenge
me, bring out the best in me. Do not give
in to the pressures and the temptations of the
moment but go forward to a better life."
I ask all of you, too, to remember that I'm
going to get up every day and go to work and
work hard. Some days I work smarter than other
days, but every day I'll work hard. I ask you
to remember that one of the great challenges
of being President is to try to devote enough
time and attention to the job to get the job
done and save enough time to stay among the
people, selling what you've done and listening
and making the proper adjustment when there
is something more you need to learn.
I asked so many of you back during the election not to take the election as the end but
the beginning of this enterprise. And so I invite
you again to be a part of this great enterprise,
with your ideas as well as your spirit. We've
got 4 years of work to do. We can move this
country forward in great ways and in profound
ways that will benefit millions, indeed all, of
the people of this country. But it's going to
take every last good idea, and every last ounce
of will and vision, and every ounce of courage
and faith.
You have to be a part of that. I want you
to leave here tonight knowing that I still want
that just as badly as I did in the election. I
did not run for this job to move into the White
House, as great an honor as that is. I did not
run for this job even to have the enormous
privilege of standing on Harry Truman's balcony
and looking at the statue of Thomas Jefferson
every night. I ran for it to be faithful to the
tradition they established by making your life
better, and you have to help me do that.
Thank you and God bless you all.
NOTE: The President spoke at 9:35 p.m. at the
Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts. In his
remarks he referred to event chairmen Bruce
Ratner, Lewis Katz, and Bob Rose; event cochairmen Bob Barrie, Bill Boardman, and Roy Furman,
also Democratic National Committee finance
chairman; event vice chairmen Paul Montrone,
George Norcross, Felix Rohatyn, Ann Sheffer,


647




May 12 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


John Sweeney, and Steve Swid; Democratic National Committee chairman David Wilhelm; Edward Rendell, Mayor of Philadelphia and honor

ary chairman of the event; and Gov. Jim Florio
of New Jersey.


Message to the Senate Transmitting the Netherlands-United States
Taxation Convention
May 12, 1993


To the Senate of the United States:
I transmit herewith for the advice and consent
of the Senate to ratification the Convention Between the Government of the United States of
America and the Government of the Kingdom
of the Netherlands for the Avoidance of Double
Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion
with Respect to Taxes on Income, signed at
Washington on December 18, 1992. An Understanding and exchange of notes are enclosed
for the information of the Senate. Also transmitted for the information of the Senate is the
report of the Department of State with respect
to the Convention.
The Convention replaces the existing income
tax convention between the United States and
the Kingdom of the Netherlands signed at
Washington in 1948 and last amended in 1965.
It is intended to reduce the distortions (double


taxation or excessive taxation) that can arise
when two countries tax the same income, thereby enabling U.S. firms to compete on a more
equitable basis in the Netherlands and further
enhancing the attractiveness of the United States
to Dutch investors. In general, the Convention
follows the pattern of other recent U.S. income
tax treaties and is based on the U.S. and OECD
Model treaties and recent income tax conventions of both parties. It will serve to modernize
tax relations between the two countries.
I recommend that the Senate give early and
favorable consideration to the Convention and
give its advice and consent to ratification.
WILLIAM J. CLINTON
The White House,
May 12, 1993.


Remarks to Small Business Leaders
May 13, 1993
Thank you very much. Erskine's only been
here a day, and he's already become one of
us. And you just saw an illustration of Clinton's
third law of politics: Whenever possible, always
be introduced by someone you've appointed to
high office. [Laughter]
I want to introduce the people who are here
with me: first, starting on my left, Frank Newman, the Under Secretary of the Treasury; and
Roger Altman, the Deputy Secretary of the
Treasury; Laura Tyson, the Chair of the Council
of Economic Advisers. You met Erskine Bowles.
And next to Erskine is Andrew Cuomo, the Assistant Secretary of the Department of Housing


and Urban Development who, among other
things, is responsible for developing and implementing our empowerment zone proposal for
cities and small towns and rural areas that are
economically distressed and that need more free
enterprise.
I'd like to thank all of you for coming, but
I'd like to also pay a special word of recognition
to the smallest entrepreneurs that are here.
These young people are from Theodore Roosevelt Elementary School in Houston, Texas.
They are second graders. And shortly after I
was inaugurated, in February sometime, they
sent me this book. I got your book with all


648




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / May 13


their letters, telling me what I ought to be
doing. "How are you going to stop the violence
and crime? If you will, completely stop it." See,
everybody wrote me a letter and there are pictures. "Can you keep companies from making
guns so we won't have crime?" And it goes
on and on. But the reason they're here is that
they are really the smallest entrepreneurs. They
sold 22,000 candy bars to raise the money to
come to Washington. So I think they deserve
a hand. [Applause] Thank you.
I want to thank you for taking your valuable
time to come here today so that we could talk
about the shape of the small business initiatives
in the economic program, now well on its way
to moving through Congress. So many of you
are the best representatives of American small
business. For instance, Nancy Alchuleta has led
the Mevatec Corporation in Huntsville, Alabama, to compete and win in the world marketplace with a new emphasis on high technology.
William Gordon, president of Applied Data
Technology-is a high-tech company which has
grown from 7 employees in 1986 to over 100
today. Paul Sam, president of Holly Metalshas grown from a custom sheet metal company
to the fabrication of metal parts for Boeing and
a high-tech composite painting facility.
These are the kinds of things that we need
more of in America. As I said yesterday in giving
out the Small Business Person of the Year
Awards, the United States benefited greatly, particularly in the last 10 to 12 years, from the
fact that small business created more jobs than
were lost in the large business sector of this
economy. It is a little-known fact to most Americans, but in every year of the last dozen, the
largest businesses in the country, the Fortune
500, have reduced their employment in the
United States by somewhere in the neighborhood of a total of 200,000 jobs. Even as profits
increased and productivity increased and stock
values increased, the technological advances of
productivity led to an actual reduction in the
work force, not an increase. For all of the 1980's
until the very end of the decade, those reductions were far more than offset by the growing
vibrancy of an entrepreneurial economy in
America. Indeed, many of the small businesses
were contractors and customers and suppliers
for the larger businesses in the country.
Then about 3 years ago, the small business
job engine began to slow down. And there are
any number of reasons why. There was a domes

tic recession. There is a global recession. The
credit crunch in parts of our country plainly
contributed to it. The substantial increase in the
cost of adding one more employee in terms
of Social Security, workers' comp, health care,
and other things has certainly led to the use
of more part-time employees or asking the existing work force to do more overtime. And you
may pay a little more for overtime, but you
save all the supplemental costs of hiring the
additional employee.
Although things are perfectly rational choices,
but what they have meant for the United States
is that we've had quite a stagnant unemployment
rate, one that mirrors, I might add, every other
advanced country in the world. At 7 percent,
our unemployment rate is about the same as
Western Germany's and still lower than all of
Europe; higher than Japan, which has, as you
know, a very different sort of economic system
than we do. But even there they've had trouble
now creating new jobs, and many companies
there are having some of the first layoffs they've
ever had.
I say that to make the following point: Larger
companies, just like the Federal Government,
will have no choice but to continue to try to
improve productivity and use technology to do
more with fewer workers, to increase output
per worker. One of the things I'm trying to
do here that we're writing into the law, this
new budget proposal, is to reduce the size of
the Federal Government by attrition by at least
100,000 workers, by increasing productivity and
restructuring. But that's what the National Government should be doing.
But if these things are going to occur in our
larger organizations, then we have to find a way
to preserve the vitality of small business and
to increase the capacity of small business to
add to the American work force. If everybody
in this country who wanted a job had one, we
wouldn't have half the problems that we wrestle
about all day up here every day. And frankly,
you and people like you all over America are
the best prospect we have for getting that done.
That's why we worked as hard as we could to
try to create an economic program that would
benefit small business.
Our policy first begins with deficit reduction.
The deficit reduction package that the Government has put forward and that the House of
Representatives is in the process of coming to
grips with now clearly has had a major impact


649




May 13 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


in driving interest rates down over the long run.
Since November there has been a dramatic reduction in interest rates. Home mortgage is at
a 20-year low, many other interest rates at historic lows. The business analysts estimate that
if we can keep these rates down for several
more months the impact will be about $100
billion released into this economy, principally
through refinancing of home mortgages and
business loans and other refinancing as well as
the direct benefit of the lower costs of borrowing. That's why I always say the best stimulus
program that we can give to this economy just
to stimulate growth is to keep these interest,
and to keep driving down and to keep driving
the deficit down.
Yesterday, in an attempt to build up a sense
of real confidence that the administration means
business and that the Congress will mean business if they pass this program, I proposed that
we put all the taxes raised and the budget reductions into a deficit reduction trust fund so
that, number one, no tax increase without budget cuts; number two, no tax increase for anything but reducing the deficit. And putting that
in a trust fund, I think, will hammer home the
determination that we have to bring the deficit
down and to try to keep the interest rates down.
The second thing I think we have to do is
to recognize that there are some initiatives
which need to be taken to try to improve the
access to capital for small business. One of the
first things this administration made an aggressive effort to do was to deal with the credit
crunch that I heard about all over America but
especially in certain parts of the United States.
We're trying to make it easier for small businesses to apply for and to obtain loans when
they are appropriate and needed to expand and
create new jobs.
In March, I announced this plan to ease the
credit crunch by reducing some excessively restrictive regulations imposed in reaction to the
savings and loan debacle. Our plans strikes a
better balance, I think, so that we can have
both safety and credit availability. Banks have
more leeway now to make character loans based
on the reputation of the borrower. We also have
moved to ease the paperwork burdens because
it shouldn't be as burdensome to get a $25,000
loan as it is to get a $25 million one and it
certainly is, in a large measure because of direct
Federal rules and regulations.
We have the Treasury and all the financial


agencies of the Federal Goverument working
on this. We now have an SBA Director who
understands it all too well since before he became SBA Director his job was to help other
people start new businesses, which is what he
did very successfully.
We also know and we're not naive enough
to think that just because we announced the
policy in March the practice changed in every
community bank and every community in this
country. We know that hasn't happened. And
I have made an offer, and I make it again here
today, of requesting the small business community to tell the Small Business Administrator
where the plan for easing the credit crunch is
working and where it isn't and what we can
do to work through that. The Treasury Department can only do so much until it knows where
the backlog and the problems are. So we invite
your participation to make the policy we announced in March real in your community as
soon as can possibly do that.
The second thing that we have done since
we've been here is to try to canvass the small
business community about what kind of tax incentive would best serve to help small businesses engage in job creation. Yesterday, the
House Ways and Means Subcommittee voted
to increase from $10,000 to $25,000 the maximum amount of new investments that a small
business can deduct as expenses every year. This
means that when you invest so that your company can grow, you can immediately write off
$25,000 worth of that investment. If that becomes law, it will be directly because of the
input of the small business community to this
administration as well as to the Congress.
When I ran for President in 1992, virtually
all the small business people I met talked to
me about how those which were family-owned
businesses and commitments of a lifetime would
not have much immediate benefit from the capital gains tax, and they asked for some sort of
investment credit. That's why I recommended
the permanent small business investment tax
credit as compared with a capital gains option.
After we got here, the small business organization said that, as a practical matter, we would
get more bang for the buck and it would be
easier for more small businesses if we simply
just increased the expensing provisions to
$25,000. That change is directly the result of
the input of the small business community in
this country. I hope it becomes law, and I hope


650




p ***.0
p
4                        0    00
Ii




)Io
4A.
KA




-I -  I;....


Overleaf. Addressing a joint session
of the Congress, February 17.
Left: Signing the National Voter
Registration Act of 1993 on the
South Lawn, May 20.
Below left: Holding an interview
with foreign journalists in the
Roosevelt Room, July 2.
Right: With Nelson Mandela at
Independence Hall in
Philadelphia, PA, July 4.
Below: Walking along the
Inaugural parade route, January 20.




ijp




Above: Greeting White House
correspondence volunteers outside
the Old Executive Office Building,
June 12.
Left: Participating in the dedication
of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial
Museum, April 22.
Above right: With Vice President
Albert Gore, Jr., and Attorney
General nominee Janet Reno in
the Rose Garden, February 11.
Right: Surveying flood damage in
Davenport, IA, July 4.




Above: Holding the children's
town meeting in the East Room,
February 20.
Left: With Supreme Court
nominee Ruth Bader Ginsburg in
the Rose Garden, June 14.
Right: Visiting U.S. troops at
Camp Casey, South Korea, July 11.
Overleaf: Walking on the South
Grounds, May 25.








-.OW




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / May 13


you will do everything you can to see that it
does become law.
Now, there is a capital gains provision left
in this bill which I think is very helpful. It
provides a big exclusion from capital gains taxation to help small businesses get started and
to invest in completely new projects. That was
one put forward by the American Venture Capital Association and sponsored in the previous
Congress, among others, by the senior Senator
from my State, Dale Bumpers, who's the chairman of the Small Business Committee. I think
that should stay in the law; we're working hard
to make sure that it does. I think it now has
virtually unanimous support.
Finally, we have decided we should try to
offer some very special opportunities in a network of empowerment zones and enterprise
communities all across America. In the
empowerment zones, we're offering small businesses an employment and training credit of
25 percent of the first $20,000 in wages for
employees who live and work in the zones, a
targeted jobs tax credit of 40 percent on $6,000
of the first year of wages for these workers,
and an increase in the ability to deduct appreciable property.
All these things are our effort to help communities that are willing to help themselves by developing a long-term strategy to grow through
private sector and private-public cooperation. To
do that, to attract capital in businesses, I am
convinced and I think that you are all convinced
that with the size of the deficit we have, there
is not enough money in America to have a publicly-funded revitalization of America's most distressed communities.
But wherever in America there are people
who are underutilized, there is a market opportunity. Because when people are working up
to the fullest of their capacity, then they have
money to spend and they create jobs for others.
So when I look at all these places in America
which for too long have been without businesses
on their street corners or in their small towns
or in their hamlets, I see enormous opportunity.
I see in people whose potential is not fulfilled
the opportunity to make free enterprise work
again.
We all know there are certain considerable
barriers to dealing with that. I'm trying to make
some of the high-crime areas much more attractive by simply lowering the crime rate. We know
we can do that through community policing.


And I've asked the United States Congress to
give us some money to put more police on
the street in these communities to help make
them safer and lower the crime rate. We know
that works; there is clear evidence of that. In
New York City alone, after the comprehensive
community policing program established by the
man who is now our drug czar, Lee Brown,
for the first time in 36 years the crime rate
actually went down in seven major areas. So
we know these things can be done.
We know we have responsibilities to make
these  areas  more  attractive.  But if this
empowerment concept can pass, then it will be
more attractive for you and people like you all
across America to take that extra risk to go
into places where there is an enormous prospect
of return if a whole lot of people with no income all of a sudden wind up having income
and can be customers as well as employees.
And I hope all of you will support the
empowerment zones.
We've talked and talked and talked about our
cities and our drying-up rural communities for
years. Democrats and Republicans, they wring
their hands every year, and nothing ever happens. I say, let's try this; let's see if it works.
Let's see if we can have a public-private partnership that works. If it doesn't work, we'll try
something else. But the one thing that we know
doesn't work is more words. We've had more
words for years. We've had wars of words from
people across political and party and regional
lines, and that hasn't worked, and that's not
ever going to work. So I hope we can try this
and see once and for all whether the Government can create an environment which makes
it more attractive for free enterprise to flourish
in areas where it hasn't.
Finally let me say again, I appreciate the burdens under which you labor. I recognize that
some of you, perhaps most of you in this room,
would pay higher personal tax rates under the
program I have proposed. I hope you will support it anyway because if we do it right, most
Americans will save more in long-term lower
interest rates than they'll pay in higher taxes.
The country will be much better off if we can
pass the expensing provisions, the capital gains
provisions, the enterprise zone provisions. If we
can make our plan to ease the credit crunch
work, then small business in the nineties can
once again resume its proper role in America
as the true engine of our job growth, and there


651




May 13 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


will be more people like you with rewarding
stories to tell.
And perhaps most important of all, when
these kids grow up, they'll have a chance to
be just as entrepreneurial as they have been
in getting themselves here today.
Exchange With Reporters Following a
Leaders
May 13, 1993
Inflation
Q. Mr. President, could you respond to the
inflation numbers out today?
The President. Well, you know, I've looked
at them over the last couple of years, and I
think we have to watch it closely. But there
is, at the present time, no cause for long-term
concern. I want to watch it, and we will be
watching it. But it could be just a blip. There
are lots of things that could have produced it.
We'll just have to see. We'll wait for a month
or so and see what's going on. Unless there's
some underlying change in the economy, it's
difficult to imagine how we could have a significant upsurge in inflation.
Deficit Reduction and Taxes
Q. Do you think your deficit reduction trust
fund will be able to win support on the Hill
despite Domenici and Dole and the other Senators criticizing it as a gimmick?
The President. The people that I'm concerned
about are the people who were prepared to
vote for responsible deficit reduction all along,
the moderate to conservative Democrats who
are willing to vote for tax increases as long as
they know they're going to go to reduce the
deficit. Bill Bradley called for the deficit reduction trust fund also, I noted yesterday. And a
whole range of House Members from Charles
Schumer to Charles Stenholm did. And I think
it will help to-more importantly, I think that
in the public mind out there in the country,
people will see that it's a double guarantee that
the money will go where we say it will go.
So I still think it's a very good thing to do.
I didn't expect it to move any of the votes
of people who say that they won't vote for a
tax increase no matter what. But I must say,


Thank you very much.
NOTE: The President spoke at 10:50 a.m. in Room
450 of the Old Executive Office Building. In his
remarks, he referred to Erskine Bowles, Small
Business Administrator.
Meeting With Small Business


the most encouraging thing on that is the interview that David Stockman, who was President
Reagan's Budget Director, did in a magazine
called the New Politics Quarterly this month
where he basically owns up to the fact that
the biggest problem with the deficit is that they
cut 6 percent of the national income out of
the tax base in 1981 in a bidding war. That
was twice the size of the tax cut that President
Reagan originally intended to offer to stimulate
the economy. And he says the impact of that
has never been overcome. So all we're going
to try to do is redress that with some tough
spending cuts. And I think the public mood
will be far more supportive.
Q. Will you go along with a 35 percent corporate tax rate?
The President. If that's what comes out of
the Congress. I don't know if the Senate will
vote for that. We'll have to see. But the changes
made by the House Ways and Means Committee don't reduce the overall contribution from
the business sector. They just shift the way it
comes. And I think that's okay.
Bosnia
Q. Mr. President, do you hold out any hope
that the referendum in Bosnia this weekend
might result in some sort of face-saving way
to get out of this mess?
The President. The issue is not face saving.
The issue is life saving. Face saving has got
nothing to do with it. The issue is whether the
Bosnian Serbs are ready to have a serious peace
process that will save lives, recognize that all
those people have some right and some way
to live in the piece of land we now know as
Bosnia-Herzegovina, and confine the conflict so
that it doesn't spill over and cause much more,


652




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / May 13


much more serious political consequences for
everybody. And that's what I hope. You know,
I wouldn't say I ever have given up hope, but
I'm skeptical about it. But it might produce
something.


NOTE: The exchange began at 11:24 a.m. in Room
450 of the Old Executive Office Building. A tape
was not available for verification of the content
of this exchange.


Remarks to the Champion University of Texas Wheelchair Basketball Team
and an Exchange With Reporters
May 13, 1993


The President. Ladies and gentlemen, I am
honored to be the first President to welcome
the national intercollegiate wheelchair champions to the White House. I have to tell you
that I am very impressed by this group of fine
young men. They've done some amazing things.
For the 3d year in a row, the Moving Mavs
from the University of Texas of Arlington have
brought home a national championship. I hear
that they're the pride of UT-Arlington, that their
home games are drawing record crowds, and
that every time another banner is brought home
in Texas Hall the excitement and the enthusiasm
of the fans keeps building.
I want to recognize a few of the people
who've been instrumental in this team's remarkable success: the driving force behind the Moving Mavs, of course, the coach, Jim Hayes; Ryan
Amacher, president of the University of Texas
of Arlington; and one of their biggest supporters,
my friend Congressman Martin Frost, who just
coincidentally happens to represent them.
[Laughter]
I'm impressed with their winning record and
their hard work and determination. I understand
that this team really reflects the pioneer spirit
of Texas and does not flinch in the face of
obstacles. All of them are pioneers not only in
wheelchair athletics but in the ongoing struggle
in our Nation to obtain equal opportunities on
and off the court for all Americans with disabilities, not inabilities.
They display the attributes of strength and
determination.  They've  practiced.  They've
worked hard. They've produced a championship
team in ways that few people ever know. I commend all of you for your unrelenting pursuit
of excellence and for your demonstration about
what is true in every sport: that as an individual
you may star, but as a team you can be cham

pions.
I believe that when people are empowered
and when they work together, when they're
given the opportunity to make something of
themselves by a real community effort, that's
when we all achieve the fullest meaning in our
lives. If we're going to be a strong America,
we're going to have to do more of what you've
done with this team, coach.
I'm proud of all of you. I welcome you to
the White House. I know the people back home
are proud of you, too.
Thank you very much.
[At this point, Dr. Amacher, Mr. Hayes, and
team member Phung Tran presented gifts to the
President, and Representative Frost expressed his
thanks. ]
The President. Thank you. Thank you very
much, all of you, and good luck to all of you.
You know, things do get busy around here, but
if people like you don't come to see us sometimes, we forget why I'm here. It's easy to get
too busy and lose connections with the people
in the country. You know, tonight all over this
country people will see a picture of you here.
And you have no idea whether some young person will see your picture here and be inspired
and say, "Well, I can do more with my life.
I can make more of myself. There is something
else I can do." And I don't think you could
possibly underestimate the impact that your
achievement will have on others. I really want
to encourage you. I also want you to know I
don't have the upper-body strength to play basketball. Now, don't run off with that. [Laughter]
Tax Legislation
Q. Mr. President, are you satisfied with the
way your tax bill came out of the House Ways
and Means Committee?


653




May 13 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


The President. Chairman Rostenkowski called
me about an hour or so ago, right after the
vote, and based on what I know, I'm very satisfied. I'm immensely pleased. All the basic features of the bill remained intact, and many of
the changes that were made I think made it
a better bill. So again, I have not had a chance
to study all the things that were done today,
but based on what I know, I believe it is a
very good bill indeed. It still maintains the essential features. The earned-income tax credit
is there for people making roughly $29,000 a
year or less to basically add fairness to the Tax
Code and relieve them of the impact of the
energy tax.
The bill is highly progressive, virtually all of
the money raised on people with incomes of
over $100,000. The immunization program, the
family preservation program is intact. The
empowerment zone program was endorsed by
the committee, and they added quite a bit of
money to it so we could encourage more cities
to get involved in trying to bring free enterprise
into distressed areas. I think that is a very impressive thing. And I think changing the small
business incentive to an expensing rather than
an investment tax credit is basically a net plus
because more small businesses can access it at
less hassle. So I feel very good about it-what
I know about the bill. You know, like I said,
I haven't-but what I know about it is very
encouraging.
Q. Why shouldn't the American people regard
this as a black letter day with a new tax bill


coming their way?
The President. Because all this money is going
to go to reduce the deficit. Because we've got
interest rates at a 20-year low. Because most
Americans have refinanced a home or a business
loan, they've already saved more money in interest costs than they will pay in higher taxes. And
because if we don't do something to cut spending and increase some taxes we're going to bankrupt the country.
We tried it the other way for 12 years. We
tried lowering taxes and increasing spending,
and we went from a $1 trillion to a $4 trillion
debt; didn't work out very well. And I think
the American people want us finally to step up
to the bar and reduce this national deficit and
get it down eventually to zero and get some
economic growth going.
I also believe until we bring the deficit down
we won't have any money to invest in education
and training and new technologies. We have to
prove to the American people first we've got
the discipline to spend their money properly
and to run this Government properly.
I think it's not a black letter day. It's a red
letter day for America. We're finally beginning
to face our problems in a mature way. And
I'm encouraged. And I applaud the House Committee for what they did today.
NOTE: The President spoke at 4:42 p.m. in the
Diplomatic Reception Room at the White House.
A tape was not available for verification of the
content of these remarks.


Remarks at the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Ceremony
May 13, 1993


Thank you very much, Senator DeConcini,
Chairman Floyd, President Young, law enforcement officers, and survivors of our fallen brothers and sisters.
America has more than half a million law
enforcement officers who serve proudly and
bravely. And every day they carry out their
sworn duties, risk is a constant companion. No
one knows that better than those of you who
are here tonight and your families. But I can
say that there are very few Americans who owe
more to law enforcement officers than do I.


I'm proud to be joined here tonight by three
people who have a very important role in the
protection of the American people and who have
an important role in my administration and my
life. I'd like to acknowledge them if I might:
the Director of the United States Secret Service,
whose members put their lives on the line for
the President every day, Mr. John McCaw; the
Director of the Office of National Drug Policy
and formerly the police chief of the cities of
Atlanta, Houston, and New York, Mr. Lee
Brown; and Senator DeConcini just mentioned


654




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / May 13


the Attorney General, formerly the prosecutor
of Dade County, Florida, Ms. Janet Reno, who
just came in. She's somewhere here. I like introducing these people.
I'd also like to thank very much the survivors
from Arkansas who came here with me tonight,
as well as the law enforcement officials, in particular, the two members of the Arkansas State
Police, who for a dozen years worked with me
and protected me and my family and stood up
to unbelievable pressures from radical fringe
groups, from organized rioters, from serious organized criminal efforts, and the day-to-day hazards of law enforcement. I owe them all a great
deal, and I'm glad they're here tonight.
More than 13,000 law enforcement officials
have fallen in the line of duty. This memorial
was dedicated to them a year and a half ago.
Tonight we note the names of 328 more who
will be newly etched on these marble stones.
But our tribute will ring hollow tonight unless
we recommit ourselves to do whatever we can
to keep the remainder of these stones as smooth
as possible, to support the men and women
who keep our society more lawful and our lives
more secure, to help them as enforcers, and
to keep them from becoming victims.
Collectively, we call them our Thin Blue Line.
That line is nothing less than our buffer against
chaos, against the worst impulses of this society,
a shield we may not always think about until
it is raised in our own defense. The safety of
our citizens in their homes, where they work,
where they play, it all depends on that Thin
Blue Line. And so it behooves us all to reinforce
that line, to make it as strong as we can.
Let us be honest with one another. We know
that nothing we do will remove all risk from
law enforcement, but we can take steps that
will make the profession safer and make ourselves safer as well. We could do that by passing
the Brady bill. The American people want it;
law enforcement officers have called for it for
years. It will save lives, and it would be a tribute
to those we honor here tonight.
We can also do that by increasing the number
of law enforcement officers on the street. Just
a generation ago there were three officers for
every serious crime in this country. Today there
are three crimes for every officer. It makes police work more dangerous. It makes it more
difficult to implement strategies that work like
community policing. It makes society less safe.
Let us do more to put police officers on the


street, and that will be a tribute to those whom
we come here to honor tonight.
Last year Federal, State, and law enforcement
officers were killed in substantial numbers, but
they say that fewer were killed than at any year
since the mid-1960's. Still, one is too many. And
statistics, the numbers like 120 people being
killed in the line of duty by violent means, they
belie the real human stories.
In my State, a 74-year-old sheriff's deputy
was beaten to death. That's more than an assault
on a law enforcement officer; it's an affront to
our common humanity. That officer, R.D.
Purifoy, was from a little county next to the
one where I was born in Arkansas. He was
so dedicated that any time, day or night, for
26 years, he was always there to answer the
call. And on the day he died last November,
he was simply trying to settle a domestic quarrel.
Then there was Jerry Stallings, a police officer
from Barling, Arkansas, in the western part of
my State, whose family is here tonight. He was
investigating an auto accident when he was
struck by a drunk driver. It should have been
a routine investigation, but as every law enforcement officer knows, there's no such thing as
a routine investigation.
Tonight we honor these men and their families. We honor all those who have fallen
throughout our Nation as they carried out their
duties to make our lives better and safer: from
the officers on the beat and the street, to the
patrols on the highways, to the Federal agents
in all fields. Tonight we light the darkness with
the memories and glories of those who died
in the service of their neighbors, their communities, and our Nation. Their brave souls are
among us; they are carried brightly in our hearts
in gratitude, in joy, in sorrow, yes, but also in
the certainty that God looks after those who
give such a full measure of their devotion.
We honor these valiant men and women not
for dying, because death comes to us all eventually. We honor them for how they died and
how they lived. In life they gave us aid when
we were helpless, shielded us when we were
vulnerable, lifted us when we had fallen, gave
us comfort when we were afraid. In rooting
out our lawless, they preserved our order. They
were our fathers and sons, our brothers and
sisters, our mothers and daughters. They were
our friends.
Their contribution cannot be measured nor


655




May 13 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


properly honored by their President or any other
citizen except to say a simple thank you and
to give a prayer to God for their souls. They
will be remembered as all of you knew them,
standing tall and ready, the sentinels of our liberty. Let us live in ways that will honor their
ultimate contribution to our lives.


Thank you, and God bless you all.
NOTE: The President spoke at 8:40 p.m. at the
memorial. In his remarks, he referred to Craig
Floyd, chairman, National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, and Kathleen A. Young,
president, Concerns of Police Survivors.


Letter to Congressional Leaders Transmitting a Report on Soviet Treaty
Compliance
May 13, 1993


Dear Mr. President: (Dear Mr. Chairman:)
Enclosed are classified and unclassified copies
of the report on Soviet Treaty Compliance required under condition 7 of the Resolution of
Ratification for the Strategic Arms Reduction
Treaty (START).
The judgments included in this report are
drawn from reports prepared by the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency and submitted to
Congress under the provisions of PL 99-145,
as amended, and Section 52 of the Arms Control
and Disarmament Act.
Under the terms set forth in the Resolution
of Ratification, this report addresses actions of
the former Soviet Union which were violations
or probable violations of the obligations of the
SALT I Interim Agreement, SALT II, ABM,


INF and START Treaties and the ultimate resolution of these issues. This report does not address the actions of the newly independent
states which have succeeded the Soviet Union.
In contrast to the Soviet Union, the newly independent states have demonstrated a substantially
improved willingness to adhere to arms control
obligations and to work with us to resolve problems.
Sincerely,
WILLIAM J. CLINTON
NOTE: Identical letters were sent to Albert Gore,
Jr., President of the Senate, and Claiborne Pell,
chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign
Relations. An original was not available for verification of the content of this letter.


Nomination for Posts at the Housing and Urban Development,
Transportation, and State Departments
May 13, 1993


The President announced his intention today
to nominate G. Edward DeSeve and Nelson
Diaz to be Chief Financial Officer and General
Counsel, respectively, of the Department of
Housing and Urban Development; David
Hinson to be Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation; and Peter Galbraith to be Ambassador
to Croatia.


"We are continuing to make real progress in
filling key positions in my administration," said
the President. "This group of individuals whose
appointments we are announcing today have the
kind of experience and expertise that our country needs."
NOTE: Biographies of the nominees were made
available by the Office of the Press Secretary.


656




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / May 14


Remarks Honoring Blue Ribbon Schools
May 14, 1993


Thank you very much. Thank you, Secretary
Riley. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.
I want to welcome you all to the White House
today on this gorgeous day. I hope you've enjoyed yourselves. The Marine Band has been
in especially fine form this morning. I woke
up to them; I went jogging to them. I almost
felt like a President this morning for sure when
I was walking over to the Oval Office. They
were playing a march that was written for the
coronation of a British monarch, so I almost
got myself confused. [Laughter]
There are 228 schools here represented today,
the winners of the Blue Ribbon Awards this
year. And all of you are winners, representing
what is best in American education in public
and private schools and urban and suburban and
rural schools. You all share some common features with all your differences: visionary leadership, a sense of shared purpose, a climate conducive to learning, impressive academic achievement brought on not only by gifted teachers
but also by responsible and open student behavior, and real involvement of parents and often
the broader community in the life of the school.
I spent a lot of time thinking about these
educational issues over the last 12 or so years.
I spent more of my time as a Governor on
education than on any other single issue except
for the economy of my State. I spent hundreds
of hours, I suppose, in schools in my State and
around the country over the last 12 to 15 years
and some time in one of the schools from Arkansas that's being honored today.
A hundred years ago the key to a strong economy was our raw material base. Fifty years ago
it was mass production. Now it is clearly the
trained human mind. We live in a world where
the average person will change work seven or
eight times in a lifetime, when the volume of
knowledge is doubling every few years. When
people in Silicon Valley making new computers
and new computer programs tell me their average product life is now down to 18 months,
clearly the reasoning, creative, facile but also
deep mind is key to the future of the United
States. We also live in a time when hardly anybody can get and keep a decent job without
more education that too many of our people


lack today.
If we could multiply the grade schools here
represented on this lawn all across the country,
we could really revolutionize education in America. I must tell you that the most challenging[applause]-give yourselves a hand. That's a
good idea. The most challenging thing I ever
faced as Governor and the most continually frustrating was going into our schools and realizing
that virtually every challenge in American education has been met successfully by somebody
somewhere.
There are people succeeding against all the
odds and producing magnificent results in extremely difficult circumstances. There are
schools producing world-class results by any rigorous measure. The problem with American
education is that we have never found an effective way to help replicate success, partly because
the magic of education is always what happens
in the individual classroom between the teacher
and the student, supported by the parents,
strengthened by the culture of a school that
is set overwhelmingly by a gifted principal. I
know that.
But there have to be ways to recognize the
plain fact that notwithstanding the funding problems, notwithstanding the inequalities, notwithstanding all the problems of American education, you can find virtually every problem in
our country solved by somebody somewhere in
an astonishingly effective fashion if you look at
enough schools. So the challenge for us here
is to figure out how to replicate that. That is
what Secretary Riley and I are trying to do
with the "Educate America Act," the Goals 2000
act that we presented to the United States Congress, a bill we believe will lead to the creation
of world-class learning standards and also help
to promote the idea that, clearly, all reforms
must occur school by school.
Goals 2000 will, in effect, enshrine the national education goals in the law of the land,
raise expectations for all students, and help to
enrich the content of our courses, the training
of our teachers, and the quality of our textbooks
and our technology. Finally, the bill will challenge our schools to show real results. We believe students and schools should have more


657




May 14 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


flexibility in dealing with Federal programs and
should be shooting toward real results and clear
standards. Goals 2000 is the framework for that
educational effort in this administration. It will
facilitate fundamental reforms in our schools,
and I must say that's probably why some people
don't like it all that well, including some members of my own party in the Congress.
But we can't raise standards and achievement
either by leaving things the way they are or
simply by piling on more particular governmental programs and mandates from Washington. After all, we're only providing about 7 percent of the total financing of public schools
today, and while I hope to reverse that trend
and over the next 5 years get the percentage
back up to somewhere to where it was over
the last several years, still the lion's share of
the financing and the lion's share of the learning
reforms must come from you and people like
you. And that means we have to have a different
approach in the way the National Government
relates to our schools. I hope that the Congress
will not dilute the package that I sent to them.
I hope we can pass the bill in a way that will
represent a real change in the way the National
Government relates to the schools and a real
increase in confidence in proven local leaders.
I'd also like to say that the private sector
in this country has shown an astonishing willingness to become more involved in education ever
since the issuance of the "Nation at Risk" report
10 years ago. The New American Schools Development Corporation, on which Governor Baliles
serves on the board and which Governor Riley
and now Secretary Riley mentioned, has already
raised millions of dollars from public spirited
business leaders. It has path-breaking design
teams which are providing us with valuable lessons about how school innovations all around
America can help us to reach world-class standards. And it is trying to help to replicate what
works, which I still believe is our most urgent
task.
Through these new designs they will be able
to provide promising alternatives for schools and
States as they work to reinvent their schools
with the help of Goals 2000 and other reform
efforts that this administration will make. I ask
all of you to support this legislation and the
work of the New American Schools Corporation.
I ask you to support it in the larger context
of what we must do as a nation.
Think of what has happened to bring us to


this point where we have come to 17 months
in a row with unemployment rate at 7 percent
or higher in every month, even though we are
allegedly in an economic recovery. What has
happened to bring us to a point where most
American families are spending more hours on
the job than they were 20 years ago with lower
real incomes than they made 10 years ago, including some of the families represented in this
audience? What has caused that? Our lack of
ability to be continuously productive, our lack
of ability to create more and more new jobs
that will stand the test of the rigorous global
economy. What we have to do in our administration and what I earnestly ask for your support
in doing is to reverse the trends that have
brought us to this past.
Let us first of all bring down the Government
deficit that has gotten our debt from $1 trillion
to $4 trillion in the last 12 years simply by
telling people at election time what they wanted
to hear: I'll cut your taxes and write you a
check. All the arithmetic teachers in this audience could have figured out that sooner or later
that would get us in trouble. Nobody could have
passed math in this town in any of your schools
in the last 12 years who with a straight face
said, "I've got you a deal. I'll cut your taxes,
and I'll send you a check."
So it fell to me to try to change that ratio.
And the House of Representatives Committee
on Ways and Means yesterday reported out a
bill which does a lot of that. It restores both
spending cuts and tax increases to a proper balance. It will bring the deficit down by $500
billion over the next 5 years. It will provide
important new incentives for small businesses
and for larger businesses to continue to invest,
to create jobs in our country. It provides a real
tax break for working families with children with
incomes of under $29,000 to offset the impact
of the energy tax and reward work so there
will never be an incentive for people with families not to work. Because if this tax bill passes,
for the first time in our country's history, because of the changes in the Tax Code, we'll
be able to say that if you work 40 hours a
week and you've got a child in the house, you
will not live in poverty. These are important
things. And over 70 percent of the money comes
from people with incomes above $100,000.
The budget package also over the next 5 years
will increase our commitment to Head Start,
to apprenticeship training, with partnerships


658




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 I May 14


with our schools and our post-high school programs, and opens the doors of college education
to everyone through a radical reform in the student loan program and national service. It focuses on, in other words, increasing investment,
bringing down the deficit, and bringing us together as a country again. This Coals 2000 legislation is an important part of that. It is our
effort to do our job here as well as you do


your job back home. If we did our job here
as well as you've done yours, then America
could celebrate and give itself a blue ribbon
in just a few years.
Thank you very much, and God bless you
all.
NOTE: The President spoke at 9:51 a.m. on the
South Lawn at the White House.


The
May


President's News Conference
14, 1993


The President. Good afternoon, ladies and
gentlemen. I'm glad the weather permitted us
to do this outside.
Three months ago, I presented a plan to our
country and to the Congress designed to address
what I believe were the significant challenges
of this time. For more than 40 years, our country was organized to stand up against communism, to try to help develop the free world,
and for most of that time we took our economic
prosperity for granted. It is now clear that, at
the end of the cold war, we must organize ourselves around the obligation we have to be more
competitive in the global economy and to enable
our people to live up to their full potential.
That means we have to do a lot of things
to turn this economy around, beginning with
a serious effort to reduce our national debt,
to invest in jobs and new technologies, to restore
fairness to our Tax Code, and to make our political system work again.
This week I was able to go back again to
the American people to take my case into the
country, into Cleveland and Chicago and New
York. And here in Washington there were new
efforts to break the gridlock and to put the
national interests above narrow interests. The
results were particularly impressive in the work
done by the House Ways and Means Committee, achieving over $250 billion in deficit reduction through spending cuts with $2 in spending
cuts for each dollar in new investment, in new
jobs, in education. The program provides significantly everything that I presented to the Congress, even though there were some changes.
In fact, some of the changes I think made the
bill better.


Let me reiterate them: number one, significant deficit reduction; number two, taking on
entitlements issues that have for too long been
left on the table; number three, real investments
for small businesses and for big businesses, incentives to get people to invest money in this
economy to create jobs; and perhaps most importantly, a break for working-class families, a
huge increase in the earned-income tax credit
for people with incomes under $30,000 to relieve them of the impact of the energy tax and
to say for the first time, people who work 40
hours a week with children in the home would
be lifted above poverty; and finally, of course,
the plan was very progressive, 75 percent of
the revenues coming from the top 6 percent
of the American taxpayers.
I also reiterated that I don't want a penny
in taxes without the spending cuts. And I proposed in New York that we create a deficit
reduction trust fund into which all the taxes
and all the budget cuts could be put and kept
for the 5-year life of this budget. This is a very
important thing. I realize some have said it is
little more than a gimmick, but the truth is
there is no legal protection now for the life
of the budget for these funds. This will provide
it in stone, in law.
In every element of this, there has been some
willingness on the part of those who have supported our efforts to take on powefful vested
interest in behalf of the national interest, whether it is in repealing the lobby deduction or in
going for a direct loan program for college loans
that will save $4 billion but which will remove
a Government-guaranteed income from several
interests who like the system as it is now.


659




May 14 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


The Congress also moved this week to reinvigorate our democratic process by ending the
filibuster and passing the motor voter bill. These
are the kinds of changes that the American people expect of us. They do not expect miracles,
but they expect solid, steady progress, and I
am determined to stay on this course.
It has been a good week, and if we're willing
to take more tough decisions, there will be more
good weeks for the American people ahead.
Bosnia
Q. Mr. President, you've said that the United
States will not go it alone with military action
in Bosnia. And yet, the European allies have
refused to sign-on to your proposals. If the allies
refuse to follow suit, where does that leave the
United States?
The President. Let me reiterate what I have
said because I think that the United States has
taken the right position, and I think that we've
gotten some good results. I have said, and I
will reiterate, I think that the United States
must act with our allies, especially because
Bosnia is in the heart of Europe, and the Europeans are there. We must work together through
the United Nations.
Secondly, I do not believe the United States
has any business sending troops there to get
involved in a conflict in behalf of one of the
sides. I believe that we should continue to turn
up the pressure. And as you know, I have taken
the position that the best way to do that would
be to lift the arms embargo with a standby authority of air power in the event that the present
situation was interrupted by the unfair use of
artillery by the Bosnian Serbs. That position is
still on the table. It has not been rejected out
of hand. Indeed, some of our European allies
have agreed with it, and others are not prepared
to go that far yet.
But we have to keep the pressure up. And
I would just remind you that since we said we
would become involved in the Vance-Owen
peace process, two of the three parties have
signed on. We've gotten enforcement of the nofly zone through the United Nations. We've
been able to airlift more humanitarian supplies
there, and we've been able to keep up a very,
very tough embargo on Serbia which I think
led directly, that and the pressure of further
action, to the statement that Mr. Milosevic made
to the effect that he would stop supporting the
Bosnian Serbs.


Where we go from here is to keep pushing
in the right direction. As we speak here, the
United Nations is considering a resolution which
would enable us to place United Nations forces
along the border between Serbia and Bosnia
to try to test and reinforce the resolve of the
Milosevic government to cut off supplies to the
Bosnian Serbs. If that resolution passes, and in
its particulars it makes good sense, that is a
very good next step. We're just going to keep
working and pushing in this direction. And I
think we'll begin to get more and more results.
Q. Are you contemplating sending U.S. forces
to Macedonia and perhaps to protect safe havens in Bosnia?
The President. On the question of Macedonia,
the Defense Department has that and many
other options under review for what the United
Nations, what the allies could do to make sure
that we confine this conflict, to keep it from
spreading. I've not received a recommendation
from them and, therefore, I've made no decision.
Helen [Helen Thomas, United Press International]?
9. Mr. President, there is a wide spread perception that you're waffling, that you can't make
up your mind. One day you're saying, "In a
few days we'll have a decision. We have a common approach." The next day you're saying,
'We're still looking for a consensus." Will American troops be in this border patrol that the
U.N. is voting on and, you know, where are
we?
The President. Well, first of all, I have made
up my mind, and I've told you what my position
was. And I've made it as clear as I can. But
I also believe it is imperative that we work with
our allies on this. The United States is not in
a position to move unilaterally, nor should we.
So that is the answer to your question.
The resolution being considered by the United Nations I think contemplates that the
UNPROFOR forces would be moved and expanded and moved to the border. At this time
there has been no suggestion that we would
be asked to be part of those forces.
Susan [Susan Spencer, CBS News]?
Homosexuals in the Military
Q. A domestic question. Could you tell us
how were you affected by the testimony of Colonel Fred Peck, whose son is a homosexual, who
said that, nonetheless, he could not in good con

660




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / May 14


science support lifting the ban?
The President. I thought all the testimony
given in that hearing-I saw quite a lot of it
from more than one panel-was quite moving
and straightforward. I still think the test ought
to be conduct.
Q. Does this allow for the possibility of the
"don't ask, don't tell"-the compromise that
would allowThe President. You know what my position
is. I have nothing else to say about it.
Bosnia
Q. Mr. President, you said last week that if
you went to air power in Bosnia you would
have a clear strategy and it would have a beginning, middle, and end. What happens, though,
sir, if a plane is shot down, if you lose a pilot
or a couple of pilots, or if the Bosnian Serbs
decide to escalate the conflict, or the Serbians
by going into, say, Kosovo?
The President. Well, the Bush administration
before I became President issued a clear warning to the Serbs that if they try to occupy
Kosovo and repress the Albanians there, that
the United States would be prepared to take
some strong action. And I have reaffirmed that
position. As a general proposition, you can never
commit American forces to any endeavor on the
assumption that there will be no losses. That
is just simply not possible, and as the Pentagon
will tell you, we lose forces even now in peace
time simply in the rigorous training that our
Armed Forces must undertake.
Homosexuals in the Military
Q. In the debate on homosexuals in the military, you use the word "conduct" as though it
were an absolute and easily definable term. Do
you believe, one, that homosexuals should be
celibate, as Schwarzkopf suggested, or could
they engage in homosexual activity, consenting,
on or off base; or two, should the uniform code
be allowed to have any sort of difference between its treatment of homosexuals and
heterosexuals?
The President. I support the present code of
conduct, and I am waiting for the Pentagon
to give me its recommendations.
Brit [Brit Hume, ABC News]?
Lani Guinier
Q. Your nominee to head the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division has expressed what


many regard as rather striking views about voting rights and a number of other areas, including expressing some misgivings about the principle of one man, one vote. And I wonder if
you are familiar with all these views and if you
support them, and if you do not, why you chose
her?
The President. I nominated her because there
had never been a full-time practicing civil rights
lawyer with a career in civil rights law heading
the Civil Rights Division. I expect the policy
to be made on civil rights laws by the United
States Congress, and I expect the Justice Department to carry out that policy. Insofar as
there is discretion in the policy, that discretionary authority should reside either in the
President or the Attorney General in terms of
what policies the country will follow. I still think
she's a very well-qualified civil rights lawyer,
and I hope she will be confirmed. And I think
she has every intention of following the law of
the land as Congress writes it.
Carl [Carl Leubsdorf, Dallas Morning News]?
Q. Were you familiar with them when
you
Texas Senatorial Election
Q. Mr. President, as you know, there is a
lot of concern in the Democratic Party and in
the White House about the upcoming Senate
election in Texas. And one of your top political
advisers, Paul Begala, is becoming more involved
down there. Do you see any expanded role for
yourself? Is there anything you can do, or are
you all pretty much resigned to losing this seat?
The President. Well, first of all, I'm not resigned to losing it. I think Bob Krueger can
still win the race. But it depends on, as with
all cases, it depends on how he frames the issues, how his opponent frames the issues, and
what happens there. I think he's a good man,
and I think he's capable of doing a good job.
And I think he could still win the race. But
that's up for the people of Texas. You know,
in the primary, one of the big problems was
25 percent of the Republicans turned out and
only 15 percent of the Democrats did. I don't
know what's going to happen there. But I certainly support him, and I hope he will prevail.
I think it would be good for the people of
Texas and the Congress if he did.
Q. Do you expect to do any more for him
and possibly go down there?
The President. No one's discussed that with


661




May 14 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


me. You know, I don't know. I've always been
skeptical about the question of whether any of
us could have any impact on anyone else's race.
I've never seen it happen up or down in my
own State in Arkansas. There may be some ways
we can help with fundraising and things of that
kind, but all the time I ran at home I never
let anybody come in to help me, whatever the
national politics were.
Inflation
Q. Mr. President, what would you say or what
do you say to Federal Reserve officials who are
arguing for a slight rise in short-term interest
rates because they're concerned about resurging
inflation?
The President. I would say that the month
before last we have virtually no inflation, and
you can't run the country on a month-to-month
basis. You've got to look at some longer trends.
There are some clear underlying reasons for this
last inflationary bulge which don't necessarily
portend long-term inflation. I think it's a cause
of concern. We ought to look at it, but we
ought to wait until we have some more evidence
before we raise interest rates in an economy
where industrial capacity is only at 80 percent.
If you look at all the underlying long-term
things, long-term trends in energy prices, industrial capacity, the kinds of things that really
shape an economy, there is no reason at this
time to believe that there could be any cause
for a resurge in inflation.
Q. Sir, the argument is made at the Federal
Reserve that higher taxes, higher burdens on
business through health care fees, or other
things like that will indeed raise inflation while
the economy stays weak.
The President. Just a few weeks ago some
people were arguing that all this would be deflationary and would repress the recovery. So I
guess you can find an expert to argue any opinion, but there is no evidence of that. The prevailing opinion at the Fed and the prevailing
opinion in the economic community has been
that the most important thing we can do is
to bring down long-term interest rates by bringing down the deficit. You can't have it both
ways. You're either going to bring down the
deficit, or we're not. And everything in life requires some rigorous effort if you're going to
have fundamental change.


Small Business Exports
Q. I wonder if you ever stop to think that
this month we are celebrating two events, Small
Business Week and World Trade Week. I wonder do you understand what the importance of
the world trade in this week is in the minority
and small business people can contribute to export their services and product to the world
and mainly to those countries of the former
Soviet Union? How do you respond?
The President. How do I want small business
to contribute? Well, first of all, an enormous
amount of our economic growth in the last 3
years has come out of growth in trade. And
one of the problems we're having with our own
recovery is that economic growth is virtually
nonexistent in Asia and in Europe-at least in
Japan and in Europe, not in the rest of Asia.
China is growing rapidly.
One of the things that we can do to increase
exports is to organize ourselves better in the
small business community. The Germans, for
example, have enormously greater success than
do we in getting small and medium sized businesses into export markets. And one of the
charges of my whole trade team is to organize
the United States so that we can do that. That's
one of the things the Commerce Secretary is
working on.
Northern Ireland
Q. Mr. President, you're going to be meeting
with the President of Ireland in a little while.
And as aThe President. I'm looking forward to it.
Q. -    as a candidate, you made several
promises in regard to Ireland. One of them was
to send an envoy, a special peace envoy, and
another was that you would not restrict Gerry
Adams' admittance into this country. He's the
leader of Sinn Fein, and his visa was denied
last week. And you promised that as President
he would be admitted.
The President. I think you ought to go back
and read my full statement that I made in New
York about the Adams case. I'll answer that in
a minute.
But let me-first on the peace envoy, I talked
to the Prime Minister of Ireland, and I will
discuss with the President of Ireland what she
thinks the United States can do. I am more
than willing to do anything that I can that will
be a constructive step in helping to resolve the
crisis in Northern Ireland.


662




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / May 14


Q. [Inaudible]-whether an envoy is necessary
because
The President. I don't believe the President
of the United States should be unaffected by
what the Prime Minister or the President of
Ireland believe about what is best for Ireland.
I don't believe that. I think I should ask them
what they believe. I'm not sure I know better
than she does about that. And I should listen
and should take it into account. I am prepared
to do whatever I can to contribute to a resolution of this issue.
On the Gerry Adams question, I said at that
time because he was a Member of Parliament,
if I were President I would review that. I
thought that if there were no overwhelming evidence that he was connected to terrorists, if
he was a duly elected Member of Parliament
in a democratic country, we should have real
pause before denying him a visa. I asked that
his case be reviewed by the State Department
and others. And everybody that reviewed it recommended that his visa not be granted and
pointed out that he was no longer a Member
of Parliament.
Wolf [Wolf Blitzer, Cable News Network]?
President's Approval Ratings
Q. Mr. President, in your opening statement,
you said this has been a good week for you.
But the latest CNN/USA Today/Gallop poll, as
you probably saw, shows a 10 percent decline
in your job approval rating since the end of
April, from 55 to 45 percent. Why do you think
that is happening? And is it your fault, and
what can be done?
The President. Well, for one thing, I'm trying
to do hard things. And I can't do hard things
and conduct an ongoing campaign at the same
time. You know, I'm doing things that are hard,
that are controversial. And anybody who doesn't
want to assume responsibility can stand on the
sidelines and criticize them. I never expected
that I could actually do anything about the deficit without having some hits. I never expected
that I could take on some of these interests
that I've taken on without being attacked. And
whenever you try to change things, there are
always people there ready to point out the pain
of change without the promise of it. That's just
all part of it.
If I worried about the poll ratings I'd never
get anything done here. The only thing I'd remind you is for 12 years we've seen politicians


and the Congress and the executive branch
worry about their poll ratings every month and
then at the end of every 4 years things are
a lot worse. If things are better at the end
of the period that I was given to serve, then
the poll ratings now won't make any difference.
And if they're not, they won't make any difference. So my job is to do my job, and let
the chips fall where they may.
Bosnia
Q. There seems to be a Catch 22 emerging
on Bosnia. One would be, you have consistently
said that you want to have a consensus with
the U.S. allies. But until that consensus is
formed, you found it seems very difficult to
explain to the American people precisely how
that war should be defined: Is it a civil war?
Is it a war of aggression? And also not necessarily what the next step should be, but what
are the principles, the overriding principles that
should guide you as a policy? What can you
tell the American people right now about that?
The President. First, that is both a civil war
and a war of aggression, because Bosnia was
created as a separate legal entity. It is both
a civil war where elements of people who live
within that territory are fighting against one another. And there has been aggression from without, somewhat from the Croatians and from the
Serbs, principally from the Serbs-that the inevitable but unintended impact of the arms embargo has been to put the United Nations in
the position of ratifying an enormous superiority
of arms for the Bosnian Serbs that they got
from Serbia, and that our interest is in seeing,
in my view at least, that the United Nations
does not foreordain the outcome of a civil war.
That's why I've always been in favor of some
kind of lifting of the arms embargo, that we
contain the conflict, and that we do everything
we can to move to an end of it and to move
to an end of ethnic cleansing.
Those are our interests there, and those are
the ones I'm trying to pursue. But we should
not introduce American ground forces into the
conflict in behalf of one of the belligerents, and
we must move with our allies. It is a very difficult issue. I realize in a world where we all
crave for certainty about everything, it's tough
to deal with, but it's a difficult issue.
Andrea [Andrea Mitchell, NBC News]?
Q. Mr. President, on the subject of the arms
embargo, do you believe that the fighting be

663




May 14 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


tween the Croats and the Muslims has validated
the European objections to your proposal to lift
the arms embargo, showing just how complicated it is and how easily those weapons can
get into other hands? And, secondly, do you
think that you should try to level the playing
field by using air strikes alone if your hands
are tied on the arms embargo?
The President. I believe that the troubles between the Croatians and the Muslims complicate
things, but at least the leaders have agreed on
an end to the conflict. On the other issue, I
think that the best use of air power is the one
that I have outlined, and I don't favor another
option at this time.
Norway
Q. The Prime Minister of Norway today announced that Norway is going to resume commercial hunt of the minke whale. How do you
react to that? And is the United States going
to take any punitive actions against Norway?
The President. It's the first I've heard of it.
I'll have to give you a later answer.
White House Staff
Q. One of the charges leveled by critics of
you in Arkansas and now at the beginning of
your term as President is that you've surrounded
yourself with too many young people and put
them in too many senior positions. How do you
respond to that criticism?
The President. Like Lloyd Bentsen and Warren Christopher? I mean, who are you referring
to? Mr. McLarty, Mr. Rubin, Ms. Rasco, and
Mr. Lake, to name four, and I are all, I think,
older than our counterparts were when President Kennedy was President. There are a lot
of young people who work here, but most of
the people in decisionmaking positions are not
particularly young. And I am amazed sometimes-you think I ought to let some of them
go?
I realize that there is this image that the
administration is quite young. I think we have
one of the most seasoned and diverse Cabinets
that anybody's put together in a long time. And
we have a lot of people who aren't so young
working in the White House. I don't know how
to answer your question about it.
Health Care Reform
Q. Mr. President, what will you do to ensure
that health care will be accessible geographically


to people in inner cities and rural areas, so
that cross-town and cross-county travel will not
become a barrier to health care?
The President. Well, I haven't received the
report, as you know, of the Health Care Task
Force yet, but let me say that one of the markers I laid down for them when they began their
work was that we didn't need just simply to
provide coverage for Americans, but there had
to be access in rural areas and in inner city
areas, especially. And they are exploring any
number of ways to do that.
I spent one afternoon here on a hearing on
rural health care, talking about how we could
bring health care to people in rural areas and
make it economical and available. And I have
spent an enormous amount of time in the last
16 months in urban health care settings trying
to discover which model-I've done that myself-trying to determine which models can be
replicated in other inner city areas. From my
experience at home I knew more about rural
areas. But the bottom line is you've got to have
more clinics in the rural areas and in the inner
cities that are accessible and where there is an
ethnic diversity, where they are accessible not
only physically but in terms of language and
culture. And these things can be done. And
if you do it right, if they're really comprehensive
primary and preventive health care centers, they
lower the cost of health care because they keep
more people out of the emergency rooms.
Bosnia
Q. Mr. President, the Serbian government has
indicated it is going to stop sending arms to
the Bosnian Serbs. If they hold true to that,
does that then preclude the option of rearming
the Bosnian Muslims?
The President. Well, I have two responses.
First, I hope the United Nations resolution will
succeed so that we can put some U.N. people
on the border to determine whether that, in
fact, is occurring. Secondly, whether that precludes the rearming option depends really on
how many arms have been stashed already in
Bosnia, particularly the heavy weapons, the
heavy artillery. I think that is the issue. And
that's a fact question which we'll have to try
to determine.
Latin America
Q. Many people wonder, Mr. President, what
your policy in Latin America is going to be.


664




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / May 14


Your economic team just told us that you want
to spend more money in police here in the
United States. The past administration spent almost $3 billion in Peru, Bolivia, and Colombia.
What is your vision, and how are you going
to change that policy?
The President. I think we should continue to
support those programs. I can't say that they
would be immune from the budget cutting process that has affected almost all of our domestic
programs here. We've had such a big deficit,
we've got to cut across-the-board. But I believe
that those programs have served a useful purpose. I think especially where we have governments with leaders who are willing to put their
lives on the line to stop or slow down the drug
trade, we ought to be supporting them, and
I expect to do that.
David [David Lauter, Los Angeles Times]?
Domestic Priorities
Q. You've been talking a lot recently about
deficit reduction, the deficit reduction trust
fund. You're talking now about having to stretch
out your investment programs, postpone some
of the things. What do you say to people in
urban areas, some of the liberal Congressmen
on the Hill who say, "Wait a minute. We're
the ones who elected this guy, and now the
programs that have been starved for 12 years
that we need aren't going to be able to get
money?" What sort of political position does
that put you in with your core supporters?
The President. Well, I ask them, first of all,
to look at the 5 year budget. The enormous
squeeze on domestic spending including investment spending began 12 years ago. I can't turn
it around overnight. I asked them to look at
the 5 year budget and look at it in light of
the fact that the deficit numbers were revised
upward after the election by $50 billion a year
in 3 of the next 4 years. And I ask them also
to consider this: Until we can prove that we
have the discipline to control our budget, I don't
think we'll have the elbow room necessary to
have the kind of targeted investments we need.
I think the more we do budget control, the
more we'll be free to then be very sharply discriminating in investing in those things which
actually do create jobs. I don't think we have
any other option at this time.
Attitudes Toward Change
Q. Mr. President, in your New York speech


this past week at Cooper Union, you spoke of
a crisis of belief and hope. And earlier Mrs.
Clinton in a speech talked about a crisis of
meaning. How do you see these crises manifesting themselves? What are the causes of them?
And how severe do you see this?
The President. Well, I think they manifested
themselves in people's honest feelings that
things are not going very well in this country
and that they haven't gone very well in a long
time and the alienation people feel from the
political process and in the alienation they often
feel from one another in the same neighborhoods and communities. There are real objective
reasons for a lot of these problems. After all,
for most people the work week is lengthening,
and incomes are declining. The job growth of
the country has been very weak. The crime rate
is high, and there's a sense of real alienation
there. And I don't think we can speak to them
just with programs. I think that, in our different
ways, that's what both Hillary and I were trying
to say.
The thing I was trying to say to the American
people at the Cooper Union that I want to reiterate today is that you can never change if you
have no belief in the potential of your country,
your community, or yourself, and that the easy
path is cynicism. The easy path is to throw
rocks. The better path is doing the hard work
of change.
The thing I liked about what happened in
the Ways and Means Committee this week isnot that I agree with every last change they
made in the bill, although some of them actually
made the bill better, all the fundamental principles were left intact-but we actually did
something to move the ball forward, to deal
with the deficit, to deal with the investment
needs, to deal with-to go back to the other
question that Mr. Lauter asked-to deal with
the need to get more real investment in the
inner cities and the rural areas of the country.
We are doing things.
And what I tried to do all throughout the
campaign in talking about hope, in talking about
belief, in trying to go back to the grassroots
was to say to people, the process of change
may be uneven and difficult and always controversial, but it has to be buttressed by an
underlying belief that things can be made better.
When the election returns in November-that
I was not fully responsible for, there were two
other candidates in that race-which showed a


665




May 14 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


big increase in voter turnout, especially among
young people, that meant to me that we were
beginning to see the seeds of a change in attitude. As I said at the Cooper Union, when
President Kennedy occupied that office, nearly
three-quarters of the American people believed
that their leaders would tell them the truth and
that their institutions worked and that their
problems could be solved. So there was a lot
more elbow room there. You know, a year or
2 years could go by, people could be working
on something with maybe only slightly measurable progress, but the country felt it was moving
forward. That is what we have to restore today,
a sense that it can be done. And it cannot be
done by the President alone, but the President
has to keep saying that, that faith is a big part
of this.
Q. And the causes of these crises as you perceive them?
The President. I think the causes of them
are the persistent, enduring problems, unanswered, unresponded to, and the absence of a
feeling that there is a overall philosophy and
a coherent way of dealing with them.
Tax Legislation
Q. Though your tax package has made it
through the House Ways and Means Committee, every Republican voted against it. If that
happens again in the Senate you could be facing
yet another roadblock. How have you changed
your legislative strategy to see that you win over
a few Republican votes this time?
The President. Well, the budget cannot be
filibustered. So in a literal sense, you know,
we could pass it without any Republican votes.
What I hope is that to show that by a combination of budget cuts and tax increases and the
things that have been done to make this program even more attractive. We've got a lot of
business people for this program now, a lot of
them-that we ought to get some Republican
support. But that's a political decision that a
lot of those folks are going to make.
I can tell you that one member of the Ways
and Means Committee told me yesterday that
a Republican member said to him as they were
dealing with this, said, "Boy, there's a lot of
wonderful stuff in this bill. I didn't know all
this stuff was in this bill. This is wonderful."
He said, "Well, why don't you vote for it?"
He said, "No, we've got to be against taxes."
They're going to have to decide what they're


going to do about that.
NAFTA
Q. You talk about being competitive in the
world and that, I hope you agree, that involves
NAFTA. What would be the priorities of a new
ambassador to Mexico, and what is the latest
in NAFTA? Do you support tougher sanctions
in trade for those that violate the treaty?
The President. I believe the treaty has to have
some enforcement provisions. I have not read
the last language, but it is my understanding
that what the negotiators are working toward
is some sort of sanctions for repeated and persistent violations of agreements that the countries involved in NAFTA make. I don't think
any of us should make agreements and expect
there to be no consequences to their repeated
and persistent violation. But I want to say again,
I believe that increased trade with Mexico and
NAFTA are in the interest of the United States.
The Salinas government, through the unilateral reduction of their own tariffs, has helped
to take the United States-and through policies
that promoted economic growth, beginning with
getting control of their deficit-has taken the
United States from a $6-billion trade deficit with
Mexico to a $5-billion trade surplus. Mexico just
surpassed Japan as our second biggest trading
customer for manufactured products. So I think
that it's very much in our interest to pass
NAFTA, and I hope I'll be able to persuade
the Congress to do it when we conclude the
agreement.
Q. Would that be a priority of a new ambassador to Mexico?
The President. Absolutely, sure.
Go ahead.
Webster Hubbell
Q. Okay. I'd like to go back to your Justice
Department for just a second, Mr. President.
Since during the campaign you said it was a
mistake and, in fact, apologized for playing golf
at an all-white country club in Little Rock,
shouldn't it disqualify your nominee for Associate Attorney General, Webb Hubbell? Is there
an exception because he's a family friend? And
are the local civil rights leaders wrong when
they say that his attempts to integrate the club
appeared to have been a last-minute political
conversion?
The President. Absolutely not.
Q. Are the local civil rights leaders wrong


666




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / May 14


when they say that his attempts to integrate
the club appeared to have been a last-minute
political conversion?
The President. No. As a matter of fact, if
you go back-first of all, let me-the first question is no, he should not be disqualified. The
second question is, is it a last-minute conversion? The African-American who joined the club
testified that Webb Hubbell had been trying
for years to get him to do it, and he had not
agreed. That's what the record shows. Thirdly,
my belief is that the overwhelming majority of
African-American leaders in my State would very
much like to see him confirmed. He has always
had a reputation as being a strong advocate of
civil rights, whether as Mayor of Little Rock
or chief justice of the supreme court of my
State. He is a very eminent citizen with a very
good background. And I think the vast majority
of the civil rights leaders of my State will advocate his appointment based on his record. And
I think on the facts of this, I just wouldn'tthis last-minute conversion thing just doesn't
hold water.
Q. What does it say then, sir, that he should
be a member of an all-white country club, as
other members of your Cabinet also are or were
when it was still all white?
The President. I think he should have either
resigned or integrated it. And, of course, he
was in the middle. He said, "I tried for years
to integrate it, and it took me too long to succeed." What I think is really the case is that
some of the other people may have been blocking it. He was trying for years to do it. I know
that because I used to hit on him about it for
years.
Go ahead, Mara [Mara Liasson, National Public Radio].
Bosnia
Q. Mr. President, I want to go back to a
question that Helen asked earlier about your
indecisiveness over Bosnia. I'm wondering how
you think that's affected perceptions of you as
a leader? There is a concern reflected in polls
and in some comments from Democratic Members in Congress that you are indecisive and
perhaps not tough enough to tackle all the problems.
The President. Well I'd just like to ask you
what their evidence is? When "Russia" came
up the United States took the lead, and we
got a very satisfactory result. When I took office


I said we were going to try to do more in
Bosnia. We agreed to go to the Vance-Owen
peace process, and two of the three parties
signed on. We got enforcement of the no-fly
zone. We began to engage in multinational humanitarian aid. We got much, much tougher
sanctions. We got the threat of military force
on the table as a possible option. Milosevic
changed his position. All because this administration did more than the previous one.
And every time I have consulted the Congress
they say to me in private, this is a really tough
problem. I don't know what you should do but
you're the only President that ever took us into
our counsel beforehand; instead of telling us
what you were going to do, you actually ask
us our opinion. I do not believe that is a sign
of weakness. And I realize it may be frustrating
for all of you to deal with the ambiguity of
this problem but it is a difficult one.
I have a clear policy. I have gotten more
done on this than my predecessor did. And
maybe one reason he didn't try to do it is because if you can't force everybody to fall in
line overnight for people who have been fighting
each other for centuries, you may be accused
of vacillating. We are not vacillating. We have
a clear, strong policy.
In terms of the other issues, who else around
this town in the last dozen years has offered
this much budget cutting, this much tax increases, this much deficit reduction, and a clear
economic strategy that asks the wealthy to pay
their fair share, gives the middle class a break,
and gives massive incentives to get new investment and new jobs in the small business community and from large business as well? I
think-I don't understand what-on one day
people say he's trying to do too much. He's
pushing too hard. He wants too much change.
And then on the other day he says, well, he's
really not pushing very hard. I think we're getting good results. We've been here 3 months.
We've passed a number of important bills, and
I feel good about it.
I think the American people know one thing:
that I'm on their side, that I'm fighting to
change things. And they're finding out it's not
so easy. But we are going to get a lot of change
out of this Congress if we can keep our eye
on the ball and stop worrying about whether
we characterize each other in some way or another and keep thinking about what's good for
the American people.


667




May 14 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


Every day I try to get up and think about
not what somebody characterizes my action as
but whether what I do will or will not help
to improve the lives of most Americans. That
is the only ultimate test by which any of us
should be judged.


Thank you very much.
NOTE: The President's 15th news conference
began at 1:05 p.m. in the Rose Garden at the
White House. In his remarks, the President referred to President Slobodan Milosevic of Serbia.


Exchange With Reporters Prior to Discussions With President Mary
Robinson of Ireland
May 14, 1993


Ireland
Q. Madam President, do you support a peace
envoy from the United States to Ireland?
President Robinson. I think it has been very
much appreciated, as indeed the Taoiseach said
when he met with the President on March the
17th, on St. Patrick's Day, that President Clinton
has shown such an interest in and concern for
Ireland. That is very well recognized in Ireland
itself and that, as President, you have indicated
a genuine, a real concern. And I know that
when you were discussing with the Taoiseach
the idea of a peace envoy that you left open
this issue, because it expresses concern, and that
you are aware that there are the prospects of
resumed talks in Northern Ireland. And I think
in those circumstances-and it is appropriate to
let those talks take their course.
But the sounding of the concern, the genuine
interest, and the fact that you said you were
a friend not just on St. Patrick's Day but
throughout the year in an interested way, that
has struck a very real chord throughout the island of Ireland and an important one. And I
think that's very much appreciated, now. So I
think that the reality of that concern has created
its own very helpful and constructive vibrations.
President Clinton. Thank you.
Perception of the Administration
Q. Mr. President, you sounded a little bit
frustrated at the end of your news conference
there with the perception of your administration
and your Presidency.
President Clinton. I just did what I could
to set the record straight. You know, in the
end you're measured by whether you act or
not and what you stand for and what you don't,
and I think the record is pretty clear. This ad

ministration has come out for a lot of bold and
comprehensive change and is fighting for it. And
if I don't say that, who will?
Q. That may be the question. [Laughter]
President Clinton. We haven't lost a majority
vote yet. We may before it's over, but we
haven't yet.
Ireland
Q. President Clinton, can I ask you a question? Are you going to visit Ireland? You're
meeting the President today. Would you
like
President Clinton. I hope so. I told the President I went to Ireland once when I was a young
man.
Q. 1969?
President Clinton. It was a great trip.
Q. Do you think you're going to be able to
do it?
President Clinton. Did you check my passport
files? Is that how you-[laughter].
Q. Would you like to visit Ireland?
President Clinton. I would very much.
The First 100 Days
Q. Can I ask you about your first 100 days
in office? Have you enjoyed that?
President Clinton. Very much. Even the difficult times have been good. You know, it's an
exhilarating thing trying to sort of turn things
around, not easy but exhilarating.
Gerry Adans
Q. Mr. President, you've gotten some heat
over your Irish problems recently. Do you think
looking back on what you said during the campaign and knowing what you know now about,
for example, the Gerry Adams status, that you
might have rephrased what you were saying?


668




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / May 14


President Clinton. Well, what I said wasand I did do that-I asked the State Department to review the case and I gave the-and
other agencies did so as well. He is no longer
a Member of Parliament, which is what I take
my statement on. And they unanimously recommended that the visa not be granted. I have
no grounds to overrule them.
Lani Guinier
Q. Mr. President, at your press conference
today on the Lani Guinier question, you seem
to suggest-please correct me if I'm wrongbut that it's simply a matter of Congress confirming her and her doing-or, excuse me, the
Senate confirming her and her doing Congress'
will as it relates to the Civil Rights Division.
But her writings suggest a very interesting interpretation of things like the Voting Rights Act,
which she would extend to the executive branch,
numerical goals for judicial appointments, which
I believe you opposed in your campaign. So
what is the Senate, then, to make of the fact
that you've sent somebody up there that favors
things that you oppose?
President Clinton. Well listen, I would never
have appointed anybody to public office if they
had to agree with everything I believe in. We
wouldn't have a Cabinet. I mean, I take it, based
on my personal experience, you will believe me
when I say I am confident that she'll follow
the Constitution and the laws of the United
States. You have to swear an oath of office to
that. She may wish the law were different in
some areas. But I've had personal experience
with her accomplishments as a civil rights lawyer, and I thought we ought to have a distinguished civil rights lawyer as head of the Civil
Rights Division. And I say again, the Congress
passes the laws and the executive branch enforces them, and when there is a question of


policy, that will be resolved by the Attorney
General.
Q. Are you disassociating yourself from her
writings, sir?
President Clinton. I never have associated myself with all of her writings or all of anybody
else's. I even found a word or two in the Vice
President's book I didn't agree with. [Laughter]
Ireland
Q. President Robinson, what is your message
to President Clinton? What is your message to
President Clinton today?
President Robinson. Well, it is certainly a very
special occasion to come here as President of
Ireland and to be welcomed by President Clinton. And I want to reiterate the invitation that
has already been extended to him by the
Taoiseach to renew his acquaintanceship with
Dublin and to come to Ireland on an appropriate occasion. And I want to express appreciation of the fact that President Clinton has clearly
signaled an interest in and an active concern
for Ireland, for the moder Ireland, the Ireland
which I have the honor to represent and that
you and your administration are keeping in very
close contact, that there is a very open communication and a sense of that, and that has been
very consciously realized in Ireland itself and
throughout the island of Ireland. And I think
it is a very significant and helpful factor in our
relations.
NOTE: The exchange began at 4:25 p.m. in the
Oval Office at the White House. During the exchange, the following persons were referred to:
Albert Reynolds, Prime Minister of Ireland, and
Gerry Adams, leader of Sinn Fein. A tape was
not available for verification of the content of this
exchange.


Message to the Congress Reporting on the National Emergency With
Respect to Iran
May 14, 1993


To the Congress of the United States:
I hereby report to the Congress on developments since the last Presidential report on November 10, 1992, concerning the national emer

gency with respect to Iran that was declared
in Executive Order No. 12170 of November 14,
1979, and matters relating to Executive Order
No. 12613 of October 29, 1987. This report


669




May 14 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


is submitted pursuant to section 204(c) of the
International Emergency Economic Powers Act,
50 U.S.C. 1703(c), and section 505(c) of the
International Security and Development Cooperation Act of 1985, 22 U.S.C. 2349aa-9(c).
This report covers events through March 31,
1993. The last report, dated November 10, 1992,
covered events through October 15, 1992.
1. There have been no amendments to the
Iranian Transactions Regulations ("ITRs"), 31
CFR Part 560, or to the Iranian Assets Control
Regulations ("IACRs"), 31 CFR Part 535, since
the last report.
2. The Office of Foreign Assets Control
("FAC") of the Department of the Treasury
continues to process applications for import licenses under the ITRs. However, as previously
reported, recent amendments to the ITRs have
resulted in a substantial decrease in the number
of applications received relating to the importation of nonfungible Iranian-origin goods.
During the reporting period, the Customs
Service has continued to effect numerous seizures of Iranian-origin merchandise, primarily
carpets, for violation of the import prohibitions
of the ITRs. FAC and Customs Service investigations of these violations have resulted in forfeiture actions and the imposition of civil monetary penalties. Additional forfeiture and civil
penalty actions are under review.
3. The Iran-United States Claims Tribunal
(the "Tribunal"), established at The Hague pursuant to the Algiers Accords, continues to make
progress in arbitrating the claims before it. Since
the last report, the Tribunal has rendered 12
awards, for a total of 545 awards. Of that total,
367 have been awards in favor of American
claimants: 222 of these were awards on agreed
terms, authorizing and approving payment of
settlements negotiated by the parties, and 145
were decisions adjudicated on the merits. The
Tribunal has issued 36 decisions dismissing
claims on the merits and 83 decisions dismissing
claims for jurisdictional reasons. Of the 59 remaining awards, 3 approved the withdrawal of
cases, and 56 were in favor of Iranian claimants.
As of March 31, 1993, awards to successful
American claimants from the Security Account
held by the NV Settlement Bank stood at
$2,340,072,357.77.
As of March 31, 1993, the Security Account
has fallen below the required balance of $500
million 36 times. Iran has periodically replenished the account, as required by the Algiers


Accords, by transferring funds from the separate
account held by the NV Settlement Bank in
which interest on the Security Account is deposited. Iran has also replenished the account with
the proceeds from the sale of Iranian-origin oil
imported into the United States, pursuant to
transactions licensed on a case-by-case basis by
FAC. Iran has not, however, replenished the
account since the last oil sale deposit on October
8, 1992. The aggregate amount that has been
transferred from the Interest Account to the
Security Account is $874,472,986.47. As of
March 31, 1993, the total amount in the Security Account was $216,244,986.03, and the total
amount   in  the   Interest  Account   was
$8,638,133.15.
4. The Tribunal continues to make progress
in the arbitration of claims of U.S. nationals
for $250,000.00 or more. Since the last report,
nine large claims have been decided. More than
85 percent of the nonbank claims have now
been disposed of through adjudication, settlement, or voluntary withdrawal, leaving 76 such
claims on the docket. The larger claims, the
resolution of which has been slowed by their
complexity, are finally being resolved, sometimes
with sizable awards to the U.S. claimants. For
example, two claimants were awarded more than
$130 million each by the Tribunal in October
1992.
5. As anticipated by the May 13, 1990, agreement settling the claims of U.S. nationals for
less than $250,000.00, the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission ("FCSC") has continued its
review of 3,112 claims. The FCSC has issued
decisions in 1,201 claims, for total awards of
more than $22 million. The FCSC expects to
complete its adjudication of the remaining
claims in early 1994.
6. In coordination with concerned Government agencies, the Department of State continues to present United States Government claims
against Iran, as well as responses by the United
States Government to claims brought against it
by Iran. In November 1992, the United States
filed 25 volumes of supporting information in
case B/1 (Claims 2 & 3), Iran's claim against
the United States for damages relating to its
Foreign Military Sales Program. In February of
this year, the United States participated in a
daylong prehearing conference in several other
cases involving military equipment. Iran also
filed a new interpretative dispute alleging that
the failure of U.S. courts to enforce an award


670




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / May 15


against a U.S. corporation violated the Algiers
Accords.
7. As reported in November, Jose Maria
Ruda, President of the Tribunal, tendered his
resignation on October 2, 1992. No successor
has yet been named. Judge Ruda's resignation
will take effect as soon as a successor becomes
available to take up his duties.
8. The situation reviewed above continues to
involve important diplomatic, financial, and legal
interests of the United States and its nationals.
Iran's policy behavior presents challenges to the
national security and foreign policy of the United States. The IACRs issued pursuant to Execu

tive Order No. 12170 continue to play an important role in structuring our relationship with Iran
and in enabling the United States to implement
properly the Algiers Accords. Similarly, the ITRs
issued pursuant to Executive Order No. 12613
continue to advance important objectives in
combating international terrorism. I shall exercise the powers at my disposal to deal with
these problems and will report periodically to
the Congress on significant developments.
WILLIAM J. CLINTON
The White House,
May 14, 1993.


Nomination for an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury
May 14, 1993


The President will nominate Richard Carnell,
the senior counsel of the Senate Banking Committee and former attorney for the Federal Reserve Board, to be Assistant Secretary of the
Treasury for Financial Institutions.
"Richard Carnell has been consistently recognized for his expertise in banking law and his
The President's Radio Address
May 15, 1993
Good morning. As we all rejoice in this magnificent spring and the promise of renewal that
it brings, we should also feel renewed as citizens, renewed by the progress that is being
made in Washington, the progress we are making in strengthening the American economy to
help us be more competitive, to grow, to work
for the middle class again. Gridlock is on the
way out, and our plan to rebuild the economy
and restore opportunity for all Americans is
moving through Congress.
Look at the progress. Just 3 months ago, I
submitted to Congress a balanced economic plan
that asked everyone to work together to invest
a little more in deficit reduction today, so that
we can all enjoy better jobs and higher incomes
tomorrow. It says we can do what no generation
has ever been called upon to do before, that


ability to help shape policy decisions," said the
President. "I look forward to him playing a key
role in shaping banking policy in the next 4
years.
NOTE: A biography of the nominee was made
available by the Office of the Press Secretary.


we can reduce our deficit sharply and still increase investment wisely in jobs and education
and new technology, because we must do both
to be a competitive America, to create more
jobs and economic growth.
We began by forcing real discipline on the
big spenders by making deep and enforceable
cuts in the Federal Government in over 200
specific programs. And believe me, these cuts
are real. We've taken on spending groups and
interest groups that have never been taken on.
We've made tough decisions, and now Congress
is working with me to make them stick. It wasn't
easy.
We'd made major reductions in the so-called
entitlement programs like medical care, agriculture, Federal retirement programs. Virtually
no area of domestic spending was left un

671




May 15 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


touched. And we're now on our way to the
largest deficit reduction package in American
history. And we will not raise taxes without
knowing that these spending cuts are part of
the project.
These cuts are real, and our plan is fair. The
nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has
concluded that 75 percent of all the taxes in
this plan fall on the top 6 percent of Americans,
those earning $100,000 a year or more. It asked
those who got a tax break in the 1980's to pay
their fair share in the 1990's. These proposals
which reduce the deficit and increase tax fairness were adopted by all the important House
of Representatives committees last week.
But I'm asking the Congress to go further.
This week I proposed that when we cut programs, we lock the savings up in a deficit reduction trust fund so that you can trust that the
money can only be used to reduce the Federal
deficit. That's right. No taxes without spending
cuts and the spending cuts and the taxes put
into a deficit reduction trust fund so that the
money must be used to reduce the deficit.
In addition to cutting the spending deficit,
the other essential goal of our plan is to create
opportunity in our society where hard work is
supported and initiative is rewarded. That's why
there were important tax incentives added to
this  plan: increasing  the  small business
expensing provision to $25,000 a year, a goal
long sought by the American small business
community; a new venture capital gains tax; big
investment incentives for larger corporations to
invest in new plant and equipment to create
new jobs. These and other initiatives to ease
the credit crunch and to keep these interest
rates at historic lows will mean billions of dollars
of new investment into our economy in the near
future.
Our economic plan includes also a proposal
to create empowerment zones in our most depressed urban and rural communities. We offer
significant incentives to those who will go into
those neighborhoods and build a business because they will be giving people a chance who
haven't had one in a long time. There's not
enough Government money in a country to rebuild our cities or our distressed rural areas,
but we can do it through free enterprise if we
have enough incentive. The Government in the
empowerment zones will be the best partner
the free enterprise system could have.
This plan also deals with another important


problem. No one in America should work hard
at a full-time job with children in the home
and still live in poverty. But millions of Americans do. Because our economy and our tax system hasn't been working, millions and millions
of responsible people are among the working
poor who still live below the poverty line. That's
the wrong signal to send. That's an incentive
to get on welfare, not to get off welfare.
Our plan includes an earned-income tax credit
that puts into law this basic principle: If you
work 40 hours a week and you have a child
at home, you will not be in poverty. This important proposal also is proceeding quickly to congressional approval. The Tax Code was also
changed to protect those with incomes of under
$30,000 from the impact of the proposed BTU
or energy tax, and to phase that tax in so that
the average family will pay about a dollar a
month next year and about $5 a month the
year after, with the full impact of the tax for
people with incomes of $40,000 a year or above
triggering in at about $16 to $17 a month in
1996.
Just days after we offered our new approach
to make college loans available to every qualified
American student, regardless of income, this
plan was also approved by the House Education
and Labor Committee. This is a very important
thing. It will save lots of money to taxpayers
and make college loans available at lower interest rates and better repayment terms with mandatory repayment to all students in the United
States. This is a change that we're working on,
cutting wasteful spending, increasing taxes fairly,
driving down the deficit while increasing the
investment we make through private sector incentives and in education training and technology.
These are the ideas which will make our
economy strong and competitive. For every new
dollar of investment in America and the American people, there are $3 in spending cuts. This
is the right way to go. All told, we've come
a long, long distance in the last 3 months, to
restoring our economy and reaffirming the values of the middle class and to opening up our
democracy again.
I'm especially gratified that just this week
we've passed the motor voter bill which will
make it easier for people to register and vote.
And I fervently hope it will bring more young
people into the democratic process. It was the
young Americans all across this country who


672




9 --- ~ ~ I --


Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / May 15


convinced me to redouble my efforts to work
hard to pass this bill.
The United States Senate has just passed a
lobbying reform bill which will require all of
our lobbyists to register for a change and require
them to report any gifts beyond a very small
amount that they give to any Member of Congress. And I've introduced the toughest campaign finance reform law ever, to lower the cost
of campaigns, reduce the influence of political
action committees, and open the airwaves to
honest debate, all paid for by lobbyists, by repealing the lobbyist tax deduction.
This is a bright and a hopeful day. We've
come together not to better one group or one
cause but to work together in the common cause
of a reinvigorated America. We've been able
to bring deep discipline to our budget, positive
purpose to our spending, and created the sea
change the American people voted for in November, or at least the beginning of that sea
change. Now we've got to see through it all
the way to the end. The rest of the road won't
be easy, just as the last 3 months have not
been. But we can do it, and then we'll have


something to really celebrate when we've passed
the budget, an economic plan, and gotten this
country turned around.
Even as we celebrate these changes, let's also
remember why we're free enough to make
them. May the 15th is Armed Forces Day. And
I would like to conclude by honoring those who
serve, whose bravery and sacrifice and devotion
to country has preserved our liberties and made
America the custodian of freedom's dream for
the entire world.
I speak for all in my administration in expressing gratitude and profound respect for each
member of our Armed Forces, for their supportive families and for their mission. From my first
months in office, I can assure you that America
has the strongest, best trained, and most faithful
Armed Forces in the world, men and women
so worthy of the great responsibilities borne by
them in our Nation. May God protect them
and guide the United States.
NOTE: The address was recorded at 8 a.m. on
May 14 in the Map Room at the White House
for broadcast at 10:06 a.m. on May 15.


Statement Endorsing the Candidacy of Michael Woo for Mayor of Los
Angeles
May 15, 1993


On June 8, Los Angeles voters will select the
first new mayor in two decades, a mayor who
must reinvigorate the economy and ensure the
safety of all communities. I endorse Michael
Woo because I believe he is the best person
to meet these challenges.
As a councilman, Mike Woo has put people
first, consistently fighting for the middle class
against the special interests, appealing to our
hopes not our fears. He created innovative programs to finance small business, reformed the
city's ethics laws, and developed a model community service program. He has fought to get
criminals and their guns off the streets.


Early last year, Mike Woo stood with me to
support an agenda of change to help working
families, rebuild our cities, and bring people
together. Mike Woo has dedicated his life to
creating jobs in southern California and making
government work for all people. The people of
Los Angeles can trust Mike Woo to work long
and hard to get the job done for them.
As mayor, Mike Woo will be my partner to
reinvigorate the southern California economy,
put more police on the streets, and inspire the
many different communities that comprise Los
Angeles to pull together again. I look forward
to working with him for change.


673




May 17 / Administration of William J. Clinton


Remarks to the Community in Los Alamos, New Mexico
May 17, 1993


The President. Thank you very much. Governor King, Senator Bingaman, Senator Domenici, Congressman Richardson, Congressman
Schiff, Dr. Hecker, and the other directors of
the other wonderful labs here present, Dr.
Narath and Dr. Ruckolls; and my distinguished
Secretary of Energy, Hazel O'Leary, who is celebrating her birthday with all of you here in
Los Alamos today.
I want to say a special word of thanks to
the students from Los Alamos High School here
behind us. I love the T-shirts, and I was so
gratified to be invited to come to the high
school commencement. I didn't make it, but
this is almost as good, don't you think? I'm
really glad to be here.
I want to say, too, a special word of appreciation to all those who spoke here before me
today for what they said. I thought Senator Domenici did a pretty good job of gliding over
our differences and getting right in there. I want
to tell you how grateful I am for the national
leadership that Congressman Richardson has
given not only to the Congress but to the efforts
I made to become your President. And I can't
say enough about the work that Senator Bingaman has done on the issue I came here to
talk about today, which is giving us a good highwage, high-growth future through the wise and
sensible investment in technology. You should
be very proud of these people, all of whom
represent you in the United States Congress.
I want to say a special word of thanks to Congressman Schiff. Since he's not here in his home
district, he actually gave up the opportunity to
speak, which may make him the most popular
person here today. You can't tell.
Bruce King told you the truth. We were Governors in the seventies, the eighties, and the
nineties. Made an old man of me, but he still
looks pretty good. [Laughter] He was the first
Governor to endorse my campaign, and New
Mexico was the next to the last stop I made
on election day when I stayed up all night long.
I want to say I've come back here today in
the light of day, and a beautiful day it is, to
celebrate with the Los Alamos Lab the 50th
anniversary of a genuine, remarkable American
success story. For the first half century of Los


Alamos' service, it was the leading edge of our
Nation's security. And now as we go into the
next half century, Los Alamos will be, as Senator
Bingaman said, the leading edge of our prosperity, developing and nurturing the technology that
will put all these young Americans who are here
in this great crowd today at the front of a new
race, the race to compete and to cooperate in
a world that is getting smaller, richer, more diverse, but very, very rigorous in its challenges.
New Mexico should be very proud to be the
home of Los Alamos and Sandia. America, indeed the entire democratic world, owes an enormous debt of gratitude to Los Alamos, to
Sandia, and to the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory in California. When we needed the military
muscle to end a global war, the answer was
the Manhattan Project. When we needed the
muscle to win the cold war, the long and costly
effort to contain and then to triumph over communism, the ideas that made that possible came
out of these laboratories. That struggle gave us
a focus not just in how we spend our defense
dollars but how we invested in everything from
our children's education to the Interstate Highway System. These labs were at the core of
that effort, providing our nuclear deterrent.
From the Berlin crisis in 1948 to the Berlin
celebration in 1989 when the Wall came down,
the work of this laboratory helped to ensure
America's might, America's security, and in the
end, a total triumph for democracy and freedom
and free-market economics in the cold war. You
should all be very proud of that. That's a good
50 years of work if I ever heard it.
Now we are in the post-cold-war effort. Most
of the young people here present will live more
of their lives in the 21st century than they have
in the 20th. And we need a new focus for our
efforts. Our job today is to preserve the American dream and America's leadership in the
world that America has done so much to make.
We have to prove that we can compete and
win in this highly complex and rigorous world.
We have to do it so that all the young people
here will not be the first generation of Americans to grow up to do worse than their parents.
We have to do it so that we can continue to
be a beacon of hope, so that we can prove


674




that freedom and free enterprise and democracy
work.
We have to begin by putting our own house
in order, by bringing down our enormous deficit, dealing with our health care crisis which
has produced a system that costs way too much
and covers too few and leaves too many in the
insecurity of daily living, knowing that any moment they might lose the insurance they have.
We have to follow policies that enable us to
educate and train our people for a lifetime and
then promote economic growth so that they will
have jobs that they're educated for. These are
the things we have to do in this time to be
worthy, worthy successors to the American legacy we have inherited.
I've asked the Congress to reduce the deficit
by $500 billion over the next 5 years, with a
combination of spending cuts and tax increases,
none of which are popular, especially, in particular. Everybody's for deficit reduction in general.
It's the details that swallow us alive. I have
asked that all this money be put into a trust
fund by law so that nothing can be done with
it but to reduce the debt, so that the children
of our country eventually will be able to get
out from under the burden their parents and
grandparents have left for them. I have committed to all the Members of Congress and to the
American people without regard to party that
this is just a down payment, that reducing the
deficit doesn't begin to bring the debt down
until you get it down to zero. And we have
to keep working until we do that. We owe that
to the young people here.
But we also owe you something more. We
have to think about the challenges that are here
before us. And when they require us to invest
in education and technology and new jobs, we
have to do that as well, for we have to remember that the thing which enables us to bring
our debt down is the economic strength which
reduces working people and incomes from people who then can pay taxes, who can then deal
with less Government supports, who don't need
the Government spending as much money if
they all have jobs and incomes in a strong free
enterprise system. That is our obligation to you
and to your future.
So the question I came here to discuss today
for all of you, and hopefully it will reverberate
throughout the United States to people who
have never been to New Mexico and may not
have even known of the existence of Los Ala

Administration of William J. Clinton / May 17
mos, is what is the opportunity we have right
here to revolutionize the economy, not just for
those thousands of you who are here but for
every American family, for every American
young person? Can you affect the future of
America as you have the past? I think the answer is a resounding "yes." If we are going
to march confidently into the 21st century, we
will have to do it on the minds and with the
creativity and with the investment represented
here in this laboratory and in others like it
around the country and with the spirit of partnership between Government and the private
sector that pervades so many of the efforts now
underway here.
At Los Alamos alone, there are 100 partnerships with industry. Technology has led to the
creation of 30 new companies. Before coming
here today I took a look at some of the projects
underway at a plant facility that handles-listen
to this-plasma ion implantation. Now, that
sounds like something a plastic surgeon would
do, but it has nothing to do with the human
body. Instead, it involves a steel vacuum chamber containing high-energy ion which can be
pumped into metal suffaces or plastic suffaces
and used to harden them so that they will last
longer and do better work. This could revolutionize America's ability to manufacture automobiles and other machines to keep going and
to have higher productivity longer and lower
costs, so we can once again begin to grow highwage manufacturing jobs. And if it happens, it
will happen because of the ideas that started
here in the kind of partnerships we need for
America's tomorrows. And this technology was
a direct outgrowth of the research done on the
strategic defense initiative, the so-called star
wars initiative, which means that no matter
whatever happens there and whatever happens
to the final shape of that project, something
good came out of it because people were looking to break down frontiers in the human minds
and to explore unexplored territory.
This defense technology is now being used
as part of a 4-year partnership with General
Motors. Another project involves GM in helping
to build a clean car. Think of it: What if we
could build a car that operated on energy
sources provided here in this country, that reduced our dependence on foreign oil, reduced
air pollution, increased energy efficiency, and
helped us to become a partner in the effort
to save the global environment, at the same


675




May 17 / Administration of William J. Clinton
time exploding American jobs and economic opportunities? If that happens, it will be because
of what began here. I saw biomedical technology, analyzing and sorting single biological
cells using lasers, with valuable applications for
AIDS and leukemia diagnosis, a technology that
has already led to an $800-million-a-year business for three new companies. There are
projects underway for efficient oil recovery, environmental cleanup, the analysis of air pollution. With these partnerships and others like
them, we can find the technology-based answers
for the jobs of tomorrow.
In this economic chain reaction, the result
will be high-paying jobs here in New Mexico.
I saw one project today which is projected to
produce 2,000 jobs in New Mexico within the
next 3 or 4 years. But there will be jobs all
across this Nation, in wide-ranging fields, ever
more critical to our future. Supercomputers developed to design nuclear weapons are now
being used to improve the fuel efficiency of
engines, to help the oil industry find more oil
in less time here in the United States at lower
cost. They're used to educate youngsters in ways
we could never have dreamed of just a few
years ago. I met some of those bright students
earlier today. They were actually developing programs for energy conservation, using the world's
largest supercomputer, having won a contest in
the use of computers sponsored statewide in
New Mexico and held here at Los Alamos. You
could be very proud that you have students like
that who can use a facility like this.
We are counting on our Nation's labs to make
real contributions in these and other areas of
needs that arise out of our energy and national
security missions. In these tasks, the laboratories
will be helping not only Americans but our fellow citizens around the world. If we can find
ways to make the American people healthier
and lower health care costs, it will benefit us
enormously economically, it will provide personal security to millions of American families.
But we will not keep those things as secrets
here in our own borders. They will spread
around the world and make the world a better
and safer and healthier place.
Let me also say that there is still a national
defense mission for these labs. We have to continue to maintain the safety and reliability of
our nuclear deterrent until all the nuclear weapons in the world are gone. We have to make
sure that we can focus on new technologies to


counter proliferation of nuclear, biological, and
chemical weapons by other irresponsible countries around the world. There are still too many
nations who have not learned the lesson of the
cold war and how much money was diverted
by the United States and the Soviet Union from
other important efforts. There are still too many
nations who seem determined to define the
quality of their lives based on whether they can
develop a nuclear weapon or biological or chemical weapons that can have no other purpose
than to destroy other human beings. It is a
mistake, and we should try to contain it and
to stop it.
And so my fellow Americans, there is a peacetime commercial mission for these labs. And
there is a national defense mission for these
labs. And the line between those two missions
is coming down fast. And there is a partnership
with the private sector which will spread and
grow and strengthen America's support for and
understanding of what is done here. These labs
are our great national minds' treasure, the
world's finest scientists and engineers, more
Ph.D.'s per capita here in Los Alamos than any
other place on the planet. It's pretty humbling
when you're a President and you walk into a
room and you realize you're lowering the average IQ of the room just by going in the door.
[Laughter] You have the world's most powerful
computers and lasers and accelerators, some of
the world's best materials facilities, the most
sophisticated diagnostics. You are our crown
jewels in technology and science.
Under the technology policy I have proposed,
this lab at Los Angeles-Los AlamosAudience members. Boo-o-o!
The President. I'm going there tomorrow, and
if I say Los Alamos, will you cheer when I'm
in Los Angeles? I owe you one. This lab will
work with the Departments of Energy and Defense and Commerce to sustain constant innovation. We're going to have to reorganize a lot
of things to get that done. We can't just have
the money coming in for specific projects
from-some from defense and some from the
Energy Department. We'll have all kinds of dislocations. And we had some great conversations
today about how we can make a flexible and
always available pool of funds there for the kinds
of projects that need to be done. And our administration has pledged to do that.
So I say to you again, we must change the
whole notion we have of the Federal Govern

676




ment. We're going to have to cut a lot of spending. We're going to have to change a lot of
things we have taken for granted. But we will
still have to find a way to invest in our future.
Our competitors are investing in their futures.
There is a race to tomorrow, which is partly
cooperation, but make no mistake about it,
largely competition. And if we want all of these
young people to have the chance to go as far
as their efforts and their God-given abilities will
take them, we have to do both: We've got to
bring this deficit down and sharply invest in
things like these laboratories so we can grow
the economy for tomorrow.
The reductions in the defense budget, made
possible by the end of the cold war, have presented some great challenges to the laboratories,
to the defense plants, to the wonderful men
and women who have served our Nation in uniform. We owe all of them the opportunity to
convert to success in the commercial private
enterprise world of America. We have earmarked, this year alone, over $1.7 billion for
defense conversion, and I propose to invest
about $20 billion in it over the next 5 years.
It is a good beginning. It is a good beginning.
I ask you today, as I close, to consider the
alternative. If we refuse to bring our deficit
down and we still continue to squeeze these
areas critical to our investment future, the alternative will be a rising deficit, a declining rate
of investment, more unemployment and more
stagnant incomes, longer work weeks for less
funds, and continued insecurity for America's
working families. We must change our priorities
no matter how difficult it is. That is the chal

Administration of William J. Clinton / May 17
lenge of this day, and we must meet it. As
has already been said, President Kennedy stood
in this very spot just over 30 years ago and
saluted the great patriots of Los Alamos. He
said in part, and I quote, "We want to express
our thanks to you. It is not merely what was
done in the days of the Second War but what
has been done since then, not only in developing weapons of destruction which, by irony of
fate, helped maintain peace and freedom, but
also in medicine and in space, and all the other
related fields which can mean so much to mankind if we can maintain the peace and protect
our freedom."
Well today, maintaining the peace and protecting the freedom seem more secure than they
did when President Kennedy uttered those
words. And so, today I come here to thank
Los Alamos, not merely for what was done in
the cold war and what has been done since
but for what you can and will do to secure
a stronger, brighter future for all the American
people. If we do our job, then perhaps 30 years
from now another American President will be
able to come to this very site, and some of
you who are now children will be here with
your children. And you can say, again, thank
you, thank you to the labs, thank you to the
men and women who used their minds to advance the cause of learning. Thank you for the
contributions you have made to the progress
of the American dream. May it never stop.
God bless you, and thank you very much.
NOTE: The President spoke at 1:05 p.m. at Los
Alamos High School.


Remarks on Arrival in San Diego, California
May 17, 1993


Thank you so much. Let me begin by thank-  the Mayor of Coronado,
ing Lynn Schenk for that vigorous introduction  Diego, the State officials
and Bob Filner for what he said. I can tell  Lieutenant Governor, the s
you, if we had a whole Congress full of people  State comptroller. But mc
like Lynn Schenk and Bob Filner, we could  thank all of you. It is w(
turn this country around a lot quicker. They  here again. And I'm happy.
have done a wonderful job up there.          What did you say?
I'd also like to thank all the people who came
out to see me today and to see my first visit  Athis point, studentssfron
in this county since the election. I want to thank  S


the Mayor of San
who are here, the;ecretary of State, the
)stly, I just want to,onderful to be back
n Patrick Henry High
It. I


677




May 17 / Administration of William J. Clinton
You know, I spent a lot of time here during
the campaign. I watched people build ships. I
listened to people who had lost their jobs. I
listened to people who were starting new companies. I listened to people who were prepared
to change but who did not understand why the
National Government would turn its back on
southern California, and on this State which carries with it so much of the hopes and dreams
of all of America and so much of the economic
future of our entire country.
When I went to Washington, I was determined never to forget the faces that I saw and
the stories that I heard and the lessons that
I learned. I want you to know that in the last
31/2 months we have made a real beginning toward turning this country around. And we are
going to stay until the job is done.
You heard Lynn talk about a little of it; you
heard Bob talk about a little of it. But let me
just repeat: for years and years and years we
just saw the Congress and the President fighting
against one another, decisions seemed not to
be made, the veto pen was used more often,
and people worked together. Seventeen days
after I took office, I signed the Family and
Medical Leave Act to guarantee that working
people could have some time off when there's
a sick parent or a sick child, without losing their
job.
For the first time in 17 years, the Congress
passed a resolution on time to set the framework
of the budget that we're now working on. And
what that means is that we cannot raise your
taxes unless we also cut spending, no tax increases without spending cuts to bring the deficit down.
And to all the young people in the audience,
we managed to win one for you, too, after years
and years of trying. Just a few days ago, the
United States Congress passed, and I am about
to sign, the motor voter bill, to open up the
voting rolls to millions of young people and
make it easier for people to register and vote.
But now we must focus on the hard part:
How can we do the things that we have to
do to turn this country around? How can we
open the economy up and give people who are
working hard and playing by the rules the
chance to have a good future? How can we
do these things? Here is what I think we have
to do. The first thing we have to do is to pass
a budget which does the right things with your
money. We have seen the debt of this country


go from $1 trillion to $4 trillion in 12 years.
And what did you get out of it? We saw a
decline in investment. We saw working people
work harder for lower wages. We saw taxes on
the middle class go up and taxes on the wealthy
go down. Everything was turned around in opposite directions from where we ought to be
going.
We are beginning to change that. This budget
contains over $250 billion of hard budget cuts.
This budget raises most of the money we raise
in taxes from people with incomes above
$100,000, over 74 percent of it. This budget
give a tax break to working families with incomes of under $30,000, to protect them from
the impact of the decisions we have to make.
And we have proposed to put all the taxes and
all the spending cuts into a legally separate trust
fund so the money cannot be spent to do anything but bring the debt down. It is time we
stopped talking about this and started doing
something about it.
And you know, when you hear people say
no, no, no," ask them where they were the
last 12 years. Most of the people who say that
we don't have a good plan are the very people
that drove this country in the ditch in the first
place. They took that debt from $1 trillion to
$4 trillion. Where were they?
But let me tell you some things you may
not know about this bill. When I came here,
I said that we had not only to reduce the deficit,
we had to provide more incentives for people
to invest to create jobs. So this tax bill also
gives real incentives to get the real estate markets going here again. It gives small business
people a $25,000-a-year expensing provision, 2~12
times greater than the present law, so that there
will be incentives for small business people to
reinvest in their businesses, and put people to
work. It gives a big incentive to larger companies located here and throughout the United
States to increase in more plants and equipment,
to modernize and create jobs, because they can
write it off more rapidly. This bill is pro-investment, not consumption. This is a bill designed
to create jobs, not take them away. I hope we
can pass it in the United States Congress.
And let me say this again: This bill provides
for tax relief for the working poor, so that when
this bill passes, every American will be able to
say with some pride, we're rewarding work and
not welfare in this country. Now if you work
40 hours a week and you've got a child in the


678




house, you won't be in poverty anymore. I think
that's something that's worth doing. It protects
families with incomes of under $30,000 from
the energy tax. And for families over $40,000
up to about $100,000, it minimizes the burdens
of about $10 to $15 a month. And I think it's
worth that to get our country back and get this
deficit down and reclaim our financial future.
We've got to put our house in order, folks. And
if we don't do it, we're going to be paying
for it from now on.
But let me tell you what else we are trying
to do. It- is not just enough to deal with the
budget. We have to do things that will create
jobs. This county knows, as well as any in America, that it was wrong to cut defense spending
as much as we did with no plan to reinvest
in a domestic economy. We have in this budget
over $1.7 billion this year and $20 billion in
the next 4 years to convert from a defense to
a domestic economy, to help it go-civilian jobs,
commercial jobs, to retrain people, to rebuild
communities, to get this country going again.
And we must do that.
I also recognize, and I'm sure many of you
do, that the financial health of this country will
never be assured until finally we join all the
other advanced countries with which we're competing and provide health care security with a
basic health care for all Americans at affordable
cost. And we are coming with a health care
plan to do just that. And I hope the American
people will support it.
Finally, let me say that California needs an
economic strategy that will be built from the
grassroots up but that will have a partner in
the White House. I have delegated to Secretary
of Commerce Ron Brown, the responsibility of
representing this administration in this State and
developing a coordinated economic policy for
the long-term health and welfare of the California economy. And we will not stop until we
have turned this State around and moved this
State forward.
We have made a beginning in this budget.
With all the budget cuts we've got, there is
more money in this budget for California and
the other States that are hit unfairly by the
burdens of large immigration problems and all
the costs that go into it. The Federal Government's going to pay more of our fair share in
California now and ask you to pay less. We're
going to invest more in environmental cleanup,


Administration of William J. Clinton / May 17
in the kind of water problems that you have
here. We're going to do our part, and we're
going to do it right. And most importantly of
all, we're going to continue to work on building
an economic base that will replace the prosperity you enjoyed in times of high defense spending when the cold war was at its height. It
is wrong to let the people who won the cold
war lose the peace afterward. It is wrong to
turn our backs on the State that moved this
country so much in the 1980's. It is wrong not
to have a strategy that will not work miracles
but that will make progress day in and day out,
month in and month out, year in and year out.
And I want you to know that we are going
to work our hearts out in Washington together
in order to move this State forward, and move
this country forward. And I want you to help
us do it. Will you do it?
Lynn Schenk said it better than I could, but
I want to reiterate it: The country went in one
direction for 12 years, and it was a popular
direction. The most popular thing in the world
to do, if you're in public life, is to cut people's
taxes and spend more money. But sooner or
later, your string runs out. Sooner or later, people look around and they say, "How did we
have a $4 trillion debt? How can we be spending over $300 million a year over and above
what we're taking in? How can we be working
harder for lower wages? Why are these other
countries able to invest and create jobs and
grow, and we don't have the money?" The reason is because we stopped thinking about the
future. We did what was popular in the short
run. We took the easy way and the shortcut,
and we are paying for it. But I'm telling you,
this country is still the strongest country in the
world economically, militarily, politically. The
fabric of our people, the strength of our families, the will of individuals to succeed is as
strong as it has ever been. All we have to do
now is to have the courage to face these problems forthrightly. Let's pass a budget that puts
our house in order. Let's invest in the education
of our people and the new technologies of the
future. Let's provide health care to our people.
Together we can do it. We need your help.
We need your support for people like Lynn
and Bob who care about the future and are
willing to make the tough decisions. Stay with
us and we can turn the country around and


679




May 17 / Administration of William J. Clinton


California around together.
Thank you, and God bless you all.


NOTE: The President spoke at 4:55 p.m. at the
North Island Naval Air Station.


Remarks at a Town Meeting in San Diego
May 17, 1993


Moderator. Mr. President, these are the people of San Diego. We've got a lot of people
out there watching right now that want to hear
what you're talking about, and we have a lot
of folks here in the studios who want to ask
you questions directly.
The President. May I say one word before
we start? First I want to thank all of you for
being here and to say I think this is probably
the second town meeting I've done like this
since I have been President, but I want to start
scheduling them on a more regular basis now.
I'd like just to take a couple of minutes by
way of opening statements.
Since I became your President, I have spent
most of my time working on two things, the
economy and the health care issue. We have
worked very hard to present a budget to the
Congress and the American people that would
do two things, that would decrease the Government's deficit, which is very large as all of you
know, and that would provide some targeted
money for increases in areas that are very much
needed here in southern California, in education
and training and new technology, primarily. We
also have developed a new policy on defense
conversion to try to help provide jobs in areas
hit by defense cutbacks, on making the most
of our technology in America, and trying to get
more jobs from technology. I presented a bill
to the Congress, as I pledged in the campaign,
to provide for a national service program to
open the doors of college education to all Americans. And we will soon present our health care
plan to control the cost of health care and provide basic health care to all Americans.
That has been the basic agenda. There are
lots of controversies in all these things, and I
know you'll ask the questions, but I hope we'll
get a chance to talk about what's in the budget
and how I proposed a deficit trust fund so that
we can't raise any taxes unless we also cut
spending. I think that's very important. But I
want to answer your questions and spend most


of the time talking about what you want to talk
about. I just wanted you to know what I've
been doing for the last 4 months.
Middle Class Tax Cut
Q. First, President Clinton, let me thank you
for giving the opportunity for common folks like
us to ask the President of the United States
a question in person. It's an honor and a privilege, thank you.
President Clinton, I believe that you were
elected largely on the basis of your promise
of a middle class tax cut. But for the last 90
days or so, we've seen both you and the Congress transforming that promised middle class
tax cut into an unprecedented round of more
taxes and new spending. Our county has been
in a deepening recession for the last 3 years.
There's no end in sight, and a malaise is beginning to set in our county, like the Carter era.
Please understand, Mr. President, San Diegans
just don't have any more money to contribute
to the coffers of Government. My question is,
can you name one country that has ever taxed
and spent itself back into prosperity? Thank you.
The President. The answer to your question
is, I can't. But you can't fairly characterize my
program as that. I have cut more spending than
my predecessor did. My budget calls for $250
billion-plus in spending cuts net. The first thing
I did was cut the White House staff by 25
percent, even though I've already received more
mail in 31/2 months than came to the White
House in all of 1992. If any of you have written
me and I haven't answered, that's why. [Laughter] I cut the administrative expenses of the
Federal Government 14 percent across-theboard. I froze Federal employee pay in the first
year and cut back their raises for 4 years. There
have been massive spending cuts in this budget.
So that's just a big myth that there hasn't been.
I also worked hard to pass a budget resolution
that would make it clear that we couldn't raise
any taxes unless we cut spending.
Now, let me address the middle class tax cut


680




specifically. Number one, after the election,
after the election, the previous administration
announced that the Government deficit was
going to be $50 billion a year bigger in 3 of
the next 4 years, a year, after the election.
Therefore, I concluded that I could not in good
conscience give anybody an across-the-board tax
cut in the first year of my Presidency. I still
think there should be an evening-up of the tax
burden.
Secondly, it became clear to me that the best
thing I could do for the middle class was to
bring interest rates down and to try to get control of our budget. So I proposed a plan of
budget cuts first and tax increases that are highly
progressive. And let me just mention a couple
of things that you may not know, having heard
the press about the tax program I presented
to the Congress. While it does raise about $250
billion over a 5-year period, it also provides significant relief to small business. Expensing provisions in the Tax Code, for example, are raised
from $10,000 to $25,000 a year. That will lower
a lot of people's tax bills. For people with incomes under $30,000, we increased the earnedincome tax credit so much that they will not
be affected by this tax increase in any way.
And over 70 percent of the money that will
be raised in this program will come from people
with incomes net above $100,000.
So it's a progressive program; the burden is
broadly spread. If we can bring the deficit down,
we'll keep interest rates down. I'd just remind
you folks that just since the election, when we
announced our intention to seriously reduce the
deficit, interest rates dropped dramatically. This
year, 74 percent of people under 35 in a bipartisan poll said they thought they had a pretty
good chance to buy their own home. Last year,
the figure was 47 percent. That's because the
interest rates are down. That will put another
$100 billion back in the economy.
Now, I've got 4 years. Give me 4 years to
try to deliver on the middle class tax cut. But
the first thing we need to do is drive the deficit
down with cuts and some prudent revenue increases. Most of the people paying the taxes
are people whose taxes were lowered while their
incomes increased in the 1980's. And I think
it's very important to get the budget back in
balance.
I will also tell you that all of our major competitors impose tax levies at higher rates than
we do, and they manage to grow rather briskly.


Administration of William J. Clinton / May 17
I don't like taxes. The State I ran, Arkansas,
in all the years I was Governor, kept taxes in
the bottom 5 of all of the States in the country
as a percentage of income. I was very proud
of that. I don't like this, but we've got to get
a hold of this deficit. It's going to kill us if
we don't.
Justice System
Q. Mr. President, it's been more than a year
since the first King verdict out of Simi Valley
and the riots that followed. Yet the perception
lingers that justice is still not being administered
evenhandedly in this country. I think that perception is especially strong where the victim or
the accused of a crime is a member of a minority group. And this is true in the administration
of justice from the streets to the courts. Sir,
what specific steps is your administration taking
to correct this terrible perception and this dismal reality? And I'd appreciate it if you would
include the importance of greater African-American Federal judges and more appointments
there, but not limit your response to that issue,
sir.
The President. I wouldn't limit it to that. I
think, first of all, you can look at the appointment decisions I made. The woman I appointed
Attorney General, Janet Reno, was the prosecutor in Dade County, Miami, one of the most
ethnically diverse and difficult counties to deal
with in the United States. I appointed her because I thought she would understand the importance of having all the communities in this
country, including the minority communities, believe in the justice of the justice system. She
and the other people we've appointed at the
Justice Department I think will change the
whole feeling about justice in this country. I
think they will vigorously enforce the civil rights
laws; I think they will move aggressively against
abuse of power.
The second thing we're trying to do is to
change the dynamics on the streets in a lot
of these communities with about three initiatives. Number one, we are determined to try
to put as close as we can to 100,000 more police
officers on the street in the next 4 years, sensitive to the community, working in the communities in community policing settings. That leads
to less police abuse and stronger relationships.
Number two, we intend to spend more money
in targeted ways to put our young people back
to work and to educate them at the same time,


681




May 17 / Administration of William J. Clinton
not make-work jobs but really building opportunities. Number three, the empowerment proposal that I have recommended will dramatically
increase the incentives that people in the minority and majority communities have to invest in
these communities so that they can be brought
back into the mainstream. All these things will
change the way justice operates at the grassroots
level, I believe.
Q. What about more judges?
The President. Well, I'm going to do that.
I mean, I think that you've got to appoint judges
and U.S. Attorneys that fairly reflect the diversity of America and meet a very high standard
of excellence. And I don't think you have to
sacrifice one to get the other.
Immigration
Q. I'm a taxpayer. My question is, why are
my taxes going to subsidize the health care and
the education of illegal immigrants while our
own citizens are doing without?
The President. That's a good question. I think
there are two answers to that. One, frankly, is
a practical one, and that is that the United
States does not have the means at the present
time to enforce its own immigration laws. And
one of the things that I've asked the Attorney
General to do is to conduct a nationwide search
for the best person to head the Immigration
and Naturalization Service, who can really make
some changes there and then try to get more
border patrol and more ability to enforce the
immigration laws. One of the things that was
in the jobs package that I proposed-the emergency jobs package that was voted down by the
filibuster in the Senate-was money for several
hundred more border patrol officers here in
California. So we have to deal with that.
The second reason is that the United States
Government sets immigration policy but for as
long as I can remember has left it up to the
States to bear the burden of the immigration
costs, or the localities, so that California, Texas,
and Florida and, to a slightly lesser extent, New
York pay huge bills for national decisions. So
in spite of all the budgetary problems we have
in this budget, we have recommended several
hundred million more dollars to come into the
State of California so that your local tax dollars
will be freed up for education and for the other
needs of the people in California.
It is not fair the way you've been done by
the National Government. And given our finan

cial difficulties, we're doing as much as we can
to change that. I've got to give a plug to a
Californian, Leon Panetta, who's now the head
of the Office of Management and Budget. He
helped us to redraw the laws so that more of
this money for medical care and other healthrelated and welfare-related costs of immigrants
could be borne by the National Government,
because it's the national policy. And so your
tax dollars here can be freed up for urgent California needs for your own folks.
Welfare Reform
Q. I'm really frustrated with the welfare system. Right now, I'm a single parent, and I just
moved into an apartment. Since I moved into
the apartment, my benefits have been cut, and
I figured I'd try to make a better life for my
child and myself, so I started to go to school.
Since I've been going to school, I can't get any
child care benefits. And the question that I want
to ask you: What changes are you willing to
make within that welfare system so that people
such as myself can make a better life for their
child and themselves?
The President. First of all, I'm glad you want
to do that. And secondly, I'm glad you're here
so that other people who may never have met
anybody drawing a welfare check understand
that most people on welfare would like to get
off.
I've spent an enormous amount of time in
the last 6 or 7 years working on this, and I'll
bet I have had more personal conversations with
people on welfare than any other public official
in America. Here's what I think should be done.
And you may not agree with all of it, but let
me say to you and to everyone here, you just
said something that's very important. Most people on welfare do not stay because of the welfare check. They stay because the cost of child
care or the cost of medical coverage for their
children makes taking a job prohibitive. Because
if you don't have a lot of education and you
take a low-wage job and no benefits, what you
give up is not the check, you give up the child
care, because you've got to pay for that, and
you give up the health insurance you get out
of the Medicaid program. So what I propose
to do is the following: I want to change the
welfare system so that in any State in America,
anybody who is on welfare has to go through
an education and training program, then has
to take a job, if offered, but gets child care


682




and medical coverage when they do it. And furthermore, I want to make sure work always pays.
So to go back to your question, one of the
things we propose to do in this tax bill is to
say, for everybody, families with an income of
under $30,000, that you get an increase in
what's called the earned-income tax credit. And
if you're a working poor person, if you work
40 hours a week and you've got children in
your house, you would be lifted above the poverty line, so there would never be an incentive
not to work.
Now, the flipside of that is if after 2 years
on welfare and going through the education program you don't have a job, then everybody
under my plan would be required to go to work,
either in a private sector job or a public sector
job, in order to continue to draw the check.
So we would end it, welfare as we know it,
but we would give you the tools to succeed
in the private sector. The tax system would support it, the child care system would support
it, the health care system would support it. If
we did that, you'd see a dramatic drop in the
number of people on welfare and on food
stamps. One in 10 Americans is on food stamps
today. That is awful. And a lot of them are
working people. So what we need to do is stop
penalizing work. We need to reward work, and
we need to reward responsible parenting. And
I think that these changes will do that.
That bill will be coming up. I'll be introducing
that into the Congress sometime in the next
few months as we try to work through all the
details. But changing the welfare system could
do more to strengthen family and work values
in this country than just about anything else
we could do.
Defense Cutbacks
Moderator. This is a retired Marine Corps
general.
Q. Nice to see you.
The President. You should have been with
me last week. I was out at the Marine Barracks
for the parade.
Q. My son told me.
The President. It was wonderful.
Q. Sir, we're pretty much a service area here,
and we're mindful that the United States is famous for building up its military in time of
crisis and then dismantling it as soon as the
crisis is over, with the result that the next crisis
brings a lot of terrible white crosses. And it


Administration of William J. Clinton / May 17
looks like we're doing that now. I hope that's
not true, but it looks like we're doing it. My
question is, how do your professional military,
your Joint Chiefs of Staff, feel in the light of,
first, the crisis that we face and the immense
build-down that we're going through now?
The President. Well, let me tell you that I
have spent a lot of time with the Joint Chiefs
of Staff since becoming President. I've had to,
because of the work we've done not only with
the defense budget but the crisis in Bosnia, the
moving out of our commitment in Somaliawhich was a real success-and a lot of other
issues. I think it's fair to say that most of them
have mixed feelings. They know that we have
to reduce defense. They know that we don't
need a 2-million or a 3-million-person Armed
Forces, but they know there's a limit beyond
which we should not go. And I can tell you
that in my own mind, I'm very apprehensive
about going below where these plans take us.
I don't think we should go below about a 1.4 -million-person armed services. That will still enable us to have a vibrant and diverse service
in all of the service branches to keep them
going.
I think there are some weapon systems that
we still need to continue to develop. We need
more air and sealift capacity, for example, and
we will have to do that. And I am very concerned, frankly, that we keep up a vibrant Reserve and Guard component so that if we have
to bring people back in in a hurry, we can.
But the general feeling is that we're right on
the brink of what we can do, and we shouldn't
go any further than this budget takes us. And
in the foreseeable future, we should really be
very reluctant to go much further, unless it is
in dropping a particular weapon system that we
think we shouldn't have. But we don't need
to reduce the uniformed forces, I don't believe,
any faster or any lower than this 5-year budget
plan, that the Congress is voting on, proposes
to do.
A lot of people don't understand this, but
the defense budget, which exploded in the
eighties, has been going down for about 5 years
now. And the reason the deficit keeps getting
bigger is that even though defense is going
down and we're not spending much new money
on other things, you've had an explosion in
health care costs, in costs associated with the
bottom dropping out of the economy, I mentioned food stamps and interest on the debt.


683




May 17 / Administration of William J. Clinton
But there is a limit to how much you can cut
defense responsibly.
This country's still the world's only superpower. There are a lot of things only the United
States can do. Even our allies in Europe, even
the wealthier countries simply cannot do a lot
of the things that we might be called upon as
a free world to do, not the United States on
its own. So I'm glad you asked the question.
And we're watching it closely, and I promise
you I will watch it every year when I'm there.
jobs and Training for Youth
Moderator. Mr. President, of course, in all
the major cities, San Diego being no exception,
crime probably ranks second to the economy
right now, and the gang problem specifically.
We have with us right now Ariel Zuniga who
in San Diego is a gang member.
9. Mr. President, I live in a gang community,
and a lot of gang members want to get out
of the gangs, but there's nowhere to go, there's
nothing we can do. One big thing that could
change a lot of gang members' minds is jobs.
If you give us jobs, that will open our minds
to live better. Now, that's one way. Do you
have any other suggestions for gang intervention
or to help gang members go somewhere when
they want to get out of the lifestyle?
The President. I'm just glad to hear you say
a lot of people want to get out. My own belief
is that we do need more jobs and that we do
need jobs tied to continuing education and training. And if possible, we need jobs like a lot
of the work done by the Los Angeles Conservation Corps, just to mention one example, where
people, particularly people who are street-smart,
who have been in gangs, can work in community
projects with others so that they become accepted by their community, and they become a part
of a different kind of gang, if you will. You
know, all of us want to be in gangs. We just
need to be in positive gangs, good gangs. We
want to be part of something bigger than ourselves.
One of the things that I asked for in this
emergency jobs package, which was stopped by
the minority in the Senate, was enough money
for another 900,000 summer jobs, tied for the
first time ever, tied to real training programs
so that there would be education along with
the jobs and tied to an effort to get the private
sector into the program so they could match
the jobs one for one so that when the summer


was over, all the young people in the gangs,
let's say, who had summer jobs would have relationships with people in the private sector who
could help to continue to work with them.
I still think these are the best things to do.
And I'm going to come back and try to get
some more funds for summer jobs, coupled with
education. And then we're going to keep working with people all across the country to try
to figure out how to create more jobs. I have
presented to the Congress a program which
doesn't spend a lot of Government money, but
which gives real, meaningful incentives to people
like the businessman, who was the first person
who spoke, and others, whether big or small,
to invest in areas to create jobs and then hire
people like you and your colleagues. We'll give
them big jobs tax credits for hiring you. We'll
give them other tax incentives for trying to create economic opportunity.
A lot of these places would not have as many
gangs if there were more people who could get
up every day and go make a living. And this
is a great resource. There are a lot of people
out there who have money in these distressed
communities, but people wonder whether the
streets are safe enough or whether you can really make a return on your investment. So this
empowerment zone concept is designed to make
sure that there's enough tax incentive in there
to give people at least the nudge they need
to try to get a return on their investment. And
we'll keep working on it.
I also think, frankly, it's not popular to say,
but every country in the world now with an
advanced economy, except Japan, which is more
closed than we are-but if you look at Germany,
if you look at Great Britain, if you look at
France, you look at all the wealthy countries,
they all have high unemployment rates. They're
all higher than America's except for West Germany. And we have so many young people that
we're going to have to use a Government-private
partnership to put people back to work.
You just think about it. I mean, I'm glad
you came here. If everybody in this State who
wanted a job had one, you'd have about half
the problems you have, wouldn't you? But I
do think it's important not that you just be given
jobs when you're young, but also that we do
an honest assessment of everyone's skill level
and give them the education and training they
need, because the average young person's going
to have to change jobs seven or eight times


684




in a lifetime. So it's not just important that
you have work but that you be able to get other
work. We're going to have to retrain a lot of
these defense workers. A lot of them are 50,
55 years old. So that's important, too. It's not
just work, but it's education and training.
Q. [Inaudible]-summer jobs aren't good
enoughThe President. Because they're over, right?
Moderator. You have a more permanent-is
that what you're saying?
Q. Yes.
The President. Absolutely, that's what I'm saying. But what we've tried to do with this summer jobs program, let me explain again, is to
try to make sure we brought the business community into the program more, so it wasn't just
a bunch of Government jobs, and try to make
sure we had a good educational component.
And the other thing I want to say to you
is that if the national service plan I propose
to Congress passes, then all the young people
in your neighborhood will be able to earn credit
to go to college or a 2-year training program
by working in your community. And if you
choose, you can borrow all the money you need
to go to college and then not have to pay it
back until you actually go to work and then
at a small percentage of your income, something
that we've never done in this country before.
So I'll also be able to go in those neighborhoods
and say, look, even if you can't get a job in
this neighborhood, you can go to college. You
can borrow the money to live on and to pay
your expenses, and you don't have to pay it
back until you go to work. And here's a system
that you'll always be able to afford to pay it
back. That has also never been the case. A lot
of people in this country think they'll never go
to college. And even if they go, the dropout
rate's more than twice the dropout rate from
high school because of the cost. But I don't
think there are any easy answers. I think it's
work and education. I don't think there's any
simple shortcut.
Defense Conversion
Moderator. Mr. President, you mentioned
laid-off defense workers. Well, coincidentally, we
just happen to have a couple, both of whom
are laid-off defense workers.
Q. Before I ask my question, I would like
to say, it's a pleasure to be in the same room
with the President.


Administration of William J. Clinton / May 17
The President. Thank you. I work for you.
It's a pleasure for me to be in the room with
you.
Q. We've heard of the conversion plan. What
is the conversion plan, and how is it supposed
to help those of us who are employed? And
what is it supposed to convert us into except
jobless, homeless, and hungry?
The President. That's a good question. First
of all, let me make one thing clear right away,
because I owe it to the people of California
who had been harder hit by the defense cuts
than anyone else-the Marine general, the retired general that was talking about cutbacks.
California's been hit hard in two ways: first,
by base closing but even harder by cutbacks
in contracts so that people who work for defense
companies lost their jobs, a lot of our highwage base manufacturing, and that's you guys.
One of the problems that we have in California is that when we started cutting defense as
a nation back in '87, there should have been
in place right then a conversion program so
that you wouldn't have to wander around for
2 or 3 years out of work with no real strategy.
So there is a catchup here to be done. I'm
having to play catchup because we're starting
in 1993 something that should have been started
in 1987.
Now having said that, defense conversion normally means three things, and I'll tell you what
we're doing and what I hope to get out of
it. Number one, in some cases industries themselves can convert. That is, the employers can
find new things to do to keep either all or
part of their work force working. The second
thing it means is communities converting. That
is, communities can figure out how they're going
to recruit or start or finance new economic activities which will hire the people who were
laid off at the old place. Number three, it means
total retraining for workers. I know in my State
where an airbase closed and we lost tons of
jobs, sometimes people retrained and went to
work in the local steel mill or started their own
small businesses or started something entirely
different.
So when you hear defense conversion, it
means three things, not one thing. It means:
Can the company do something different and
keep you working? If they can't, can the community find a way to start new businesses? And
regardless, is there some retraining program that
would put you back into the work force fairly


685




May 17 / Administration of William J. Clinton
quickly at more or less the same income you
were making before? Those are the three things.
We have released this year alone $500 million
in a technology initiative designed to try to really
focus on creating jobs for people on the theory
that if the jobs are there, people figure out
how to get trained. That's what our focus is.
This year we're going to try to spend about
$1.7 billion in all three kinds of activities. But
California should benefit primarily from the
technology focus. There's been a lag time; I
admit it. We waited 6 years too late as a Nation
to do this. But I think you're going to see an
enormous number of jobs created in this State
in the next 4 or 5 years in new uses of technology. I mean, right here in San Diego, there
is a consortium trying to figure out, for example,
how to use old defense technology to build
bridges that won't break in an earthquake. If
they could do that, you could go through and
rebuild or support bridges, create tens of thousands of jobs, not just people working on the
bridges but in all the plants making all the materials and designing and everything. That's just
one tiny example. There are an unlimited number of things like that, if we will get at it.
So that's what we're trying to do.
Economic Redevelopment Strategies
Q. My question is a little bit different. What
is available as help for those of us that have
been forced into the processes of bankruptcy
and foreclosures to stop these proceedings
against us and to help us maintain our credibility
until we are able to obtain gainful employment?
The President. Well, it's interesting because
the bankruptcy laws were, in a way, reformed
to make it easier for people to file bankruptcy
so they wouldn't lose everything. But the practical matter is if you were basically a wage earner in a factory, it doesn't work that way, as
you know. So I'm afraid the answer is right
now there isn't anything available. But those are
the kind of things we're trying to put in place.
That is, we believe that local community
groups-and I know you've got somebody working in San Diego on this-that every community
that's had a significant displacement because of
defense cutbacks should have a community strategy for redevelopment. And among that should
be that if you're getting job training and if
there's a real effort to create new economic
opportunities, then we think at the local level
people should be working on creditors to exer

cise forbearance to try to keep from having people losing their homes and things of that kind.
And I believe a lot of that could be negotiated
at the local level if people think things are happening.
One of the reasons a lot of people like you
are suffering so badly is that people don't sense
that they're part of the big plan to turn this
whole thing around. So they just treat case by
case. And let me say, in an attempt to accelerate
that, I've asked the Secretary of Commerce, Ron
Brown, basically to head up a team with five
or six other Cabinet Departments just to focus
on California, because I think if we can turn
California around, we can turn the country
around. California has 12 percent of the country's population, 21 percent of the defense
spending. That will tell you why you boomed
in the eighties and why you're getting the shaft
in the nineties. Okay, so we're working on things
just like that. And if you've got any specific
ideas about what we ought to do, maybe you
can give them to me after the show. But my
thought is that that has to be handled community by community. And what we're going to
try to do is make sure every community has
a committee that could work with people like
you as long as we're moving forward.
Shipbuilding Subsidies
Q. My question kind of relates to the defense
cutbacks from a different angle. During that past
10 years, 50 percent of American shipyards have
gone away, basically disappeared because of the
foreign countries that subsidize their shipyards
with billions of dollars. Do you plan in the next
10 years or during your term to allow the remaining shipyards to completely disappear? Are
we going to startThe President. The answer to your question
is, I'm going to do what I can to avoid that.
It's difficult, with a big Government deficit like
we have, to start a subsidy program. But there's
no question-if you go back and look at the
history of what happened in the eighties-and
this is the same thing to me with farmers or
anything else-we unilaterally, that is, all by ourselves without asking anybody else to do anything, cut our shipbuilding subsidy. Our major
competitors either kept them the same or increased them. So what do you think the result
was? I mean, predictably, if the government by
artificial means in another country lowers the
cost of production and people are going to buy


686




the least expensive ship, America got the shaft.
One of the things that we are doing at the
present time is, by the way, reviewing our whole
posture on all these shipping issues and especially in connection with California. As you
probably know, I was out at the NASSCO yard
during the campaign. They turned the whole
place out for me-it was wonderful-just because of some specific issues they were interested in that I had taken a position on.
On the question of the subsidy, I think there
are two issues here, two possibilities: We can
either have some sort of tax incentive for those
companies, or in the alternative, we can put
the subsidies for shippers on the table when
we negotiate with the Japanese, with the other
shipbuilders in the other countries. It can be
a big issue. You know, I've been criticized for
saying I wanted to bargain more toughly with
some of our trading partners, but a lot of these
folks are doing as well or better than we are
now in some of these areas, and I think we
have to be pretty firm. We don't have to fall
out with the Japanese in the whole range of
areas where we share the same values, we have
security interests. I admire them and care a
lot about them. But I think we have to have
tough bargaining on the trade issues with all
these countries. So we are trying to decide what
the best way to go is. But the answer to your
question is, I'll be sick 10 years from now if
we're not making any ships in America.
Small Business Loans
Q. Mr. President, availability of funds for minority small businesses through SBA loans and
commercial banks is generally agonizing, then
followed by defeat. What my question is, is what
can you do to change this or to correct this
so that we can acquire loans in the future?
The President. I can tell you what we're trying
to do. And first, let me say this is a big issue
for small business, generally. There has been
a credit crunch in California and in New England and in Florida and a lot of other places
in the country, but heavily concentrated, which
means that small business people, especially
people who aren't traditionally good sources of
credit or haven't gotten a lot of credit in the
past, had real trouble, and that's a nationwide
thing.
So we try to basically do three things. Number one, we've got all the financial Agencies,
the Treasury Department, Comptroller of the


Administration of William J. Clinton / May 17
Currency, all those folks together, and we came
up with a plan to reduce the credit crunch,
to simplify the ability of banks to make character
loans to people that look like they'd be good
risks. And we're trying to make sure every bank
in America understands that there are new rules
that they can follow to exercise good sense in
doing that.
Number two, I appointed, the first time in
a good while, a person to head the Small Business Administration whose job in life before he
became head of the Small Business Administration was to start small businesses. That's what
he did, he went out and raised money for people who wanted to start small businesses. It was
not a political appointment; he was a serious
business person. And we are trying now to make
the Small Business Administration a real job creator. We have slashed the rules and regulations;
it's going to be a lot simpler to apply for loans.
It's going to be very different.
The third thing we have to do, and this will
affect minority business people especially, I
think is to create a national network of community development banks, either within existing
banks or separate institutions, that are set up
to make loans to people who traditionally have
not gotten them but are good risks, modeled
on a bank in Chicago called the South Shore
Development Bank. And I set up one in rural
Arkansas, too. And they made loans to minorities, to women, to low-income people, people
who had a good reputation, who had a good
product or service, who seemed like a good risk.
And they have been quite successful in bringing
free enterprise to places where they haven't
been.
So, community development banks, a different
Small Business Administration, ending the credit
crunch, those are the things we're trying to do.
I hope it works. Write me in a year and tell
me if it is.
POW/MIA's
Q. Mr. President, this is my brother, Colonel
Charles Sharpe. He was captured in North Vietnam October 1st, 1965, and I have very good
reason he is still alive today. Mr. President, you
promised a clean sweep when you became President. The POW families have been stonewalled
for more than 20 years by the same people
in power. The gridlock continues. And at the
same time, the Vietnamese Government, the
policy of the Vietnamese Government, "we can


687




May 17 / Administration of William J. Clinton
keep you forever," continues. But it could end
with the removal of the old guard and replacement of a new guard. My question, Mr. President, will you extend this same clean sweep
as promised to our POW's, change in the
gridlock? And why haven't you signed an Executive order releasing information to the families
so the truth can finally be told and to pave
the way for the return of our alive prisoners?
The President. Well, I think we have made
public a lot of information. And I will go back
and check and see what the status of that is.
Let me say, first of all, if you have any information about your brother you want to give me,
I will do my best to run it down.
Q. I would be happy to, sir.
The President. Secondly, let me say that I
have sent or supported a number of Vietnam
veterans going over to Vietnam in the last several weeks to try to get more and more information. For the first time, when General Vessey
was over there the last time, just a few weeks
ago, we actually got a list. They gave us their
list, which appears to be a very authentic list
of every POW and MIA that they knew and
what happened to them, with a lot of information that they had never even revealed that they
had before. So I think they are moving forward.
Our big stick now is they want to make money,
they want to do business with us. And the United States, unlike a lot of other countriesFrance, which colonized Vietnam and in a way
got us into it, is over there doing business with
them. The United States has no intention of
doing that, at least I don't, until we have a
full accounting of the POW's and MIA's.
So I do believe we're making progress. We
have more information by far, just in the last
few months, than we've ever had before. We
are trying to run down all these cases. All I
can tell you is, I'm going to do the very best
I can to run down every case and to make
sure that no family is denied access to reasonable information. And I'll follow up on that last
question you made. But if you'll give me whatever information you have, I'll have it run down.
We have people going over there all the time
now and digging around. And we're doing our
best. And they've finally begun to open some
files to us that have never before been opened.
Q. Because the right questions have not been
asked in the past.
The President. You tell me what questions
you want asked, and I'll get them asked.


Q. If you would give the opportunity and
promise to go into detail-I've been in this for
27 years with my brother, worked with both
Governments and the families and the American
Legion and all the friends-if you would take
some of our suggestions. Thank you.
Moderator. Mr. President, we've got a very
bright young San Diegan who has a question
for you.
The President. You've got a nice tie, too.
Moderator. Yes. I think that it rivals the President's tie tonight, don't you think so? He's a
sixth grader here in San Diego.
Prospects for the Future
Q. Hello, President Clinton. My question is,
my birthday is tomorrow and I'm 12 years old
tomorrow, and my question is, what kind of
future am I going to have in store for me and
the country?
The President. That's a neat question, isn't
it? I think you've got a very bright future. The
world you will live in will be freer of the threat
of total destruction than any world we've ever
known. It will be smaller, in the sense it will
be in closer touch more quickly with people
around the world of all different races and ethnic groups and economic systems. The volume
of knowledge will double more quickly. And you
will know more and do more with technology
than any group of Americans or any group of
people ever have. So if you get a good education, by the time you're grown, we will have
worked through a lot of the terrible problems
we're facing now. And I think you will be part
of a new burst of American prosperity, if we
fix the problems the country has now.
But our job, my generation's job, is not to
leave you saddled with a huge debt, no investment in your future, and an economy that
doesn't work and a society that's coming apart,
where there's too much crime, too much division, too much violence. If we can simply face
our problems today and deal with them like
grownups, be honest about them-it's okay to
differ, it's okay if we differ about how we should
do things, but if we just work on our problems,
I think you're going to have a great future. I
believe that by the time you get out of high
school, that America will really be on the move
again and things will be looking great and you'll
feel great about your future. That's why I ran
for President, to make sure that happens. I'm
going to be really disappointed if it doesn't.


688






Moderator. What kind of a tax rate might
he expect to see when he grows older?
The President. I think about what it is now,
maybe even a little less, depending. You know,
one of the things that we don't know, that we're
looking at now, and I meant to go back to
the first question you asked, we've got a second
round of budgetary changes that I think could
come along about September when the Vice
President finishes this review I've asked him
to undertake about the way Government operates and whether we should just stop doing
some of the things we're doing and change the
whole way the Government operates. I think
that it is conceivable by the time he becomes
a taxpayer that technology will render a lot of
governmental functions totally irrelevant. And I
think that the cost of Government might actually
go down.
Now, the cost of health care will be there,
the cost of Social Security will be there, and
the need to continue to invest in new technologies will be even greater, and the need to
educate people will be greater. But a lot of
the things that we think of as Government bureaucracy, if this thing is properly managed,
could be handled with computers and cards and
a lot of the hassle that you think of as Government, everything from waiting for your driver's
license to applying for a loan, to dealing with
the farm programs, could just be obliterated,
if we manage the thing right and get the technology right.
Indian Gambling Rights
Q. Mr. President, the Governor's opposition
to the Indian gaming act is full of misinformation. As a former Governor, Mr. President, we
know you've heard their side of the issue. Would
you be willing, in the next 60 days, to meet
with a select group of tribal leaders for a briefing on the matter as it relates to economic impact, jobs, and Native American sovereignty?
The President. Oh yes, I would do that. I
have a little different approach to this, and I
don't want to take a lot of the program on
it because I intended to do that, but I have
a little different approach and a little different
perspective, I think, than either the Indian
tribes or the Governors. The Governors are worried-you all probably don't know what we're
talking about. Basically, the Indians who live
on Indian lands have been able for many years
to have some kind of gambling, like bingo par

Administration of William J. Clinton / May 17
lors. A Federal magistrate ruled several months
ago that if any kind of gaming could occur on
Indian lands, then all kinds of gaming could,
basically, right? So that means that, essentially,
if they so chose, that any Indian land could
become Las Vegas, could do any kind of gambling. So the Governors are all real nervous
about that, partly because they think that they'll
have to turn their States into Nevada because
the pressure to give the gambling rights to everybody else will get so great, and that the
whole thing will get out of hand. So they argue
for restrictions which would enable the States
to restrict the range of gaming. The Native
American tribes don't want that; they want to
have this maximum amount of flexibility.
I have a different perspective. I'll just give
it to you, but I intend to meet with tribal leaders; I welcome that. I grew up in a town with
the largest illegal gambling operation in America
when I was a kid. Hot Springs, Arkansas, had
the biggest gambling operation except for Las
Vegas anywhere in the country. A young man,
the age of that fellow that just asked me the
question, could walk in any restaurant and put
a nickel in a slot machine. There were open
casinos. What my belief is, is that it is a lousy
basis for an economy, past a certain point. The
Indian reservations have been kept dependent
for too long, have suffered from the patronizing
attitude of the Federal Government, have never
been empowered to seize control of their own
destiny. And I do not blame the tribes for wanting the maximum possible flexibility on gambling. But what I'd like to see is a whole range
of different initiatives so we can have real longterm economic prosperity, because there is a
limit to how much gambling the country can
absorb. There's a limit to how many Las Vegases
can be successful. So we need to talk about
it, and I would be happy to see some tribal
leaders about it.
Health Care Reform
Q. The finest medicine in the world is practiced in the United States. Eighty-five percent
of our population has access to this medical
care, either through private insurance, Medicare,
or Medicaid. And most of these are very happy
with their physician, with the way he works up
their problem, and with the outcome of their
situation. Fifteen percent of our population, of
course, is outside this mainstream. My question
to you is, really, how do you want to get that


689




May 17 / Administration of William J. Clinton
15 percent into the mainstream, how do you
plan to finance it, and what's the way it could
be done with minimal perturbations in our current system?
The President. Well, let me first of all say
what you already know, which is that the Health
Care Task Force that my wife is chairing is,
at the moment, trying to finalize their recommendations so they can then take it to the
doctors, to the hospitals, the nurses, to the business community, to the labor community, everybody, and try to let them evaluate it and then
bring it back to me so I can introduce it in
the Congress.
I would like to just reshape what you said
just a little bit. I agree we have the finest medicine in the world for people who can access
it. I agree that we ought to keep a system where
people can have some real choice of their doctors, particularly their primary providers whom
they know. I agree that we need to keep medical care in private hands. I think that's all very
important. It's a little more complicated than
that just 15 percent have no health insurance.
About 100,000 Americans a month lose their
health insurance and either fall into the category
of uncompensated care or onto the Government's Medicare and Medicaid rolls. We also
have medical inflation rates at far higher than
the world average, and we spend a third more
of our income on health care than any other
country, even though we don't insure some of
our people.
So what I think we need to do is to find
ways to reorganize the insurance market so that
you can't lose your health insurance if you've
had somebody in your family sick and you've
got a preexisting condition and you have to
change jobs. I think that employers should bear
some responsibility for their employees, but I
think employees should pay some of their own
health care costs, too, because if they don't,
there's a tendency to overuse the system, which
I'm sure you've seen. It's very important to point
out that everybody gets, I'm sure you would
acknowledge, everybody gets health care in this
country, but it's too late, too expensive, and
often at the emergency room. And if the employers who don't do anything for their employees say, well, they shouldn't have to, the truth
is that those who do are paying the bill, as
you know. Employers who provide health insurance are paying not only for their employees
but everybody else, too. And their cost goes


up. So what I want to do is to see a system
where we phase in the requirements on employers who don't cover their employees in very
reasonable way, where the Government basically
provides for the nonemployed uninsured and
where we have insurance reforms that will simplify billing and regulation and dramatically reduce your paperwork burden. The average doctor-let me just say another thing-a lot of people complain to me and say, "Well, these doctor
fees are going up so fast." You need to know
that in 1980-let me just say this, this is real
important-in 1980, the average doctor took
home 75 percent of all the income that he or
she generated into a clinic. In 1992, that figure
is down to 52 percent. Twenty-three cents on
the dollar gone, mostly to bureaucracy and paperwork and regulation and insurance costs,
right?
Q. Right.
The President. So, what I think we have to
do is to reorganize the system so it's much more
simple from an administrative point of view and
so we all take some responsibility for our own
health care, including all the employers. But
we have to be very sensitive to the small business sector and phase that in. That's basically
where we're going with it.
Multilingual Education
Q. Hello. I'm a teacher of English to students
who speak another language, and I have observed that those students that do well are those
students who feel good about their native language, about being bilingual. I therefore believe
that teachers as professionals, as role models,
need to be required to have at least a conversational ability in a second language. I'd like you
to respond to that.
The President. I think it would be a good
thing if all teachers did, but it would take a
good deal of time to get that done with the
present American teacher corps. And my own
view is that that decision should be made at
the State level, not nationally. I think the National Government should facilitate and support
the development of multilingualism among our
teachers. But since over 90 percent of the
money is raised for education at the State and
local level, I think if there's going to be a regulation about it, it ought to be done at the State
or local level. I think the United States should
support more language instruction, and I have
vigorously done that in my State. We tripled


690






the number of kids in foreign language courses
in my State because of the standards we adopted. And I agree it would help if more teachers
did it. But I have to tell you, I don't think
the National Government should mandate it.
Q. I like your diverse tie.
The President. Thanks. This is the Save the
Children tie. I just got it last week. A 12-yearold student designed it.
Endangered Species and the Economy
Q. Mr. President, the economy of San Diego
is probably the hardest hit in the country. Our
construction industry has an unemployment of
about 40, 50 percent, yet the Federal Endangered Species Act has put about 200,000 acres
on hold. That could impact about 150,000 jobs,
billions of dollars to the economy. And within
the last month, three projects were stopped because someone saw or thought they saw a bird,
a gnatcatcher, fly through the project area. That
eliminated about 200 jobs on the spot and millions of dollars to the economy here in San
Diego. What will you do to give us a better
balance?
The President. Well, you know, just north of
here, I thought the Secretary of the Interior
had made an agreement that allowed construction to go forward there. And so what I think
we have to do-I'm glad you told me this because I didn't realize there were any issues continuing down here about that. One of the reasons I asked Bruce Babbitt to be Secretary of
the Interior is that he'd been a Governor, he
had practical sense, he'd been in business, his
family had been, and he believed in the environment. But he had common sense about it. And
I thought the deal that he hammered out on
the gnatcatcher up north, north of here, would
have general application and would stop this
kind of problem. I didn't know about it. All
I can tell you is I'll get on it.
Q. Thank you very much.
The President. I think a lot of these problems-let me say one other thing. I think as
long as we have a big and complex society,
you can't make all of the problems go away
on the front end. But one of the things that
I'm trying to do at the White House and one
of the reasons I asked perhaps my oldest friend
to be my Chief of Staff, a man who made his
whole career in business, building new businesses and starting things, is to try to make
sure that the White House could maybe be a


Administration of William J. Clinton / May 17
place that could break some of these bureaucratic logjams and change things. And I tried
to appoint a Cabinet full of really practical people who could solve these kind of problems.
You've told me something I didn't know. I'll
go to work on it. And if you'll give me a card
or something before you leave tonight, we'll get
back in touch with you next week.
Immigration
Moderator. Mr. President, we've only got
about 3 minutes left. I'd ask you one quick
question on my behalf here, something that
hasn't been touched on this evening. Our border
here with Mexico has become somewhat of a
sieve lately. We even have Chinese immigrants
trying to get across our border. To what extent
do you favor closing off that border, or do you
favor it?
The President. I think that the immigration
laws, we have to try to enforce them. And let
me say, to go back to this lady's questionand if you're going to have laws that you don't
even try to enforce, you don't have the resources
to enforce, then you shouldn't expect the State
to pick up the tab. So even though we're broke
and in trouble, I did, as I said earlier, try to
get the Federal Government to pick up more
of the tab for California this coming year than
we did before.
But my own view is that there have to be
some limitations on immigration and that once
those limitations are concluded, once we agree
as a society on whatever they are, then we ought
to try to enforce the law, knowing that it's hard
to do. And I say that as a person who basically
believes America has been greatly strengthened
by its immigrants. Almost everybody in this
room, except for the Native Americans, were
once immigrants. And even most of them had
forebears tens of thousands of years ago that
came from someplace else, when the land was
connected someplace else. So I am basically in
favor of a vibrant, diverse immigrant population,
but there are limits to what we can afford to
do. And once we accept that, then I think we
ought to try to enforce the law.
I thought you were going to ask me about
the problems with the sewage treatment in Tijuana. I'm also going to try to deal with that.
San Diego got the shaft on that in the Congress
last year. I'll try to see if I can't fix that this
year.


691




May 17 / Administration of William J. Clinton
Tijuana Sewage Treatment
Moderator. Real quickly, any suggestions?
The President. On what?
Moderator. On how to fix that.
The President. I just think-it's not that much
money, it's about $3 million a year. And we'll
just see if we can't, when that particular appropriation comes up, we'll see if we can help on
that. I think we should do that. Again, that's
something that's not your fault.
Moderator. Mr. President, we're down to one
minute, unfortunately.
NAFTA
Q. The question is, with the NAFTA agreement, will you mandate that when a person loses
their job as a result of this agreement which
our Government entered into, that they would
be guaranteed any new job that is created?
The President. I don't think I could do that,
but what I think I can do is to identify areas


which are likely to be hurt and do more to
direct Government investment there and other
incentives to hire people back. And I would
certainly do that. But I have to tell you, I think
California will gain a lot more jobs than you'll
lose if we have the right kind of trade agreement. Mexico is now our second biggest purchaser of manufactured products. California
wins big on that. I think we will win more
than we lose. But some will lose, and we need
to have offsetting investments. I agree with that.
Thank you.
Moderator. Thank you very much, Mr. President. The people of San Diego thank you.
The President. Thank you.
NOTE: The town meeting began at 8 p.m. at the
KGTV studio. In his remarks, the President referred to Erskine Bowles, Small Business Administrator; Gen. John Vessey, Special Emissary for
POW/MIA Affairs; and Thomas F. McLarty,
White House Chief of Staff.


Nomination for Posts at the State, Transportation, and Labor Departments
May 17, 1993


The President named four new members of
his administration today, announcing his intention to nominate Richard Moose to be Under
Secretary of State for Management, Gordon
Linton to be Administrator of the Federal Transit Administration, Louise Stoll to be Assistant
Secretary of Transportation for Budget and Programs, and Anne Lewis to be Assistant Secretary
of Labor for Public Affairs.
"This is a first-rate group of people," said
the President. "Richard Moose brings significant
experience in both foreign affairs and corporate


management to the task of making the State
Department work more efficiently. Gordon
Linton is a distinguished public servant with an
unquestionable knowledge of transportation matters. Louise Stoll has been a leader in both
the private and public sectors in managing large
endeavors. Anne Lewis has a tremendous sense
of the concerns of working Americans. I am
honored that all four of them will be joining
my administration."
NOTE: Biographies of the nominees were made
available by the Office of the Press Secretary.


Nomination for an Assistant Secretary of Labor
May 17, 1993
The President announced his intention to  Government and an economic and strategy connominate John Donahue to be Assistant Sec-  sultant.
retary of Labor for Policy. Donahue is an associ-  "John Donahue is a leading expert on the
ate professor at Harvard's Kennedy School of  relationship between business and Government,"


692






Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / May 18


said the President. "He and Secretary Reich  try the most productive, best trained work force
have worked together productively in the past, in the world."
and I am confident that they will work together
now to create policies aimed at giving our coun-  NOTE: A biography of the nominee was made
available by the Office of the Press Secretary.
Remarks and a Question-and-Answer Session at Los Angeles Valley College
in Van Nuys, California
May 18, 1993


The President. Thank you very much. I'm delighted to see all of you here, and I'm glad
to have the chance to come. I've had a great
time touring some of the facilities and seeing
some of the programs that are offered here at
this college and meeting some of your fellow
students. Everybody here is a student, right?
Audience members. Yes!
The President. Everybody back there? I'm
glad to see your president, your chancellor who
are here, and Mayor Bradley I see back there.
Thank you for coming. And I see we have a
number of Members of Congress back there.
If you've got anything to ask your Congressman,
we've got four or five options back there. Will
the Members of Congress stand up? Walter and
Xavier and Tony Beilenson, Congressmen, it's
good to see you all.
I see several State officials back there-the
secretary of state, the State comptroller, the insurance commissioner, Michael Woo, Councilman Michael Woo, my friend, a candidate for
mayor. Good for you. Good luck.
That "woo" is interesting, isn't it? Makes a
good cheer. I like it.
I want to say to all of you, first of all, I
am delighted to be back in California; glad to
be back in Los Angeles and to Van Nuys and[applause]. Yesterday I was in New Mexico, and
I was at Los Alamos, and I said Los Angeles.
They all hooted. So I promised them when I
got here I'd say I was glad to be in Los Alamos.
So there, I did it. [Laughter]
I came here for a very specific purpose today,
and that is to try to illustrate what the economic
efforts that our administration is making will
do for you and how your efforts-can we fix
this
[At this point, a microphone malfunction interrupted the President's remarks.]


in the work we're doing to try to turn the
California economy around. And I thought that
there was really no better place to come than
to a college like this where all the people here
have already, by definition, taken responsibility
for your own future and made a real commitment to do what it takes to be competitive,
to develop the skills you need to get a good
job, to keep good jobs, and to learn new skills
continuously.
I met a very impressive man inside who has
got a full-time job, as many of you do, who
has been coming back here on his own just
to continue to hone his skills, because he says,
"What I do requires me to change over and
over and over again. So I will always be able
to have a good job." And, this is funny, when
I was talking to Dan Palmer, who introduced
me, he told me that before he was married
and began to have children, he was a musician.
And he realized that that's not a very solid basis
for having job security. I thought about being
a musician, too, and I wasn't as good as he
was. And I knew I had no job security. So
I got into another line of work where I have
no job security. [Laughter] But, anyway, I understand very much that sort of motivation
which I imagine got a lot of you in here.
What I wanted to do was to basically just
talk a little bit about our national economic efforts and how it affects California and how what
you're doing here is essential if we're ever going
to turn the economy of the State and Nation
around.
First, when I took office, I found, as you
know, a Government with an enormous budget
deficit. That is, we were running in the red
every year, over $300 billion. Our debt had gone
as a nation from $1 trillion to $4 trillion. It's
hard to even imagine that kind of money in


693




May 18 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


just 12 years. We were a country for 200 years,
we ran up $1 trillion worth of debt. Then in
12, we ran up $3 trillion more.
Why? Because we cut taxes and increased
spending. And it was fun for a while. It helped
California a lot: cut taxes, people had more
money in their pocket; increased spending,
mostly in defense; put a lot of people to work
in plants out here; put a lot of people to work
on and around the bases out here.
In the end, it all catches up to you, and
you've seen the last few years what happened:
the cold war was over; we began to reduce
defense; we had no real plan for dealing with
it. And what's happened to your tax money is,
the deficit keeps going up even though defense
has gone down because of the cost of health
care, something that won't surprise any of you.
So what I have tried to do is to come up
with a plan that would bring our deficit down,
give us control of our budget and your future,
get interest rates down so people can refinance
their homes and their businesses-and I bet you
there are people in this audience today who
have refinanced their home loans since last November and saved a lot of money doing it, because we're determined to bring interest rates
down-and at the same time, while cutting a
lot of spending and raising some taxes, almost
all of which-well at least well over 70 percent
of it comes from people with incomes above
$100,000. And we tried to give a tax cut to
people with families with incomes under
$30,000 so they wouldn't have to pay a tax increase.
But while doing that, there are some things
which we should spend some more money on,
and I want to talk about them. We ought to
spend some more money on having more programs like this. Why? Because you can have
the best economic policies in the world, and
if the people don't have the training they need
to do the jobs in a global economy, good economic policies don't put people to work.
I'll give you another example: There are also,
in this tax bill that I have asked the Congress
to pass, there are also big incentives for small
businesses and big businesses to reinvest their
money to put Americans to work and special
programs to induce people to invest in communities that are particularly depressed, more
sweeping than anything anybody's ever offered.
Why? Because the Government can't put everybody to work. Most people work in the pri

vate sector, and that's as it should be. So we
have to find ways to give people special incentives to reinvest their money.
Let's take, for example, a business. If a business goes out and refinances its business loan
and gets a lower interest rate, what do you want
them to do with the money? Open another business, right? Or expand the business they're
doing and hire more people so we can get unemployment down.
So those are the kinds of things we're trying
to do. The budget I've asked the Congress to
pass has over 200 specific budget cuts. It's got
some really tough things in it. We freezed Federal employee pay. We reduced the size of the
Federal work force by 150,000 over the next
5 years by attrition, just by not hiring people
as vacancies occur. We cut everything from agriculture subsidies to Medicare. We cut a lot of
things, starting with the White House staff and
the administrative cost of the Federal Government.
We raised the money that I talked about.
But we have some targeted increases in investment. So while we're going to bring the deficit
down dramatically, we're going to try to get
some money for more funds for dislocated workers, more funds for communities that are hurt
by base closings or plants being closed because
of defense cutbacks, more funds for things like
the Red Line Transit System here, where our
administration announced over $1 billion in
funding to put people back to work and also
to have some more stops in the community.
And the thing I want to say to you is that,
if we're going to compete, if you're going to
be able to have a good job and we're going
to turn this community and this area around,
we have to have the discipline to cut the things
out we don't need to spend money on, to raise
some money in order to bring the deficit down,
because that means low interest rates, and that's
good for the economy. But we also have to
invest in people and technology and jobs. We've
got to do that.
You know, I got amused when I was on the
way in here, people holding up signs, standing
together. One of them said, "Don't spend any
more money." And another one said, "Close the
border to illegal aliens." In the jobs program
I presented to Congress, one of the things we
had was enough money to hire a lot more border patrol people. You can't have it both ways.
If you're going to hire people, you've got to


694




-


Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / May 18


have the money to hire them. And we're going
to have to make these kinds of tough decisions.
So I wanted to come here because all of
you know this. If you didn't know this, you
wouldn't be here. You have this figured out.
I mean, maybe not just like I said it, but you've
figured it out. The average 18-year-old going
into the work force now is going to change
work eight times in a lifetime. Eight times. And
whether you can get and keep a job now depends as much on what you can learn tomorrow
as it does on what you know today. And that's
not going to change. The world will get smaller
and smaller and smaller, more and more of our
economy will depend upon our ability to compete with people around the world. We'll have
to trade more. We'll have to sell more to other
countries. We'll have to be able to change constantly over and over and over again. And you
really are on the cutting edge of that change.
So I wanted to come here to try to illustrate
that and to ask you as citizens to support my
economic program, to support our efforts to
bring the deficit down, to cut spending, to ask
wealthy people to pay their fair share, to give
people incentives for new jobs, and to invest
more in education, training, and technology.
I also want to tell you before I open the
floor to questions, I want to introduce one more
person. When I was running for President out
here
Audience members. No new taxes!
The President. We tried it their way for 12
years. Look what it got us. You know what the
"no new taxes" crowd did for 12 years? They
cut taxes on the rich, raised taxes on the middle
class, ran the country in a ditch. They had it
their way for 12 years. It sounds great, all this
talk. They had their chance.
Audience members. You broke your promise!
The President. They had their chance. I broke
my promise-you know what else they don't
say? Their crowd, what did they do after the
election? Oh, after the election they said, "Oh,
by the way,"-the previous administration"Oh, by the way, the deficit is going to be
$50 billion a year bigger every year than we
told you. But go ahead and do everything you
said you were going to do before. Sorry we
didn't tell you that."
Audience members. You broke your promise!
The President. What did they say, guys? So
the free lunch crowd has had their chance. And
I'm telling you there is no free lunch crowd.


And so we'll just have to decide whether we're
going to take a different course. I want you
to have a chance to do that.
The other thing I want to tell you is, we
can't turn this country's economy around unless
we lift California up. And so I asked the Secretary of Commerce Ron Brown to head a team
in my administration to develop a specific strategy to try to make sure we were doing everything we could do to help to turn this economy
around. He has now made, just since I've been
President, in 4 months, seven trips to California,
meeting with people, working with people, trying to develop a strategy for what our partnership should be. And he came with me today,
so I want to introduce him. Ron, stand up,
please. He's spending more time here than in
Washington.
We're going to work hard, but you've got
to do your part, too. And one of the messages
that I hope will come out of this event today
is that thousands of people in southern California will see you. They will see you and they
will think, "I've got to do my part, too. I've
got to do something. I have to do something
to change what I'm doing. I have to do something to lift up my circumstances." Because I'm
telling you, there is nothing the President, nothing the mayor, nothing the Governor, nothing
anybody can do for you that you're not prepared
to do for yourself. This has got to be a partnership and a two-way street.
Thank you very much.
Who's got a question or a comment?
Q. Hi. First off, I thought you look mighty
handsome in that.
The President. I don't know about that, but
it's a handsome cap. Thank you.
Voter Registration
Q. I'm a 29-year-old returning student. And
I didn't know if you knew, but we are the number one voter registration campus in southern
California, LAVC is. I wanted to know, will you
support an amendment to your motor voter bill
which will allow students to register to vote at
the same time they register for classes when
they come here to school?
The President. The answer to that is, I support that concept, but it's too late to amend
that bill, because we had to fight like crazy
just to get it through. You know, it was filibustered once by the minority in the Senate. And
finally, we got an agreement and passed the


695




May 18 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


bill, the motor voter bill, after it was passed
last year and then vetoed. So it's a great improvement over the present law, the motor voter
bill, and so I think that it's unrealistic to think
we can amend it.
Now, what I think-as a matter of fact, I
want to get it up and sign it before anybody
decides to do anything else with it. But what
I think you should do, since California has such
an incredible array of community colleges and
other institutions of higher education, is to try
to get a State bill through requiring that to
be done here. I mean, that's what I think you
should do. I'll bet you could get a lot of help.
And also, I think that the local registrar of
voters would probably be happy to do it. And
if they're reluctant, then you ought to pursue
trying to get a State law passed.
Home Ownership
Q. Mr. President, I still believe in having the
American dream. And one of those dreams is
to have an education. Another one is to own
a home. And I want to know, what do you
have in your economic policy that would help
me buy a home?
The President. The most important thing that
I could do to help you buy a home is to keep
the cost of buying a home low. And the best
way to do that is to keep interest rates down.
Home mortgage rates have been at 20-year lows,
20-year lows. And I want you to understand
why. I hope we can keep them down there.
First, interest rates dropped for a long time
because of the recession, but they still were
pretty high. Then, after the election, I said we
were going to bring this deficit down, and I
gave a specific outline of how I was going to
do it. The rates started dropping rather dramatically.
Last year, a poll was done which said that
only 47 percent of the American people under
the age of 35 thought they had a real good
chance to own their own home. This year, a
poll was done that said 74 percent of the people
thought they had a chance to own their own
home. The only thing that's changed is that the
cost of financing a home has gone way down.
So the central premise of what we're trying to
do in bringing this deficit down is to lower interest rates, lower home mortgage rates, lower
credit card rates, lower business rates, lower the
car payment rates so that we can help make
these things more affordable to average citizens.


In other words, doing the right thing for all
Americans will help individual Americans more
than any specific program I could have on
home-buying.
Now, let me say one other thing. I have also
supported having the Federal Government give
States the right to issue tax-exempt bonds to
provide for lower interest financing for middle
class families and for working families with modest means. And again, one of the things that
I have tried to do in my program, if it passes,
is to make sure that we make that permanent
so that every State in America will be able to
continue to do what I did vigorously in my
State, which is to make available more low-income, low-interest financing to people to buy
homes.
Taxes
Q. Mr. President, there are many different
claims on how much your economic plan will
actually increase middle-income taxes. Can you
tell us in very simple, nonpolitical language how
much more money middle-income people, those
making less than $60,000, will pay in new taxes?
The President. Yes, I'll be glad to. First of
all, there is one tax in this program that falls
on middle-income people. And that's the socalled Btu tax. It's an energy tax based on, basically, the heat content of various sources of energy.
The purpose of the tax, aside from raising
money, is to encourage utilities and industries
to shift to the most fuel-efficient and environmentally sensitive forms of energy so that we
can do more energy conservation and do more
fuel shifting. And we've made some changes in
it to try to make sure it works in a more practical way.
But because you consume energy, eventually
those things will find their way down to you.
That is, some of it will be in the fuel you buy;
some of it will be in products you buy that
themselves use fuel; a little bit of it would be
in anything that's brought to a store by a truck.
In other words, ultimately, all people pay these
things.
Now, here's how the pricing works. The average family of four, next year will pay virtually
nothing. I mean, literally virtually nothing, $1
a month or less. The next year after that, it
will be probably about $6 a month. This is
$60,000 a year and less. The next year it will
be, and the year after that and from then on,


696




-


Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / May 18


it will be someplace between $14 and $17 per
month, maximum for a family of four. If you're
single, it's much less.
Now, if your income is under $60,000, but
is also under $30,000, and especially if you have
children, there is a good chance that you will
not pay any more money, net, because another
provision of this tax bill does something that
I personally think is very important; I've wanted
to do it for a long time. It increases the earnedincome tax credit, which is already in the Tax
Code, to the point that we'll be able to say
to anybody who works 40 hours a week and
has a child in the house, if you do this, you
will not be in poverty. In other words, even
if we have to give you a tax credit, we're going
to lift you out of poverty. We're going to reward
work instead of welfare. We're going to say that
you'll be out of poverty.
Now again, I want to be very specific. The
higher you go toward $30,000, the more likely
you are to pay a little bit. But if you have
children, you can make maximum use of the
earned-income tax credit so that if you've got,
let's say, a family of four with an income of
$29,000, you will pay nothing or next to nothing
on the energy tax, because while you pay it,
you'll get an offset on your income tax.
So the lion's share of this, what I told you,
$1 a month, $6, $7 a month, up to a maximum
of $14 to $17 a month, 3 years, 4 years, 5
years from now, will be paid by people with
incomes between $30,000 and really all the way
up to about $100,000 a year. Then, it's at that
point, when you get to the upper 6 percent
of income earners, that the income tax increases
trigger in.
So that's what it does.
Illegal Immigration
Q. Mr. President, as Republican filibusters
torpedoed your original jobs bill, thereby leaving
countless of unemployed and underemployed
Americans less hopeful than they were in January, and as the dichotomy between costs and
quality in health care and the education system
widens, I would like to know what this administration will do to stem the unconscionable flood
of illegal aliens that pours virtually unchecked
into this country, and that erodes the quality
of life for those Americans in the lower economic brackets and must eventually threaten the
American middle class?
The President. I'd like to answer the question


you asked, and also then make a reference to
the other issues you raised on the jobs and
the health care issue. The first thing I want
to do is to hire a strong, sensible, practical person to be head of the Immigration and Naturalization Service. I have asked the Attorney
General, Janet Reno, whom I think has really
done a good job, to put a very high priority
on selecting a nominee who will be compassionate but also hard-headed. I mean, I think
you want somebody who is compassionate, but
hard-headed, who is realistic about what we're
up against and what we're facing. I think she
will make a recommendation to me this week,
and we'll resolve that. That's the first thing.
The second thing I think we have to do is
to make a better effort to enforce the law that
we have. If we've got a law on the books, we
ought to try to enforce it, even if it's difficult
to enforce. One of the things that was in the
jobs program that you referred to that was killed
by the filibuster was funds for more border
guards to enforce the law. A lot of people don't
know that, but that was in there.
So I think we have to find ways to get the
resources necessary to do as much as we can
to enforce the law that exists. There is a limit
to how much any economy can have. You've
got the California economy very depressed now.
This is a State made by immigrants. It's very
important to recognize that. Los Angeles County
has people from 150 different racial and ethnic
groups. We also will continue to have people
who are exiles really from political oppression,
and under our law they get a different set of
treatment. But I think we have to really roll
our sleeves up and do this.
In the meantime, there's something else I
think we ought to say. Whatever we do on immigration is a national decision that has uneven
impacts. You would admit that, right? It hurts
California and Texas and Florida and New York
and, to a lesser extent, a handful of other States
more financially than it does the rest of the
country. But it's a national policy. Or if there's
a lack of a policy, it's a national policy. One
of the things that has really bothered me, especially as we've seen all these educational cutbacks in California with your economy down
after the defense cuts and the other problems,
is that the Federal Government has essentially
been willing to let you in California eat the
cost of the Federal policy. So another thing we
have done in spite of all the budget cutting


697




May 18 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


we've done, there are funds in this budget to
substantially increase funding to California to
deal with the cost of immigration, thereby freeing up other funds in California to be spent
on education or jobs or whatever else you all
want to do here. I think we need to do more
of that.
Now, I don't want to mislead you. There is
not as much money here in the budget as a
lot of people asked for from California. But
there's a whole lot more; I mean, several hundred million dollars more than was previously
given. And I just think it is imperative that we
have to provide-if the Federal Government is
going to have a policy, or lack of it, then the
Federal Government ought to pay for the policy,
or lack of it, so that the States can be free
to spend their money on educating and training
and finding jobs for the people who live within
the State. That's what I think. So we're going
to move toward that.
If I might just make one other comment on
what you said earlier. I'm going to try to come
back with various pieces of this jobs initiative.
I hope we can still get some more money for
summer jobs, because we've got the best summer jobs program this country has ever organized. We've worked in partnership with the
private sector. We're going to require 90 hours
of educational work for people who have summer jobs, hoping that we can actually help people to get full-time continuing jobs and to continue their education, something that's never
been done with a Federal summer jobs program
before. So we're going to try to get some more.
I also believe very strongly that we need to
make a down payment now on the efforts that
I'm making to put 100,000 more police officers
on the streets so we can have more communitybased policing, which means the best of both
worlds if you've got the right kind of community
policing. It means less crime, tougher law enforcement, and less abuse of authority because
you have people working the neighborhoods,
knowing their friends and neighbors, and less
pressure.
So we're going to start with that and then
try to move back toward these other issues.
Financial Aid for Education
Q. Mr. President, I transferred to a State
university from here at Valley. I had to drop
out of school this semester because I can't afford to go, and I don't qualify for financial aid.


And there are other students that are in my
situation. We really want to go back to school.
We can't afford the fees. What are you going
to do to help us, please tell us. [Applause]
The President. I have introduced into the
Congress a bill that I do believe will pass with
both Republican and Democratic support-two
bills-designed to deal with your problem. And
let me just talk a little bit about it because
you could tell by the clapping that you're not
the only person in your fix.
The college dropout rate is 21/2 times the
high school dropout rate. And an awful lot of
people quit because they can't afford to stay.
Now, in California this previously was not as
big a problem because so many of the institutions were free. But you've got all these economic problems now; that can't be the case
anymore. And even if you don't have big tuition
you have expensive other-other expenses are
significant.
So here are the things we're trying to do.
First of all, I've asked the Congress to adopt
a national service program which would permit
young people to earn up to $5,000 a year in
credit either before, during, or after college to
pay off loans for college expenses by doing important work in the community. It can be done
before, during, or after college. Like after college, if someone agreed to be a teacher, for
example, or a police officer in an underserved
community, they could get $5,000 a year credit
for that to pay off their loans. So that's, in
effect, a scholarship program in return for national service.
In addition to that, I've asked the Congress
to totally reform the present student loan program. The present student loan program costs
$4 billion a year: $3 billion in unpaid debts
and $1 billion in fees to banks and to other
people who handle the money for the student
loan program. It is amazing the money that's
in the student loan program. And there is also
no incentive for them to collect on people who
won't repay, because the Government guarantees 90 percent of it. So if you borrow $20,000
from a bank and you don't repay it, the Government will give them $18,000, and it will cost
them $2,000 to go to court and get it, right?
So it's not a good system.
What I recommend is that we shift to a system of direct loans by a protected financial entity to be created by the Government to give
you lower interest loans, to give you the money


698




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / May 18


you need, and to give it to you on terms that
won't frighten you. And here's what I meanand people would be eligible without regard to
their income, and here's how it would work:
If you borrowed the money, you would not
have to pay it back until you actually go to
work. Then, you would be able to decide how
you want to pay it back among two choices:
You could pay it back on a regular loan repayment schedule, based on how much you borrowed, or if that was too tough and that scares
a lot of people, you could pay it back as a
percentage of your income so that you would
never be required to pay more than a modest
percentage of your income. So there would
never be an incentive not to take the loan out,
because it would always be an affordable percentage of your income.
The catch is that we can't afford to lose $3
billion a year. So you'd have to pay it back
at tax time. So you couldn't beat the bill, but
you would always be able to afford to pay it
back, and no one would expect you to pay it
back unless you were actually working. This will
dramatically change the economics of college financing.
Initiatives To Assist the Private Sector
Q. Hi, Mr. President. How are you doing?
The President. I'm fine.
Q. Okay. My question to you, sir, we have
a plant in Van Nuys, the GM plant. I notice
a lot of businesses such as that went out of
State. What can the Government do to motivate
big business to invest in the community college
as well as State college and major universities?
The President. That's good. Well, I think first
of all, most big businesses will invest more in
the education of their employees than ever before because it's in their interest to do so. And
I think what I should be doing is trying to
figure out ways to give businesses incentives to
reinvest in America and in putting Americans
to work, and also, if possible, to try to make
sure that every State has a chance to keep the
manufacturing base.
Now, that affects California in two ways; let
me just mention them. In the program that I
have asked Congress to adopt, in addition to
the tax increases, which you were good enough
to ask about-and I'm really glad you gave me
a chance just to lay it out because it's not near
as bad as everybody thinks it is, is it-there
is also a lot of incentives for businesses to rein

vest. Small businesses today can expense or
write off $10,000 of expenditures every year on
their taxes. We've proposed to take that to
$25,000. That's a good incentive for the small
businesses to hire maybe one more employee.
And most new jobs are created by small businesses. So this is a good thing to do.
Another thing we do is to let larger businesses
who make investments in new equipment and
modernize write that off more quickly in this
Tax Code, which is an incentive to invest more.
The third thing that's real important to California is, at least I have read-you know, you
had an economic summit out here not very long
ago, and I read that a lot of business people
believe that it's harder to keep manufacturing
jobs in California because of the costs of the
workmen's compensation system. More than half
of that-and I'll say a plug for your insurance
commissioner, Mr. Garamendi is the first person
who ever talked to me about this-more than
half the cost of workers' comp comes from
health care costs. And in the work that my wife,
the First Lady, is doing with the health care
commission, one of the things we're trying to
come up with is a national system to take the
health care portion of workers' comp cost and
fold it into a national health system so you lift
that burden off of the businesses separately and
so no State ever has an advantage over any
other State just because of the health care cost
of workers' comp. That will also be a huge boost
to California and the manufacturing economy
of California if we can get it done.
I'll take one more.
Yes, ma'am? I wish I could stay here all day,
but I've got to go shake hands with them because they feel deprived. And you. Thanks.
Education
Q. Mr. President, I would like to ask about
education. The level of education is declining,
the on-campus crime is increasing, and the education budget is decreasing. The percentage of
Government expenditure used for education in
the United States is 3 to 4 percent. In Japan,
it's 7 percent. The California education budget
is 85 percent of U.S. average, and it's one-third
of New Jersey. So I would like to know what
actions are you going to take to solve these
kinds of problems.
The President. Well, let me try to reframe
a little of what I've said before because I think
you've hit it. It would surprise most people to


699




May 18 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


know that while the Government's deficit was
going up and the debt was going up in the
last 12 years, we were actually reducing the effort the National Government is making to support education and a lot of other initiatives, because all the money was going first to defense
and then to health care costs.
What I am attempting to do with my budget
and will continue to work on it every year I'm
President, is to, every year, to slowly move our
spending priorities back toward education, training, and technology.
In this budget, for example, we give more
funds to institutions like this for worker training
programs. We give much more money for Head
Start for preschool kids. We do a lot of things
to try to, in other words, let the Federal Government play a bigger role. But another real
problem you've got, let me say, in the United
States as opposed to Japan where you've got
three levels of government that often operate
more or less independently, the lion's share of
the budget for education always comes at the
State and local level.
So then, the other thing I can do is to help
alleviate the burdens of the State government.
Why is State government spending less on edu

cation in California, more on uncompensated
care for undocumented people coming into the
country, more on exploding health care costs,
often mandated by the National Government?
So if I can persuade the Congress, and if
we can be wise and good enough to work out
a health care program that's good for America,
that brings costs in line with inflation, and then
if we can compensate the States better for their
costs that aren't their fault, like dealing with
the immigration issues, then that will free up
in California millions and millions and millions
of dollars which the State could then turn
around and put back into education. So we can
help directly some, and we can help indirectly
a lot. And I'm trying to do both those things.
Thank you. You were great. I wish I could
stay longer.
NOTE: The President spoke at 12:10 p.m. in the
courtyard. In his remarks, he referred to Representatives Walter R. Tucker III and Xavier
Becerra; Donald G. Phelps, chancellor, and Mary
E. Lee, president, Los Angeles Valley College;
and Daniel A. Palmer, former student who successfully retrained for a new career.


Remarks Endorsing the Candidacy of Michael Woo for Mayor of Los
Angeles and an Exchange With Reporters in Van Nuys
May 18, 1993


The President. Good afternoon, everyone. As
you know, a couple of days ago I issued a statement endorsing the candidacy of Mike Woo for
Mayor of Los Angeles. I wanted to just amplify
a little on that today, make a couple of comments, give Mr. Woo a chance to say something,
and then answer a few of your questions.
Let me say that I know it is somewhat unusual for all these national figures to be involved
in a mayor's race in Los Angeles. But that's
because what happens in Los Angeles matters
to America and because we can't really turn
America around until we can lift the economy
of California up.
I endorsed Mike Woo not because I have
something against his opponent; I don't. I just
like him, and I like him for some very good
substantive reasons. I feel a personal affinity for


him because he supported me early in the race
for President before the New Hampshire primary. And that's a part of it. But I also have
been terribly impressed by what he has said
to me in private about this city, about the need
to bring people together across racial and ethnic
lines, about the need to try some new ideas
to get the economy going again.
After the riots last year and long before I
was President, I came here and walked the
streets of Los Angeles with Mike Woo. And
we talked abut the kinds of things it would
take to start businesses, to attract investment,
to change the framework of people's lives; the
kinds of incentives that are embodied in the
empowerment zone legislation that I have presented to Congress, which will provide much
more dramatic and comprehensive incentives to


700




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / May 18


invest in businesses and jobs and education and
anticrime initiatives in our cities than has ever
happened before; the kinds of initiatives that
are embodied in the national service program
that I have presented, that will be embodied
in the welfare reform program that is coming
forward. I want to do something to help Los
Angeles, southern California, and this State revive and come back.
I've assigned the Secretary of Commerce to
come out here. He's been here seven times.
And I want the best possible partnership to get
that done. That's why I endorse Mike Woo.
It is 100 percent positive feeling. I have nothing
against his opponent. I just care a lot about
this community. I care a lot about this State.
I want to do everything I can to make it work.
I think this will help. And I think the decision
was an appropriate one and one I feel very
comfortable with.
[At this point, Mr. Woo expressed his appreciation to the President.]
Q. Mr. President, have you ever met Mr.
Riordan, and what do you know about him?
The President. I know quite a bit about him.
I have met him, and I know a lot of people
who are working in his campaign, as you know.
And my wife has spent some good time with
him. I have nothing against him. I'm for Woo.
There's nothing negative here in my feelings
about Dick Riordan.
Q. Mr. President, if Dick Riordan does win
the election, can Los Angeles count on as close
a relationship with the White House as it will
have if Mr. WooThe President. It won't affect my attitude
about Los Angeles in any way. I will work as
hard as I can to help the people here, whatever
the voters of this city decide to do.
But let me try to reinforce that and put it
in what I consider to be the proper framework.
Just like I told those students out there today
at this college, whatever I do as President,
whether this economy works or not depends
on their willingness to prepare themselves to
compete and win. In other words, they have
to do certain things. I'm going to do everything
I can. My Secretary of Transportation was out
here just a few days ago announcing a $1.4
billion commitment to the Red Line Mass Transit System. We're here for the duration. Ron
Brown is going to be here supervising this economic program and our coordinated efforts. But


I think it will work better if there's a mayor
who has a lot of good ideas about how to start
businesses, how to rebuild communities, how
to pull people together. I think Mike Woo's
ideas are good. That's my point. It's not anything
negative.
Q. Mr. President, is your prestige on the line
at all because of this? You know candidates have
coattails-sometimes they do, sometimes they
don't.
The President. Frankly, I don't know if they
ever do. If I have any coattails, it would only
be because of the ideas that I share in common
with Mike and the things that I hope that we
can do together. I was only too happy to do
this. Ultimately, in the end, the people of Los
Angeles will vote the way people do everywhere.
They'll vote on the merits of the issue before
them.
The one thing that I hope will happen is
that you will have a very good turnout. I hope
the citizens of this city realize that this has a
lot to do with how things work out in the future.
A lot of the things that I want to do-for instance, you take this empowerment zone issue,
for example. If we pass this bill through Congress, look what it will do. Say Los Angeles,
a big section of Los Angeles, is selected as an
empowerment zone. There will be new jobs
credits and other new tax incentives for private
sector people to invest in these communities
and to hire people. There will be all kinds of
new initiatives to facilitate investments in housing and in anticrime initiatives, and in education
and training initiatives. That's good. But whether
it works or not depends on how it's put together
once the Federal Government makes the selection. That has to happen from the grassroots
up.
So what I would say to the people of Los
Angeles is, you need to vote based on what
you think is best for you. The reason I think
Mike Woo is the better candidate is because
I know him, I know how he thinks, and I know
he can figure out how to make this stuff work.
And in the end, the test of our endeavors is
not how well we speak or what we say as much
as whether we can change the lives of people.
That's the way we ought to ultimately keep
score. So that's why I took this position.
Press Secretary Myers. Last question.
Q. [Inaudible]-of your administration be
coming to Los Angeles and campaign on Mr.
Woo's behalf?


701




May 18 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


Q. [Inaudible]
The President. Well, let me tell you something. When Michael Woo endorsed me, there
was not much in it for him. I mean, Michael
Woo endorsed me before the New Hampshire
primary, and I was still running third in California in June. So there was nothing in it for him.
There was never any anticipation that there
would be some political payback. He did it because he thought I had good ideas and he
thought I'd be a good President.
Do I feel a personal sense of loyalty to him?
You bet I do, and I'm not ashamed of that.
But would I do it if I thought he wouldn't
be a good mayor? Never in a thousand years.
I believe he'd be a very good mayor.


Q. Mr. President, will members of your administration be coming to Los Angeles to campaign on Mr. Woo's behalf?
The President. I'm embarrassed to tell you
I don't know. I've never even discussed that
with them or with him. But I'm strongly in
favor of him, and I know Ron Brown feels very
positively toward him because we talked about
him on the way in here today. This is something
I want to do because I believe it's good for
the people of Los Angeles. If I didn't think
it was, I wouldn't do it.
Thank you.
NOTE: The President spoke at 1:40 p.m. in the
courtyard at Los Angeles Valley College.


Remarks to the Community in South Central Los Angeles
May 18, 1993


Thank you. Can Ron Brown shoot a jump
shot or what? But I had a good team. I want
to tell you, first of all, how happy I am to
be here with the Secretary of Commerce and
how proud I am of the people who made the
Playground a reality. I want everybody in America to know that there are people here is Los
Angeles who believe that we can bring business
to this area, we can put people to work, we
can make things work, if you have the help
you need and the support you need to bring
this area back.
And I want you know that one of the things
that we're working on in Washington is a law
that we call empowerment zones that will help
to get more people to invest in businesses like
this by giving them special incentives to put
people back to work where people live. You
look at all the people that live up and down
these streets. They're a great economic resource.
They have the opportunity to spend their money
if they have stores here to spend it on. They
have the opportunity to support cleaning up
these neighborhoods and support it. That's what
you can do. I know you can do it.
And I wanted to come here today not just
to have a little fun with a basketball, although
I did, but to say to you and to all of America:
We're going to have to rebuild this country from
the grassroots up, with people who want to work


and are trying to work but who are going to
get a hand up. And that's what this program
is all about. We want to create all kinds of
opportunities like this not only in Los Angeles
but in other cities just like this. We can do
it. What we've got to do is to make available
money and give people the incentives who have
their money to spend it here. This is an incredible untapped resource for America. If everybody in this country who wanted a job had
one, we wouldn't have half the problems we've
got today.
So when we leave here, Ron Brown and I
are going back to Washington to go back to
work to try to pass an economic program that
will put you back to work. And we need your
support. We need your support, but it's going
to be a lot easier to be able to go back and
say I've been there. I've been there time and
time and time again, and I know the people
there are willing to work hard and play by the
rules if they just have a chance to succeed.
These children's future depends upon our being
able to bring these communities back. I'm going
to do my best, and I need your help to do
it.
Thank you, and God bless you all.
I just want to say one more thing. You asked
me about a lot of issues. We could talk about
them, but I want to say one more thing. I spent


702




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / May 19


a lot of time in Los Angeles, and I came out
here to south central L.A. a long time before
I ever ran for President, and sat down and met
with community leaders before I was ever a
candidate, before I ever thought I'd come back
here. And I just want to tell you that I believe
that we can do this, but we've got to do it
from the grassroots up. I can pass all the laws
in the world in Washington. And I would be
remiss if I didn't recognize all these local leaders
that are here, your State senators, county supervisors, and others that are here, and Mike Woo,
our candidate for mayor who's here, and all
these things.
And one of you said, "What about drugs?"
And somebody said, what about something else?
Let me tell you just one thing-we don't have
time to talk about all of this, but when we
start this program I told you about-it's called
empowerment zones-the way you can get access to these kind of incentives is that the people at the grassroots level have to put together
a plan and say, "Here's what we're going to


do." And it's not just enough to say, "We want
all these incentives." You have to show how
if we give you more police officers, you'll put
them on the blocks and use them to help deal
with the drug problem. You have to show how
you're going to make the schools better if we
give you more money to do that.
So, we're going to deal with all these issues,
but you're going to have to say how you would
deal with them. That's the way we're going to
work it out: a new partnership where you control your destiny and we help you. Instead of
telling you what to do, you're going to say what
you want to do, and we're going to try to help
you. And you'll be able to deal with drugs, with
education, with a whole range of issues, but
it all starts with finding people who will provide
jobs. That's where we're going to begin.
Thank you very much.
NOTE: The President spoke at 3:10 p.m. at the
Playground, an athletic wear store.


Nomination for Posts at the United States Fish and Wildlife Service
May 18, 1993


The President announced today his intention
to nominate Mollie H. Beattie, the director of
a Vermont public policy center and former State
natural resources official, to be Director of the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of
the Interior. In addition, the President announced that his longtime environmental aide
Kenneth Smith has been appointed the Fish
and Wildlife Service's Deputy Director.
"Secretary Babbitt and I have placed a high


priority on finding new ways to protect biological diversity without endangering economic
growth," said the President. "The Fish and
Wildlife Service will play a big role in that process. I have full confidence in the ability of Mollie Beattie and Ken Smith to do the hard work
and the fresh thinking that needs to be done."
NOTE: Biographies of the nominees were made
available by the Office of the Press Secretary.


Exchange With Reporters During a Luncheon With Business Leaders
May 19, 1993


Energy Tax
Q. Mr. President, do you think you can persuade these business leaders that your energy
tax is a good tax and that you have enough
spending cuts in the budget?
The President. Well, I hope so. Several of


them endorsed this program yesterday. Mr.
Chee on behalf of the realtors did, and Mr.
Armstrong, he's aircraft. Mr. Wolf did. So I
think we're making a real good dent. I think
the main reason is that the business leaders
who are familiar with what is actually in the


703




May 19 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


program know that there's $100 billion in entitlement cuts there, know that the energy tax
is going to work as an important part of getting
the interest rates down and having credibility
in the markets. So I think we've got a real
shot at it.
Health Care Reform
Q. What about an entitlement cap, as some
people on the Hill want? Wouldn't that help?
The President. Well, it has to be done in
the right way. My view is-and this is a good
place to discuss this-the United States Government has already contributed to the rising costs
of health care for employers by squeezing Medicare and Medicaid and forcing those costs off
onto private employers. So if we have a cap
on health care spending, which I'm not opposed
to, and it should be done in a right way, it


should be done in connection with the health
care plan so that we're helping everybody. If
we did it without doing it on the health care,
if we did it now, it would run the risk of 2
or 3 years from now having another big increase
in their costs, undermining their ability to hire
American workers and to keep America competitive. So if we're going to do a health care
cap, let's do it with health care. That's the way
it should be done.
NOTE: The exchange began at 12:23 p.m. in the
Residence at the White House. In his remarks,
the President referred to William Chee, chief executive officer, RESCO; Michael Armstrong,
chief executive officer, Hughes Aircraft; and Steven Wolf, chief executive officer, United Airlines.
A tape was not available for verification of the
content of this exchange.


Remarks and an Exchange With Reporters Prior to Discussions With
Archbishop Desmond Tutu
May 19, 1993


Angola
The President. It's an honor for me to welcome Bishop Tutu here. As every American
knows, he has been a real leader in the fight
for democracy and for an end to apartheid in
South Africa. Almost a decade ago he won the
Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts. And I want
to assure him here today that the United States
remains committed to the creation of a nonracial
democracy in South Africa.
I also want to discuss a decision that I know
has been very important to Bishop Tutu and
to other leaders for democracy and human rights
in Africa. Today I am pleased to announce the
United States recognition of the Government
of Angola. This decision reflects the high priority
that our administration places on democracy.
In 1992, after years of bitter civil war, the
people of Angola held a multiparty election that
the United States, the United Nations, and others monitored and considered free and fair.
Since taking office on January 20th, I have tried
to use the possibility of United States recognition as a leverage towards promoting an end
to the civil war and hostilities and hopefully
the participation of all relevant political groups


in the Government of Angola.
Sadly, the party that lost the election, UNITA,
resumed the fighting before the electoral process could even be completed. And UNITA has
now refused to sign the peace agreement currently on the table. The Angolan Government,
by contrast, has agreed to sign that peace agreement, has sworn in a democratically elected national assembly, and has offered participation
by UNITA at all levels of government.
Today we recognize those achievements by
recognizing the Government of the Republic of
Angola. It is my hope that UNITA will accept
a negotiated settlement and that it will be part
of this government. I intend to continue working
closely with the Government of Angola and with
UNITA to achieve a lasting peace settlement
and a vibrant democracy there. I hope the efforts of the United States have been helpful.
I am confident that the Government of Angola
has more than earned the recognition that the
United States extends today.
Q. Mr. President, human rights sources arehow do you plan to approach the occupation
of East Timor by Indonesia, sir? Could you
elaborate on that-how do you plan to approach


704




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / May 19


the problem of the East Timor?
The President. I don't want to talk about it
today. We have discussed it, and we may have
more to say about it later.
The Vice President. I think just before your
question Bishop Tutu was about to say something.
Archbishop Tutu. Well, I just want to say
how deeply thrilled I am at the President's announcement, because I have been speaking with
the Assistant Secretary of State and Assistant
Secretary for Africa yesterday and said I couldn't
understand how the United States could not recognize a government that was democratically
elected. And they were very cagey in their responses. And I am really over the moon in a
sense because I was going to raise this issue
with the President in my capacity as President
of the All Africa Conference of Churches in
our appeal to the administration to reward democracy. And this is happening, and I am certain it will help the process in our continent
where not all countries have had a good record
on human rights. And I am very, very thrilled.
If my complexion was different you would probably see better. [Laughter]
Q. [Inaudible]-what message are you going
to-the President about South Africa-the situation in South Africa today?


Archbishop Tutu. Well, I haven't yet spoken.
I would have hoped we would do that and talk
with you afterwards because, I mean, I don't
think it is fair to say, I am going to say to
the President-and I haven't said it yet.
White House Travel Office
Q. Mr. President, can we ask you if you feel
you were fair in summarily dismissing some employees of this Government of long standing
without a hearing and leaving the impression
perhaps that they may have committed criminal
acts?
The President. I don't know. I'll have to refer
to the Chief of Staff about that.
Q. We're speaking about the Travel Office,
sir.
The President. I know. All I know about it
is that I was told that the people who were
in charge of administering in the White House
found serious problems there and thought there
was no alternative. I'll have to refer to them
for any other questions. That is literally all I
know about it. I know nothing else about it.
NOTE: The President spoke at 3:37 p.m. in the
Oval Office at the White House. Archbishop Tutu
referred to George Moose, Assistant Secretary of
State for Africa. A tape was not available for verification of the content of this exchange.


Statement on the Human Rights Situation in Burma
May 19, 1993


I was moved by the stories of individual suffering I heard this afternoon and am deeply
concerned by the tragic human rights situation
in Burma, as well as by the continued detention
of Burmese pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu
Kyi, who has been under house arrest since
1989. I strongly urge the Burmese government
to release Aung San Suu Kyi and all political
prisoners, to respect the results of the May 1990
elections, and to commit itself to genuine democratic reforms.


The Burmese people should know that America stands with them and with others in the
international community in the struggle for freedom in Burma.
NOTE: The President issued this statement following a meeting in the Cabinet Room at the White
House with a group of Nobel Peace Prize laureates including Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Betty
Williams, and Kara Newell, who had traveled to
Thailand earlier this year to focus international
attention on the human rights situation in Burma.


705




May 19 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993
Statement on the Death of John Wilson
May 19, 1993


As residents of the District of Columbia, Hillary and I mourn the sudden and tragic loss
of DC City Council Chairman John Wilson.
John was a tremendous individual who devoted
his life's work to the empowerment and benefit
of the District's citizens.


We know the love that John had for the District of Columbia will be remembered and cherished by all the city's residents as his service
and achievements are profoundly appreciated.
Hillary and I will keep his wife, Bonnie, in
our prayers.


Nomination for Deputy Administrator of the General Services
Administration
May 19, 1993


The President today named nationally recognized Chicago businesswoman Julia Stasch Deputy Administrator of the General Services Administration. Ms. Stasch joins Administrator-designee and former Western Digital CEO Roger
Johnson at the head of GSA.
"Julia Stasch is exactly the type of aggressive
and innovative business person this administra

tion needs as it seeks to reinvent the way Government works," the President said. "I am confident Julia will work well with Roger Johnson
to ensure economy and efficiency are standard
rule at the new GSA."
NOTE: A biography of the nominee was made
available by the Office of the Press Secretary.


Remarks on Signing the National Voter Registration Act of 1993
May 20, 1993


Thank you very much. Joel, thank you for
the T-shirt. In a few moments I'll give out billsigning pens, but I'd rather have the T-shirt.
[Laughter]
Getting to know the young people across this
country, beginning in New Hampshire, who
pushed the motor voter bill, was one of the
most rewarding parts of the 1992 campaign. But
the effort that we come here to celebrate today
has a long and venerable heritage.
A few moments ago, you heard the voice of
President Johnson crossing the chasm of time
back to 1965 as he signed the Voting Rights
Act into law. As a southerner and as President,
his words have special significance to me. During my childhood, no family's dinner table, no
church congregation, no community, and no
place of work was immune from the searing
struggle for civil rights. To hear Johnson's voice
is to make vivid for me once again those dif

ficult, yet glorious years of struggle, difficult and
terrible because so many people gave their lives
moving the stone of freedom up the side of
a mountain, glorious because the years of contention eventually gave way to an overdue season of reconciliation and renewal, and gave our
region and our country a second chance to fulfill
our promise.
The victory we celebrate today is but the most
recent chapter in the overlapping struggles of
our Nation's history to enfranchise women and
minorities, the disabled, and the young with the
power to affect their own destiny and our common destiny by participating fully in our democracy. When blacks and women won the right
to vote, when we outlawed the poll tax and
literacy test, when the voting age was lowered
to 18, and when finally we recognized the rights
of disabled Americans, it was because the forces
of change overcame the indifference of the ma

706




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 I May 20


jority and the resistance by the guardians of
the status quo. And who prevailed? Brave people working at the grassroots, impatient with
an always imperfect democracy and dedicated
to widening the circle of liberty to encompass
more and more of our fellow citizens.
I have said many times in many places that
in this country we don't have a person to waste.
Surely the beginning of honoring that pledge
is making sure the franchise is extended to and
used by every eligible American. Today we celebrate our noble tradition by signing into law
our newest civil rights law, the National Voter
Registration Act of 1993, which all of us know
and love as "motor voter."
An extraordinary coalition of organizations,
many of whom played historic roles in our expanding democratic rights, joined many years
ago with the hope that they would see this day
come. I'm honored to share this podium with
representatives with three fighters for freedom:
the NAACP, the League of Women Voters, and
Human Serve. I want to pay special tribute to
Disabled and Able To Vote, to Project Vote,
and to Rock the Vote, and literally, the scores
of other groups for whom the goal of full voter
participation has been a durable and lasting
dream. I want to pay special tribute to the
young people who lobbied me personally for
motor voter and who voted with renewed energy
and conviction for their own futures in the election last November.
They all labored hard because this bill was
necessary. As many as 35 percent of otherwise
eligible voters in our Nation are not registered,
and the failure to register is the primary reason
given by eligible citizens for their not voting.
The principle behind this legislation is clear:
Voting should be about discerning the will of
the majority, not about testing the administrative
capacity of a citizen.
The State of Washington instituted a similar
measure during the 1992 election, and their
motor voter program registered in that State
alone an additional 186,000 people. Motor voter
works at registering voters and people who register vote.
With this law and its appropriate implementation by States, voters can register by applying
for a driver's license, through uniform mail application, or by applying in person at various
agencies designated by the States. As a result,
registration for Federal election will become as
accessible as possible, while the integrity of the


electoral process is clearly preserved.
As I said, I have long supported the idea
of motor voter. More than a year ago, I promised as President that I would sign H.R. 2 and
fight for its passage. I'm pleased to be able
to keep the promise today that I made on this
Rock the Vote card which still has my signature
back in New Hampshire.
I also want to point out that all the President
does is lobby for and sign laws. If the Congress
doesn't pass them, they don't get passed. The
Rock the Vote card that I signed here says,
"Why don't politicians want you to vote?" Well,
there 'are a lot of Members of the Congress
here from both parties who do want you to
vote, and I want to thank not only those on
the platform here but all of those out in the
audience who, after all, passed this bill into law.
It was their votes that made this day possible.
This bill in its enactment is a sign of a new
vibrancy in our democracy. With all the challenges and difficulties, with the years of accumulated economic problems we face, with all the
divisions among our people, there is a new determination to make progress. You can see it
in many ways: Voter participation was up in
November, and after the election it didn't stop.
Here at the White House, mail has climbed
to unprecedented levels. After I had been in
office 14 weeks, the White House had received
more mail than was received in all of 1992.
We have had the switchboards jammed, the Email system full. And if you haven't gotten an
answer to your letter, we're working on it.
[Laughter]
This country is pulsing with the power of
individual citizens' ideas in their determination
to get something done. The legislators who
worked so hard to adopt this bill, the organizations that gave themselves so completely to its
endeavor, the young people, the activists, MTV,
all of them tapped a powerful current of energy
that is still flowing in this country.
The Congress has responded in other ways:
the United States Senate passing just a few days
ago a lobbying bill requiring registration by all
lobbyists and requiring the disclosure of lobbyists' spending on Members of Congress is an
example of that. The campaign finance reform
which has been presented, dramatically trying
to lower the costs of campaigns and reduce the
influence of special interest groups, is an example of that.
The current of reform is moving in this coun

707




May 20 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


try. And those of you who helped to bring this
bill to pass can take a large share of credit
not only for this bill but for the general movement and energy and involvement and determination of all of our fellow citizens. It was
never right to sit on the sidelines of our democracy. And now with motor voter, there will be
fewer and fewer excuses for anyone to do so.
Let us remember this in closing: Voting is
an empty promise unless people vote. Now
there is no longer the excuse of the difficulty
of registration. It is the right of every American
to vote. It is also the responsibility of every
American to vote. We have taken an important
step this morning to protect that right. And I
want to challenge Joel and all the young people
who did so much to register voters for the last
election, and all of you who did so much to
bring this voting rights bill to law and all the
ones that preceded it, to make sure now that


we keep the rights alive by making sure that
the responsibility to exercise it is exercised by
every eligible American.
When we leave here today, we ought to say:
This voting rights bill and the others will not
be in vain. Every year from now on, we're going
to have more registered voters and more people
voting. We're going to make the system work.
The law empowers us to do it. It's now up
to us to assume the responsibility to see that
it gets done.
Thank you very much.
NOTE: The President spoke at 11:32 a.m. on the
South Lawn at the White House. He was introduced by Joel Shulkin, University of New Hampshire junior who was instrumental in achieving reform of that State's voter registration laws. H.R.
2, approved May 20, was assigned Public Law No.
103-31.


Exchange With Reporters on the Economic Program
May 20, 1993


Q. Mr. President, can you talk to us?
Q. Can you accept Senator Boren's entitlement cuts?
Q. What's your reaction to Senator Boren's
compromise with Danforth?
The President. Well, my first reaction was that
it was a huge shift in lowering taxes on people
with incomes above $100,000 and hurting people, both elderly people and working people just
barely above the poverty line. It's basically a
$40 billion shift away from wealthy Americans
right onto people just above the poverty line,
the elderly and the working poor. So I don't
support that. I think that's a mistake.
Q. Would you rule out that kind of compromise to get rid of the energy tax?
The President. I think that that is not a good
thing to do if you read the details of it. Obviously, the main purpose of some of them is
to do away with the Btu tax, but the mechanics
shift over $40 billion away from people with
incomes above $135,000 down to elderly and
working people just barely above the poverty
line. I don't think that's good. There is also


another provision which, if it's implemented in
the way they propose, would continue to shift
health care costs onto private citizens and private employers, which would hurt the economy
and hurt jobs. So those are the two things which
concern me.
Otherwise, I'm glad to have people talking
and coming up with new ideas. But those are
bad things.
Q. [Inaudible]-have you essentially heard
enoughThe President. I can just tell you what-I've
given you my answer. Look, we had 12 years
where we made this economy more unequal and
unfair. And to move $40 billion off of upper
income people to people barely above the poverty line, it seems to me, is not a good way
to go.
NOTE: The exchange began at 12:50 p.m. on the
South Lawn at the White House. A tape was not
available for verification of the content of this exchange.


708




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / May 20


Remarks on Cuban Independence Day
May 20, 1993


Before I say anything else, I want to acknowledge the presence here of some very special
friends of mine, Jorge Perez, Jorge Bolano, and
Willie Braceras, who helped me in Miami last
year when I hardly knew anyone who lived in
south Florida and when I needed to learn a
lot about the issues affecting Cuban-Americans.
I want to say a special word of thanks, too,
to Simon Ferro who helped me to organize this
event.
We join all Cubans today in celebrating this,
the 91st anniversary of Cuban independence.
Just as Cubans struggled for independence nearly a century ago today, a new generation of
Cubans in our country and our time are struggling for freedom and democracy. And the
American people stand by them and their brothers and sisters in Cuba as they struggle for freedom and democracy.
The people of Cuba deserve to be free and
to determine their own future through free elections. They deserve to be free of political abuse
and dictatorship. Our administration seeks a
rapid and peaceful transition to democracy so
that all Cubans can enjoy the fruits of freedom
as Cuban-Americans do today. That is why, last
year, I was proud to join in supporting the
Cuban Democracy Act and why as President
I still support it.
I also want to recognize the accomplishments
here in the United States of more than one
million Cuban-Americans for all they have done
not only to rebuild their lives and the lives of
their families but to make America a richer,
stronger country through what they have done.
As I look out on you and I see the great community you represent, I see a real mirror of
the American dream. Like others from all over
the world you came to our country, or you or
your grandparents or parents did, fleeing from
oppression, looking for a better life. America
offered, in some way, all of us or our ancestors
the gift of freedom and opportunity if we would
but seize it and exercise it responsibly.
When you came to America, you rolled up
your sleeves; you went to work. Many of you
work from dawn to dusk, or some of you had
to work from dusk to dawn. You were resourceful and talented. You started businesses, entered


the ranks of our legal and medical and other
professionals. You sent people to Congress and
others became artists and athletes and entertainers. You helped to transform the economy of
southern Florida so that it now produces more
than all of Cuba does under Castro's communism. You've produced musicians like Gloria
Estefan, Arturo Sandoval, Celia Cruz, Paquito
Rivero; writers, like Herberto Padilla, Liz
Balmaseda, Christiana Garcia; prominent citizens like Ramon and Polita Grau, Bishop
Augustin Roman, Josefina Carbonell, Orestes
Lorenzo; political leaders-and we have in Congress  now    three  Cuban-Americans-Bob
Menendez, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, and Lincoln
Diaz-Balart; business leaders, like the distinguished leader of Coca Cola, Roberto Guizueta,
and Marcelino Miyares; and educators, like
Eduardo Padron. I know you have never forgotten Cuba, any of you, but you have made America a much better place in which to live. And
as President of this country, I thank you on
this Cuban Independence Day not only for your
continuing dreams for the independence of your
homeland but your continuing additions to the
vitality of the independence and freedom of the
United States.
I'd also like to make one final remark. Freedom carries with it not only liberties but responsibilities. And when we neglect our responsibilities as a people, our freedoms erode. That has
happened to us in significant measure here in
the United States as we have seen, over the
last 12 years, our national debt go from $1 to
$4 trillion, while our investment in the future
and our ability to compete in many areas has
declined. I believe I was elected to try to turn
that around. I'm doing the best I can to achieve
those goals. I hope that all of you will support
the efforts that this administration is making to
bring our deficit down, to invest in education
and technology in the future, and to gain control
of our economic destiny again. It can no longer
be in the hands of others because we don't
have the discipline to control our own direction.
I'm very concerned that in the days and weeks
ahead the easy path may once again be taken.
Today I heard people talking about an alternative budget that sounded so good. It said less


709




May 20 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


taxes and more spending cuts. Who in the world
could be against that? No one. Except when
you strip it away there are two things that ought
to concern you as Americans first, and second,
many of you as business people who have your
own health insurance. I'd like to point out what
happens when you get into this. Point number
one, this so-called alternative proposal today
takes $40 billion in tax breaks that it gives to
people with incomes above $135,000 and imposes $40 billion in extra burdens on the elderly
and working people just above the poverty line.
It sounds great to call one a tax cut and the
other to call a budget cut, but when you strip
all the rhetoric away there's $40 billion worth
of burdens on people just above the poverty
line and $40 billion less on those of us like
me who can afford to do a little more for our
country.
The other thing that this alternative budget
today presented was a so-called cap on entitlements. Well, in American terms that means one
thing: We're going to try to control health care
costs. Who could be against that? The problem
is that in this proposal we would only control
the Government's health care costs. What happens if that happens? If you have private insurance, you know what's happened, you've been
paying more than your fair share because if you
have health insurance you have to pay for the
people who don't have any insurance when they
show up and get health care, and they're not
paid for, and you have to pay because your
Government does not reimburse Medicare and
Medicaid at appropriate levels. So if we control
the costs of Medicare and Medicaid but we
don't reform the health insurance system, that
will force the doctors and the hospitals and the


health care providers of this country to explode
your health insurance premiums even more in
the years ahead than you've experienced in the
last 12 years. And that's wrong.
I say let's do it right. Let's control health
care costs by doing it for the whole system,
reforming the American health care system and
reforming the American budget and moving this
country forward in a fair and balanced way.
Thank you, and God bless you all.
Now wait a minute, I want to introduce the
First Lady for a moment, and let her introduce
our wonderful Cuban-American sister-in-law and
my brother-in-law, her brother.
[At this point, Hillary Clinton welcomed participants and introduced Hugh and Maria
Rodham.]
I want to close by acknowledging, in general,
the presence in the audience of several members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus who
are not Cuban-Americans but who are here, and
other Members of Congress who are here.
Could we have all the Members of Congress
raise your hand. Senator Connie Mack over
there from Florida, thank you for coming. Come
on up, Robert. Here's a guy who came from
the farthest away. Come up, Bill. Okay, all the
Members of Congress come up here. We'll give
you a little publicity here.
NOTE: The President spoke at 5:05 p.m. in the
Rose Garden at the White House. In his remarks,
he referred to Jorge Perez, president and CEO,
Related Group; Jorge L. Bolanos, president, Nova
Home Health Corp.; Wilfrido Braceras, president,
Med-Care Home Health Agency; and Simon
Ferro, attorney, Beckers & Poliakoffa, and former
Chair of the Florida Democratic Party.


Message to the Senate Transmitting the Mexico-United States Taxation
Convention
May 20, 1993


To the Senate of the United States:
I transmit herewith for Senate advice and
consent to ratification the Convention Between
the Government of the United States of America
and the Government of the United Mexican
States for the Avoidance of Double Taxation


and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with Respect to Taxes on Income, together with a related Protocol, signed at Washington on September
18, 1992. Also transmitted for the information
of the Senate is the report of the Department
of State with respect to the Convention.


710




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / May 20


The income tax Convention, the first between
the two countries, is intended to reduce the
distortions (double taxation or excessive taxation)
that can arise when two countries tax the same
income, thereby enabling United States firms
to compete on a more equitable basis in Mexico
and enhancing the attractiveness of the United
States to Mexican investors. The Convention is
generally based on the Model Treaty of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and De

velopment and recent income tax conventions
of both parties.
I recommend that the Senate give early and
favorable consideration to the Convention and
related Protocol and give its advice and consent
to ratification.
WILLIAM J. CLINTON
The White House,
May 20, 1993.


Message to the Congress Transmitting the Report of the Corporation for
Public Broadcasting
May 20, 1993


To the Congress of the United States:
In accordance with the Communications Act
of 1934, as amended (47 U.S.C. 396(i)), I transmit herewith the Annual Report of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting for Fiscal Year 1992
and the Inventory of the Federal Funds Distrib

uted to Public Telecommunications Entities by
Federal Departments and Agencies: Fiscal Year
1992.
WILLIAM J. CLINTON
The White House,
May 20, 1993.


Statement on the Death of Four Marines in the VH-60 Helicopter Crash
May 20, 1993
I am greatly saddened by the news of the  thoughts and prayers are with the loved ones
death of four Marine servicemen in the heli-  of these dedicated airmen. I am sure I speak
copter  crash  yesterday. Hillary's and  my  for all Americans in expressing our Nation's
deepest condolences.
Appointment for Members of the President's Commission on White House
Fellowships
May 20, 1993


The President appointed 37 members of the
President's Commission on White House Fellowships today, including Olympic gold medalist
Edwin Moses, chief U.S. district court judge
Jose Cabranes, astronaut Sally Ride, actress
Cecily Tyson, Maj. Gen. Wesley Clark, and Hawaii Governor John Waihee. The Commission
will be chaired by Nancy Bekavac, the president


of Scripps College.
The Commission on White House Fellowships
provides an opportunity for a select group of
men and women to spend a year early in their
careers serving as paid assistants to Cabinet-level
officials, members of the President's staff, or
in the Office of the Vice President. Alumni of
the program include the Chairman of the Joint


711




May 20 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993
Chiefs, General Colin Powell, and Housing and
Urban Development Secretary Henry Cisneros.
"This Commission is comprised of some of
the brightest, most talented, and most accomplished people in the country," said the President. "I am confident that they will apply the
criteria of achievement, leadership, and promise
to select an outstanding group of fellows. I am
especially pleased to note the bipartisan nature
of this group, which retains several members
appointed by my predecessor."
This weekend the Commission will convene
in Baltimore to select the 1993-94 class of
White House fellows. Approximately 1,000 people applied for the class, and the Commission
will choose about 15 fellows from among the
35 who have been chosen as national finalists.
The Commission members are:
Nancy Y. Bekavac (Chair), Claremont, CA:
president, Scripps College
Frederick S. Benson III, Washington, DC:
vice president, Weyerhaeuser Co.
Marjorie Benton, Evanston, IL: president,
Chaplin Hall Center for Children at the
University of Chicago
Michael Beschloss, Washington, DC: author
and historian
Dr. James E. Bostic, Jr., Atlanta, GA: group
vice president, communication papers,
Georgia Pacific Corp.
Hon. Jose E. Cabranes, New Haven, CT:
chief U.S. district judge, District of Connecticut
Julius L. Chambers, Durham, NC: chancellor,
North Carolina Central University; former
director-counsel, NAACP Legal Defense
and Education Fund
Maj. Gen. Wesley Kanne Clark, Fort Hood,
TX: commanding general, 1st Cavalry Division
Clive S. Cummis, West Orange, NJ: chairman,
Sills Cummis Zuckerman Radin Tischman
Epstein & Gross
Ronald R. Davenport, Pittsburgh, PA: chairman, Sheridan Broadcasting Corp.
Adela de la Torre, Long Beach, CA: economist and chair of the department of Chicano and Latino Studies, California State
University, Long Beach
Dr. Anne Cohn Donnelly, Chicago, IL: executive director, National Committee for the
Prevention of Child Abuse
Jeri A. Eckhart, McLean, VA: president, Eck

hart & Co.; president of White House Fellows Foundation and Alumni Association
Carolyn Forrest, Detroit, MI: international
vice president, United Auto Workers
Pauline Gore, Carthage, TN: member and
managing partner, Peabody Rivlin & Gore;
mother of Vice President Gore
Antonia Hernandez, Los Angeles, CA: president and general counsel, Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education Fund
Robert L. Kagen, M.D., Fort Lauderdale, FL:
medical director, MRI Scan Center
Hon. James B. King, Ludlow, MA: Director,
U.S. Office of Personnel Management
Victor A. Kovner, New York, NY: partner,
Lankenau Kovner & Kurtz; former corporation counsel of the city of New York
Robert M. McGee, Bethesda, MD: president,
Occidental International Corp.
Dana Mead, Houston, TX: president and chief
operating officer, Tenneco, Inc.
Arthur Mitchell, New York, NY: artistic director, Dance Theatre of Harlem
Edwin C. Moses, Laguna Hills, CA: Olympic
gold medalist
Faylene Curtis Owen, East Lansing, MI:
president and CEO, Mica Consulting Corp.
Jan 0. Piercy, Chicago, IL: Deputy Director
of Presidential Personnel
Hon. Roger B. Porter, McLean, VA: professor
of government and business, Harvard University; Domestic Policy Aide to Presidents
Ford, Reagan, and Bush
Professor George E. Reedy, Milwaukee, WI:
College of Communications, Marquette
University; Press Secretary to President
Johnson
Sally K. Ride, Ph.D., La Jolla, CA: professor
of physics, University of California at San
Diego; former NASA astronaut
Charles T. Royer, Cambridge, MA: director,
Institute of Politics, JFK School of Government; former Mayor of Seattle
John Saxon, Birmingham, AL: partner, Cooper, Mitch, Crawford, Kuykendall &
Whatley; former counsel to U.S. Senate Select Committee on Ethics, and special
counsel to the U.S. Senate Armed Services
Committee
Max Starkloff, St. Louis, MO: president,
Paraquad, Inc.
Mary Steenburgen, Ojai, CA: actress
Elizabeth Guest Stevens, Washington, DC:
editor-at-large, Random House Publishing


712




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / May 21


Hon. Stansfield Turner, McLean, VA: admiral,
U.S. Navy (Ret.); former Director of
Central Intelligence
Cicely Tyson, New York, NY: actress


Hon. John David Waihee, Honolulu, HI: Governor of Hawaii
Hon. Robert Yazzie, Window Rock, AZ: chief
justice, Navajo Nation


Appointment for the National Transportation Safety Board
May 20, 1993


The President today named Jim Hall, a top
aide to Tennessee Senator Harlan Mathews, to
be a member of the National Transportation
Safety Board.
"Jim Hall has had a distinguished career in


Government and in the private sector," said the
President. "I am very glad to be appointing him
to this Board today."
NOTE: A biography of the appointee was made
available by the Office of the Press Secretary.


Statement by the Press Secretary on the President's Meeting With
President Askar Akayev of Kyrgyzstan
May 20, 1993


The President and the Vice President met
today at the White House with President Askar
Akayev of Kyrgyzstan. The President welcomed
the Kyrgyz leader, noting his bold support of
human rights, democracy, and market reform
in the Kyrgyz Republic. During their talks, the
President and Vice President discussed a wide
range of issues of mutual concern with President
Akayev and welcomed the expansion of bilateral
ties between our two countries.
The U.S. remains committed to assisting the
Exchange With Reporters on Bosnia
May 21, 1993
Q. Mr. President, have you reached agreement with the Russians on a Bosnia policy?
The President. Well, Secretary Christopher is
talking to Foreign Minister Kozyrev today, and
we will try to reach an agreement about what
we do next. As you know, the United States
is skeptical that we'll be able to satisfactorily
resolve this within the framework that has been
proposed, but we do want to work with our


Kyrgyz Republic in its difficult transition to a
democratic and market-oriented system. The
President and Vice President congratulated the
Kyrgyz leader for being the first of the new
independent states of the former Soviet Union
to conclude a stand-by agreement with the
International Monetary Fund to promote financial stabilization. They singled out Kyrgyzstan
as a model for the other new independent
states, praising President Akayev for his government's bold pursuit of macroeconomic stabilization and democratic reform.


allies. And we're trying our best to reach a joint
position, and I hope we can do it.
Q. Are you still ruling out safe havens?
The President. Well, I don't want to see the
United States get in a position where we are
recreating Northern Ireland or Lebanon or Cyprus or anything else. There may be some potential down the road for something to be done
in connection with the peacekeeping operation,


713




May 21 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


but I think it's something we have to be very
skeptical about. We don't want our people in
there basically in a shooting gallery.
Q. [Inaudible]-the issue, though, for now of
the land the Serbs have grabbed by force in
favor of the idea of this containment?
The President. I will say what I said from
the very beginning. Our fundamental interests
here, the United States interests, are two. We
want the conflict to be contained, and we want
the slaughter and the ethnic cleansing to stop.


We believe in order to get that done ultimately
there will have to be some reasonable borders,
some political solution to this which has a reasonable territorial component. And we'll just
have to see what happens over the next few
weeks.
NOTE: The exchange began at 10:15 a.m. in the
Cabinet Room at the White House, prior to a Cabinet meeting. A tape was not available for verification of the content of this exchange.


Exchange With Reporters Prior to Discussions With President Glafcos
Clerides of Cyprus
May 21, 1993


Cyprus
Q. Mr. President, is the United States willing
to be a guarantor for Cyprus?
The President. Well, we want to do what we
can to promote a good agreement there, and
we're going to be actively involved in working
toward a peaceful settlement. The talks are just
about to start again, and I don't think I should
say or do anything which would disrupt them.
But I'm glad to have the President here. I really
appreciate the attitude he's taken. And I think
that we have the best chance we've had in quite
a long while to have a peaceful, successful conclusion to these talks.
White House Travel Ofice
Q. Mr. President, do you think that you have
at least the appearance of a problem in firing
seven people, five of them apparently without
cause, and replacing them with a relative and
a major campaign contributor?
The President. Well, I think, first of all, you
ought to talk to my staff people who made those
decisions. We reviewed the operation of every
part of the White House. There was an audit,
a review audit by Peat Marwick. It is my understanding that the decision was made based on
striving to end inefficiency and mismanagement.
And I believe the very first chartered plane
flight coming out tomorrow under the new order
of things is going to save about 25 percent over
the old policy. And we're going to save the
taxpayers money and save the press money,
something I heard mentioned at the last press


dinner.
So I think what they're trying to do is right.
If you have any particular questions about what
they did, I would refer you to the people who
made the decisions.
Q. Mr. President, Senator Bond has written
you a letter saying that there's a pattern of firing
experienced public servants and replacing them
with young political appointees.
The President. I ask that you look at the facts.
Is he defending the practices? Are you defending the practices? We now have a report on
this. Do you think it's fine to have no-bid plane
rides? At the press dinner there was a complaint
about the costs of these plane rides to the press.
The very first time in the new regime we go
to a competitive bidding, modem system, anything that you would expect done in any sort
of private company, and there's a 25 percent
savings. Look at the facts, evaluate the facts,
and draw your own conclusions.
Q. [Inaudible]-on this issue and the haircut
issue?
The President. Not for me. That's what we've
got a first amendment for. All I know is the
taxpayers save money and the press saves
money.
[At this point, one group of reporters left the
room, and another group entered.]
Cyprus
Q. Mr. President, do you see any room for
a direct U.S. involvement in the Cyprus issue?
The President. The President is just about to


714




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / May 21


start another round of talks, and I don't think
I should prejudge the talks. But I have assured
him that the United States wants to be active
and constructive. And I think we have a reasonable chance to see a successful conclusion of
these talks, perhaps the best chance in a long
time, not because of me but because of where
the parties are and the leadership that will be
exercised. And the United States, if we can be
helpful, we want to be. But I don't think we
should be specific. I think we should let whatever happens come out of these talks and obviously be generated from the parties themselves.
Q. Is your administration prepared to provide


some type of guarantee, assurances, resolutions,
Mr. President?
The President. Let's see what comes out of
the talks and what we're asked to do. Again,
I want to be supportive of the process. And
I think that if we're supportive of the process,
then we're more likely to get a good result.
I don't think I should prejudge it or anything
we might be asked to do.
NOTE: The exchange began at 5:50 p.m. in the
Oval Office at the White House. A tape was not
available for verification of the content of this exchange.


Letter to Congressional Leaders Reporting on Iraq's Compliance With
United Nations Security Council Resolutions
May 21, 1993


Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)
Consistent with the Authorization for Use of
Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public
Law 102-1), and as part of my effort to keep
the Congress fully informed, I am reporting on
the status of efforts to obtain Iraq's compliance
with the resolutions adopted by the U.N. Security Council.
My Administration insists on full Iraqi compliance with all U.N. Security Council resolutions.
We support Iraqi territorial integrity and will
continue to support international efforts designed to ensure that the Iraqi regime does not
threaten international peace and security and
that it stops the repression of its own people.
We continue to work to ensure the integrity
of the U.N. sanctions regime, which is the best
means to promote Iraqi compliance.
In accordance with U.N. Security Council
Resolution 687, the U.N. Special Commission
on Iraq (UNSCOM) and the International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) have conducted
four inspections of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs since the events described in my last report. Three teams remained
in Iraq conducting routine inspection activities:
a group at Al Muthanna, where the destruction
of chemical munitions continues; a team that
is undertaking medium-to-long-term monitoring
of missile research and development facilities;
and an aerial inspection team.


Ongoing inspections reveal that Iraq still is
not complying with applicable Security Council
resolutions. In March, UNSCOM #52/IAEA #18
concluded that, of the 242 machine tools at the
Hatteen Establishment, a large number should
have been-but were not-included in Iraq's
December 1991 declaration to the Security
Council. U.N. Security Council Resolution 687
required Iraq to provide a comprehensive declaration in April 1991. The IAEA is now deciding what steps should be taken.
Iraqi officials have also balked at moving
chemical weapon precursors and associated
equipment to Al Muthanna for destruction, despite express instructions from UNSCOM head
Rolf Ekeus. Ekeus has given Iraq until May
31 to comply, after which further steps may
be necessary.
In addition, Iraq has refused to give details
concerning suppliers for its WMD programs, although there have been repeated inquiries. Iraq
has continued its refusal to accept a long-term
monitoring regime for Iraq's WMD infrastructure. The international community must insist
on such long-term monitoring as called for in
U.N. Security Council Resolution 715.
United Nations vehicles in Iraq are regularly
vandalized, and inspectors' personal property is
often stolen. Iraqi officials should take steps to
improve the hostile environment, which the
U.N. Sanctions Committee has noted is not in


715




May 21 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


accordance with Iraq's obligations. Instead of
taking appropriate action, on March 10 Iraqi
officials alleged that information from U.N. U2
aircraft had been given to Israel for use in an
attempt on Saddam Hussein's life. Iraq called
for the end of U2 flights based on this assertion,
which is not credible but may be designed to
create resentment toward U.N. personnel in
Iraq. The flights continue.
I said in my last report that the United States
and our allies will not shrink from the use of
force in accordance with Security Council resolutions. On two occasions since my last report,
force has been necessary. On April 9, an Iraqi
antiaircraft site tracked and engaged four U.S.
aircraft monitoring Iraqi compliance in the nofly zone established north of the 36th parallel.
Two U.S. aircraft responded by dropping cluster
bombs on the target; the site has not since attempted to engage U.S. or Coalition aircraft.
On April 18, two Iraqi antiaircraft sites aggressively tracked and illuminated U.S. aircraft monitoring Iraqi compliance with the no-fly zone
south of the 32d parallel. One plane fired a
missile at one site, which was hit; no electronic
emissions have since been detected from either
site.
The "no-fly zones" over northern and southern Iraq monitor Iraq's compliance with Security
Council Resolutions 687 and 688. Over the last
2 years, the northern no-fly zone has deterred
Iraq from a major military offensive against the
Kurdish and other inhabitants of the north.
Since the no-fly zone was established in southern Iraq, Iraq's use of aircraft in aggression
against its population in the region has stopped,
as have large-scale troop movements. Nevertheless, evidence continues to mount concerning
the massive extent of the Iraqi Government's
human rights violations, both before and after
the Persian Gulf war. Max van der Stoel, Special
Rapporteur to the U.N. Human Rights Commission, has recently developed a plan for the
placement of human rights monitors throughout
Iraq. We support his proposal and are working
to see that it is implemented.
In late April, the United States announced
our support for the establishment of a U.N.
commission to investigate Iraqi acts of genocide,
war crimes, and crimes against humanity. The
Commission would prepare information for use
in possible prosecution; it would also provide
the international community with a thorough,
impartial record of atrocities committed by Iraqi


officials against the populations of Iraq and
neighboring states. We are consulting with our
allies on the creation of the commission. In accordance with Security Council Resolution 674,
all states and organizations with substantiated
information of Iraqi atrocities should provide
such information to the United Nations; the
United States did so earlier this year.
The International community has continued
its efforts, consistent with Security Council resolutions, to alleviate suffering in Iraq. The United
States is working closely with the United Nations and other organizations to provide humanitarian relief to the people of northern Iraq in
the face of Iraqi Government efforts to disrupt
this assistance. We continue to support new
U.N. efforts to mount a relief program for persons in Baghdad and the south but must ensure
that the United Nations will be able to prevent
the Iraqi Government from diverting supplies.
The U.N. sanctions regime exempts medicine
and requires only that the U.N. Sanctions Committee be notified of food shipments. In accordance with paragraph 20 of Resolution 867, the
Committee received notices of 17 million tons
of foodstuffs to be shipped to Iraq through January 1993. The Sanctions Committee also continues to consider and, when appropriate, approve
requests to send to Iraq materials and supplies
for essential civilian needs. The Iraqi Government, in contrast, has for months maintained
a full embargo against its northern provinces
and has acted to distribute humanitarian supplies only to its supporters and to the military.
The Iraqi Government has refused to sell up
to $1.6 billion in oil, as is provided for in Security Council Resolutions 706 and 712. Iraq could
use proceeds from such sales to purchase, under
U.N. supervision, foodstuffs, medicines, materials, and supplies for essential civilian needs
of its population. Iraqi authorities bear full responsibility for any suffering in Iraq that results
from their refusal to implement Resolutions 706
and 712.
Eventually, proceeds from oil sales also would
be used to compensate persons injured by Iraq's
unlawful invasion and occupation of Kuwait. The
U.N. Compensation Commission has received
about 800,000 claims so far, with a total of
roughly 2 million expected. The Commission's
Governing Council, at its last meeting, approved
the appointments of three panels, which will
begin considering individuals' claims of up to
$100,000. The Council also decided to allow


716




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / May 21


governments until October 1, 1993, to file individual claims. The United States Government
is prepared to file a fourth set of individual
claims with the Commission, bringing U.S claims
filed to about 1,000. The Commission's efforts
will facilitate the compensation of those injured
by Iraq once sufficient funds become available.
Security Council Resolution 778 permits the
use of a portion of frozen Iraqi oil assets to
fund crucial U.N. activities concerning Iraq, including UNSCOM, humanitarian relief, and the
Compensation Commission. (The funds will be
repaid, with interest, from Iraqi oil revenues
as soon as Iraqi oil exports resume.) Pursuant
to Executive Order No. 12817, the United States
is prepared to transfer up to $200 million in
frozen Iraqi oil assets held in U.S. financial institutions, provided that U.S. contributions do not
exceed 50 percent of the total amount contributed. The United Kingdom has recently transferred 1 million pounds sterling to the escrow
account, and we have arranged the transfer of
the equivalent amount. (The United States previously transferred a total of $50 million to
match Saudi and Kuwaiti contributions.) We
continue to encourage contributions from other
countries.
Iraq has not met its obligations concerning
Kuwaitis and third-country nationals it detained
during the war. Kuwait has compiled over 600
files on missing individuals. Although Iraq has
received this information through the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC),
it has taken no substantive steps to cooperate
fully with the ICRC, as is required by Security
Council Resolution 687. Iraq continues to resist
unqualified ICRC access to detention facilities
in Iraq. Regional organizations have also been
engaged-thus far to no avail-in trying to obtain Iraqi compliance on the issue of detainees.
We continue to work for Iraqi compliance.
The United Nations has continued its technical task of demarcating the previously agreed
Iraq-Kuwait border. The Iraq-Kuwait Boundary


Demarcation Commission is expected to submit
its final report later this month, notwithstanding
Iraq's refusal to participate in the Commission's
deliberations. In accordance with Security Council Resolution 806, the United Nations continues
to seek the contribution of an armed battalion
to the United Nations Iraq-Kuwait Observer
Mission (UNIKOM), so that UNIKOM can take
necessary actions to prevent violations of the
border and the demilitarized zone. The United
States and our allies also continue to press the
Government of Iraq to return all property and
equipment removed from Kuwait by Iraq.
Security Council Resolution 687 required Iraq
to renounce all acts, methods, and practices of
terrorism. Kuwait has recently arrested 11 people and charged them with participation in an
assassination plot against President Bush. We
are investigating this matter in cooperation with
Kuwaiti authorities.
In late April, Vice President Gore and Secretary Christopher met with representatives of
the Iraq National Congress (INC). They stressed
the need for full compliance by the government
in Baghdad with all Security Council resolutions
regarding Iraq. They also emphasized that Iraq
could be brought back into the community of
civilized nations only through democracy, respect for human rights, equal treatment of its
people, and adherence to basic norms of international behavior. A government representing all
the people of Iraq, and which is committed to
the territorial integrity and unity of Iraq, would
be a stabilizing force in the Gulf region. The
INC will have the support of the United States
in achieving these goals.
I am grateful for the support of the Congress
of our efforts.
Sincerely,
WILLIAM J. CLINTON
NOTE: Identical letters were sent to Thomas S.
Foley, Speaker of the House of Representatives,
and Albert Gore, Jr., President of the Senate.


Appointment for United States Holocaust Memorial Council Posts
May 21, 1993


The President today named Holocaust survivor and businessman Miles Lerman to be Chair


of the United States Holocaust Memorial Council and political scientist Ruth Mandel to be


717




May 21 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


the Vice Chair of the Council.
"I was deeply moved when I participated in
the opening of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial
Museum last month," said the President. "Miles
Lerman and Ruth Mandel are charged with


keeping the flame of memory alive. I have faith
in their ability to do so."
NOTE: Biographies of the appointees were made
available by the Office of the Press Secretary.


Appointment for Director of the National Park Service
May 21, 1993


The President announced the appointment of
Roger Kennedy as the Director of the National
Park Service, Department of the Interior. Kennedy is currently the Director of the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of American
History.
"There are few tasks more serious than the


stewardship of our national parks," said the
President. "With a record of public service dating back to World War II, Roger Kennedy is
more than up to the job of safeguarding these
precious resources."
NOTE: A biography of the appointee was made
available by the Office of the Press Secretary.


The President's Radio Address
May 22, 1993
Good morning. For the first time in more
than a decade, Washington is changing, and
we've begun to break the logjam that has kept
our economy from growing. We're moving away
from trickle-down special interests, anti-middleclass policies, toward fairness and opportunity
for all Americans.
Congress is moving our economic plan, which
makes real record cuts in the deficit. After a
decade of neglect and decline, it also makes
carefully targeted investments to create highskill, high-wage jobs again and to better educate
and train our people to fill those jobs so that
we can restore our economy now and leave a
prosperous America for our children. Our plan
challenges the status quo, and this is always
hard to do in Washington, especially when there
are tough choices involved.
For starters, we take on Government spending, beginning with a cut in the White House
staff of 25 percent, a freeze in Federal pay,
a reduction of 150,000 in the size of the Federal
work force, and cuts in more than 200 specific
spending programs, including huge entitlement
programs affecting almost every special interest
group. These are tough decisions, but they're


the right thing to do because they move America forward.
The plan also raises taxes to bring the deficit
down. Seventy-four percent of the new revenue
comes from people with incomes over $100,000,
just 6 percent of the American people, who
got most of the tax cuts in the 1980's. The
rest comes from the middle class in the form
of an energy tax which will help to clean up
our environment. What will it cost you? If your
income is between $30,000 and $100,000, the
energy tax will cost you $1 a month next year,
$7 a month the year after, and between $14
and $17 a month, depending on how many kids
you have, in the years after that. All the money,
the cuts, and the taxes will go into a deficit
reduction trust fund. There will be no taxes
without the cuts.
Is it worth it? You be the judge. Millions
of Americans have already refinanced their
home mortgages and business loans. Lower interest rates on car loans and student loans are
also coming, because the interest rates are down
following our clear determination to reduce the
deficit. If you're one of the Americans who has
already refinanced a home loan or a business


718






Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / May 22


loan, if you're getting lower car loans or student
loans, the chances are that this year you will
save more than you will pay in 4 years under
the economic program in the energy tax.
For example, if you have a $100,000 mortgage
on your home at 10 percent, due to lower interest rates we're experiencing that mortgage can
be refinanced at about 7.5 percent. What does
that mean for you? It means $175 a month
or $2,100 a year that you save in interest payments, $2,100 a year in interest savings on home
loans alone, just because the interest rates have
gone down since we've been working to bring
the deficit down.
All told, experts estimate that if we can maintain these lower rates, we can pump another
$100 billion into our economy. That means more
jobs for Americans, $100 billion more spent on
our families, spurring investment, raising incomes. It all creates jobs. That's a definition
of a plan that will work.
When you put that with all the incentives
we've given to lower taxes for families with incomes under $30,000, increases in small business expensing provisions, investment incentives
for bigger businesses, real incentives for people
who invest in new businesses, this means more
jobs.
The plan is also fair because it asks contributions from everyone while asking the most from
people who have the most and who have benefited the most from trickle-down policies. It cuts
Medicare costs and some retirement benefits.
It does include the energy tax. But it requires
the wealthy to pay their fair share and the lion's
share of the load.
When I presented the plan to Congress I
said then that if the interest groups picked the
plan apart the whole principle of shared contribution could be lost. Now, just days before
the plan will be voted on by Congress, the opponents and the special interests are trying to get
their way. Some of my opponents want to cut
Social Security and tax credits to working families with incomes of under $30,000 just to get
a tax cut for the rich. The big oil lobby is
trying to wiggle out of its contribution to deficit
reduction and force senior citizens barely above
the poverty line to get lower Social Security
benefits and senior citizens who are better off,
who are already being asked to pay taxes on
more of their income, to pay for a second time.
It's simply wrong for a powerful interest to
try and opt out of this program by asking the


elderly and the working poor to contribute more
so they can contribute less. Making middle
America pay more may be business as usual
in Washington but to the rest of the Nation
it must be unjust, unfair, and unacceptable.
I regret that otherwise good and responsible
legislators would even consider this proposal,
but I will fight it. The principles of fairness
in reducing the deficit, the principle of resisting
special interests and having uniform contributions from all, these must be protected to make
this plan work.
And if we don't pass the package, what will
happen? If we don't continue to cut the deficit,
our new and carefully won credibility will crumble as a nation and interest rates will start to
rise again, squeezing out the investments we
need to make to grow new jobs. And if interest
rates take off again, it will further increase the
deficit, ultimately consuming not only ours but
our children's standard of living.
We can't let this happen. We can't. We have
to instead bring the deficit down, keep the interest rates down, make available some funds to
invest in new technologies and in helping communities and companies and individuals hurt by
defense cuts, doing those things to create jobs
and make us competitive.
That's why I need you to raise your voices.
Ask Congress to turn down the special interests
and to preserve this program that asks fair contributions from everyone so that we can reduce
the deficit and create more jobs and provide
benefits to everyone.
Together we can all win. In just a few
months, working together, we've tackled tough
problems with new ideas. And we're stronger
for it. Congress has passed laws from family
leave to motor voter, long stalled by gridlock,
proposals from welfare reform to national service to pay for college education to putting more
police on our streets or on deck. But we have
to get this economy moving.
The spirit of new hope I believe will prevail.
Staying together we can make it work until there
is a permanent rebirth of hope in every household across this great Nation. I need your help
and so does America.
Thank you very much.
NOTE: The address was recorded at 1 p.m. on
May 21 in the Oval Office at the White House
for broadcast at 10:06 a.m. on May 22.


719






May 22 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


Remarks at the New Hampshire Technical College Commencement
Ceremony in Stratham, New Hampshire
May 22, 1993


Thank you very much. Madam President,
members of the faculty and staff, distinguished
Members of Congress and other platform guests,
and ladies and gentlemen, and most importantly,
the members of this graduating class: To answer
the president's question, I came here to address
this class because you were the people that I
ran for President to serve. It was your America
that I hoped to make better.
I'm proud to come back to the State that
15 months ago made me the "comeback kid"
in this country. [Laughter] On February 7, 1992,
when I came to this college, the people I met
here asked me about things that matter to mainstream Americans, about jobs and health care
and getting the economy moving again and
whether the future for our young people would
be better than the present. After I finished
speaking, one of your students, Greg Fuller,
then asked me to come back and speak at this
graduation. Stand up, Greg. And then he wrote
me a letter to confirm his request. That itself
was miracle enough. In 3 months and 2 weeks
we had received more mail at the White House
than had come in in all of 1992. There may
be another letter from Greg somewhere we
haven't found yet. [Laughter] But I'm delighted
to be here.
This is the first graduation ceremony I have
addressed as President, and I am told, I don't
know, but it may be the first time a President
has ever addressed a graduation of a technical
college. But I will say this: More colleges like
yours should have visits from the President because people who work hard and study hard
and who have to raise children and go to work
while they go to school and who are really on
the cutting edge, up and down, of this economy,
you are the heart and soul of our present and
our future.
The world in which you-[applause]-your
families are clapping for you. The world in
which you live, to be sure, has been full of
bad news here in New Hampshire for the last
few years, but it's also a very exciting and challenging place. And it will be different from the
world in which I grew up in two very important
ways. First of all, more than ever before, Amer

ica will be captured by the reality of the global
economy. More and more of our jobs will depend on trade. And more and more of our future will depend on not only how well we are
doing but how well our trading partners are
doing. One of our problems today is that Europe
and Japan's economies are down, so it's hard
for ours to go up. More and more, our national
security will depend not just on military power
but on our renewal of economic strength. More
and more, we'll have to find ways to cooperate
as well as to compete with other countries. We'll
have to find ways to preserve the global environment and still make it possible for the economies of our world to grow. That's the first thing.
The second thing is something you already
know, or you wouldn't be here. We are moving
very rapidly in all forms of production and service to a knowledge-based economy in which
what you earn depends on what you can learn,
not only what you know today but what you're
capable of learning tomorrow, and in which
every graduate of high school needs at least
to go on to 2 years of further education and
training. You know that, or you wouldn't be
here.
All of you have invested your money, your
time, your energy to take personal responsibility
for your own lives, developing your own skills
and in recognition of this new world reality.
Your investment in a way is an act of faith.
You know the world is knowledge-based; you
know you have to do this. Now having done
it, you have to have faith that there will be
opportunities for you, that if you have worked
hard and played by the rules, you will be rewarded.
As President I share that faith. I believe we
can make our system work. I believe we can
see our country once again reflect the values
with which all of us were raised. I don't think
any of us can ever lose sight of that. It's appropriate that I'm at this graduation, because New
Hampshire taught me all these things once
again. In the fall and winter of 1991 and 1992,
when I spent so much time here, I literally,
as we say in my part of the country, went to
school with you. Two winters ago I came face


720




-


Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / May 22


to face with middle class people who had lost
their jobs and their homes and their health care.
I met people whose business loans had been
canceled, even though they had never missed
a payment in their lives. I saw people who went
down to the public assistance office and began
to draw welfare checks just to make their home
payments to keep from putting their kids in
the street, middle class people who had had
jobs and never thought they'd be unemployed.
Every day when I get up in the White House
and go to the Oval Office to work, I think
about the people I met here and people like
them all over America whose quiet courage and
determination inspires me to keep fighting to
restore the middle class and the fundamental
strength and purpose of this country. I'll never
forget people like Ron Macos, Jr., who couldn't
get a job with health insurance because his little
boy had open heart surgery. And when the First
Lady's health care task force presents the national health care proposal in the next few weeks
to the Congress, if that proposal passes, the
Ron Macoses of this world will be able to keep
working and raising their children in the future.
I'll never forget a young woman I met named
Emily Teabold, who was a senior in high school
when I met her. Her father lost his job in New
Hampshire, and he spent her entire senior year
in North Carolina, because that's the closest
place he could find a job.
I met a man here named David Springs, who
was a month away from having his pension vested when he was fired from his company because
the people who owned his company sold it out
in one of these leverage deals. And they bailed
out with a golden parachute to a happy life
and left their employees on the rocks.
I remember some stories of courage, too. I
went to Clairmont and met the people who were
working in the American Brush Company, trying
to help revive that community. And I tried to
help them find some customers for their products. I remember going to Manchester and visiting a company called Envirotote that made bags
that we wound up buying all during the campaign and giving out with our little ClintonGore stickers on, all across the country. I saw
people who were trying to make this country
work again and trying to make New Hampshire
a beacon of opportunity again.
Most of the people I saw, for all their hurts,
never lost their hopes. And I'm here today to
thank you for not losing yours, for going through


this program and believing in it. Your president
said something I want to reiterate. For most
of the 20th century there's been a big division
in our minds about what kind of learning counts
and what kind of learning doesn't count as
much, a big division between what is vocational
and what is academic, between what is practical
and what is intellectual. In the last few years
really smart people realized that that's a bogus
distinction and that we have seen all over the
world, and especially here in America, the line
drawn down between the vocational and the academic, between the practical and the intellectual. All work requires knowledge, and it's not
so bad if it has a practical application. That
is what you have proved here.
So here we are with you. You have done
your job. You have done anything that could
be asked of you. Many of you have done this
at great personal sacrifice. I wonder how many
of you have gotten up in the morning wondering
about what you were going to do for child care
that day, wondering about whether you should
keep doing this given the fact that it costs
money and the unemployment rate in the State's
above the national average, wondering about all
kinds of uncertainties. You have done it. You
have done your job. You have now a right to
ask what is our job: What can you expect of
your country? What can you expect of your Government? What is our job? If you have been
responsible, what opportunity should you be
able to claim?
Our job is to try to put your values and your
dreams into law and into facts. It means we
have to have a new economic policy that recognizes that for 20 years, through the administrations of Democrats and Republicans alike, most
working people have been working harder for
lower hourly pay, one that recognizes that for
a long time we have been the only advanced
industrial country that didn't provide basic
health care to all of our citizens, the only one
that puts people in the trap of not being able
to change jobs if anybody in their family has
ever been sick, because they've got a preexisting
condition that will cost them their health insurance if they change jobs. That's a huge handicap
in a world where the average 18-year-old will
change work eight times in a lifetime and where,
because of global competition, most new jobs
are created by small businesses that are coming
into existence and going out of existence all
the time.


721




May 22 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


And then, for 12 years we have seen our
national debt go from $1 trillion to $4 trillion
and our national investment in many things that
are critical to our future go down. So we're
spending less on what we should be spending
money on, and costs are exploding.
You have a right to better than that. You
have a right to an economic policy that puts
our people first, our jobs, our technologies, our
education. You have a right to an economic policy that brings this deficit down so that we are
not crushed and paralyzed with it, into your
children's children's lifetime, with high interest
rates and a mortgaged future. You have a right
to be treated fairly and to be given a chance
to make it. You have a right to live in a country
where everybody is given a chance to make it,
which is not prejudiced against the wealthywe'd all like to be that way-but gives those
who aren't a fair chance to earn their due.
That is what you have a right to. And that
is what you do not have today. We are doing
our best in Washington to turn that around,
to get control of the deficit, to bring it down,
to invest in those things that will create more
jobs, and to guarantee over the long run that
we'll have jobs and incomes and health care
that will justify the efforts you have made by
going through this program. That is our responsibility.
I've asked the United States Congress to
adopt a program that begins with spending cuts,
starting with a reduction in my own staff, a
reduction in the size of the Federal Government
by 150,000 over the next 4 years, big cuts in
the administrative budgets, and asking the Federal employees to accept a wage freeze and
lower increases in later years so that we can
bring the deficit down. I have asked also that
more than 200 other spending programs be cut,
including the entitlements that have so much
special-interest support.
Second, it is clear to anyone who studies this
problem that we need new revenues also to
bring the deficit down. I've asked those who
can best afford to pay, whose taxes went down
in the 1980's, the wealthiest Americans, to pay
most of what we need to raise. Over 74 percent
of my tax program comes from the top 6 percent
of income earners. [Applause] A slight clap.
I also have proposed an energy tax which
most Americans will pay. It is one called a Btu
tax which will help promote conservation and
the use of the most clean and fuel-efficient


fuels. But listen to the way it works: Because
we offer income tax cuts to working families
with incomes under $30,000, those will offset
the impact of the energy tax. And for larger
families under $25,000, there will even be a
relief in the tax burden. For people with incomes above $30,000, at $40,000 and $50,000
and $60,000, here's what it costs. You're entitled
to know in plain language. Next year it costs
a dollar a month per family. The next year after
that, $7 a month; and the next year after that,
depending on the size of your family, between
$14 and $17 a month. You have to decide if
it's worth it to bring the deficit down.
But let me tell you, all the tax increases and
the spending cuts will be put in a trust fund
so that they can't be used to do anything but
bring the deficit down. And we can't have the
taxes without the spending cut. That's what the
budget resolution that was adopted a few weeks
ago means. We must cut spending. So we are
going to do that, both things.
Now, is it worth it? You have to be the judge.
But let me ask you just to consider this. Since
November, since we made it clear that we were
going to try to attack this deficit, and after the
announcement had been made after the election
that the deficit over the next 4 years would
be over $160 billion bigger than we were told
before the election, since November, long-term
interest rates have dropped. Millions of Americans have already benefited by refinancing their
home mortgages, refinancing business loans.
Many others will benefit by lower interest rates
on car loans or consumer loans or student loans.
If just someone here has refinanced a home
loan since November, in all probability, depending on the size of the mortgage, you will save
more in 1 year than you will pay in 4 years
in the energy tax. I think it is worth it to keep
the interest rates down and to drive the deficit
down. But you have to decide that.
There's a third way that we're trying to make
some fundamental changes. Just as we stop wasting money on things we don't need, I think
we do have to invest some in what we do need.
A lot of you, just in order to get through this
program, had to cut back on some of the things
that you would like to have spent money on.
A lot of you made meaningful financial sacrifices
in your own family life just to get here today
so you could wear the cap and gown. I know
that. But you've been wise to make that decision. Because of the investments you've made


722




~~~sb ----


Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / May 22


in education and training, in the years ahead
you'll be able to do more of the things that
you gave up doing in the last 2 years. You'll
be able to provide more opportunities for your
children. You'll be able to build a stronger family unit with a stronger family future.
That's what we're also trying to do. This program offers dramatic increases in incentives for
small businesses to invest money to become
more productive and hire new people, to invest
in research and development to find new products. It offers dramatic incentives to people to
try to end the real estate depression that has
gripped New England and southern Florida and
California and many other places. It offers real
incentives for people to invest in new businesses, the biggest in the history of America,
for people to try their hand in starting new
businesses. It offers an investment in new technologies, in defense conversion for all these people around America who have lost their jobs
because of defense cutbacks. And it attempts
to establish a transition from school to work
so that everybody, by the time we finish this
program, who graduates from high school who
doesn't go to a 4-year college would at least
have the clear opportunity to move right into
a 2-year program like this one, so they don't
lose time becoming productive and able to earn
the best wages they can earn. I think that is
a good investment in our future.
In other words, what I think our Government
owes you is to move beyond the two dichotomies that have argued so long in Washington,
in what I think is a very stale way. One says,
"Well, you're out there on your own, and all
we've got to do is make sure we don't spend
a nickel to see the cow jump over the moon."
The other says, '"We'll take care of you. We
can do things for you. Don't you worry about
it." Neither one of those approaches is right.
We can't entitle people to something that they
won't work for. But neither can we turn our
back on the plain responsibility of the United
States to provide opportunity for people who
will work for it. We have to empower people
to seize what they are willing to seize. You have
done your part; now we have to do ours.
I want to emphasize again, for the majority
of people who do not go on to a 4-year college,
it is imperative that we join the ranks of the
other high-wage countries and provide a system
by which 100 percent of them at least know
they have the opportunity to move into a pro

gram like the one that you have been a part
of. It is imperative. Why? Because just as what
you earn depends on what you can learn, what
America does in terms of growing jobs depends
on how functional all the people in this country
are. We don't have a person to waste. There
ought to be twice as many people here today
as there are at this graduation ceremony. And
if there were, the economy of New Hampshire
and the United States would be stronger as a
result.
I also believe very strongly that the United
States ought to make available, on terms everybody can afford, the funds that people need
to borrow to finance their education to 2- or
4-year schools. And we have proposed to change
the whole basis of the way the student loan
program works: to lower interest rates, number
one; and number two, to make available loans
and then let people pay them back after they
go to work and as a percentage of their income,
so that people will not be discouraged from
borrowing money today with the fear that they
won't be able to pay it back if they get a job,
especially if they get a job with a modest wage.
You ought to be able to pay it back as a limited
percentage of your income. It will make a huge
difference.
Now, I believe these policies together will
restore the sense of optimism to middle class
America that we need: the idea that we can
create jobs, that people who work at jobs can
raise their incomes over time if they continue
to improve their education and their productivity. And if we can do that and deal with the
health care issue, we can restore a sense of
possibility to America.
I don't pretend that this will be easy, that
the progress will be uninterrupted, that nothing
bad will happen. As I said at the beginning,
some of what happens to us economically here
in this country depends on what is happening
to all these other countries around the world.
A big percentage of the new jobs we've gotten
in the last 5 years have come from trade. We
won't get many if Europe and Japan are flat
on their back.
But a lot of what happens to us depends
upon what we do here. And you're entitled,
having done your part, to know that your Government has done its part. It may not happen
overnight. A lot of these economic trends have
been developing for 20 years. The political policies that we seek to change have been develop

723




May 22 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


ing for a dozen years. And I must say, it is
much easier to tell people that I'm going to
cut your taxes and spend more money on everything than to say we're going to have to raise
some money and spend less money on most
things.
A lot of the easy things have been done, but
I want you to believe that we can do it. We
have made a good beginning. Here's something
that can affect you. After years of arguing, we
finally passed the family leave bill that says you
can get some time off when a baby is born
or somebody's sick without losing your job. I
signed last week the motor voter bill, which
opens up the political process to easier registration, because another young student from New
Hampshire got me to sign a card when I was
here saying that I'd do my best to pass it if
I got elected President.
But changing this economy is a hard job. It
requires a lot of discipline, and it requires our
patience and concentrated effort, yours and
mine, over a long period of time. But we can
do it. We can do it.
The work of change is never easy. But you
have proved you weren't afraid to change. The
average student here is 30 years old. I can remember when I was your age, a lot of people
would have been embarrassed to go back to
school when they're 30. Now we've got people
Remarks on Bosnia and an Exchange
Hampshire
May 22, 1993
The President. First of all, I'm very pleased
by the agreement that has been reached by Secretary Christopher and the foreign ministers
from Russia, France, the United Kingdom, and
Spain. I think it puts us back together with
a common policy. I think that is a very good
thing. I think it does some important work in
confining the conflict to Bosnia so it doesn't
spread into Macedonia and Kosovo or other
places. I think that it takes a step toward ending
the ethnic cleansing and slaughter by staking
out the safe havens without doing what I was
opposed to, which is basically agreeing that
those folks were going to be in camps there.
In other words, we're still pushing for a political


going back to school when they're 70. And let
me tell you something: You must remain
unafraid to change. You must remain unafraid
to change. Many of you will have to go through
retraining programs when you're in your midto late fifties. You should look at that as a great
opportunity to live a rich and diverse and interesting life. If we can do what we should do
at the national level to reward the efforts you
are making, then change can be your friend
and not your enemy.
The heartbreaking thing I saw in New Hampshire all during the primary season last year
and in 1991 was how many people had been
victimized by change. I cannot repeal the laws
of change. No person can. Our common challenge is to preserve the values of work and
family and community and reward for effort in
the midst of all this change.
You have done your part. You should be
proud of yourselves today, and you should commit yourselves to continue to work to make sure
that change is your friend and that you are
rewarded for the extraordinary and courageous
efforts you have made.
God bless you, and good luck.
NOTE: The President spoke at 11:05 a.m. In his
remarks, he referred to college president Jane
Power Kilcoyne.
With Reporters in Manchester, New
settlement that has reasonable land for the
Bosnian Muslims. So I think it's a real step
forward. I think it has a chance to do some
good. I'm glad we're working together again,
and I applaud all the foreign ministers for this
work.
Q. You were a little skeptical yesterday after
the meeting with Foreign Minister Kozyrev. Has
something happened in the last 24 hours?
The President. Well, what happened was two
things. Number one, the safe havens were defined in a way that was clearly designed to end
the slaughter, provide safety and humanitarian
aid. And number two, they're willing to use the
safe havens to build on, that is to build a reason

724




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / May 24


able territorial settlement instead of just confining folks to camps forever. And finally, they
also agree explicitly to leave stronger measures
on the table if these fail. So I feel much better
about the position than I did yesterday. I applaud Mr. Kozyrev. He's done a lot of work
on this. And I will say this: President Yeltsin
said to me that after the elections and after
they began work on their own constitutional reform, that Russia would come back in and be
a full partner in this. And he has kept his word.
So we've worked together, and I feel good about
it.
Q. [Inaudible]-the risk of the United States
forces being drawn into a Vietnam-type quagmire that you're concerned about?
The President. No, it actually decreases that
risk. You can see from the statement where
we are on this. We have reaffirmed our previous
agreement to protect the forces that are there
working for the United Nations if they are attacked. We have said explicitly that we would
Remarks to the National Commission
Airline Industry
May 24, 1993
Thank you very much. First of all, I want
to just thank all of you for your willingness
to serve. I think I should say, because of the
coverage that this initial meeting is getting, that
the American people should know that this is
not an ordinary commission; there's only a 90 -day time window. It will require an enormous
sacrifice of your personal time and effort to do
all the massive work that needs to be done,
and I very much appreciate your willingness to
do it.
I'd also like to say a special word of appreciation to the Congress because of the bipartisan
nature of the support that this Commission had.
We all made efforts to appoint people without
regard to party and instead based upon their
knowledge of this issue and their commitment
to doing something about it. And I think there
is a real consensus in America that the people
who make airplanes and equipment and the people who run our airlines are critical to our economic future. It's a big part of our trade surplus.
There are millions of people whose jobs depend


talk to the government in Macedonia about the
United Nations strengthening its presence there
and about whether it would be advisable for
us to have a small force there. We are clearly
not going to get involved there either unilaterally or multilaterally in the conflict on one of
the sides of one of the combatants in a civil
war. That's what happened to us in those other
places. So the American people should be reassured that we have limited the possibility of
quagmire and strengthened the possibility of
ending the ethnic cleansing and the possibility
of limiting the conflict. I think this is a significant step. And we're back in harness again,
which is where we ought to be. We're all working together. I'm encouraged by it.
Thank you.
NOTE: The President spoke at 5:25 p.m. at the
Manchester Institute of Arts and Sciences. A tape
was not available for verification of the content
of these remarks.
to Ensure a Strong Competitive
upon it.
In his most recent book, "Head to Head,"
the economist Lester Thurow argues that there
are seven major areas of technology which will
produce the lion's share of the high-wage, highgrowth jobs of the 21st century, at least as far
as we can see into that century, that aerospace
is one of those areas, and that a nation with
a stake in any of these technologies gives it
up only at its peril.
We have enjoyed an enormously positive position in aerospace for a long time now. But if
you look at our airlines, the airlines alone have
lost as much money in the last 4 years as they
made in the previous 60. We have got to take
a look at what that means for us. If you look
at the fabulous manufacturers and suppliers that
we built up, there's no question that the partnership that those manufacturers were able to
develop, not simply with the private airline companies but also with the Defense Department,
made the economics of what they were doing
work. As we build down our defense budget


725




May 24 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


at the end of the cold war, that imposes major
new challenges for the airline manufacturers and
for the major component parts suppliers and
producers.
So these are difficult issues. There are also
serious questions about international competition. What kind of competition do we face, and
how can we face it in a way that is fair to
the American workers and all the American people whose livelihoods depend on this?
The point I want to make to you is I think
that this is one of the major issues involved
in shaping our competitive position in the world.
Governor Baliles and I were discussing this
whole issue 10 days ago. He noted and I will
repeat how remarkable it is that almost every
major economic issue we face today ultimately
comes down to whether we can compete and
win in a global economy. And if so, what do
we have to do to enable our people to do that,
and what kind of partnerships do we need in
the public and private sector?
This is an area, I'll say again, where I think
we have a major potential for bipartisan agreement to move forward, to protect and promote
an enormously significant sector of our economy.
I'm very optimistic about what we can do over
the long run. A lot of you around this table
know more personally than do I what great difficulties we have faced in the last few years
and understand there are still some tough challenges ahead. But I feel strongly about this.
I think we can do it. I think we have to do
it.
If you look at the whole range of challenges
facing the United States, the things that I've
tried to come to grips with in the last 4
months-trying to get the deficit under control,
trying to develop a technology policy, trying to
develop a more aggressive way of helping people
adjust from the defense to a domestic economy
and all the cutbacks that that involves-a lot


of that work will be substantially undermined
unless we have a vibrant aerospace sector in
our economy. It is critical to building a highwage future for America not just in the States
that are obviously affected, like Washington
State-and we have some Members of Congress
from Washington on this Committee-but
throughout the United States. There's not a
State, not a community in this country that
won't be better off if we have a strong and
vibrant aerospace economy.
Now, having said that, I want to introduce
formally, for whatever remarks he might wish
to make, Governor Baliles. I asked him to chair
this Commission for a number of reasons. I've
known him for many years; we were colleagues
in the Governors' conference together. In my
former life, I had the privilege to serve with
about 150 Governors in the seventies, the
eighties, and the nineties. If you forced me to
make a list of the 10 best I served with, Jerry
Baliles would certainly be on the list. He's one
of the most intelligent public servants I've ever
known. He also has the kind of mind that I
think we need to bring to this task. He sorts
out the wheat from the chaff pretty quickly,
gets to the bottom line, and synthesizes issues
remarkably well. I think you will enjoy working
with him. I think you will be glad you had
the opportunity to do it. And I believe, in no
small measure because of the leadership he will
bring to your work, there's a real chance that
we'll all be very proud of the results that come
out.
Thank you very much.
NOTE: The President spoke at 10:20 a.m. in the
Indian Treaty Room at the Old Executive Office
Building. In his remarks, he referred to Gerald
L. Baliles, Chair of the Commission and former
Governor of Virginia.


Remarks on the Small Business Administration Microloan Program
May 24, 1993


Good morning. Welcome to the White House,
and thank you for coming. A year and a half
ago, the Small Business Administration issued
the first microloan grants. To date, SBA has


awarded 47 grants. We now more than double
the program with 49 new grants. And we believe
that 42,000 jobs will be created as a result.
This administration is committed to helping en

726




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / May 24


trepreneurs create profits and jobs, and the
microloan program is integral to our strategy
to make that happen.
I want to thank Senator Pressler and Senator
Bumpers for their attendance here today. And
I want to say a special word of praise to my
State's senior Senator, Dale Bumpers, who sponsored this legislation to create the microloans,
something that he learned about as a result of
a community development bank operating in our
home State. I am very proud of it. It was modeled on the South Shore Bank in Chicago, and
when I was Governor, we worked hard to bring
the bank there. We know that this concept
works. And I appreciate very much the work
that Senator Bumpers has done to bring this
concept throughout America.
I also want to say that if the Congress, later
this year, adopts our proposal for community
development banks, then there will be more
banks out there supporting the SBA in the work
of making microloans. This is very important
because an enormous percentage of the jobs
in America are now being created by small business people and by people starting up their own
businesses and by people who are self-employed.
This is an innovative approach which opens the
doors of opportunity to Americans who otherwise would find those doors closed. The program enables community-based lenders to expand their reach and to make very, very small
loans to entrepreneurs who otherwise simply
couldn't find a way to make their ideas real.
Many potential borrowers simply don't meet
the credit standards of traditional lenders. Why?
Because of a poor credit history or no track
record as a borrower, they may simply not have
enough collateral. In fact, SBA analysis indicates
that many microloans will be made to individuals
who are currently on public assistance. By encouraging entrepreneurial instincts, the program
will then give them the help they need to take
the first steps toward economic independence,
not dependence. And in so doing, this could
be a very important part of our overall welfare
reform strategy to move more Americans from
welfare to work.
By using community-based lenders-and
some are with us today, and I want to thank
all of you who are here for your commitment
to this concept-this program relies on the lenders' understanding of the community and helps
to empower the community with the needed
resources to create jobs and growth. SBA looked


to these lenders for guidance when this program
was being designed. It is the lenders' history
of investing in their communities that will ensure the program's success.
Gail Miller from Dumas, Arkansas, started her
pottery business, Miller's Mud Mill, 8 years ago,
intent on making the money to send her sons
to college and give them their shot at the American dream. Gail has had good and bad years,
but she's learned that 15-hour days and 7-day
weeks can produce a profit. In fact, she's had
so many orders that she and her two-person
staff can't keep up with the demand. Last year
their inability to meet the demand cost her
$90,000 in lost sales. How many business people
in America would love to have that problem?
Gail has found the answer, however. The Arkansas Enterprise Group, a microlender from
Arkadelphia, Arkansas, knows a good thing when
it sees it. Using funds they borrowed from the
SBA through the microloan program, the group
has granted Gail a $25,000 loan. She's going
to use just under 20 percent of the money to
buy a version of the machine used by major
china manufacturing companies. This increased
capacity for production will finally allow her to
take advantage of the demand for her product.
She'll use the remaining funds for a revolving
line of credit.
Denise Cook used to receive welfare benefits
through AFDC, but she understands that we
all have a responsibility to work for self-reliance.
Denise trained herself as a paralegal and put
herself through school, working day and night.
Eventually, she graduated with a B.A. in criminal justice. She worked for a number of different firms as a paralegal, but her strong desire
for independence and a keen interest in forensic
research drove her into starting her own business. Self-Help Ventures Fund in North Carolina has a peer-lending microenterprise program
that requires training in business ownership, including peer counseling, as a prerequisite for
the loan. After she completed the successful
training period, Denise received a $500 loan
to get her business off the ground. Today she
provides investigative legal research to law firms
and other clients.
It is exactly these kinds of creative, hardworking people that the microloan program is
designed to help. Since June of 1992, the Small
Business Administration had awarded about $16
million to lenders who have already made 330
loans to small businesses. Today's awards rep

727




May 24 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


resent another $16 million. And the Small Business Administration calculates that 42,000 jobs
will result.
Small business is the backbone of our economic strength. In the last 10 to 12 years, small
business has created more jobs that were lost
during the restructuring of the larger businesses
of our country. However, about 3 years ago,
the small business job engine started to slow
down because of the global recession, the credit
crunch here in America which we are trying
to deal with, the spiraling cost of health care,
and other problems. But a lot of it is simply
barriers to entry because of the lack of available
capital.
To preserve the vitality of small business, and
increase their capacity to expand our work force,
we need programs like this one. The best route
to the American dream is the same route people
have trod for many, many years now: through
the small businesses. That's why we're expanding
the microloan program today. It creates jobs,
it relies on the private sector, it rewards drive
and creativity.
I want to say a special word of thanks again
to the Congress and especially to Senator Bumpers, the chairman of the Small Business Committee, for making this possible. I want Gail
Miller to be able to send her sons to college,
and this program will give her the tools, and
small business men and women like her, to do
exactly that.
Now I'd like to introduce two of the success
stories here on the program. And I want to
introduce all of them, of course: Erskine Bowles,
the SBA Administrator, who has already talked;
Denise Cook and Gail Miller who will speak;


Geraldine Janes, Chris and Regina Welch are
also up here with us, and they may or may
not want to say anything. But Denise and Gail
have agreed to speak, so I'd like to call first
Denise Cook and then Gail Miller. Let's give
them a hand. [Applause]
[At this point, Ms. Cook and Ms. Miller discussed their experiences.]
I want to thank all of you here who are lenders, who have worked on these programs. The
folks up here on this platform are the kind of
people I ran for President to try to help. And
I am deeply moved by what we have seen today.
It kind of reinforces my belief that these programs are on the right course and that we can
make a huge difference, that there are millions
of people our here, literally millions, who could
be employed and empowered if we had the
systems in place and the people there who felt
comfortable making loans and making these
kinds of judgments and understood what had
to be done.
And I thank all of you for being part of a
genuine American experiment. I wish you well.
I ask you to redouble your efforts. We'll redouble ours, and I know the Congress will make
sure that we get what we need to make these
programs succeed. I thank you all. And I thank
you, Senator Bumpers, Senator Pressler, for
being here. We're adjourned. Thank you very
much.
NOTE: The President spoke at 11:05 a.m. in the
Rose Garden at the White House. In his remarks,
he referred to small business owners Geraldine
Janes and Chris and Regina Welch.


Exchange With Reporters Prior to Discussions With President Richard von
Weizsicker of Germany
May 24, 1993


Bosnia
Q. Mr. President, have you been surprised
or disappointed by the reaction in Bosnia and
Serbia
The President. You mean, the opposition to
it?
Q. The opposition and the initial support from
Mr. Karadzic.


The President. No, it's about like I expected
it to be.
Q. [Inaudible]-U.N. observers into Serbian
territory, how does that complicate things?
The President. I don't want to say any more
about it now. I want to talk to the President
about it. We'll try to just absorb what has been
said and make the appropriate decision. But I'm


728




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / May 24


not particularly  surprised  by  the  various  out-signed the motor voter bill.
responsesQ. Mr. President, do you hope this week goes  NOTE: The exchange began at 4:05 p.m. in the
better than last week?                       Oval Office at the White House. A tape was not
The President. We had a good week last week.  available for verification of the content of this exThe Ways and Means Committee voted the bill  change.
Message to the Congress Transmitting District of Columbia Budget
Requests
May 24, 1993


To the Congress of the United States:
In accordance with the District of Columbia
Self-Government and Governmental Reorganization Act, I am transmitting the District of Columbia Government's 1994 budget request and
1993 budget supplemental request.
The District of Columbia Government has
submitted a 1994 budget request for $3,389 million in 1994 that includes a Federal payment
of $671.5 million, the amount authorized and
requested by the Mayor and City Council. The


President's recommended 1994 Federal payment
level of $653 million is also included in the
District's 1994 budget as an alternative level.
My transmittal of the District's budget, as required by law, does not represent an endorsement of its contents.
I look forward to working with the Congress
throughout the 1994 appropriation process.
WILLIAM J. CLINTON
The White House,
May 24, 1993.


Announcement of Presidential Scholars
May 24, 1993


The President joined Secretary of Education
Richard Riley today in naming 141 high school
seniors as 1993 Presidential scholars. The scholars, who are recognized for their achievements
in academics or the arts, will visit Washington
June 19-24 and will be honored at a White
House ceremony where each will receive a Presidential scholar medallion.
"These young people represent the best in
our country," said the President. "Through hard
work and community service they have earned
this prestigious award. I look forward to meeting
them next month at the White House."
Final selections of the scholars were made
by a 32-member Commission on Presidential
Scholars chaired by New Jersey Governor Jim


Florio. The Commission was appointed by President Clinton earlier this month.
The 141 winners include one young man and
one young woman from each State, the District
of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and from American
families living abroad; 15 at-large scholars and
20 scholars in the arts. Academic scholars were
selected on the basis of SAT and ACT scores,
essays, school recommendations, and transcripts.
Arts scholars were identified through an Arts
Recognition and Talent Search program conducted by the National Foundation for Advancement in the Arts.
NOTE: A list of the scholars was made available
by the Office of the Press Secretary.


729




May 25 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


Exchange With Reporters Prior to a Meeting With House Democratic
Leaders
May 25, 1993


White House Travel Office
Q. Mr. President, we haven't actually been
able to get your view on the dealings the White
House had with the FBI on all this travel stuff.
Could you tell us what your view of all that
is? Was it appropriate? Did you know about
it?
The President. The only thing I know is that
we made a decision to save the taxpayers and
the press money. That's all I know. We saved
25 percent on the first plane ride and saved
the taxpayers a bunch of money. Any other
questions, I'll just refer you to Mr. McLartyQ. Was it your decision to go around the


Attorney General and have the FBI issue a very
rare statement?
The President. I had nothing to do with any
decision, except to try to save the taxpayers and
the press money. The press has been complaining for years that they were overcharged by the
way the thing was done before. The first trip
out we saved 25 percent for the press, and the
taxpayers saved a lot of money. That's all I know
about it.
NOTE: The exchange began at 8:45 a.m. in the
State Dining Room at the White House. A tape
was not available for verification of the content
of this exchange.


Remarks at the "Drive American Quality" Presentation
May 25, 1993


Thank you very much, Mr. Bieber, and to
all of you who are here. I want to say a special
word of thanks to Mr. Smith and Mr. Poling,
Mr. Eaton and Secretary Brown and Secretary
Reich. I see Mr. Bieber just gave Secretary
Reich a nightshirt. I also want to thank all the
Members of the Congress who are here and
for their support of the auto industry in this
country.
I grew up as a boy, starting from the time
I was about 6 years old, in the back of a Buick
dealership. I have been interested in the automobile business all my life. I watched with sadness when it was down, and I feel great elation
now that I see it coming back. These cars are
what is best about America: increasing productivity, increasing quality, and gaining market
share back. The people who make them are
the people who deserve our support, and this
administration is determined to give it to them.
Last year the auto industry production was 5.6
percent of our gross national product. In 1992,
vehicle and parts manufacturing directly accounted for 4.6 percent of our manufacturing
employment. During the first quarter of this
year, the Big Three accounted for two out of


three auto sales in the United States, with the
American cars gaining market share in 1993.
This did not happen by accident. It required
investment, it required reorganization, it required some reductions in spending. Over the
last 3 years, $73 billion have been invested by
the Big Three. Since 1981, quality has dramatically improved. The number of customer-reported defects is down by 80 percent. And many
of our American cars, by any quality measure,
are better than their foreign competitors today.
They are also more fuel-efficient and increasingly so.
Our great challenge now is to produce cars
of high quality at affordable costs that are environmentally responsible and that preserve good
jobs here in America for those who can compete
and win. In order to do that, we have to begin
by getting our house in order. In the next few
days, the United States Congress will have a
chance to adopt the biggest deficit-reduction
package in the history of this country, one that
asks wealthier Americans-who, I might add,
have overwhelmingly been supportive of thisto pay most of the burden of the new taxes,
which exempts lower middle income Americans


730




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / May 25


from any burden and which asks the Congress
to impose unprecedented cuts, including reducing the Federal work force by 150,000 over the
next 4 years and cutting over 200 specific Government programs. This is a balanced program.
We also invest in jobs, in technology, and education and training. If we can get our house
in order, if we can bring our deficit under control, reduce it, make some room for targeted
investments in jobs and people, we can turn
this country around.
I think that the auto industry has showed
us what it takes. You've seen reduction in spending, you've seen painful cuts, you've seen dramatic increases in investment, you've seen
American workers not just working harder but
smarter, and you have seen years and years and


years of disciplined effort rewarded by something 5 years ago or 6 years ago most people
would tell you would never happen: Americanmade cars winning the quality race and regaining market share. That's what we're going to
do with our country.
Thank you and bless you all.
NOTE: The President spoke at 1:55 p.m. at the
National Air and Space Museum. In his remarks,
he referred to Owen Bieber, president, United
Auto Workers; John F. Smith, Jr., president, General Motors Corp.; Harold A. Poling, chairman
and chief executive officer, Ford Motor Co.; Robert J. Eaton, chairman and chief executive officer,
Chrysler Corp.


Exchange With Reporters on the Economic Program
May 25, 1993


Q. Mr. President, is the House going to pass  business. Good bill.
your tax bill?
The President. I think they're going to pass  NOTE: The exchange began at 2 p.m. at the Nathe budget bill, yes, which has a lot of cuts  tional Air and Space Museum. A tape was not
in it, and it also has some good things for these  available for verification of the content of this exfolks, good for manufacturing, good for small  change.
Remarks on Signing the Older Americans Month Proclamation
May 25, 1993


Thank you very much, Senator Pryor and Secretary Shalala. Let me also acknowledge in the
audience the presence of Senator Bill Cohen
from Maine, Congressman Marty Martinez, and
Congressman William Hughes. We're glad to see
them. And I also want to pay a special word
of respect to my good friend, our Vice President's mother, Mrs. Pauline Gore. She's a little
too young to be here, but I'm glad to see her
here anyway.
You know, Senator Pryor told that story about
the 100-year-old man who had been against all
the changes he'd seen. One of the things I think
that age does for all of us is it gives us the
ability to laugh at things that once we would
have cried about, something I've needed more


and more as I've taken this job. [Laughter]
But David told this story. It reminded me,
there's a town in Arkansas that has my name,
called Clinton, and I was invited there once
to a nursing home to celebrate the 107th birthday of this lovely woman. And I showed up,
and she had a beautiful pink dress on. And
I said, "Gosh, you're pretty today." And she
said, "Don't you go flirting with me. I'm not
looking for a husband." [Laughter] And so I
said, "Well, I appreciate that." I said, "You
know, I already have one wife. Don't you think
that's enough?" And she said, "I guess so, hard
as times are." [Laughter] Sometimes I think
about that.
This is the 30th anniversary of Older Ameri

731




May 25 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


cans Month. And I can't think of anybody I'd
rather be up here with than Secretary Shalala
or with Senator Pryor. When I was attorney
general and David Pryor was Governor, I just
reminded him up here, 18 years ago we sponsored our State's first conference on long-term
care and how to provide long-term care for senior citizens. Well, we're still chipping away at
it, but I just want you to know at least we've
got some credentials for being in the vineyards.
We are committed to keeping faith with the
senior citizens of this country, and we are trying
to fulfill that commitment in two very important
ways that are specific to our senior citizens and
one that is very important for the responsibility
we all seem to feel for the future. The first
is the White House Conference on Aging to
discuss providing for older Americans and also
for making better use of the time and talents
of our senior citizens. I feel very strongly that
both those things are important. Most people
I know who are in their later years want to
be challenged to do more, to bring to bear their
energy, their experience, their judgment, and
their perspective on a lot of the very thorny
problems and challenges we face today. And
I hope our administration can do that not only
here in Washington but all across America.
I am, in that regard, proud that we have
for the first time an Assistant Secretary for
Aging in the Department of Health and Human
Services, and I'm proud of Dr. Fernando
Torres-Gil who was introduced and who received such a warm reception from you.
The second thing that we hope to do is to
deal with some of the terrific health care challenges facing our senior citizens while keeping
faith with the obligations we now have to maintain the integrity of Social Security. The fastest
growing group of Americans are people over
80. The largest number of people I met on
the campaign trail last year with really heartbreaking stories were elderly people just above
the Medicaid eligibility line who had massive
drug bills every month. And literally, I met people in State after State after State that made
the weekly choice between food and medicine
because they were just above that Medicaid eligibility line and had no way in the wide world
to pay for medicine that was absolutely necessary to maintain their health.
So in this health program-I know a lot of
you have already heard a speech about this from
my wife, and she's gotten a whole lot better


on this subject than I have-but we are committed to a health care plan which will provide
coverage for all Americans, which will lower the
cost of health care, which will lower the cost
of health care for our country in the years
ahead-we're already spotting our competitors
35 percent of every dollar spent on health
care-and which, at the same time, will begin
to address the problems that I saw out there
for a wider range of long-term care services
and for dealing with the drug problem that our
elderly people have who are not Medicaid-eligible. These are the things that we must have
in a comprehensive, long-term care package.
I also want to say to you that I believe any
responsible health care plan must encourage and
indeed have incentives for health care maintenance and for the prevention of bad things happening. With the fastest growing group of people being people over 80, with more and more
senior citizens coming into really dominant positions in our country, with the Social Security
system starting in a few years to raise the retirement eligibility limit by a month a year, as all
of you know, as a part of the 1983 resolution
to resolve the crisis that then existed, it is absolutely imperative that we not only think about
giving health care services but maintaining
strong, healthy people. And that has got to be
a critical part of our health care plan, and I
know all of you will be out there lobbying for
that. We so often strain at a gnat and swallow
a camel when we don't have enough prevention
and maintenance of healthy people in our health
care plans and even in our own daily habits.
And so I hope you will all support that.
The last thing I'd like to say is that it seems
to me that those of you who represent older
Americans are in a unique position, being able
to have the benefit of memory, to know what
is going to happen to us in the years ahead
if we do not move now and move aggressively
to get control of this Government deficit, to
bring down our interest rates, to enable our
economy to grow, to give us some more elbow
room. Year-in and year-out for the last several
years, my heart has gone out to Members of
the Congress in both parties who have struggled
to find funds for things they think needed to
be funded or to just keep things going along
as they are, as we become more and more
consumed by an ever-growing deficit, going
from $1 trillion to $4 trillion in just 12 years.
I believe, as all of you now know, that we


732




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 I May 25


need to have both spending cuts and tax increases to close this deficit and to bring it down.
We could all argue until the cows come home
about whether every last decision has been perfectly right, but it is perfectly clear that if you
don't do both, you can't get where we're going.
And it is absolutely imperative that we send
a clear signal not only to the financial markets
but to our children and our grandchildren that
we are thinking about their future, that we are
not going to saddle them with so much debt
that we won't be able to finance education and
economic growth and the kinds of things that
every generation of Americans must be free to
spend money on, both private money and public
funds. If we don't take that opportunity now,
we will have squandered our responsibilities to
those who come behind us.
You know, I think more about it with each
succeeding year that my daughter grows older.
I think about how it won't be so long before
she and her generation will be making decisions
that now we're wrestling over. We owe it to
those kids and to the ones who will follow behind them to provide the freedom of movement
that any great society needs to reach the challenges of that time. We today, and this Congress, every Member will tell you, those people
who occupy Washington today are hamstrung
by a lack of freedom of movement because we
have permitted paralysis to drive this deficit up,
because we have refused to deal with the health
care crisis, we have refused to deal with automatic explosions and things that we could have
dealt with. And the time has come to face it
and face it squarely. And I hope and pray, for
the sake of our children and grandchildren, we
are about to do just that in the next few days
in the United States of America.
I want to say one thing finally. On the tax
side of this plan, 74 percent of the burden falls


on the top 6 percent of income earners in
America, and a lot of the rest falls on the top
20 percent of Social Security recipients whom
we have asked to subject more of their income
to taxation so as to avoid reducing cost of living
allowances to all the Social Security recipients
in the land who need that.
One of the things I think we have not said
enough, and I believe most people in the Congress would admit this: We have heard very
little opposition from upper income Americans
to paying their fair share of taxes as long as
they believe we're going to cut spending, bring
the deficit down, and provide for the basic
needs of this country. And to me, that's been
one of the most rewarding things out there.
A lot of the opposition is coming from middle
class people who think they're going to pay a
lot more than they are. But the people who
are really going to pay and who know it, by
and large, have been immensely patriotic in this
last 2- or 3-month period, knowing that they
have to make a contribution to securing the
future.
All of you here who represent the elderly
people of our country, you can reach out and
embrace this effort in a way that no other generation of Americans can. This is a difficult time
for the Congress, a difficult time for the country. The worst thing we can do is to walk away
and do nothing and continue the perilous paralysis of the last few years. So I implore you
to shoulder this. Think of our kids and
grandkids. Let's move this country forward in
a bipartisan and open manner.
Thank you. Cod bless you. And let's get on
with the signing.
NOTE: The President spoke at 5:30 p.m. in the
East Room at the White House. The proclamation
is listed in Appendix D at the end of this volume.


Exchange With Reporters on the White House Travel Office
May 25. 1993
Q. Mr. President, are you upset by this whole  of the President. And whenever you've asked
Travel Office mess? And who's responsible for  me a question, I've told you all I knew about
it, sir?                                      it. All I knew was there was a plan to cut the
The President. Well, ultimately, anything that  size of the office, save tax dollars, save the press
happens in the White House is the responsibility  money. I talked to Mr. McLarty about it this


733




May 25 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


morning. I said, you know, I keep reading this;
I know that there is a feeling at least, based
on what I've read, that someone in the White
House may have done something that was inappropriate or that wasn't quite handled right or
something. Mack and I talked about it today.
He said he would spend some real time on
and look into it, try to ascertain exactly what
happened, make a full report to me, which I
think is the appropriate thing to do. I simply
can't tell you that I know something I don't.
I literally don't know anything other than what
I've told you. He's looking into it now. He's
worked on it quite a bit today. And he's going
to make a report to me, and then we will take
appropriate steps, including saying whatever's
appropriate to you.
Q. Do you think that the White House approached the FBI improperly in this case?
The President. I don't have any reason to believe that. I mean, for example, there are lots
of cases where, historically, as nearly as we can
determine, the White House, if something happened within the White House, might ask the
FBI to look into it. So I don't know that. I
don't know that. And I don't have an opinion
yet. I have to wait. Mack agreed that he needed
to really make sure that he had all the facts
down; he needed to know exactly what had happened; he needed to report to me. I said, "Look,
this is just a simple case. Let's just follow the
do-right rule here, make up your own mind,
get the facts, see what you think happened, let
me know, and we'll tell the public." I mean,
there's nothing funny going on here. We really


were just trying to save money for everybody.
That was the only thing I was ever asked about
personally. And I don't believe that anybody else
had any other motives that I know about. And
so I asked him to look into it. When we know
more, we'll be glad to say more.
Q. What about Dole saying it has a tinge
of Watergate?
The President. There's none of that because,
you know, there's nothing like that going on.
There's no-no.
Q. Don't you thinkQ. [Inaudible]
The President. We're on top of it. We'll
Q. Don't you think a lot of people were hurt
by the way it was handled?
The President. Well, the question is whether
the people that were hurt did anything to merit
it. We'll just have to see. I mean, I want to
get a report, and then I will be glad to tell
you whatever I know. But let me find outQ. [Inaudible]
The President. All those decisions have been
made by Mack. We talked yesterday. We talked
again this morning. He said, "Look, I just want
to get on top of this. I'll tell you exactly what
happened. I'll tell you what I think." So I'm
waiting for a report. And I don't think I should
say anything else until I know more.
NOTE: The exchange began at 5:43 p.m. in the
East Room at the White House. A tape was not
available for verification of the content of this exchange.


Message to the Congress Transmitting the Notice on Continuation of
Emergency With Respect to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia
and Montenegro)
May 25, 1993


To the Congress of the United States:
Section 202(d) of the National Emergencies
Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)) provides for the automatic termination of a national emergency unless, prior to the anniversary date of its declaration, the President publishes in the Federal Register and transmits to the Congress a notice stating that the emergency is to continue in effect
beyond the anniversary date. In accordance with


this provision, I have sent the enclosed notice,
stating that the emergency declared with respect
to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia
and Montenegro) is to continue in effect beyond
May 30, 1993, to the Federal Register for publication.
The circumstances that led to the declaration
on May 30, 1992, of a national emergency have
not been resolved. The Government of the Fed

734




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / May 25


eral Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and
Montenegro) continues to support groups seizing
and attempting to seize territory in the Republics of Croatia and Bosnia-Hercegovina by force
and violence. The actions and policies of the
Government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) pose a continuing unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, vital foreign policy interests, and
the economy of the United States. For these
reasons, I have determined that it is necessary
to maintain in force the broad authorities nec

essary to apply economic pressure to the Government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
(Serbia and Montenegro) to reduce its ability
to support the continuing civil strife and bloodshed in the former Yugoslavia.
WILLIAM J. CLINTON
The White House,
May 25, 1993.
NOTE: The notice is listed in Appendix D at the
end of this volume.


Message to the Congress Reporting on the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
(Serbia and Montenegro)
May 25, 1993


To the Congress of the United States:
On May 30, 1992, in Executive Order No.
12808, President Bush declared a national emergency to deal with the threat to the national
security, foreign policy, and economy of the
United States arising from actions and policies
of the Governments of Serbia and Montenegro,
acting under the name of the Socialist Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia or the Federal Republic
of Yugoslavia, in their involvement in and support for groups attempting to seize territory in
Croatia and Bosnia-Hercegovina by force and
violence utilizing, in part, the forces of the socalled Yugoslav National Army (57 FR 23299,
June 2, 1992). The present report is submitted
pursuant to 50 U.S.C. 1641(c) and 1703(c). It
discusses Administration actions and expenses
directly related to the exercise of powers and
authorities conferred by the declaration of a national emergency in Executive Order No. 12808
and to expanded sanctions against the Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro)
(the "FRY (S/M)") contained in Executive Order
No. 12810 of June 5, 1992 (57 FR 24347, June
9, 1992), Executive Order No. 12831 of January
15, 1993 (58 FR 5253, January 21, 1993), and
Executive Order No. 12846 of April 26, 1993
(58 FR 25771, April 27, 1993).
1. Executive Order No. 12808 blocked all
property and interests in property of the Governments of Serbia and Montenegro, or held
in the name of the former Government of the
Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia or the


Government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, then or thereafter located in the United
States or within the possession or control of
U.S. persons, including their overseas branches.
Subsequently, Executive Order No. 12810 expanded U.S. actions to implement in the United
States the U.N. sanctions against the FRY (S/
M) adopted in United Nations Security Council
Resolution No. 757 of May 30, 1992. In addition
to reaffirming the blocking of FRY (S/M) Government property, this order prohibits transactions with respect to the FRY (S/M) involving
imports, exports, dealing in FRY-origin property,
air and sea transportation, contract performance,
funds transfers, activity promoting importation
or exportation or dealings in property, and official sports, scientific, technical, or cultural representation of the FRY (S/M) in the United
States.
Executive Order No. 12810 exempted from
trade restrictions (1) transshipments through the
FRY (S/M), and (2) activities related to the
United     Nations     Protection    Force
("UNPROFOR"), the Conference on Yugoslavia,
or the European Community Monitor Mission.
On January 15, 1993, President Bush issued
Executive Order No. 12831 to implement new
sanctions contained in United Nations Security
Council Resolution No. 787 of November 16,
1992. The order revokes the exemption for
transshipments through the FRY (S/M) contained in Executive Order No. 12810; prohibits
transactions within the United States or by a


735




May 25 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


U.S. person relating to FRY (S/M) vessels and
vessels in which a majority or controlling interest
is held by a person or entity in, or operating
from, the FRY (S/M), and states that all such
vessels shall be considered as vessels of the FRY
(S/M), regardless of the flag under which they
sail. Executive Order No. 12831 also delegates
discretionary authority to the Secretary of the
Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of
State, to prohibit trade and financial transactions
involving any areas of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia as to which there
is inadequate assurance that such transactions
will not be diverted to the benefit of the FRY
(S/M).
On April 26, 1993, I issued Executive Order
No. 12846 to implement in the United States
the sanctions adopted in United Nations Security Council Resolution No. 820 of April 17,
1993. That resolution called on the Bosnian
Serbs to accept the Vance-Owen peace plan for
Bosnia-Hercegovina and, if they failed to do so
by April 26, called on member states to take
additional measures to tighten the embargo
against the FRY (S/M) and Serbian-controlled
areas of Croatia and Bosnia-Hercegovina.
Effective 12:01 a.m. e.d.t., April 26, 1993, Executive Order 12846: (1) blocks all property and
interests in property of businesses organized or
located in the FRY (S/M), including the property of their U.S. and other foreign subsidiaries,
that are in or later come within the United
States or the possession or control of U.S. persons, including their overseas branches; (2) confirms the charging to the owners or operators
of property blocked under this order or Executive Orders No. 12808, No. 12810, or No. 12831
all expenses incident to the blocking and maintenance of such property, requires that such expenses be satisfied from sources other than
blocked funds, and permits such property to be
sold and the proceeds (after payment of expenses) placed in a blocked account; (3) orders
(a) the detention pending investigation of all
nonblocked vessels, aircraft, freight vehicles,
rolling stock, and cargo within the United States
suspected of violating United Nations Security
Council Resolutions No. 713, No. 757, No. 787,
or No. 820, and (b) the blocking of such conveyances or cargo if a violation is determined to
have been committed, and permits the liquidation of such blocked conveyances or cargo and
the placing of the proceeds into a blocked account; (4) prohibits any vessel registered in the


United States, or owned or controlled by U.S.
persons, other than U.S. naval vessels, from entering the territorial waters of the FRY (S/M);
and (5) prohibits U.S. persons from engaging
in any transactions relating to the shipment of
goods to, from, or through United Nations Protected Areas in the Republic of Croatia and
areas in the Republic of Bosnia-Hercegovina
under the control of Bosnian Serb forces.
Executive Order No. 12846 authorizes the
Secretary of the Treasury in consultation with
the Secretary of State to take such actions, and
to employ all powers granted to me by the authorities cited above, as may be necessary to
carry out the purposes of that order. The sanctions imposed in the order do not invalidate
existing licenses or authorizations issued pursuant to Executive Orders No. 12808, No. 12810,
or No. 12831 except as those licenses and authorizations may thereafter be terminated, suspended, or modified by the issuing Federal
agencies, but otherwise the sanctions apply notwithstanding any preexisting contracts, international agreements, licenses, or authorizations.
2. The declaration of the national emergency
on May 30, 1992, was made pursuant to the
authority vested in the President by the Constitution and laws of the United States, including
the International Emergency Economic Powers
Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), and section
301 of title 3 of the United States Code. The
emergency declaration was reported to the Congress on May 30, 1992, pursuant to section
204(b) of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1703(b)). The additional sanctions set forth in Executive Orders
No. 12810, No. 12831, and No. 12846 were
imposed pursuant to the authority vested in the
President by the Constitution and laws of the
United States, including the statutes cited above,
section 1114 of the Federal Aviation Act of
1958, as amended (49 U.S.C. App. 1514), and
section 5 of the United Nations Participation
Act of 1945, as amended (22 U.S.C. 287c).
3. Since the last report, the Office of Foreign
Assets Control of the Department of the Treasury ("FAC"), in consultation with the Department of State and other Federal agencies, issued
the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and
Montenegro) Sanctions Regulations, 31 C.F.R.
Part 585 (58 FR 13199, March 10, 1993-the
"Regulations"), to implement the prohibitions
contained in Executive Orders No. 12808, No.


736




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / May 25


12810, and No. 12831. A copy of the Regulations is enclosed with this report. The seven
general licenses discussed in the last report were
incorporated into the Regulations. The Regulations contain general licenses for certain transactions incident to: the receipt or transmission
of mail and informational materials and for telecommunications transmissions between the United States and the FRY (S/M); the importation
and exportation of diplomatic pouches; certain
transfers of funds or other financial or economic
resources for the benefit of individuals located
in the FRY (S/M); the importation and exportation of household and personal effects of persons arriving from or departing to the FRY (S/
M); transactions related to nonbusiness travel
by U.S. persons to, from, and within the FRY
(S/M); and transactions involving secondary-market trading in debt obligations originally incurred
by banks organized in Slovenia, Croatia, BosniaHercegovina, and Macedonia.
On January 15, 1993, FAC issued General
Notice No. 2, entitled "Notification of Status
of Yugoslav Entities." A copy of the notice is
attached. The list is composed of government,
financial, and commercial entities organized in
Serbia or Montenegro and a number of foreign
subsidiaries of such entities. The list is illustrative of entities covered by FAC's presumption, stated in the notice, that all entities organized or located in Serbia or Montenegro, as
well as their foreign branches and subsidiaries,
are controlled by the Government of the FRY
(S/M) and thus subject to the blocking provisions of the Executive orders. General Notice
No. 2, which includes more than 400 entities,
expands and incorporates the list of 284 entities
identified in General Notice No. 1 (57 FR
32051, July 20, 1992), noted in the previous
report.
As part of a U.S.-led allied effort to tighten
economic sanctions against Yugoslavia, on March
11, 1993, FAC named 25 maritime firms and
55 ships controlled by these firms as "Specially
Designated Nationals" ("SDNs") of Yugoslavia.
A copy of General Notice No. 3 is attached.
These shipping firms and the vessels they own,
manage, or operate by using foreign front companies, changing vessel names, and reflagging
ships, are presumed to be owned or controlled
by or to be acting on behalf of the Government
of the FRY (S/M). In addition, pursuant to Executive Order No. 12846, the property within
U.S. jurisdiction of these firms is blocked as


direct or indirect property interests of firms organized or located in the FRY (S/M).
The FRY (S/M) has continued to operate its
maritime fleet and trade in violation of the international economic sanctions mandated by United Nations Security Council Resolutions No. 757
and No. 787. Operations and activities by Yugoslav front companies, or SDNs, enable the Government of the FRY (S/M) to circumvent the
international trade embargo. The effect of FAC's
SDN designation is to identify agents and property of the Government of the FRY (S/M), and
property of entities organized or located in the
FRY (S/M), and thus to extend the applicability
of the regulatory prohibitions governing transactions with the Government of the FRY (S/
M) and its nationals by U.S. persons to these
designated individuals and entities wherever located, irrespective of nationality or registration.
U.S. persons are prohibited from engaging in
any transaction involving property in which an
SDN has an interest, which includes all financial
and trade transactions. All SDN property within
the jurisdiction of the United States (including
financial assets in U.S. bank branches overseas)
is blocked.
The two court cases in which the blocking
authority was challenged as applied to FRY (S/
M) subsidiaries and vessels in the United States
remain pending at this time. In one case, the
plaintiffs have challenged the application of Executive Order No. 12846, and the challenge remains to be resolved. The other case is presently
pending before a U.S. Court of Appeals.
4. Over the past 6 months, the Departments
of State and the Treasury have worked closely
with European Community (the "EC") member
states and other U.N. member nations to coordinate implementation of the sanctions against the
FRY (S/M). This has included visits by assessment teams formed under the auspices of the
United States, the EC, and the Conference for
Security and Cooperation in Europe (the
"CSCE") to states bordering on Serbia and
Montenegro; deployment of CSCE sanctions assistance missions ("SAMS") to Albania, Bulgaria,
Croatia, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Hungary, Romania, and Ukraine to assist
in monitoring land and Danube River traffic;
bilateral contacts between the United States and
other countries with the purpose of tightening
financial and trade restrictions on the FRY (S/
M); and establishment of a mechanism to coordinate enforcement efforts and to exchange


737




May 25 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


technical information.
5. In accordance with licensing policy and the
Regulations, FAC has exercised its authority to
license certain specific transactions with respect
to the FRY (S/M) that are consistent with the
Security Council sanctions. During the reporting
period, FAC has issued 163 specific licenses regarding transactions pertaining to the FRY (S/
M) or assets it owns or controls, bringing the
total as of April 30, 1993, to 426. Specific licenses have been issued for (1) payment to U.S.
or third-country secured creditors, under certain
narrowly defined circumstances, for pre-embargo import and export transactions; (2) for legal
representation or advice to the Government of
the FRY (S/M) or FRY (S/M)-controlled clients;
(3) for restricted and closely monitored operations by subsidiaries of FRY (S/M)-controlled
firms located in the United States; (4) for limited FRY (S/M) diplomatic representation in
Washington and New York; (5) for patent, trademark and copyright protection, and maintenance
transactions in the FRY (S/M) not involving payment to the FRY (S/M) Government; (6) for
certain communications, news media, and travelrelated transactions; (7) for the payment of
crews' wages and vessel maintenance of FRY
(S/M)-controlled ships blocked in the United
States; (8) for the removal from the FRY (S/
M) of manufactured property owned and controlled by U.S. entities; and (9) to assist the
United Nations in its relief operations and the
activities of the U.N. Protection Force. Pursuant
to United Nations Security Council Resolutions
No. 757 and No. 760, specific licenses have also
been issued to authorize exportation of food,
medicine, and supplies intended for humanitarian purposes in the FRY (S/M).
During the past 6 months, FAC has continued
to closely monitor 15 U.S. subsidiaries of entities
organized in the FRY (S/M) that were blocked
as entities owned or controlled by the Government of the FRY (S/M). Treasury agents performed on-site audits and reviewed numerous
reports submitted by the blocked subsidiaries.
Subsequent to the issuance of Executive Order
No. 12846, operating licenses issued for U.S.located Serbian or Montenegrin subsidiaries or
joint ventures were revoked and the U.S. entities closed for business.
The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Board and the New York State Banking
Department again worked closely with FAC with
regard to two Serbian banking institutions in


New York that were closed on June 1, 1992.
Full-time bank examiners continue to be posted
in their offices to ensure that banking records
are appropriately safeguarded.
During the past 6 months, U.S. financial institutions have continued to block funds transfers
in which there is an interest of the Government
of the FRY (S/M). Such transfers have accounted for an additional $24.5 million in
blocked Yugoslav assets since the issuance of
Executive Order No. 12808.
To ensure compliance with the terms of the
licenses that have been issued under the program, stringent reporting requirements are imposed. Some 350 submissions were reviewed
since the last report, and more than 150 compliance cases are currently open. In addition, licensed bank accounts are regularly audited by
FAC compliance personnel and by cooperating
auditors from other regulatory agencies.
6. Since the issuance of Executive Order No.
12810, FAC has worked closely with the U.S.
Customs Service to ensure both that prohibited
imports and exports (including those in which
the Government of the FRY (S/M) has an interest) are identified and interdicted, and that permitted imports and exports move to their intended destination without undue delay. Violations and suspected violations of the embargo
are being investigated, and appropriate enforcement actions are being taken. There are currently 39 cases under active investigation.
7. The expenses incurred by the Federal Government in the 6-month period from December
1, 1992, through May 30, 1993, that are directly
attributable to the authorities conferred by the
declaration of a national emergency with respect
to the FRY (S/M) are estimated at $2.9 million,
most of which represent wage and salary costs
for Federal personnel. Personnel costs were
largely centered in the Department of the
Treasury (particularly in FAC and its Chief
Counsel's Office and the U.S. Customs Service),
the Department of State, the National Security
Council, the U.S. Coast Guard, and the Department of Commerce.
8. The actions and policies of the Government
of the FRY (S/M), in its involvement in and
support for groups attempting to seize and hold
territory in Croatia and Bosnia-Hercegovina by
force and violence, continue to pose an unusual
and extraordinary threat to the national security,
foreign policy, and economy of the United
States. The United States remains committed


738




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / May 25


to a multilateral resolution of this crisis through
its actions implementing the binding resolutions
of the United Nations Security Council with respect to the FRY (S/M). I shall continue to
exercise the powers at my disposal to apply economic sanctions against the FRY (S/M) as long
as these measures are appropriate, and will con

tinue to report periodically to the Congress on
significant developments pursuant to 50 U.S.C.
1703(c).
WILLIAM J. CLINTON
The White House,
May 25, 1993.


White House Statement on the Situation in Guatemala
May 25, 1993


The President was very disappointed to hear
that President Serrano of Guatemala has suspended the Congress and courts and other
democratic rights protected by the Guatemalan
Constitution. This illegitimate course of action
threatens to place Guatemala outside the demo

cratic community of nations. We strongly condemn such efforts to resolve Guatemala's problems through nondemocratic means. We hope
the Guatemalan leadership will reverse its
course and immediately restore full constitutional democracy.


Appointment for National Railroad Passenger Corporation Posts
May 25, 1993


The President today appointed Robert Kiley,
the former chairman of New York's Metropolitan Transportation Authority, and former Ohio
Congressman Don Pease to the Board of Directors of the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak). The appointments are effective
immediately.


"Robert Kiley and Don Pease have both had
long and distinguished careers in public service,"
said the President. "They both will make excellent additions to this important Board."
NOTE: Biographies of the appointees were made
available by the Office of the Press Secretary.


Nomination for an Under Secretary of Commerce
May 25, 1993


The President announced his intention today
to nominate Dr. Mary Lowe Good, the senior
vice president of Allied-Signal, Inc., to be Under
Secretary of Commerce for Technology Administration.
"One of the central challenges that we face
in the 1990's is making sure that our Nation's
technological capacities are developed as fully
as possible," said the President. "With a distin

guished record of commercial research and of
involvement with national technology policy, Dr.
Good has what it takes to help ensure that Government does its part to make that happen."
NOTE: A biography of the nominee was made
available by the Office of the Press Secretary.


739




May 25 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993
Nomination for Ambassador to Zambia
May 25, 1993


The President today announced his intention
to nominate Roland Karl Kuchel to be Ambassador to Zambia. Kuchel, a career foreign service officer, is currently Assistant to the Director
General of the Foreign Service.
"I am very glad to be making this nomina

tion," said the President. "Roland Kuchel has
had a long and accomplished career in the Foreign Service."
NOTE: A biography of the nominee was made
available by the Office of the Press Secretary.


Remarks and an Exchange With Reporters Prior to a Meeting With the
Congressional Black Caucus
May 26, 1993


Budget Proposal
The President. Let me say, what I'm trying
to do is pass this program in the House. I do
one step at a time. I think it's clearly, of all
the things that have been presented, the fairest
program. It has significant budget cuts, reduces
the size of the Federal Government by 150,000,
leaves some room for investment, 74 percent
of the tax is paid by 6 percent of the people.
It's a fair program. It will cost the average person a dollar a month next year, $7 a month
the year after, $15 a month the year after for
a family. And it exempts people of incomes
under $30,000. It is a fair, balanced program.
I'm going to try and pass it.
Q. Sir, what are you telling Members of Congress who are worried that they could lose their
seats because of some of the tougher elements
of this package?
The President. That all the evidence shows
that the more people know about the details
of the package, the more likely they are to support it. And that if it becomes a rhetorical battle
where anyone says that it's tax-and-spend, well,
who's for that? Nobody's for that. But the American people are for bringing this deficit down.
They are for investing in jobs and technology.
They are for a fairer tax system that asks everyone to pay their fair share. And they are for
a system that moves people from welfare to
work. This program does all those things. It
is a very good program. There is no evidence
that once people know the facts that they will
do that.
Q. What are you going to do to make sure


they know the facts? Are you going to go on
nationwide radio and TV before the House
votes?
The President. I don't know that that is possible or that it will be done before the House
votes. But what I have told them is that the
day that the people had the most detailed
knowledge of this plan was February 17th, because I went through the whole thing, chapter
and verse. So nothing was hidden from the
American people. It was all given out.
What has happened since then is-you know,
there's a lot of static and back-and-forth. And
the President can't go on television every night
for that length of time, but that is clear evidence
that the more people know about it the more
likely they are to support it. Just today I'm going
to see some more of the business executives,
who will pay more in this plan, who have supported this. Yesterday, Mr. Rostenkowski listed
50 major companies who are supporting the program. We have small business people all over
America who are supporting the program, realtors and others, consumer groups. So the people
who know more about the program, the more
you know about it the more likely you are to
be for it.
Q. But isn't energy the hangup? Mr. President, isn't energy the hangup?
The President. It is a big hangup. And we're
working
Senator Boren's Proposal
Q. And how about Boren? Are you going to
be able to work with him?


740




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / May 26


The President. Well, I hope so. We're working
through it. I think that it is now apparent to
everyone that there are only two plans on the
table in the Senate and that ours is far fairer
and better for the economy. I mean, the other
plan reduces the tax for the oil interest in Oklahoma and elsewhere, but it does it at the expense of putting a $40 billion burden on Social
Security recipients and lower income working
people just above the poverty line. It also would


shift massive health costs away from the Government on to private employers and employees.
I don't think they're for that. So now that we've
got an alternative out there, it shows you that
our plan is sound and balanced. We're just going
to keep working at it.
NOTE: The President spoke at 8:52 a.m. in the
Old Family Dining Room at the White House.
A tape was not available for verification of the
content of these remarks.


Exchange With Reporters During a Luncheon With Business Leaders
May 26, 1993


White House Travel Office
Q. [Inaudible]-members of your staff in the
Travel Office scandal? Is part of this inquiry
going to consider-going to be a chance of
shakeups because of the event?
The President. Well, I would like it on the
record that one of the things they did was to
figure out how to save-how to do the same
work with less than half as many people and
save you 25 percent on your first flight. I keep
hoping I'll read that somewhere in these accounts. I think that ought to be accounted for.
I was-the press complained to me repeatedly
about being gouged by the White House Travel
Office. I kept hearing it everywhere. So we put
it out on a competitive bid and saved you 25
percent.
Now, if it wasn't handled right, we'll get to
the bottom of it, and we'll straighten that out,
and it will be handled right. That's what Mr.
McLarty worked on yesterday. And we will do
what is appropriate, follow the "do-right rule,"
and go forward. I -don't have anything else to


say about it.
Ross Perot
Q. Mr. President, as you meet with these
CEO's, your-I put this in quotes-one of your
"favorite business guys," Mr. Perot, has been
sniping at you again. He told David Frost that
you don't have the background or the experience for the most difficult job in the world.
How do you deal with this kind of talk from
him?
The President. You deal with it. [Laughter]
Q. He said you were doing things the Arkansas way.
The President. Well, we know he doesn't like
my State. But he spent several million dollars
to bad-mouth it last-and it doesn't have much
to do with America. We're going to just keep
working.
NOTE: The exchange began at 12:25 p.m. in the
Old Family Dining Room at the White House.
A tape was not available for verification of the
content of this exchange.


Announcement of White House Fellows
May 26, 1993
The President today appointed 17 men and    White House fellows are a select group of
women from a variety of backgrounds and across  men and women who spend a year early in
the country to be the 1993-94 class of White  their career serving as paid assistants to the
House fellows.                              President, Vice President, or Cabinet-level offi

741




May 26 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


cials. This class will begin their fellowship year
in September. They were selected by a commission appointed earlier this month by the President. It was chaired by Nancy Bekavac, the
president of Scripps College.
"This is a group of people of exceptional abilities, strong motivation, and a commitment to
serve their country," said the President. "I look
forward to their service and am confident they
will join the successful ranks of such White
House fellowship alumni as General Colin Powell and Secretary Henry Cisneros."
The individuals chosen for this year's fellowships are:
Paul T. Anthony, Washington, DC
Suzanne Rose Becker, Bolton, MA
Christopher Frank Chyba, Ellicott City, MD
Jami Floyd, Oakland, CA
Remarks in the "CBS This Morning"
May 27, 1993
Paula Zahn. Here comes President Clinton,
cup of coffee in hand-decaf coffee.
The President. Good morning.
Budget Proposal
Ms. Zahn. We wanted to start off by talking
about the late night you kept last night. Word
of an agreement that was struck between Democratic leaders and conservative members of your
party on your economic plan. Do you think you
now have the votes to carry this plan through
in the House?
The President. I think it will help. This is
an agreement that I have wanted for a long
time, because I think that the people are entitled to know that if we pass these budget cuts,
that they're actually going to be made. I've been
concerned, as someone who was a Governor
who came from a State with a very tough balanced budget law, I've been very concernedcan you hear me? Can we start again?
Q. You have two mikes on you now, Mr.
President.
The President. There was an agreement made
last night that I had been supporting for a good
long while sponsored by the conservative Democrats essentially to put a mechanism in the
budget to force us every year to make the budg

W. Scott Gould, Topsfield, MA
Kevin Vincent Grimes, Mountain View, CA
Suzan Denise Johnson Cook, Bronx, NY
Michael Nathaniel Levy, Washington, DC
Gaynor McCown, New York, NY
Barbara Paige, New York, NY
Raul Perea-Henze, New York, NY
Leslie Ramirez, Evans, GA
Maj. David Rhodes, USAF, Glendale, AZ
Reginald L. Robinson, Lawrence, KS
Martha E. Stark, Brooklyn, NY
Todd Ulmer, San Francisco, CA
Maj. Roderick Von Lipsey, USMC, Philadelphia, PA
NOTE: Biographies of the White House fellows
were made available by the Office of the Press
Secretary.
Town Meeting
et cuts that we say we're making in this 5 -year budget. That is, obviously it's very hard
to predict what will happen in every year for
the next 5 years. If you had to do a family
budget for 5 years, it might not be possible,
or a business budget or a farm budget. So these
numbers are as good as we can make them.
But this amendment actually says that every
year, if we miss the deficit reduction target,
the President has to bring in a plan to meet
it and the Congress has to vote on it. And if
they want to change it some, they can, but we've
got to meet the deficit reduction target.
We have been working for days to get this
done. And finally, yesterday afternoon they gave
up. So I called the folks that had given up,
and I said, go back to the table. We've got
to have some discipline in this budget, so that
if we tell people we're going to make the cuts,
we do it. And that's what this amendment says.
Ms. Zahn. What happens if you don't get this
through in the House today?
The President. We keep working until we get
a budget through. The real problem is, I think,
that-there are two problems: One is that the
details of the plan have been lost in the rhetoric;
the second is that a lot of the Republicans who
might otherwise want to vote with us got into


742




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / May 27


a position where they said they wouldn't vote
for any tax.
Over 60 percent of this money, of the tax
money, over 60 percent comes from people with
incomes over $200,000. Seventy-four percent of
it comes from people with incomes over
$100,000, people whose taxes went down in the
eighties while their incomes went up. People
with incomes under $30,000 are protected even
from the Btu tax. And next year people in the
middle will pay about $1 a month, and it goes
to $7 a month and then about $15 a month.
We have to get all of our votes apparently
from the Democrats this time. I hope it won't
happen anymore.
Ms. Zahn. No help from the Republicans?
The President. Well, in the Senate we might
get some Republican votes. We're working on
it.
[At this point, the network took a commercial
break. ]
Administration Accomplishments
Harry Smith. We are live in the Rose Garden
with over 200 people from many States around
the country, a couple of foreign countries as
well. We're here with President Clinton. We
thank you, first, for inviting us in to do this
town meeting.
I know you don't pay attention to this sort
of stuff, polls. You never pay attention probably,
right? The negatives are now higher than the
positives in the polls. And I want to tap into
something here, because there's a feeling in the
country, and I think the people here reflect
it. I think people in America want to see you
succeed, but I just want to see a raise of hands
this morning, and don't be intimidated just because you're in the Rose Garden. [Laughter]
Do you feel like he could be doing a better
job? Raise your hand if you think so. Don't
be intimidated. Don't be intimidated. There's
a lot of folks who feel that way. Do you feel
like there's been a gap between the promises
of the campaign and the performance thus far?
If you think so, raise your hands. A lot of folks
feel that way. What went wrong?
The President. First of all, I don't know that
anything went wrong, except I'm glad nobody
found our about the manicure I got in California. [Laughter]
Ms. Zahn. Let's check it out.
The President. I'll tell you what went wrong.


What went wrong was I was not able to keep
the public focus on the issues that we're working
on after I gave the State of the Union Address,
even though that's what we kept doing.
Now, look, we've been here 4 months, and
look what's happened in 4 months-and they
give you a 4-year term-look what's happened
in 4 months: We had a major foreign policy
challenge in Russia right after I got in office.
If Yeltsin had gotten beat in Russia and a militant regime had returned, we would have had
to turn around with the defense budget and
a lot of bad things could have happened to
America. The United States went to work, organized the rest of the world, supported Yeltsin.
He won the election. We're back on track there
making this world a safer place. That's my number one job. I think that's pretty impressive.
The Congress passed a resolution committing
to do a budget that reduced the deficit by $500
billion on time for the first time in 17 years.
Congress passed the family leave bill they've
been fooling around with for 8 years to guarantee people some time off without losing their
jobs. They passed the motor voter bill they've
been fooling around with for years. No one now
asks are we going to reduce the deficit. The
question is how much and how. No one now
asks are we ever going to do anything about
health care. The question is when and exactly
what are we going to do. I think that's a pretty
good record for 4 months.
Now, if you do a lot of things and you try
to change a lot of things overnight, you may
break some eggs, and it's not an exact process.
And controversy always is better news-you
know that-than the lack of controversy. So one
of the things that happened-we were laughing
about this yesterday-is I'll bet you most people
in this audience and most people in this country
have no earthly idea that we're going to cut
way over $200 billion in spending off of this
budget over the next 5 years, because the people
who normally fight spending cuts supported it
this time, and we rolled through the spending
cuts without controversy. So the only controversy is over whether we should raise any
taxes and from whom.
Now, I think we're doing pretty well, but
I think we've done a lousy job of being able
to cut through the fog that always surrounds
this town and communicate that. I'll admit that.


743




May 27 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


Media Coverage
Ms. Zahn. Why? Why have you had a tough
time doing that?
The President. Well, you tell me. I don't
know. All I know is, I went to Cleveland the
other day, and I talked to these four television
folks locally. And they said-I'll just lay it outthis guy said, "I was for you, but I'm mad at
you because since you've been in Washington,
you've spent all your time on Bosnia and gays
in the military." I said, "How do you know
that?" He said, "I watch the news every night."
[Laughter] And I said, "Well," I said, "okay,
let me tell you," I said, "I just did an analysis
of what I did the first 100 days. I spent 25
percent of my time on foreign policy, all foreign
policy, including going to Canada to see Mr.
Yeltsin. I have to. That's my job. No one else
can do that. I spent 40 percent of my office
time and about 55 percent of my total time
working on the economy and health care"-let
me finish-"and 20 percent of the time working
on other domestic policies and seeing people
and doing that." He said, "How much time have
you spent on gays in the military?" I said, "Two
and a half hours." He said, "I don't believe
that." I said, "That's the truth. You can look
at the calendar."
So all I'm saying is controversy gets news.
And when we're out here working on things
that aren't controversial, it's often not reported
in the news. And I have to find a way to do
a better job of communicating directly to the
American people as well as-I'm not saying we
haven't made any mistakes. If you do a lot of
things, you're going to make some mistakes. But
the major failure since February 17th is not
being able to communicate directly what we are
doing and answer directly the questions and the
criticisms of the American people. That's been
the major problem, and I've got to figure out
how to do it.
Selection of Attorney General
Mr. Smith. You know what it is, though, I
mean, given all of that stuff, motor voter, budget, all that other stuff, on a day-by-day basis,
a week barely goes by that there isn't some
sort of story that it sounds like-and I think
people here would say, is the President on sure
footing? One, two, three different choices for
Attorney General. Flip-flop: We're going to get
tough on Bosnia, and then we're not going to


get tough on Bosnia.
The President. You want to talk about it, we
can. See, that's what people do; you can't just
lob these things out there.
Mr. Smith. We have 2 hours to talk about
all of this. We have 2 hours to talk about all
of this, but it seems like a day or a couple
of days doesn't go by when they're putting out
fires in the White House. And people want to
know, do you have this thing under control?
The President. Well, let me just mention the
Attorney General thing. First of all, I think I've
got a pretty good Attorney General, don't you?
Mr. Smith. I think people would agree with
that.
The President. And the country's not-[applause]-and I think I did a good job. Secondly,
if you look at what happened there, one of the
things that no one noticed is that I was the
first President since anybody could remember
that had every other member of his Cabinet
confirmed the day after I took office. So there
is another side to this story. That was a manifestation of confidence, getting them all up and
getting them all confirmed the next day. That
hadn't happened in anyone's memory.
We had some problems with the Attorney
General thing, partly because the American people learned about an issue that we're now moving to resolve, this whole business about if you
have household help, how you withdraw the Social Security, and what you do. That's a big,
tough issue. I'm sorry it happened. I still think
Zoe Baird is a fine person who made, obviously,
a mistake and paid for it. But thousands of other
Americans have, too. And I hope now we're
going to get it cleaned up so people will follow
the law and the law will be reasonable. But
I wound up with an awfully good Attorney General, and I'm proud of her.
[The network took a commercial break.]
Health Care Reform and Gridlock
Ms. Zahn. We're back in the Rose Garden
now for a 2-hour town meeting with President
Clinton. We have your first question now from
the audience. Where are you from?
Q. I'm from Milwaukee, Wisconsin. I'm a lab
technician.
Ms. Zahn. Fire away.
Q. Well, I think I'll stay with my original
question. We've seen a lot of issues being passed
lately. We've seen some bills being passed. But


744




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / May 27


the bigger bills, the things that dealt in the
economy and jobs creation, along with that, especially this health care thing, they look like
they're going to be destined to be locked up
in gridlock. Is there some way that we can be
confident that things are going to happen in
this country?
The President. I think you can be. Let me
talk about-let's just talk about health care. And
I'd like to talk about health care with this budget. A lot of Americans say to me what I say
to myself every morning, which is that after
we cut all this spending and raise this money
and we reduce the deficit by $500 billion, it's
still going to be too big in 5 years because
what's driving the deficit now-defense is coming down, we're holding about everything else
constant-what's driving the deficit is the exploding costs of health care, the same thing
that's hurting a lot of your businesses or maybe
your homes or if you buy individual policies.
In the last 4 months we've had hundreds of
people here working on this health care task
force that my wife is chairing. But we've also
really worked hard to reach out to Republicans
and Democrats and independents both in the
Congress and around the country, people who
provide health care, people who insure against
health care, all those folks.
I think you're going to see when we get this
budget out of the way, which is the toughest
thing-everybody wants to reduce the deficit,
but everybody's got a different idea about how
to do it-when we get that out of the way,
I think you'll see an honest debate on health
care. Now, keep in mind this health care thing
could be the most important thing we've done
in a generation to provide security to working
families and people who don't have it and people who have to change their jobs.
When President Roosevelt and the Congress
put in the Social Security system it took them
2 years to do it. We're going to try to do it
in a year. We're going to do our best to do
it in a year. And then, of course, we'll have
to phase it in over time because of the cost,
but I think we can do that.
I wouldn't be too discouraged. What you're
seeing now, this fight over the budget and the
fight over the emergency jobs plan earlier, is,
I hope, the most partisan you will ever see this
environment. I am doing everything I can to
ask the Republicans to help, to ask people from
outside to come in, to open up the process.


I hate all this. I mean, I didn't run for President
to get up and fight with the Republicans every
day. It doesn't help America, and I don't want
to do it. And I believe you will see a much
more open process when the health care debate
starts.
Now, that's not to say everybody is going to
agree with me. They shouldn't. But I believe
there's a real chance we'll get health care reform, and it will come with bipartisan support
from around the country and within the Congress.
Ms. Zahn. But the fact is you've also had
to do a lot of fighting with Democrats of your
own party. And I think a lot of people were
hoping, with a Democratic President and a
Democratic Congress, that things would have
gone more smoothly. Do you think issues like
the haircut and the problems in the Travel Office have made it harder for you to get this
economic plan through?
The President. No. I think this economic plan
is-I think it does because if you publicize
something like that and people don't know, for
example, on my haircut, that I asked whether
anybody would be held up or inconvenienced,
and I was told no. I asked twice, and I was
told no. Now, I'd never do that, not in a hundred years, not ever. I mean, I wasn't raised
that way; I've never lived that way. That's not
the kind of person I am. So, you know, if something like that happens and it hurts me on a
day-to-day basis, it may slow things up.
But the real problem is, if these problems
were easy, somebody else would have done
them. You try to face difficult things and ask
people to take difficult choices and make tough
stands; it takes time.
Ms. Zahn. President Clinton, I'm going to
have to cut you off. Someone has to pay for
the show today.
[The network took a commercial break.]
Ms. Zahn. When we left you a couple of
minutes ago, President Clinton was addressing
the issue of gridlock. Anybody else have some
questions here about partisan politics and
gridlock? Will you stand up?
Campaign Finance Reform and Gridlock
Q. I'm from Sulphur Springs, Texas. And I
do have a question about partisan politics. It
seems evident to us voters that when we elect
people and send them to State government or


745




May 27 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


to Washington, that they are more interested
in the health and well-being of their party then
they are the health and well-being of the country in general. And I'm wondering what we can
do other than term limits? What can we expect
in the next few years to help that situation?
The President. I think there are two things
you can do. First of all, you can support some
changes in the system that will make it work
better. There are two bills here that will help:
require all lobbyists to register and report how
much money they spend on Members of Congress, and secondly, change the campaign laws.
You make the system less partisan if you lower
the cost of congressional campaigns, reduce the
influence of PAC's, and open the airwaves to
honest debate. I think those things would matter.
I think the second thing you can do is to
follow up on what this gentleman said. Tell us
to get something done here. Tell us, talk less
and do more. And I really believe that that
mood in the country is going to manifest itself.
I've got some friends who are Republican Senators who told me they're not comfortable with
this filibuster deal. They want us to get together;
they want us to work together. I think you'll
see more progress in the months ahead. I really
do.
This is the toughest part. The budget is the
toughest part. The debt got from $1 to $4 trillion in 12 years. It's hard to turn around. None
of the choices are easy. This is the roughest
part. I think you'll see it get better. I'm going
to do everything I can to reach out to them
and to try to depoliticize this atmosphere. But
if you change the rules, you'll change that. You
will make people closer to their folks and less
partisan.
Ms. Zahn. I've got another question here from
the audience. Please stand.
National Sales Tax
Q. I'm from Woodlake, CA, and I'm a retired
teacher. My concern is about taxes. I'm wondering if you have considered a national sales tax
in place of, but not added to, the income tax
system we now have. Is it feasible at all?
The President. It is feasible if it's not regressive. In other words, you could lower the income tax and have a value-added tax, so-called
national sales tax, but if you did that at a high
level, that is, if you're going to replace the income tax or most of it, it would have to-[in

audible]-and you would have to exempt food
and housing and the basics of life. It's something
that we may look at later on.
Most countries have a small national sales tax
to replace part of their income tax. And the
reason they do it is it helps your exports, that
is, you don't apply it to things you sell to other
countries, but you do apply it to things other
countries sell in your country. So it helps your
exports, and it helps your competitive environment at home more than the system we have.
But it's such a big issue, I thought we ought
to face the economy and health care first. When
that's out of the way there will be plenty of
time to debate the tax system. But it is a big
change for America. And most Americans don't
trust us to fool with their pocketbooks anyway.
So it would have to take a big long debate,
where people were absolutely concerned that
it wasn't going to be regressive and unfair to
the middle class.
Ms. Zahn. President Clinton, we're going to
take a short break again right now, at 29 minutes after the hour. We'll be back.
[The network took a commercial break.]
Mr. Smith. We are back live in the Rose
Garden, and we've had a couple of microphone
problems which we think we have fixed now.
What did you just say?
The President. I said if you were a politician
and all these mikes went out, they'd say, are
you a failed network, are you a failed newscaster? [Laughter]
Ms. Zahn. They will be saying that maybe
in a half hour from now.
The President. It's just one of those things.
Something always goes wrong.
White House Travel Office
Mr. Smith. You know what, we need to talk
about this, "Travelgate." Who knew what when,
and why was the FBI called in, and why did
you hire your cousin, and why did you have
a firm from Arkansas take over this business?
The President. First of all, let's get back to
the beginning, okay? Let's talk about my cousin.
She's about my fifth or sixth cousin who worked
in the campaign and ran the travel operations.
We had a very efficient travel operation.
Every operation at the White House was reviewed, because I said I was going to cut the
White House staff by 25 percent. That's not
easy to do, to run the White House on fewer


746




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / May 27


people than your predecessor. We got more mail
in 31/2 months than came to the White House
in all of 1992. It's tough.
We found out that there were seven people
working in the Travel Office, primarily to book
travel for the press, and that the press was complaining that the cost was too high. So there
were all these recommendations made to change
it. But nothing was done until an accounting
firm came in and reviewed the operation and
found serious management questions in terms
of unaccounted-for funds and things like that.
So then the person in charge of that made the
decision to replace them.
Now, all those questions were raised about
whether they all should have been replaced. Mr.
McLarty got on it. He did an internal review.
He'll fix it. But the issue is: Should we work
seven people when three can do the job? And
if we saved 25 percent off the cost of the very
first plane flight, isn't that a good thing for
the press? That's what we're trying to do.
Mr. Smith. And nobody's going to argue with
that. But what they are going to argue with
is why was the FBI called in?
The President. Oh, the FBI, because the
FBI was called in to look at the auditor's report,
not to accuse any of these people of doing anything criminal but because there were sufficient
questions raised that there had to be a review
of it. And the FBI sounds like a huge deal
to you, but when you're in Washington and
you're the President, you can't call the local
police or the local prosecutor; that's who you
call.
Ms. Zahn. But even your own Attorney General is now posing the question about a breach
of policy. Is she right or wrong?
The President. Well, to the best of our ability
to determine it, there has never been a policy
that if the White House had a local internal
matter, they had to go through the Attorney
General to get to the FBI. The FBI's always
been an independent investigative agency. But
I have no problem with doing that, because
I trust her. I think she's got great judgment.
But the report in the auditor's findings made
us believe that someone at least ought to look
into this and clear the air. And that's all we
were trying to do.
Ms. Zahn. Was Attorney General Reno justified in questioning the process?
The President. She can question whatever she
wants to, I think. She's a fine person. I like


her. But I'm just saying, to the best of my
knowledge, there has never been a policy that
the White House, if they had some internal
activity going on here, would clear asking the
FBI to look into it through the Attorney General. But I have no problem with doing it. Not
with me or anybody else was that the policy
before, to the best of my knowledge.
Mr. Smith. But at minimum, it looks like you
used the FBI to justify what in turn ended up
looking like or was, in fact, an act of cronyism.
The President. No. It may look like that, but
the bottom line-it wasn't an act of cronyism.
The bottom line is if we can run an office with
three that they were taking seven to run, and
we can save 25 percent off a trip because we
have competitive bidding when they didn't have
competitive bidding, the press saves money and
the taxpayers save money. That was my only
objection. If anything wrong was done, Mr.
McLarty will correct it. This is a do-right deal,
not a do-wrong deal. Let's not obscure what
happened. We were trying to do the people's
work with less money.
Mining Reform Legislation
Mr. Smith. Do you have a question?
Q. Yes, I do. I'm from Redwood City, California. I was a Clinton precinct leader in that State,
and I'm very happy to see you elected. My
question, however, is regarding the environment.
I supported you in spite of the issue that Tyson's
was one of the major producers of jobs in your
State; it's also the major producer of pollution
in your State. And I supported you in hope
that Al Gore would work on convincing you
to be more of an environmental President than
George Bush was. However, I noticed that you
recently backed down when it came to upping
the user fees on mining, grazing, and lumber.
This is in spite of the fact that mining, I believe,
is fixed at like under a dollar an acre to mine,
this based upon a post-Civil-War law, but you've
not upped it. I understand that it could
contribute
The President. Let me ask youQ.     $17 billion to the budget.
The President. Okay. No, no. There wasn't
$17 billion, I don't think. Do you all know what
he's talking about? The Federal Government
owns land-that's a very good question. I'm glad
you asked it. The Federal Government owns
a lot of land on which there are trees, cattle,
and minerals to be mined. Most people believe,


747




May 27 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


and it's absolutely true, that essentially people
have been permitted to use that land, mostly
out west, to cut trees, graze cattle, and mine
minerals at lower than a market rate. Now, all
the people who do that have good reasons why
they think the system is good, and I don't know
if we've got any of those folks in the audience,
but I feel that the mining fees should be raised.
Originally we had, originally-he's right-we
had that in our original budget. And we took
it out not to take a dive on it but because,
since it's a new issue, under the parliamentary
rules of the Senate, we'd be subject to a filibuster. That is, you have to get 60 votes, not
a majority, to pass the budget.
So we are moving now a new mining reform
law through the Congress which will do exactly
what you say. We just had to agree to do it
on a separate track. The mining reform is on
track. I believe this year I will sign a mining
reform law which you will be very proud of,
which will require those companies to pay back
to the Treasury more nearly the value of what
they have gotten from the United States Government, and it will be good for the environment.
It's a good question. It's going through on
a separate track, and we had to break it out
for parliamentary reasons because of the opposition to it in the Senate.
[The network took a commercial break.]
White House Staff
Ms. Zahn. We're back in the Rose Garden
live with a 2-hour town meeting with President
Clinton. Before we get back to our audience,
a quick question to you about staff. There has
been a lot of criticism that you've surrounded
yourself by young and inexperienced people.
There has been talk that maybe there are going
to be some major shakeups over the next couple
of days. Are you entirely satisfied with the White
House staff you have in place?
The President. No, but they're working hard
and we've gotten a lot done. I'm glad I got
to talk about that. I think there are always going
to be-you can't-this is the hardest place in
the country to work in some ways. And I think
that we've had a period-you know, we came
in, most of us were not from here, we were
trying to do things differently. And there are
a lot of things that we didn't handle as well
as could have been handled. This Travel Office


is one. What we were trying to do was good
for the country and good for the taxpayers. And
there were glitches in it. We are going to fix
that. But I think that by and large, we'llMs. Zahn. You're going to fix that by
firing
The President. We have a-well, just watch
and see what we do. We're going toMs. Zahn. No hints?
The President. No hints.
But I would also say that I wonder whether
people think the staff is younger than it is. I
mean, you have the head of my economic team,
Bob Rubin, is in his fifties and was one of
the most successful people on Wall Street. Our
major senior staff, I think, on balance, is slightly
older than President Kennedy's were. But there
are a lot of young people in other positions
here. And sometimes I think that the overall
impression is that the staff is quite a bit younger
than it is in terms of people that are actually
making decisions.
Urban Youth
Q. One of the big things about your campaign
was hope for the future and don't stop thinking
about tomorrow. My question is about the children in the country, especially in the inner
cities. It seems like they've kind of lost hope,
and it seems like they don't have a future. And
I'm wondering what we can do as a country
to instill that back into them.
The President. I think there are some things
that I can do as President, but there are also
some things that are going to have to be done
community by community and block by block.
Let me talk about the things I can do first.
My job, I think, for those kids is to try to
do as much as I can to make sure they've got
a fair chance to make it under difficult circumstances. What does that mean? That they
have a healthy beginning, get a good chance
to get a Head Start program and decent nutrition, that their schools are as good as we can
influence them, that their streets are safer, that
they have a chance to work when they're young,
at least with summer jobs, and that there's some
economic opportunity there.
We have presented initiatives in all this area.
We're going to have more police on the street,
more investment in Head Start, and a dramatic
increase in incentives for business to invest in
those areas.
But frankly, I think also, we have to say to


748




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / May 27


those kids, the only way you can make it is
if you play by the rules. And we know it's tougher where there aren't as many intact families.
We know it's tougher where there's more violence. But we've got to have more people go
in and deal with those kids one-on-one. A friend
of mine said the other day-someone asked,
"How are we going to rescue all these kids?"
And she said, "The same way we lost them,
one at a time."
And we've got to have more people interested
in these people as people. I'm telling you. I
just got back from south central LA. Those kids
aren't all that different from everybody else's
kids. They just want a chance to live. And if
we can give it to them with more personal involvement, I think they can make it.
Mr. Smith. When you talk about one-on-one,
are you talking about a giant volunteer corps
or are you talking about some kind of system
that's going to cost more money to do it?
The President. No, I'm talking aboutMr. Smith. In 30 seconds.
The President. I'm talking about-the money
should be going to the things I mentioned. What
we need is for people in each of these communities to be involved with those kids. I can't
do that. We need people in these communities
sponsoring schools, involved in the schools,
working with those kids after school and on the
weekends. They're good kids. They just need
a chance to make it.
[The network took a commercial break.]
Ms. Zahn. Welcome back to Washington and
the Rose Garden. We continue our conversation,
our town hall meeting, with President Clinton
right now. I thought I'd give the folks that have
been staring at our back sides all morning a
chance to ask you a question.
Sir, your question.
Law Enforcement
Q. My question to you is in regards to a
law enforcement issue in this country. We're
well aware of the position of the previous administration in regards to the support of law
enforcement. My question deals with the fact
that I heard you mention earlier about trying
to get additional police officers, 100,000 and
so forth. We in this city, I believe it was a
matter of a couple of weeks ago, went to the
Hill to try to get additional funding to keep
several segments of our police department run

ning, mainly one of which is the helicopter unit,
which provides a lot of support service for the
ground police officers and the Secret Service
and ATF. And they were turned down for, I
think it was like, they were going for $2 million
or something at that rate. But my question to
you is, dealing with Congress up there, which
it seems they have a problem of partisanism
now, like I say, as far as —
The President. Well, let me explain. First of
all, let's talk about the bigger issue here, that
this gentleman is an example of a major national
problem. Thirty-five years ago, there were three
policemen in America for every serious crime.
Today, there are three crimes for every police
officer. And a lot of cities have had to reduce
hiring of police officers with budget problems
they've got. So one of the things I said in the
election was I would try to find a way to put
100,000 more police officers on the street over
the next 4 years.
There's a bill moving through Congress right
now which makes a down payment on that, and
the House passed it late last night. If the Senate
passes it, and I think they will this time, it's
a smaller bill, but it will permit us to hire another 15,000 or so police officers. And that will
start the down payment. Then I'm going to support the crime bill, which includes the Brady
bill, to require people to wait so we can check
their criminal background before they buy handguns. It will also have more police officers on
it.
We're going to give people coming out of
the military incentives to go into police work.
We're going to give young people the opportunity to pay off part of their college loan by
being police officers for a while. So I think
we can get this 100,000 figure. And you will
be helped by that. But this bill that's going
through now should help DC and all the States,
because it provides funds specifically for those
who want to rehire people who have been laid
off as well as hire new police officers. And that
should help a lot.
Abortion
Q. Good morning. I'd like to know, is abortion
going to be covered under the new health care
plan?
The President. I don't think a decision has
been made about that. Let me tell you what
the problem is. The Congress has historically
not permitted public funds to be spent for abor

749




May 27 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


tion, except to save the life of the mother. Most
private health insurance plans permit some
broader coverage for abortion for people who
are covered.
So what the health care task force is trying
to resolve is how to at least provide for the
position that we shouldn't-in solving the national health crisis, we shouldn't take away from
people some right they now have in their health
insurance plans. And that's what they're trying
to work through now. And I'm not sure exactly
where they're going to wind up, but I think
they're going to try to wind up in a way that
either does that or at least makes it possible
that that can be done. That's the dilemma here.
Ms. Zahn. You mean the continuation of
The President. That gives people the right to
at least access what they've got now in their
health insurance plan, if they're private citizens
and they get that, as a result of this change
we've got, because what we're trying to do is
not run this money for the uninsured through
the Government anyway. We want it to be operating outside the Government and the taxpayers.
Ms. Zahn. Harry's working the other side of
the audience over there.
Mr. Smith. We've got a 1-minute question.
Immigration
Q. I'm from southern California, and there
we have a lot of problem with immigration. I
kind of have a question for you. Idealistically,
I feel that America should let as many people
in as we can. But in our State it's really taking
a toll on Medicare, et cetera, et cetera.
The President. Absolutely. You're from California, you know thatMr. Smith. Thirty seconds left.
The President. Quick answer. The Nation does
not enforce its immigration laws. We should let
immigrants come in. It makes us a stronger
country. But we can't let everybody in overnight.
We should attempt to enforce the laws more
rigorously. And when California, Texas, Florida,
New York, and other States pay a disproportionate burden, the National Government ought to
help them more. We changed the rules to help
California more, because it's not fair for you
to pay for what the National Government does
or doesn't do.
[The network took a commercial break.]
China
Q. I'm from Tarzana, California. I've been


going to China since 1980, seven or eight times.
I've lived and worked in China for 2 years.
I'm very concerned about what you're going to
do with the
Mr. Smith. Most-favored-nationQ.      most-favored-nation. On  the  one
hand, if you don't give them this, you feel that
you'll pressure the government into changing
their attitude. On the other hand, the people
don't want that to happen because they feel
that they will be hurt financially. And then when
they're hurt economically and financially, then
they'll get less rights and privileges.
Mr. Smith. Is this a done deal, your decision
on this?
The President. I think it is a done deal for
the next year. Let me explain the issue here.
In order for a country to trade with us, they
have to get what's called most-favored-nation
status in order to have big trade. China is a
huge trading partner of ours, I think now our
second biggest trading deficit, with China just
behind Japan. They've got one of the fastest
growing economies in the world. They're moving
away from communism to market economics
very quickly. They still put political prisoners
in jail. They still, we think, have used prison
labor to make products, and we have some other
problems with them.
The issue is should we revoke that or should
we put conditions on it. I basically have decided
to extend most-favored-nation status for a year
because I want to support modernization in
China, and it's a great opportunity for America
there. But I want to make it clear to them
that there has to be some progress on human
rights and the use of prison labor. Our trade
disputes and our disputes about arms sales I'm
going to take out of this issue and negotiate
directly with them. I think they will appreciate
the gesture I'm making, but I hope they understand that the United States just can't turn its
back on the abuse of lots of people and especially the use of prison labor and just choking
people off when they say their piece.
The Presidency
Q. I'm from Troy, Michigan. My question,
Mr. President, when you wake up in the morning, before you get out of bed, do you lie there
and think, what stupid little thing is going to
happen today? [Laughter]
The President. Some days I do. What I really
think of is stupid little things happen to every

750




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / May 27


body, and I just hope that if some stupid little
thing happens to me, it won't overshadow all
the big good things I'm trying to do.
But actually, when I get up in the morning,
I say a little prayer that I won't make any stupid
little mistakes and that I'll do right by America
today. That's what I do. Then I go out here
and run off old age. I do my best to do that.
Mr. Smith. Here we go, Mr. President.
District of Columbia Statehood
Q. Good morning, Mr. President. I'm president of the Bloomingdale Civic Association here
in Washington, and you're welcome to come
to our community at any time.
The President. Thank you. I'd like that.
Q. My question basically is, can you express
to the American people why it is important for
the District of Columbia to have statehood, to
have the opportunity to vote for two Senators
and Members of Congress?
The President. Well, I think, frankly, I think
having the Senators and the Members of Congress is not as important as having control over
your own destiny. The District of Columbia now
has more people than 5 other States, pays more
taxes than 10 other States, and sent more soldiers to fight in the Persian Gulf war than 20
other States. And yet, every time they turn
around, Congress can overturn anything they do
through their elected officials.
If they became a State, yes, it's true, they
would get two Senators and a Member of Congress, just like the other small States. But the
main thing is they would have more control
over their own destiny. It's very frustrating for
the people in the District to know that Congress
can do or not do anything, just like this fellow
said here, that they can say, "No, you can't
have $2 million for police." And they can't do
it on their own because they don't have the
independence. So that's why I've always supported statehood. Once I saw the facts about
the size, the taxes, and the contribution to the
national interest, I thought they ought to have
the right to be independent.
Mr. Smith. We need to take a break. We'll
come back with more live from the Rose Garden.
[The network took a commercial break.]
Mr. Smith. We are live at the White House
Rose Garden with President Clinton, the first
national network town meeting since you were


elected. We appreciate you letting us come in
here. We've got lots of questions from more
than 200 people in the audience.
Paula.
Ms. Zahn. And this man's been waiting very
patiently for the last hour. Please stand, and
you can fire away.
President's Haircut
Q. I'm from Montana. I work for the Rural
Electric. And my question for you is: With all
the troubles in the world going on now, how
do you like being on the bubble with your haircut?
The President. I just learn to live with it.
I think you've got to learn to laugh at things
like that. You know, when little things get made
big, and big things get made little, you know,
and you make a boner-I mean, I really-I told
you the truth earlier. I was really trying to avoid
inconveniencing people, not trying to inconvenience people. It just winds out being embarrassing when something like that happens to you.
And you just have to laugh it off and go on.
If you didn't have a sense of humor in this
business, you'd be ground down to nothing pretty quick.
Ms. Zahn. Earlier this morning, President
Clinton, you said that you would ask your aides
on the plane whether the haircut was going to
cause any delays or not, and they said no.
There's a piece in the Wall Street Journal
The President. The Secret Service said no.
Ms. Zahn. The Wall Street Journal is suggesting that maybe the staff members don't have
enough of a spine to stand up to you. Can
you comment on that report?
The President. Oh, no. The Secret Service
asked, and they were told that there would be
no delays. It was just a mess-up. I mean, it
was just a mess-up. But it's just notMs. Zahn. Do you wish you hadn't gotten
that haircut?
The President. Yeah. I mean, look, I wear
a $40 watch. Do I look like the kind of guy
that would go and sit on an airport-you know,
I mean, it was just a blow-up. I'm glad they
didn't find out about the manicure. [Laughter]
Health Care Reform
Q. Good morning, Mr. President. I am from
East Dubuque, Illinois. Tomorrow I'm graduating from medical school and will be going
into


751




May 27 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


The President. Congratulations.
Q. Thanks-residency training in family practice. I am graduating with over $100,000 in student loans for medical school alone. I am wondering how you anticipate the health care reform will help me to be able to pay back my
student loans, as well as the many colleagues
that have a similar situation as I do.
Mr. Smith. The fear being that doctors aren't
going to make as much money and for folks
like this they aren't going to be able to pay
the bills, right?
The President. First of all-don't sit down yet,
I want to look at you-only about 15 percent
of our medical school graduates are now doing
what this fine woman is doing, coming out as
family practitioners. Most medical school graduates now want to be specialists partly because
they want to do it, partly because they can have
more control over their hours, partly because
they can make more money. What we are going
to do is try to create more incentives for people
to go into family practice: easier to pay off your
loans, have Government-targeted assistance to
medical school to lower the cost of medical education, give you more opportunities to be in
family practice corps, to bring down the cost
of your debt. And I don't think that your income
will be constricted. I think there will be more
reliance on family practice, and we're going to
have to do more in primary preventative medicine in America if we're ever going to bring
the cost of health care down.
Ms. Zahn. I have another health care related
question for you from back here.
Q. Thanks. I'm from Springfield, Missouri.
I'm glad to hear that answer because one of
my children is in medical school and going into
family health care.
The President. That's great.
Q. I work for a company that has less than
500 employees. I pay $50 a month for a health
plan, a dental plan, life insurance. Our health
plan is self-insured. I don't want to pay more
money for health care individually. I'm concerned that my employer may be taxed and have
to pay more money, and I would receive less
benefits than I am receiving, as well as I want
to keep my self-funded health plan. How would
the change in health care affect me as an individual?
The President. Well, let me say first of all,
one of the decisions that has not been finalized
yet, at least in our original report, is to what


extent any companies of any size should be able
to, in effect, continue their self-insurance efforts.
And that's a tough issue because what we're
trying to do is get these pools of insurance big
enough for small business to have affordable
health care because that's been a back-breaker
for a lot of small businesses.
The requirement that they're working on in
terms of financial contribution would not be a
tax over and above what people are paying now.
They're trying to hit the national average, maybe
even a little below the national average of what
employers are paying now. And many, many employers and employees in this country will actually save money if the health care plan comes
into effect.
But if you have a national budget, you have
to have some sort of national standard for what
the contribution will be by employers, but it's
not going to be over and above what people
are paying now. They're trying to substitute for
it, and they're trying to work out what that number is now. To your point of view, if you have
a low-cost self-insurance plan, what we're going
to try to do is to make sure that the people
with low-cost plans and generous coverage don't
have less coverage and higher cost. That's not
what we're trying to do. What we're trying to
do is to broaden the coverage.
Mr. Smith. Fifteen minutes after the hour.
We need to take a break. We'll come back live
to the Rose Garden, right after this.
The President. And lower the cost-I'm sorry,
I didn't say.
[The network took a commercial break.]
Mr. Smith. It's about a perfect day in Washington, DC. I think the President is probably
hoping it's just as nice up the street a little
bit in the Congress. But we've got lots of questions from our audience. Go ahead.
Affordable Housing
Q. Mr. President, I'm an architect from Seattle, Washington. And the question I'd like to
ask you is what vision do you and your administration have for the revitalization of housing,
both in the urban areas and the rural areas?
The President. I think the housing economy,
first of all, is a big part of our overall economy.
My vision is that we will set in motion market
forces-with a little bit of Government support
but not a lot-mostly market forces, which will
enable us to resume a vigorous homebuilding


752




.


Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / May 27


sector in the American economy. And let me
just mention some of the things that are important to that.
The most important thing is to pass a deficit
reduction plan that keeps interest rates down.
Interest rates, mortgage rates now are about a
20-year low. Last year, only 47 percent of people under 35 thought they were going to be
able to own their own homes. This year, about
74 percent do. That's because interest rates are
down, because we're trying to bring the deficit
down first.
Secondly, I think the low income housing
credits, tax credits, should be extended. That's
in our tax bill, to give people incentives to build
houses in inner cities.
The third thing we need to do is to move
aggressively in areas where credit is not available
to break the credit crunch. And the Government's working hard on that. There are all kinds
of sectors of our country that have had a huge
dry-up of credit because of the collapse of the
S&L's and because of regional recessions. And
we're trying to break that.
And finally, we have a Secretary of Housing
and Urban Development in Henry Cisneros, the
former Mayor of San Antonio, Texas, who has
got a wonderful raft of ideas about how to go
into community after community and set up
partnerships in rural and urban areas to get people to build more houses. So that's basically
what we're trying to do. The dream of homeownership, and frankly, the importance to the
economy are two things that can merge as part
of my vision for rebuilding our country from
the grassroots up.
Ms. Zahn. President Clinton, we only have
a couple of more minutes before we have to
take another break. Another quick question for
you from over here.
Association With Celebrities
Q. I'm a finance manager from San Jose, California. My perception is that your administration
is a little infatuated with Hollywood and celebrities. Is this a valid observation?
The President. No. You know, all these politicians from here run out to Hollywood and have
fundraisers all the time. Do you know how many
fundraisers I had there before I ran for President? Zero. We've had two meetings here in
the White House where groups of people from
Hollywood have wanted to come in and talk
about health care and the environment. We've


had a couple of people from California who
have stayed in the Governor's mansion. When
my preacher from Arkansas stayed here, nobody
wrote it up. When the guy who ran my campaign in Florida stayed here last week, nobody
wrote it up. It's another thing where a little
thing becomes big because it makes a good
story. It doesn't amount to a hill of beans. There
are some people in Hollywood who helped me,
who care about the country. I treat them like
I do everybody else that was part of the campaign and want to be part of it.
But that is absolutely not true. It is not true
now, it's not going to be true, and it's never
been true. I like to go to the movies and listen
to music. Most of you do, too. And that's about
the extent of it.
Ms. Zahn. Are you concerned, though, that
when these little stories that you say just simply
blow upThe President. Absolutely. Absolutely
Ms. Zahn. Let me just ask you this-that people who voted for you in the election and
bought into this image of the man from Hope
and that maybe stories like the $200 haircut
with a guy who has one name might increase
their cynicism about what's going on in your
administration.
The President. Sure it does. Sure it does,
which is one reason they're so overplayed. But
that doesn't mean they're valid. What I keep
telling everybody here is, we have to realize
when you're President, you're a long way from
most people in America, and so little things
become big. So you have to bend over backwards not to do things that you'd never even
give a second thought to if you were a private
citizen or a Governor or a Senator because
they're going to be taken and blown all out
of proportion and your whole image is going
to be gnarled by it. So we have to be super
sensitive not to do things that we would ordinarily do and not give a second about it because
of the way it will be perceived in the country.
That's absolutely right. And we haven't been
very smart about that on a couple of these occasions. But that doesn't mean
Ms. Zahn. Whose fault was that?
The President. It means that we have underestimated the fact that the press will play these
things big and people will draw those conclusions from it. But she asked me a substantive
question, not an image question. She said, has
the administration gone Hollywood? The answer


753




May 27 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


to that is, no, heck no, never, no. Never, Never.
[Laughter] That's a substantive answer.
Ms. Zahn. I think the answer is no.
Mr. Smith. We've got lots more to come live
from the White House Rose Garden with President Clinton. We've got questions about defense
cuts and what happens to the people who are
going to lose their jobs as the defense gets cut.
And we're going to come back and get answers
to those questions in just a minute.
[The network took a commercial break.]
Commemorative Tie
Mr. Smith. I couldn't let this go; you've got
to stand up a second. Okay, now, I didn't know
this. I knew there were ties like this, but explain-the President of the United States knows
that this tie actually means something and what
it means.
The President. This tie is part of a series of
ties representing Beatles songs. And this one
is "Let It Be." And there's Mother Mary here;
there's a line in the song that says, "Mother
Mary calls to me, whispers words of wisdom,
let it be." And here she is with an angel. And
so you're supposed to be able to look at this
tie and know the Beatles songs. There's a whole
bunch of them, and sometimes we give each
other tests. [Laughter]
Mr. Smith. Do you have a question for the
President? Okay.
The Presidency
Q. Yes, I do. It's sort of a change of pace;
it's more of a personal question. I was wondering how you felt that you've changed over the
last 100 days of your Presidency?
The President. I think I'm a lot more humbled
in the face of some of the problems than I
was before I became President. I'm still as convinced as I ever was that we can make change.
I still think that we can restore a sense of hope
and possibility. But a lot of these issues-we
talked a little about Bosnia during the breakare very humbling. They're difficult.
And I'm also very mindful that-just what
we were saying before-when you're President,
everything you do and everything you say and
the way you do it and the way you say it and
everybody you come in contact with takes on
a meaning far bigger than you might have ever
imagined as a Governor, a Senator, a candidate
for President, a private citizen. And you have
to be much more sensitive to that in order to


make sure that the people know you as you
really are.
I think those are the two things that I have
learned. I also have learned that it's probably
the hardest job in the world. And you've got
to reach down real deep every day and try to
always rise above yourself and not be deterred
by the momentary problems or the drops or
raises in the polls. Both drops and increases
in the polls are illusory in the end. The only
thing that matters is, do you do a good job,
and are people's lives better off when you finish
than they were when you started. And I just
have to keep working on that. I think it requires
a much stronger character and a much deeper
spirit to be President than it does to run for
President. And I just try to work on it every
day. I try to grow some every day into the
job.
Ms. Zahn. President Clinton, you know the
tie you just looked at, the "Let It Be" tie?
Here's a man that isn't content to let it be.
He has a question for you now. Please stand.
Entitlement Programs and Health Care Reform
Q. Mr. President, I'm from Los Angeles. My
question is on the entitlement programs. Entitlements are 50 percent of the budget, as you
know. And I see the constant growth of these
entitlement programs. There's no way, as I see
it, to curb the budget deficit without reining
in these entitlement programs. And now you
are going to propose a health care program,
which is another entitlement program.
The President. Well, the answer to your question is, the only way to control the health care
entitlements is to get control of health care
costs. And the only way to control health care
costs in this country, in which we're spending
35 percent more of our income on health care
than anybody else, is to provide some way for
everybody to have some coverage, not lose it
when they change jobs, and control public and
private costs the way every other advanced nation has done. We cut a lot on the entitlements,
on retirement entitlements, public employee entitlements, and health care. We need to cut
much more, and we will.
Ms. Zahn. Thank you, President Clinton. We
will be back with a half hour more of our town
meeting after this break.
[The network took a commercial break.]
Ms. Zahn. Welcome back to "CBS This Morn

754






Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / May 27


ing" and our special 2-hour meeting with President Clinton. We just had to go into a break,
and we were talking about the notion of entitlements from this man back here. And his essential question was, with entitlements representing
about at least 50 percent of our budget, when
is the Government going to get serious about
cutting into these programs? Did I paraphrase
that correctly?
The President. We have in this budget package that I have presented to the Congress, we
have about $100 billion in cuts in various entitlement programs over the next 5 years in Medicare, in agriculture, in veterans programs. But
they're still going up very rapidly. The only way
ultimately to get control of the entitlements is
to control overall health costs and bring them
in line with inflation. For example, we could
cut health care costs even more, but here's what
would happen. If you cut Medicare and Medicaid and you cut what the providers get, the
doctors and the hospitals, what do they do?
They shift their costs off to you in the private
sector. That's been happening for years now.
People who have no health insurance get health
care in this country. People whose health care
is underfunded get health care anyway. And the
cost gets shifted onto private employers and
their employees in the form of exploding health
insurance premiums. So health care cost in the
private sector as a whole are going up as fast
or faster than health care costs in the Government sector. And the trick is how to get them
under control without messing up the programs,
like the gentleman over here who has got a
good program where they have control of their
own costs. That's the trick. But you've got to
deal with the private and the public to do that.
Aerospace Industry
Q. The aerospace community is being assailed
by the Europeans on the commercial side, and
in some respects the defense budget will assail
them on the defense budget side. A combination
of those two are making aerospace employment
a very delicate issue, a lot of unemployment,
a lot of people without jobs. How do you think
the new defense budget will address that as
part of their program?
The President. First of all, I want to answer
your question, but I want to make a point since
you stood up here, and I appreciate it.
There are budget cuts and budget cuts. Everybody knows we have to bring the defense


budget down. And we have cut it a lot. We
are right on the edge. We should not cut it
more right now. I feel very strongly about that.
A lot of the defense cuts are in areas of contracts where people work in America. The question is what are they going to do when you
lay them off? Why is southern California in so
much trouble? Largely because of all the defense cuts, with no plans to find anything else.
We believe very strongly, in this administration,
and I personally believe, based on my experience as a Governor trying to put people back
to work, that a portion of the defense cuts
should be devoted to three things: one, retraining workers if they need retraining; two, helping
companies to develop domestic markets to make
up for the defense contracts they lost; and three,
helping communities that have been devastated
to restructure their economies.
In the aerospace industry, I am convinced
that the real key there is to try to have a competitive airline industry in America that's healthy
and try to make sure the airline manufacturers,
the airplane manufacturers and the parts manufacturers, have access to markets at home and
abroad. The Commerce Secretary, Ron Brown,
has just been around the world doing what he
can to open up more markets for aerospace
commercially. We cannot afford to lose our
world leadership there just because we're cutting back in defense. Aerospace is one of seven
areas of technology that will produce most of
the high-wage, high-growth jobs for the world
in the next 20 years, and we've got to try to
maintain our leadership. I just appointed a commission, along with the Congress, completely bipartisan on this issue, to look at ways to revitalize aerospace, and I think we're going to make
some progress.
Homosexuals in the Military
Q. Mr. President, I'm the senior pastor at
Christ Chapel in Woodbridge, Virginia. And I
would like to say that we in the Woodbridge
area pray for you and your administration regularly and daily.
The President. Thank you.
Q. And allow me to ask the question, give
you 2 minutes in the 2 hours and 31 minutes
to talk about the issue of gays in the military,
if I may. I'm concerned about the degradation
of morality in our Nation, in our society, in
the military as a whole, and I'm concerned with
the long-term consequences of actions, not only


755




May 27 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


on the issue with gays in the military but also
with actions associated with health care in terms
of the funding of abortion, issues such as that.
The Christian community is very concerned in
this Nation about those issues. And I'm somewhat disturbed, particularly, about the policy
process for developing these programs.
The President. Let's just talk about the gays
in the military, because we don't have a lot
of time to go into all of it.
First of all, I think the military has a great
moral fabric. We know there are homosexuals
in the military and always have been. We know
that the Tailhook scandal occurred. I don't think
Tailhook reflects on the whole Navy. I think
that the military has done more to give people
a good, coherent set of values and a way to
live and succeed in a very complicated and disintegrating world than most of the institutions
in this country have. So I think that you should
not worry about that.
Here is the issue: There are and always have
been homosexuals in the military. The question
is whether they should be kicked out, not because of what they do but because of who they
are. My view is people should be judged on
their conduct. I have not called for any change
in the Uniform Code of Conduct. I simply believe if people work hard, play by the rules,
and serve, they ought to be able to serve. That
does not imply that the rest of the society agrees
with the lifestyle, but you just accept as a fact
that there are in every country, and always have
been, homosexuals who are capable of honoring
their country, laying down their lives for their
country, and serving. And they should be judged
based on their behavior, not their lifestyle.
That's my view: their behavior; it's a behavior
test.
Let me say this: We almost have a compromise here. Most Americans believe if you
don't ask and you don't say and you're not
forced to confront it, people should be able
to serve. Most Americans believe that the gay
lifestyle should not be promoted by the military
or anybody else in this country. The issue is
a narrow one: Should you be able to acknowledge, if asked, that you are homosexual? And
if you don't do anything wrong, should you be
booted from the military? We are trying to work
this out so that our country does not-I understand what you're saying-so that our country
does not appear to be endorsing a gay lifestyle,
but we accept people as people and give them


a chance to serve if they play by the rules.
I think that is the tough issue for us, and I
think we're very close to resolving it here.
Ms. Zahn. Could you be satisfied with "don't
ask, don't tell, don't investigate"? Might that
be where you might end up?
The President. Well, we might end up that
way as long as it doesn't lead to a whole range
of deliberate outings. I mean, we don't want
to make it worse. I think we're very close to
a compromise along those lines. And I think
most Americans will agree when it works out
that people are treated properly if they behave
properly without the Government appearing to
endorse a lifestyle. I think that's what you're
concerned about, and it's a legitimate concern.
But I have to deal with people as people. And
I've had so many people in the military come
up to me and say that they have served with
homosexuals who served bravely in Vietnam and
other places, who were good people, who did
not violate any rules. It is them that I am trying
to protect.
Ms. Zahn. President Clinton, thank you very
much. We're going to take a short break here
and be back in just a couple of minutes. Lots
more to come on "CBS This Morning."
[The network took a commercial break.]
Mr. Smith. We're back live in the White
House Rose Garden. What's your question for
the President?
Health Care Reform
Q. Mr. President, one quick question on the
health care issue. It does not yet appear what
the health care plan is going to look like, but
will we be ensured that we know that the less
fortunate of this country and the unemployed
will have ready access to quality care?
The President. Yes. But it's not just the people
who don't have health insurance-the people
who have it who are afraid of losing it because
somebody in their family's been sick, and they
can't change jobs. There are millions of Americans locked into their jobs today because they
or someone in their family has a preexisting
condition. We need to change the rules so that
you can change jobs and you can be unemployed and your business can fail and you don't
have to worry about getting health care. I think
it's very important. And if we do it right, we
can do it and hold down the cost of health
care, not drive it up. Keep in mind, your coun

756




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / May 27


try spends 35 percent more than any other
country on Earth on health care, more of our
income. We can do this.
Homelessness
Q. I've been visiting Washington, DC, and
I've noticed a lot of homeless people on the
streets. And it really made me sad and everything. And I was just wondering if you had
any plans to help them find jobs and get homes.
The President. We do, actually. The Secretary
of Housing and Urban Development, Mr.
Cisneros, has just established a commission on
homelessness, and they're supposed to give him
a report in September about what we can do
to change this. It's a very complicated problem.
We're now having some people who don't want
to go into the shelters at night because they
don't think they'll be safe, and they think they're
safer on the streets. It's a very sad thing.
It's a question of jobs, of education, of drug
treatment often. But we need to do something.
I run by, every day when I run out here, I
run by about six homeless people who stop and
say, hello, Mr. President. And I talk to them,
and I look at them and think, you know, I
ought to be able to get those people off the
street. If I can do anything, I ought to be able
to do that. And we're going to try.
Administration Priorities
Q. Hello, Mr. President, I'd like to get back
earlier to what we were discussing. You were
talking about how you were filtered to the
media. And is there a problem with how you're
filtered, from the administration's point of view,
and your administration? Or is it something with
a focus on too many issues at once and not
a specific drive, so the public is not confused?
Ms. Zahn. We're really not going to give you
much time, 15 seconds, Mr. President. Sorry.
The President. I think we have to do more
than one thing. But we need to talk about one
thing at a time. There's a difference in-we
have to-you can't just shut the whole thing
down. If we want to have welfare reform and
student loans done 8 months from now, we have
to start doing them now. But we need to talk
about one thing. I need to get better at that,
more disciplined. And I'm really working on it,
to try to get through all the fog of all the many
stories that are out there.
[The network took a commercial break.]


Ms. Zahn. Welcome back to Washington, in
the Rose Garden, where we continue our confrontation with-conversation, not confrontation
with-[laughter]-conversation, talk with, town
hall.
The President. The truth comes out. [Laughter]
Meeting With President Kennedy
Ms. Zahn. The President wanted to say something about how it was more than almost 30
years ago that he was standing in this very spot.
The President. This young man asked me
where I was standing when I met President
Kennedy in the Rose Garden when I was a
delegate to the American Legion Boys Nation.
He was standing on those steps there, and I
was standing here, because they had us lined
up in alphabetical order, and I was from Arkansas, and we were at the front of the alphabet.
I was also the biggest kid on this side, so when
he came over and started shaking hands, I
sort-I'm embarrassed to say this, but I kind
of elbowed the others out of the way to make
sure-[laughter]-to make sure if he only shook
three hands, at least I get to shake his hand.
He was good, he shook hands with everybody
on the front row.
The Presidency
Ms. Zahn. So if some wide-eyed kid came
up to you from that same position, what would
you tell him about being President today and
maybe what some of your misconceptions were
about the job?
The President. I would tell him it's an incredible challenge, an exhilaration, and a great
honor. And if it ended tomorrow, it would be
the greatest honor I ever had. You just have
to get up every day and do the best you can.
Abraham Lincoln said one time, if he tried
to answer all the charges against him, he'd never
get anything else done. If the end brought him
out wrong, 10,000 angels claiming he was right
wouldn't make any difference. And if the end
brought him out all right, then everything that
was said before wouldn't make any difference.
You just have to keep your eye on the ball.
The ball is you and your welfare and what happens to you.
Job Training
Q. Mr. President, I'd like to address the issue
of employee training. I believe in your campaign


757




May 27 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


that you had stated that employers would be
putting forth maybe 1.5 percent towards training. I was wondering, is this going to be mandated for employers to put so much into training, or would it be left up to the voluntary
action of employers?
The President. We don't want a mandate. That
is about the average of what employers in the
country spend. And what we're trying to do
is to work out a system of lifetime training that
doesn't have mandates on employers but will
give them more incentives to do that. You know,
there are a lot of employer mandates right now
on Social Security and other things that are just
very expensive.
Let me tell you where we're beginning. What
we're beginning is with the kids who just get
out of high school and with older people who
come back into 2-year vocational training programs. We're going to try to help to set up
a system by putting a little Federal money in
and by giving States and localities more flexibility over the money we spend now to guarantee
that people will always be able to go back and
get at least 2 years of education after high
school even if they don't go to college. And
then we want to move from there to see what
we can do to give the employer community
more incentives to do that kind of training or
access those things, because the average 18-yearold will change jobs eight times in a lifetime.
And if we want to raise incomes in America,
we've got to have a very well-trained work force,
and people have to think of education as something they do always. We're going to have workers in their sixties going back to school and
learning new skills. And if it is a source of
security, they will be excited about it. We've
got to find a way to make change the friend
of Americans, instead of the enemies. That's
the idea. But I don't want to mandate it.
Education
Mr. Smith. We have a couple of young
women here who are about to become teachers,
right?
Q. Correct. The standardized test scores for
students in countries like Japan, France, and
Canada exceed the ones in America. And as
we're going into the 21st century, what changes
will you propose to make sure that the students
in America-in other words, we become the
leader?
Mr. Smith. Competitive, competitive-one


minute.
The President. We are trying right now to
write in the national education Goals 2000 -[inaudible]-law of the land. I then want some
national standardized exams that really mean
something and aren't bogus and that are updated annually. And we want tougher and higher
standards for teachers that have some national
credibility, national standards.
I want you to understand, however, we don't
go to school as long as a lot of other countries
do. And we have a much more economic and
social diversity than other countries, more immigrants, a lot more poor people, a lot of differences. But our system can achieve international excellence if we have clear standards
and clear ways of training people and then if
we judge the schools more based on their results
rather than the bureaucratic inputs. So that's
basically what we're trying to do.
Mr. Smith. Thank you. We will be back with
more live from the Rose Garden and President
Clinton in just a second.
[The network took a commercial break.]
Mr. Smith. We're back live in the Rose Garden at the White House with President Clinton.
Did you vote for President Clinton?
Q. Yes, I did.
Mr. Smith. And have been worried about him
a little bit?
Q. Yes, I have been.
The President. So has my mother. I'm glad
you-[laughter]Q. I'm old enough to be his mother, but
I'm the wrong gender. [Laughter] No, I was
concerned. But frankly, since being here this
morning, I am reinforced in my hopes or belief
that you'll do a good job. I really am. I think
you're on the right track. You've given me a
lot more confidence. Thank you.
Health Care Reform
Ms. Zahn. Well actually, I have one question
about Chelsea here, but before we get there,
before we go off the air, I just wondered if
you could give us a little more information on
health care this morning. We know that some
of your economic advisers have been advising
against going with the big bang theory of doing
this health care reform all at once. What exactly
are their fears? What are they worried about
and are those fears warranted?
The President. Well, they're afraid that we


758




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / May 27


won't be able to get savings out of the system.
Basically, to go back to this man's question here
on the health care issue, if you look at America
compared to other countries, we spend more
on insurance and paperwork, Government regulation, and other things than any other country
does. What our attempt is going to be is to
get savings out of all of that and use that to
cover the uninsured and to make it cheaper
for farmers, for small business people, and for
self-employed people to get insurance. That's
the deal. Some of them are afraid we can't get
the savings quick enough, so they say we ought
to have just a major medical coverage and protect people from disaster. But if you look at
the economics, the economics are a disaster.
If you have a-I don't know-a $3,000 deductible or something like that, well, what have you
got? You don't have much. That's what a lot
of people have today. So what I want to do
is to phase in the coverage, but when you give
it to people, give them something that's worth
having, that really gives family security. I think
the American people would rather us phase it
in and do it gradually and do it right and then
give people something that's worth something,
than do it overnight but give them something
that's not worth a nickel.
Ms. Zahn. Can we talk about a family member now?
The President. Yes.
Chelsea Clinton's Education
Q. Hi. I'm a freshman in high school. My
question was, sometime ago you said that our
schools are safe. And if so, how come you won't
let Chelsea go to a public school?
The President. No, I didn't say our schools
are safe, I said they could be. The question
of personal safety had nothing to do with it.
My daughter was always in a public school, and
her public school education is serving her quite
well now. She's doing well in the school she's
in. She and her mother and I reviewed all the
possible schools we could send her to, including-we looked at three private schools and
three public schools. We examined, and we
thought a lot about it. We decided that this
was best for her for a number of reasons. One
is my daughter is not a public figure. She does
not want to be a public figure. She does not
like getting a lot of publicity. And frankly, she
has more privacy and more control over her
destiny where she is than she would if she were


at the public school that she was also interested
in attending. All three of us made a family decision that it would be best for her under these
circumstances.
I also think the school that she decided to
attend has some very special things about it,
including a requirement that children do community service. There's a whole approach that
the Friends have to the education system that
she was interested in exploring. But it was not
a rejection of the public schools. It was a decision that because of who she is and where she
is and the circumstance she's in, she would be
happier in a-she'd feel that she could be more
of a normal kid if she could do that. That's
the only reason we did it. We didn't reject the
public schools.
Mr. Smith. We've got just a little bit less
than a minute right here and a real important
question, Mr. President.
Community Involvement
Q. I'm going to ask you the question that
President Kennedy admonished us all to ask 33
years ago: What can we do to help our country?
Mr. Smith. And the clock is running, 30 seconds.
The President. You can do what you're doing
today. You can keep asking us questions and
keep saying to people: Put aside the partisan
politics and try to solve the problems of the
country. Get something done. You're going to
make mistakes if you try to do something, but
move us forward. The second thing you can
do is to let everybody know that you're willing
to do your part if everybody else does theirs,
if it's fair. The third thing you can do is to
go back home and ask, what problem do we
have in this community that Bill Clinton can't
do anything about, except maybe set an example, and try to deal with some of these. The
family problems we've got, the children's problems we've got, a lot of the value problems
we've got, they have to be dealt with one-onone from the grassroots up. And every American
needs to be involved in community service like
that. The Government cannot solve some of
these problems, and if we did more at the local
level our Government would function better.
Mr. Smith. We're going to wrap things up
from the White House when we come back.
[The network took a commercial break.]
Mr. Smith. We got Josh here from Indianap

759




May 27 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


olis. What's the title of your paper you just
wrote?
Q. "Arkansas: The State Where the People
Rule."
Mr. Smith. And you don't think you'll get
extra credit for getting it signed by the President? [Laughter]
Ms. Zahn. This wraps our special 2-hour edition of "CBS This Morning," our town meeting
with President Clinton. Thank you so much for


your time today.
The President. Thank you very much.
Ms. Zahn. Will you ever invite us back into
the Rose Garden here?
The President. Absolutely. I'd like for all of
you to come back.
Ms. Zahn. All right. Have a good day everybody. See you in the morning.
NOTE: The town meeting began at 7:03 a.m. in
the Rose Garden at the White House.


Interview With Connie Chung and Dan Rather of CBS News
May 27, 1993


Ms. Chung. Good morning, Mr. President.
Mr. Rather. Good morning, Mr. President.
The President. Good morning, Dan. Good
morning, Connie.
Ms. Chung. Mr. President, I was watching
you on "CBS This Morning," and you were very
funny. I think I heard you say that you also
had a manicure in California. Is that right?
The President. I was kidding, you know. It
was a joke. J-O-K-E. [Laughter]
Media Coverage
Ms. Chung. But I also could hear a lot of
excuses when you talked about the Travel Office
problem, the haircut, the economy, the jobs
stimulus program. Why not admit if indeed
there was a mistake perhaps with the Travel
Office or with the haircut? Why not just say
so?
The President. I did say that. I mean, the
haircut thing was a boner, but I'm just saying
I did ask whether I would inconvenience anybody and was told I wouldn't. It was a mistake.
What else is there to say?
The Travel Office thing, obviously I don't
think it was handled as well as it should have
been, and so I said so. Now that I've said this,
I challenge you to tell the American people that
I think that we have a right to run an office
with three people instead of seven at taxpayers'
expense, the primary job of which is to arrange
travel for people who travel with me. And I
challenge you to tell the American people that
we saved 25 percent on the very first flight
that we put out for competitive bid. I take responsibility for any mistakes made in the White


House, and mistakes were made in the way that
was handled, absolutely. But the goal was to
save taxpayer money and to save the press
money. And the press complained to me about
how much the plane rides cost. I'm just trying
to fix it. I still think we can achieve the goal
and correct the mistakes. We did make a mistake.
Obviously, on the stimulus thing-no one
asked me about that-if we would have followed
the right strategy somehow we would have won,
and we didn't. But if you try to do a lot of
things, you're going to make some mistakes. I'm
going to admit my mistakes. All I want to do
is to have the kind of relationship, with you
and others, that will present me as I am to
the American people and not as some sort of
clay figure that's all pulled out of shape. I'm
going to make a lot of-you get out and go
to bat every day, you're going to make mistakes.
Babe Ruth struck out twice as many times as
he hit home runs. And so I expect to strike
out. But I'm going to make a few hits too,
if I keep going to bat.
Mr. Rather. Mr. President, we will accept that
challenge. And Connie joins the "CBS Evening
News" next Tuesday night; we hope you'll be
watching. She'll accept that challenge and meet
what you said.
The President. I think you two will be great
together. I'm excited about it.
Mr. Rather. Thank you, Mr. President, thank
you.
The President. Bye-bye. Thank you.
Mr. Rather. Mr. President, if we could be


760




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / May 27


one one-hundredth as great as you and Hillary
Rodham Clinton have been together in the
White House, we'd take it right now and walk
away winners.
As you know, Mr. President, I pride myself
on trying to ask the tough questions. So I'm
not going to apologize in advance for this question, but I do want to put you on tough question
alert.
The President. Go ahead, I'm bleeding already. Go ahead. [Laughter]
President's Television Habits
Mr. Rather. You've been through 2 hours of
questioning this morning with two of the most
insightful questioners on television, Harry Smith
and Paula Zahn. Connie came at you there with
a substantive question. So here's my question:
When you're able to take a deep breath, when
you're able to watch television, besides news
and sports, what do you like to watch? What
do you watch on television?
The President. Besides news and sports? I did
watch the NBA playoff game last night while
I was calling Congress, asking them to help me
in our playoff. I like to watch old movies. After
news and sports, my favorite thing to watch
are old movies.
Mr. Rather. Could you name two or three
that you particularly like?
The President. Yes, I saw "The Maltese Falcon" again on television the other night. I
thought that was great. My two favorite movies
of all time are "Casablanca" and "High Noon."
"High Noon" is my favorite movie. It's a movie
about courage in the face of fear and the guy
doing what he thought was right in spite of
the fact that it could cost him everything. And
Gary Cooper is terrified the whole way through.
So he doesn't pretend to be some macho guy.
He's just doing what he thinks is right. It's a
great movie.
Ms. Chung. Are you a channel surfer?
The President. I surf the channels. I do. A
lot of times when I come in late at night, I
punch that button frenetically just to sort of
see what's on. And I like Washington because
there are a lot of cable stations here. And I
get frustrated, particularly on the weekends if
I have a little time, when there's not a single
good movie on. But I do like to bump through
the channels.


Economic Program
Mr. Rather. Mr. President, we all recognize
that you have a kind of "high noon" today with
the vote in the House of Representatives. And
with that in mind, let's go to our first questioner
from among our affiliates, Virgil Dominic from
Cleveland.
Q. Good morning, Mr. President.
The President. Hi, Virgil.
Q. Thank you very much for being with us
today. We appreciate it so very much. Mr. President, could you please give us more details on
the agreement that you and the House leadership and the conservatives worked out early this
morning on your economic package that will
be going to a vote in the House sometime later
today? And specifically, sir, does it include an
increase in spending cuts or a lesser increase
in taxes or both?
The President. The short answer to your question, or second question, is no. But the agreement that was worked out late last night is an
enforcement mechanism to make sure that what
happened to the '90 budget agreement doesn't
happen this time. That is, this is a mechanism
to guarantee that if there's a 5-year deficit reduction target, we meet the targets every year.
Because under previous budgets, you could
adopt a 5-year budget, but it's hard for CBS
or your affiliate or the businesses of anybody
represented in this audience today to do 5-year
budgets. So this says, after every year, if we
miss that deficit reduction target, the President
is bound to come in and offer a plan to correct
it, and the Congress must vote on it. They don't
have to take his ideas, but if they don't do
that, they must do something else. This will
give the American people the assurance that
each year we are going to meet these targets.
I think that is very, very important.
Now, let me say one other thing. Most everybody believes that to whatever extent we can,
we should have more cuts and less taxes. That's
a good thing to do. But when you get to the
specifics-if you look at, for example, Senator
Boren's plan, which reduces taxes on the
wealthy and imposes more burdens on working
people and elderly people just above the poverty
line, you see how hard the details are.
The Congress will have three more chances
to vote to reduce spending. All the appropriation
bills are also going through the Congress now,
as soon as this is voted on. We're going to


761




May 27 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


have a health care program which will produce
savings in the health care area for Congress,
the entitlements. And Vice President Gore is
going to present a program to reform the way
the Federal Government works in September
that will give a third chance to cut spending
this year. So this is not over. We're going to
keep doing things that will reduce unnecessary
spending in the Federal Government whatever
happens on this bill today.
Mr. Rather. Thank you, Mr. President, and
we have another questioner who will identify
himself and his station and town.
Q. Good morning, Mr. President. My name
is Bill Sullivan from Missoula, Montana.
The President. That's a great town.
Q. Thank you very much. First of all, on
behalf of all the CBS affiliates, I want to thank
you, and for free broadcasters all over America,
for your support of free broadcasting, and also
want to say thank you for participating in this
town meeting this morning. We were proud to
have you on our network.
The President. Thank you.
Pacific Northwest Resource Management
Q. My question, sir: The subject is the Northwest and development and use of the natural
resources in the Northwest. The debates have
been going on for many, many years. You yourself have been involved in hearings. When is
it time to make a decision and let the folks
go down the road?
The President. We're going to recommend a
resolution to the problems that we found in
the timber summit that was held a few months
ago, very shortly. We're going to make our recommendation. The Northwest now has a lot of
difficult natural resource issues. For example,
if you cut all the old-growth forests, you can
keep people working for a while, and then you
won't have any left at all. You will have lost
a lot of not only the biological species there,
but there will be more water pollution and the
salmon fishermen will be hurt. A lot of these
things are very, very complicated. We're going
to try to resolve them the best we can and
make a recommendation that will preserve as
much of the old-growth forests as we can, recognize the importance of maintaining responsible
logging practices, and keep the salmon fishers
going, and doing as much of those things as
we can to balance the economy and the environment.


I understand a little about this because I live
in a State that's over half timberland with a
lot of national forest land. And I know that
these are very tough issues. Probably no one
will be happy with the recommendations that
our administration will make. But we're going
to do our best to be fair and to look at the
long view. We have to think about people making a living not just now but also 5 years from
now and 10 years from now and how to preserve
those essential parts of our environment that
are an important part of the character of the
Pacific Northwest.
Mr. Rather. Mr. President, thank you very
much. We have, I think, time-we want to keep
our commitment to you, because we do appreciate very much your doing this. And Allen
Howard from KHOU-TV in Houston has a
question.
Q. Good morning, Mr. President.
The President. Good morning, Allen.
Campaign Finance Reform
Q. We've heard a lot of comments regarding
yet another broadcast campaign reform; 50 percent of lowest unit rate and three commercials
are just a couple of the things we've heard.
I wonder if you might enlighten us on that,
please.
The President. Well, the whole issue of free
campaign time from the broadcast networks
arose, frankly, as a result of the opposition that
some folks have in any public funding of campaigns. The position the administration has
taken is pretty simple. I presented a campaign
finance reform law to the Congress which lowers
the cost of campaigns, lowers the cost of political action committees, and gives people who
are candidates for office communications vouchers so they can have access to the airwaves,
so the challengers as well as the incumbents,
and without regard to party, can have access
to the airwaves.
The only discussion about requiring you to
offer free air time came about because there
are some people in the Congress who are
against any public funding of congressional elections. Now, the United States Supreme Court
has said that the only way we can lower the
costs of campaigns is to tie that to getting some
public funding. In other words, the Supreme
Court says that if a billionaire wants to run
for President, for Senator, for Congress, they
can spend all the money they want, they can


762




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / May 27


txy to buy the election, they can do whatever
they want. We can't stop them, according to
the Supreme Court. So the only incentive we
have to get people to live within a lower campaign spending limit is to be able to give them
some public funding, which I propose to do
not in terms of direct money but for communications vouchers so you can only use it to
overcome your disability to reach people
through communications, either over television
or radio or newspaper or mail. So that's how
our plan would work.
But you should know that the question you
asked about mandatory air time would only
come up again, probably, if the public funding
portion of this fails. We've got to find a way
to guarantee that voters hear an honest debate
at an affordable cost, the election should not
be bought, and that incumbents should not be
insulated from honest debate and challenge.


That's all we're trying to do.
Mr. Rather. Mr. President, thank you very,
very much. Our thanks to Virgil Dominic, Bill
Sullivan, and Allen Howard. Mr. President, we
appreciate more than we can say in a short
time both being on "CBS This Morning" and
taking the extra time to do this. God bless you.
Thank you very much. And tell Mrs. Clinton
we respect her and we're pulling for her. Thank
you very much.
The President. Thank you very much, Dan.
Ms. Chung. Thank you.
The President. Thank you, Connie. And goodbye.
NOTE: The interview began at 9:05 a.m. The
President spoke via satellite from the Rose Garden at the White House. A tape was not available
for verification of the content of this interview.


Remarks on House of Representatives Action on the Budget
May 2 7, 1993


For a long time now, the American people
have wondered whether their Government in
Washington could ever really work for them
again, ever really face the tough problems. Well,
tonight the House of Representatives gave
America a victory of growth over gridlock. Tonight the House showed courage and conviction.
Tonight the House made hard choices: to cut
a quarter of a billion dollars in spending; to
ask those most able to pay, the wealthy, to do
more to reduce our deficit; to increase incentives to invest and create jobs in the private
sector; and to provide the incentives to make
people at the bottom rungs of the economy prefer work over welfare. Tonight the House said
no to gridlock, no to the status quo, and no


to the special interests who worked so very hard
to frighten millions of Americans about this program. Tonight the House said yes to jobs, yes
to lowering the deficit, yes to lower interest
rates, yes to a brighter future.
Tomorrow we go on to the Senate, and we
go back to the country. We have broken the
gridlock. We are taking responsibility for the
future. We are dealing with the tough problems.
I am very, very proud of the people who tonight
cast a very tough vote in a hard environment
for a better tomorrow for America.
Thank you very much.
NOTE: The President spoke at 9:40 p.m. in the
Rose Garden at the White House.


Appointment for Posts at the Department of State
May 2 7, 1993


The President today announced his intention
to appoint Molly Raiser to be the State Department's Chief of Protocol. He also intends to


nominate her to the rank of Ambassador while
serving in that capacity. In addition, he approved
the appointment of Fred DuVal as Deputy


763




May 27 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


Chief of Protocol.
"Molly Raiser is an outstanding individual who
has worked in a variety of ways to make our
Nation's Capital a better place to live and to
increase the participation of women in American
politics," said the President. "Along with Fred


DuVal, she will do an outstanding job of ensuring that the diplomatic corps and the many foreign dignitaries who come to Washington each
year are given a true American welcome."
NOTE: Biographies of the appointees were made
available by the Office of the Press Secretary.


Nomination for Ambassador to Canada
May 27, 1993


The President announced his intention today
to nominate former Michigan Governor Jim
Blanchard to be the U.S. Ambassador to Canada.
"Our relationship with Canada is absolutely
vital," said the President. "They are our largest
trading partner and one of our closest neighbors.
That's why I am nominating an Ambassador in


whom I place such a high degree of trust, my
good friend Jim Blanchard. With a voice that
will be clearly heard in both Ottawa and Washington, he will ensure that this important relationship continues to be productive for both
countries."
NOTE: A biography of the nominee was made
available by the Office of the Press Secretary.


Teleconference Remarks With Veterans in VA Medical Centers
May 28, 1993


The President. Vincent Maurio, are you there?
Vincent Maurio. Yes. My name is Vincent
Maurio from Philadelphia Nursing Home Care
Unit.
The President. And is Eugene Young there?
Eugene Young. Yes, I'm here at Bronx VA
Nursing Home Unit.
The President. It's good to hear all your
voices. I'm here with Vice President Gore and
with Hershel Gober who is the Deputy Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs.
And as we move into Memorial Day weekend,
we just wanted you to know and all veterans
like you in hospitals all across America that
we're thinking about you, pulling for you. We
know you wish you could be home and able
to participate in the Memorial Day services. But
we're very, very excited about the fact that you
have these phones in your rooms now thanks
to the PT Phone Home Project.
And I want to say a special word of thanks
to Frank Dosio who came up with this idea
and to all the people who worked on it: Bell


Atlantic, C&P Telephone, NYNEX, and especially the workers, the Communication Workers
of America and the International Brotherhood
of Electrical Workers. There have been a lot
of people who worked on this project, and we
wanted to highlight that by talking to you three
this morning.
And we thought it was an especially good
time to do it as we head into Memorial Day.
And I have a few notes about you guys. I know
more about you than you know about me now.
[Laughter] I wanted to say a special word of
thanks to all of you. And Mr. Young, I understand you have a couple of sons in the service.
Mr. Young. Yes, I do, sir.
The President. And you ought to be able to
talk to them more frequently now. Where are
they?
Mr. Young. One, Korea; the other one in Italy
in the Army, sir.
The President. Good for you. And you have
a third child in college?
Mr. Young. Yes, Queens College.


764




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / May 28


The President. So, you have one child handy.
Mr. Young. Yes.
The President. Pretty close.
Mr. Young. Yes.
The President. And Mr. Maurio and Mr.
Patenaude, both of you are veterans of World
War II, is that right?
Mr. Maurio. That's right.
Ken Patenaude. Yes, I am.
The President. Is it nice for you having those
phones?
Mr. Young. Very nice.
Mr. Maurio. I think it's an enormous accomplishment, and I think it's going to be great
for all of us. It's going to get us easy access
to reach our families and friends at home, a
greater sense of privacy, and I think it's going
to instill in us yet a higher level of self-reliance,
which of course in our conditions is very important.
So, I'm fascinated by the incredible technology and the genius that it takes to put this
program together and this phone system together. And I've been witness to it all morning
long, and it's been extremely fascinating.
The President. Why don't you describe it to
us. We can't see it here.
Mr. Maurio. I have surrounding me a bunch
of electronic wizards. I don't understand their
language completely, but they're absolutely fascinating to listen to. And there's an awful lot
of technical equipment here, a lot of apparatus,
but I think mainly the most import thing is
volunteer efforts of all the people involved. I
think that's a little bit of America at work, and
it shows what we can do when our minds are
set down to it. And I would like to thank all
who participated in this wonderful project on
behalf of all the patients, the staff, and the administration at both VA Hospital and the Nursing Home Care Unit in Philadelphia. I think
it was a marvelous effort on all their parts. They
deserve a great deal of credit, and I'm sure
you will have to agree with me.
The President. I do. I hope we can get them
the credit they deserve by this conversation this
morning.
Anyone else have something to say about this?
Mr. Patenaude. Mr. President, this is Ken
Patenaude from Albany.
The President. Hi, Ken.
Mr. Patenaude. Never in my wildest dreams
did I ever think that I'd be talking to the President. It's an honor.


And I can't believe that this is happening.
It's beautiful, the way they have this set up
and all the work that these men have put into
it. I want to thank all the volunteers from the
Communication Workers of America, the VFW,
American Legion, and all the employees at the
Stratton VA Medical Hospital. This is one of
the greatest things that has ever happened in
my life.
The President. Well, I think you've earned
it. You've served your country well, and I'm
just glad to be a small part of this.
Mr. Patenaude. And it's a pleasure to have
you on our side.
The President. Thank you. Well, I am. We've
got a very good Veterans Affairs Department
here headed by two American veterans, Jesse
Brown, who's worked for disabled veterans for
many years, and my longtime friend Hershel
Gober, the Deputy Secretary, who's a Vietnam
veteran also. They are keeping me on the
straight and narrow here when it comes to veterans policies. They've got our administration
focused on these kinds of problems and a lot
of other ones.
And I'm glad to hear you say that. You say
you never in your wildest dreams believed you'd
be talking to the President. You know there
are millions of people who would probably like
to give me an earful this morning, and you can
do it. So, you've been doing a great job.
Mr. Vice President.
The Vice President. Gentlemen, this is Vice
President Al Gore. I just wanted to say that
the heads of the labor unions whose members
did this on a volunteer basis are here in the
Oval Office with us this morning and representatives of some of the companies that made it
possible. And I think that what people did in
pulling together to make this phone system possible for you really kind of symbolizes the way
the entire country feels about your service and
about all veterans and what our country owes
to you.
The fact that members of organized labor and
members of companies in corporate America
pulled together with more than 5,000 volunteer
hours and huge quantities of donated equipment, volunteers from the VFW and the staff
of the VA all working together to make this
possible. If the whole country could find ways
to express what we feel toward veterans like
this, you'd see more of this. Matter of fact,
CWA members from other cities have taken up


765




May 28 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


this challenge as a result of what Frank Dosio
started there, and now it's beginning to be implemented in other VA hospitals and in other
cities.
So, we're really proud of you. We appreciate
what you've done. We join you in appreciating
what these volunteers have done for you.
The President. I also wanted to note that as
we get off the phone here I know that at least
in Albany and Philadelphia several hundred
other bedside phone units are going to be activated. There must be a lot of folks in those
hospitals that want me to get off the telephone
so they can use theirs. They're not going to
be activated until we finish.
I did want to say one other thing to you.
Yesterday morning we had a nationally televised
town meeting here in the Rose Garden at the
White House with a couple of hundred folks
who came from 35 States. One of the people
there said, "You know, we're always asking you,
Mr. President, what are you going to do and
telling you what we think you should do. What
do you think we can do for our country to
help now?" And I would just kind of like to
repeat something that came out of that conversation because I told the woman who asked
the question that there are clearly limits to what
Government can do as well as great possibilities
there. And a lot of the problems that we have
in this country have to be dealt with by citizens
working together at the grassroots level. And
this is a stunning example of that. I mean, just
think how many people all across America are
going to wind up having telephones in these
hospitals because one man had a vision, and
his company and his union were willing to support that vision. I mean, that's an example of
the kind of things that can be done by American
people all over this country working together.
Really, he deserves all the credit. I'm just glad
to be here with this inaugural telephone kickoff.
Mr. Young, are you going to call your children
when we get off the phone?
Mr. Young. I probably will, Mr. President.
I'll get the number from my wife, and I definitely will call. And they will be excited like
I am. And I would like to say thanks for the
opportunity. And like Albany said, I never
dreamed that I would be talking to the Presi

dent of the United States and the Vice President
of the United States.
And the Bronx VA Medical Center has some
of the best staff there is. And we appreciate
their hard labor and the volunteer service. And
they're doing a very good job.
The President. Well, we're trying to support
your veterans hospital network. Even as tight
as the budget is here and as much as we're
cutting, we're going to invest some more money
in these veterans hospitals next year to try to
keep the quality of care up for people like you.
Mr. Young. That's true. Yes-[inaudible]-the
quality of care for the veterans, allocate more
funding, and it will bring better quality care
for the veterans which, you know, they deserve.
And the staff also.
The President. Well, I wish all of you well.
Mr. Young, when you talk to your sons in Italy
and Korea, you tell them that we're proud of
them on this Memorial Day weekend.
Mr. Young. I sure will, Mr. President.
The President. And when you talk to your
child in Queens College, make sure that there's
a graduation there. We need all the kids we
can get with good educations so they'll support
you and I when we get older and have a strong
economy.
Mr. Young. That's true, Mr. President. Thank
you very much.
The President. Thank you. Vince and Ken,
thank you very much.
Hershel, you want to say anything?
Deputy Secretary Hershel Gober. I would just
like to say before Memorial Day here for my
comrades, fellow veterans, Vince, Ken, Eugene,
we're proud of you. And Secretary Brown and
I, along with the President and the Vice President, want you to know that we'll provide the
support that you need and that you have earned.
You have entitlements; you don't receive benefits. And I want you to know that we're thinking
about you, and God bless you.
Mr. Young. Thank you very much.
The President. Thank you. Have a good day.
NOTE: The teleconference began at 9 a.m. The
President spoke from the Oval Office at the White
House.


766




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / May 28


Exchange With Reporters on Departure for Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
May 28, 1993


China
Q. Heard anything from China, Mr. President? Their reaction, the Chinese reaction?
The President. I don't know what their-I feel
very good about our policy. I think it's a good
policy. I don't want to isolate China. I want
to do what's good for-just the Chinese people.
But I think standing up for American values
and values in China is the way to go. I think
Remarks at City Hall in Philadelphia
May 28, 1993
Thank you very much, Rosemary Greco. You
know, she's the sort of person that I ran for
President to support, a person who started out
as a bank teller and became the president of
a bank. That's the American dream.
I want to say how glad I am to be here,
back in Philadelphia, a city that has been so
good to me for so long now, with your Mayor
and with Senator Wofford and with the members of the House delegation who are up here
on the platform with me and with your State
treasurer, Catherine Baker Knoll. I'm glad to
be here with all of them. Give them a hand,
will you?
My fellow Americans, since I became President I have been working to break the gridlock
in Washington, to prove that Government could
work for you again. And there have been some
impressive examples of success in that regard.
The Congress, after 8 years of rankling with
the President and two vetoes, voted to pass the
Family and Medical Leave Act to guarantee
working people a little time off when the baby
was born or a parent was sick, and eventually,
after years of haggling, voted to pass the motor
voter bill to open up the voter registration rolls
to millions of Americans and bring them into
the political process.
But the real issue was whether we had the
courage to come to grips with the economic
problems which have paralyzed this country.
After years and years and years of gridlock, after
years of leaders talking about economic prob

this is the right policy. And we have some very
serious issues between us, along with these, a
broad range of possibilities. I hope we can
workNOTE: The exchange began at 10:07 a.m. on the
South Lawn at the White House. A tape was not
available for verification of the content of this exchange.


lems and not doing much about them, after
years in which we ran our national debt from
$1 trillion to $4 trillion and reduced our investment in our people, their jobs, and their future
at the same time, last night the House of Representatives gave the American people a victory
for economic growth over gridlock.
The plan cuts the deficit by $500 billion, cuts
a quarter of a trillion dollars in Government
spending, asks the wealthy who can best afford
to pay their fair share, invests in education and
jobs, and rewards work instead of welfare.
[At this point, audience members interrupted the
President's remarks.]
Let me tell you something-wait a minute.
You know one thing that's wrong with this country? Everybody gets a chance to have their fair
say. My budget did more to fight AIDS than
any in history, and we're having to put up with
this. Tell them to let me talk. If you want to
give a speech, go out there and raise your own
crowd. We'll be glad to listen to you.
So there were those-I'll make you a deal.
I'll ignore them if you will.
There were a lot of people who said we could
never change the way things were in Washington, the same sort of people who picked the
Phillies to finish last this year. By the way, I
think the Phillies are looking pretty good, even
that big fellow, Kruk, you know, is a big bat.
I wonder who cuts his hair? [Laughter]
Let me tell you something, folks, make no


767




May 28 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


mistake about it, this National Capital of yours
is beginning to change. After years in which
our house was coming apart with higher deficits
and less investment, a Government by special
interests instead of the national interests, middle
class working harder for less, things are really
beginning to change.
After years of a lot of hot air and no responsibility and no willingness to take the tough decisions, yesterday the House began to throw out
the economic program that ran our debt to $4
trillion, ran the middle class into the ground,
created a new class of poverty, and robbed our
country of opportunity and any sense of community. We are now moving forward with a plan
that reduces the deficit, asks the wealthy who
can pay their fair share, gives the middle class
the chance of having a future with real economic growth, and provides profound incentives
to prefer work over welfare. These are the kinds
of things you elected me to do.
And I want to say one of the most rewarding
things is the people who supported this program. I mean, after all, this is a program which
asks that 75 percent of the money raised in
taxes be paid for by people with incomes above
$100,000. And yet, among the strongest supporters were people who had that income who believe their country was more important than
their own pocketbook. And we ought to reward
that. We had not just labor leaders and small
business people and mayors of small and big
cities and Governors for this program. There
were people who lead some of the biggest companies in this country out there working to give
our country a better chance and a brighter future, because they know that we have to stop
reducing our investment and running up our
debt. We need to reverse our priorities, and
now we're on the way to doing it.
A lot of these decisions were not easy, but
they had to be made. I tried to set a good
example. I reduced my own staff. We've had
a reduction in this budget in the Federal work
force by attrition, not by laying people off, but
we're going to reduce the Federal Government
by 150,000 over the next 4 years. That's a lot.
That's a lot of Government spending cuts. We
cut more than 200 specific programs. We cut
$2 in spending for every $1 in new investments
and education and jobs and technology.
There were things that had never been really
seriously dealt with before, the budget's sacred
cows: everything from agricultural subsidies to


the REA to other problems that affect the cities;
demonstration projects that had never been seriously reviewed; cuts in the Medicare program
that couldn't be justified; and the Federal employees perhaps took the biggest hit of all, forgoing a pay raise and having a budget that lowers their raises below the cost of living for 4
years, because most of them agreed that they
couldn't ask any of you to pay more, even the
wealthiest Americans, unless they took less.
That's the kind of spirit it's going to take to
turn this country around and move the country
forward.
I'll tell you something else. Every dollar in
taxes and all the budget cuts have to go into
a deficit reduction trust fund. There will be
no taxes without the budget cuts, and all the
money will go to bringing the debt down. And
we will have some left over to do things that
need to be done. Here in Philadelphia, you
know, because of defense cuts, we need to invest some money to help move our country from
a defense to a domestic economy, new technologies for new jobs and new opportunities in
the future. Because this debt turned out to be
bigger even than we knew before the election,
I did ask the Congress to adopt an energy tax,
some of which will be paid by middle class
Americans. But I want you to know exactly how
it works, and you've got to decide whether you
think it's worth it.
First of all, we have income tax reductions
to protect family incomes below $30,000 from
the impact of the energy tax. For people above
$30,000 up to $100,000, here's what it costs:
$1 a month next year; $7 a month the year
after; and if you've got a family of four, $17
a month after that. But consider this: Look how
much interest rates have gone down. If we keep
interest rates down and people can refinance
their homes, get car loans at lower rates, get
consumer loans at lower rates, get lower business loans from good bankers like Rosemary,
you will save more in interest rates than you'll
ever pay in the energy tax, and you'll have a
healthier economy and a lower deficit.
Just for example, if someone had a $100,000
home mortgage that was financed at 10 percent,
and they refinanced it at 7.5 percent, they'd
save $175 a month, a month, not a year. This
is going to be good economics. If we can keep
interest rates down by bringing the debt down,
that will release another $100 billion into this
economy this year to put the American people


768




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / May 28


back to work.
Yesterday was a historic day, but it was just
the beginning. Now the bill goes on to the Senate. And we must work to pass the bill that
meets these principles: The wealthy must pay
their fair share; we have to reduce the deficit
by $500 billion; we have to keep the incentives
for people to invest in our jobs and in our
cities; and we've got to give people incentives
to move from welfare to work, not the other
way around. That's the kind of bill that needs
to come to my desk.
There are 80,000 lobbyists in Washington.
Many of them don't want Washington to change.
Think of that. Maybe some of you all are in
the wrong line of work-80,000. Special interests that work in the Senate who have now
proposed that we cut Social Security and put
more of a burden on the middle class in order
to relieve the burden on the wealthiest Americans, when many of them are leading the crusade for change. I think we can do better. I
think we can do better. And we're going to
do better in the United States Senate with your
help.
The process of changing is not easy, not even,
and not quick. But we are moving in the right
direction. The budget is on the way to being
realized. There is a program now in the United
States Congress with broad bipartisan support
to fulfill the commitment I made to you to
open the doors of college education to all Americans and give our young people a chance to
pay off their college through national service
through their communities here at home.
Very soon the national commission on health
care which my wife has chaired will present
their plan to provide affordable health care to
all Americans and bring down the cost of health
care that threatens our economic stability. How
many millions of Americans not only lack health
insurance but have it and are terrified of losing
it because somebody in their family has been
sick, and they think they'll never be able to
change jobs. We can do better, and we will
with your support.
Finally, there are bills in the Congress which
will help to change the very way your National
Government works: A bill that will require every
lobbyist to register and to say how much money
they spend lobbying all the rest of us and report
it to you-I think that would be a good thingalready passed the Senate; can pass the House.


And Mayor Rendell was talking about the campaign finance reform bill, which at long last
will lower the cost of congressional campaigns,
limit the influence of political action committees, and open the airwaves to candidates so
they can have an honest debate. That bill is
in the Congress, and we ought to pass it this
year.
When I was running for President, I was profoundly influenced by the series in the Philadelphia Inquirer by Donald Bartlett and James
Steele, the stories they made into a book called
"America, What Went Wrong?" They said that
after 50 years, the middle class and small business had been helped for 50 years, but things
began to change about a dozen years ago. About
a dozen years ago, the National Government
adopted tax policies and economic policies that
rewarded those who shut jobs down in America
and sent them somewhere else; rewarded those
who laid their workers off and bailed out with
golden parachutes to better lives. We stopped
rewarding responsibility and work and rigged the
game of economic life against the broad American middle class. They were right, but we're
fighting to change that.
And Americans from all walks of life are helping. I will say again, to me the most moving
thing of all has been how many genuinely successful Americans, people this country has been
good to, people who have made a lot of money,
have come forward and said, "Go ahead and
raise my taxes if it will bring the deficit down
and put the American people back to work and
get this country going again." That's the kind
of statesmanship we need everywhere in this
country.
Yesterday we began the process of saying no
to gridlock, no to special interests, no to the
spiraling deficit, no to increased unemployment,
no to the conditions which lead so many of
you to work harder for lower wages every year.
We said yes to a brighter future to America,
yes to lower deficits, yes to more jobs, yes to
higher incomes, yes to a future in which we
have a real chance to compete and win.
Things are going in the right direction. Stay
with us. Fight with us. Help to lift this country
up, and believe in its future. And we can do
it.
Thank you, and God bless you all.


769




May 28 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


NOTE: The President spoke at 12:19 p.m. in the
courtyard. In his remarks, he referred to Edward


G. Rendell, Mayor of Philadelphia, and Rosemary
Greco, president and CEO, CoreStates Bank.


Statement on Most-Favored-Nation Trade Status for China
May 28, 1993


Yesterday the American people won a tremendous victory as a majority of the House of Representatives joined me in adopting our plan to
revitalize America's economic future.
Today Members of Congress have joined me
to announce a new chapter in United States
policy toward China.
China occupies an important place in our Nation's foreign policy. It is the world's most populous state, its fastest growing major economy,
and a permanent member of the United Nations
Security Council. Its future will do much to
shape the future of Asia, our security and trade
relations in the Pacific, and a host of global
issues from the environment to weapons proliferation. In short, our relationship with China
is of very great importance.
Unfortunately, over the past 4 years our Nation spoke with a divided voice when it came
to China. Americans were outraged by the killing   of  prodemocracy   demonstrators  at
Tiananmen Square in June of 1989. Congress
was determined to have our Nation's stance toward China reflect our outrage. Yet twice after
Congress voted to place conditions on our favorable trade rules toward China, so-called mostfavored-nation status, those conditions were vetoed. The annual battles between Congress and
the Executive divided our foreign policy and
weakened our approach over China.
It is time that a unified American policy recognize both the value of China and the values
of America. Starting today, the United States
will speak with one voice on China policy. We
no longer have an executive branch policy and
a congressional policy. We have an American
policy.
I am happy to have with me today key congressional leaders on this issue. I am also honored to be joined by representatives of the business community and several distinguished Chinese student leaders. Their presence here is a
tangible symbol of the unity of our purpose.
I particularly want to recognize Senate Majority


Leader George Mitchell of Maine and Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi of California. Their tireless
dedication to the cause of freedom in China
has given voice to our collective concerns. I
intend to continue working closely with Congress as we pursue our China policy.
We are here today because the American people continue to harbor profound concerns about
a range of practices by China's Communist leaders. We are concerned that many activists and
prodemocracy leaders, including some from
Tiananmen Square, continue to languish behind
prison bars in China for no crime other than
exercising their consciences. We are concerned
about international access to their prisons. And
we are concerned by the Dalai Lama's reports
of Chinese abuses against the people and culture
of Tibet.
We must also address China's role in the proliferation of dangerous weapons. The Gulf war
proved the danger of irresponsible sales of technologies related to weapons of mass destruction.
While the world is newly determined to address
the danger of such missiles, we have reason
to worry that China continues to sell them.
Finally, we have concerns about our terms
of trade with China. China runs an $18 billion
trade surplus with the U.S., second only to
Japan. In the face of this deficit, China continues practices that block American goods.
I have said before that we do not want to
isolate China, given its growing importance in
the global community. China today is a nation
of nearly 1.2 billion people, home to 1 of every
5 people in the world. By sheer size alone,
China has an important impact on the world's
economy, environment, and politics. The future
of China and Hong Kong is of great importance
to the region and to the people of America.
We take some encouragement from the economic reforms in China, reforms that by some
measures place China's economy as the third
largest in the world, after the United States
and Japan. China's coastal provinces are an en

770




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / May 28


gine for reform throughout the country. The
residents of Shanghai and Guangzhou are far
more motivated by markets than by Marx or
Mao.
We are hopeful that China's process of development and economic reform will be accompanied by greater political freedom. In some
ways, this process has begun. An emerging Chinese middle class points the antennae of new
televisions towards Hong Kong to pick up
broadcasts of CNN. Cellular phones and fax machines carry implicit notions of freer communications. Hong Kong itself is a catalyst of
democratic values, and we strongly support Governor Patten's efforts to broaden democratic
rights.
The question we face today is how best to
cultivate these hopeful seeds of change in China
while expressing our clear disapproval of its repressive policies.
The core of this policy will be a resolute
insistence upon significant progress on human
rights in China. To implement this policy, I am
signing today an Executive order that will have
the effect of extending most-favored-nation status for China for 12 months. Whether I extend
MFN next year, however, will depend upon
whether China makes significant progress in improving its human rights record.
The order lays out particular areas I will examine, including respect for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the release of
citizens imprisoned for the nonviolent expression
of their political beliefs, including activists imprisoned in connection with Tiananmen Square.
The order includes China's protection of Tibet's
religious and cultural heritage and compliance
with the bilateral U.S.-China agreement on prison labor.
In addition, we will use existing statutes to
address our concerns in the areas of trade and
arms control.
The order I am issuing today directs the Secretary of State and other administration officials
to pursue resolutely all legislative and executive


actions to ensure China abides by international
standards. I intend to put the full weight of
the Executive behind this order. I know I have
Congress's support.
Let me give you an example. The administration is now examining reports that China has
shipped M-11 ballistic missiles to Pakistan. If
true, such action would violate China's commitment to observe the guidelines and parameters
of the Missile Technology Control Regime. Existing U.S. law provides for strict sanctions
against nations that violate these guidelines. We
have made our concerns on the M-11 issue
known to the Chinese on numerous occasions.
They understand the serious consequences of
missile transfers under U.S. sanctions law. If
we determine that China has in fact transferred
M-11 missiles or related equipment in violation
of its commitments, my administration will not
hesitate to act.
My administration is committed to supporting
peaceful democratic and promarket reform. I
believe we will yet see these principles prevail
in China. For in the past few years, we have
witnessed a pivot point in history as other Communist regimes across the map have ceded to
the power of democracy and markets.
We are prepared to build a more cooperative
relationship with China and wish to work with
China as an active member of the international
community. Through some of its actions, China
has demonstrated that it wants to be a member
of that community. Membership has its privileges, but also its obligations. We expect China
to meet basic international standards in its treatment of its people, its sales of dangerous arms,
and its foreign trade.
With one voice, the United States Government today has outlined these expectations.
NOTE: The statement referred to Christopher Patten, Governor and commander in chief of Hong
Kong. The Executive order and related Presidential determination are listed in Appendix D
at the end of this volume.


771




May 28 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


Letter to Congressional Leaders Transmitting a Report on Most-FavoredNation Trade Status for China
May 28, 1993


Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)
Pursuant to subsection 402(d)(1) of the Trade
Act of 1974, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 2432(d)(1)
("the Act"), I hereby submit the attached report
concerning the continuation of a waiver of application of subsections (a) and (b) of section 402
of the Act to the People's Republic of China.
The report explains my reasons for having determined that continuation of the waiver currently
in effect for the People's Republic of China
will substantially promote the objectives of section 402. In addition, I am also transmitting
herewith for your further information a copy


of an Executive Order which enumerates the
specific conditions which I have established with
respect to a further extension of the waiver next
year for the period beginning July 3, 1994.
Sincerely,
WILLIAM J. CLINTON
NOTE: Identical letters were sent to Thomas S.
Foley, Speaker of the House of Representatives,
and Albert Gore, Jr., President of the Senate. The
Executive order and related determination are
listed in Appendix D at the end of this volume.


Report to Congress Concerning Extension of Waiver Authority for the
People's Republic of China
May 28, 1993


Pursuant to section 402(d)(1) of the Trade
Act of 1974 (hereinafter "the Act"), having determined that further extension of the waiver
authority granted by section 402(c) of the Act
for the twelve-month period beginning July 3,
1993 will substantially promote the objectives
of section 402, I have today determined that
continuation of the waiver currently applicable
to China will also substantially promote the objectives of section 402 of the Act. My determination is attached and is incorporated herein.
Freedom of Emigration Determination
In FY 1992, 26,711 U.S. immigrant visas were
issued in China. The U.S. numerical limitation
for immigrants from China was fully met. The
principal restraint on increased emigration continues to be the capacity and willingness of other
nations to absorb Chinese immigrants, not Chinese policy. After considering all the relevant
information, I have concluded that continuing
the MFN waiver will preserve the gains already
achieved on freedom of emigration and encourage further progress. There, thus, continues to
be progress in freedom of emigration from
China; we will continue to urge more progress.


Chinese Foreign Travel Policies
In FY 1992, 75,758 U.S. visas were issued
worldwide to tourists and business visitors from
China, a 35 percent increase over FY 1991 and
a 76 percent increase over FY 1988. Foreign
travel by Chinese-government sponsored businessmen alone increased by 48 percent in FY
1992, reflecting Deng Xiaoping's policies of accelerating China's opening to the outside world.
In FY 1992, 18,908 student visas (including
exchange students) were issued, a decline from
FY 1991 of 14 percent but still 8 percent greater
than FY 1988. The decline was probably the
result in part of a recent new directive requiring
Chinese college graduates educated at state expense to work for five years before applying
for privately-funded overseas study. A drop in
funding from recession-strapped U.S. schools
and relatives may also have played a role.
Chinese students continue to return from
overseas for visits without any apparent problem.
With the exception of student activist Shen
Tong, we are not aware of any case in which
Chinese living in the U.S. who returned to
China for visits after June 1989 were prevented
from leaving again. Shen was detained in Sep

772




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / May 28


tember 1992 and then expelled from China two
months later for trying to establish a Beijing
chapter of his Fund for Chinese Democracy.
Human Rights Issues
As detailed in the Department's annual
human rights report, China's human rights practices remain repressive and fall far short of
internationally-accepted norms. Freedoms of
speech, assembly, association, and religion are
sharply restricted.
China understands that the Clinton Administration has made human rights a cornerstone
of our foreign policy. We have already repeatedly raised our concerns with the Chinese authorities and we intend to press at every opportunity for observance of internationally accepted
standards of human rights practice.
We have made numerous requests for information on specific human rights cases. China
has provided information on some of these cases
but further and more complete responses are
necessary. The Chinese recently released, prior
to completion of their sentences, several prominent dissidents whom we had identified on lists
provided to them. These included not only
Tiananmen-era demonstrators but also Democracy Wall (circa 1979) activists. We hope this
is the first step toward a broad and general
amnesty for all prisoners of conscience.
The Chinese promised then Secretary Baker
in 1991 that all Chinese citizens, regardless of
their political views, have the right to travel
abroad. The only exceptions are citizens who
are imprisoned, have criminal proceedings pending against them, or have received court notices
concerning civil cases. A number of prominent
dissidents, despite long delays, have been able
to leave China. Some others have not. Those
who have been able to obtain exit permits in
the past year include labor leader Han
Dongfang, writers Wang Ruowang and Bai Hua,
scientist  Wen  Yuankai, journalists  Wang
Ruoshui, Zhang Weiguo, and Zhu Xingqing, and
scholar Liu Qing. Others, like Hou Xiaotian, Yu
Haocheng, and Li Honglin, continue to face difficulties in obtaining exit permission, although
the Chinese have informed us Hou Xiaotian will
soon receive an exit visa. We continue to press
the Chinese on these and other cases.
Our goal is the release of all those held solely
for the peaceful expression of their political and
religious views. In November 1991, the Chinese
confirmed to Secretary Baker the release of 133


prisoners on a list presented them earlier in
June of that year. Since then, the Chinese have
released additional political prisoners, including
Xu Wenli, Han Dongfang, Wang Youcai, Luo
Haixing, Xiong Yan, Yang Wei, Wang Zhixin,
Zhang Weiguo, Wang Dan, Wang Xizhe, Gao
Shan, Bao Zunxin, and a number of Catholic
clergy and lesser known activists. We continue
to press for a general amnesty and for permission for international humanitarian organizations
to have access to Chinese prisons. We have also
pressed for improvement in the conditions of
those in Chinese prisons.
China has publicly acknowledged that domestic human rights policies are a legitimate topic
of international discussion. China has hosted
human rights delegations from France, Australia,
the U.K., and Germany. China sent several delegations to the U.S. and Europe, as well as
Southeast Asia, to study foreign human rights
practices and issued a "white paper" maintaining
that basic human rights are observed in China
and arguing that a country's human rights record
should be viewed in light of its own history
and culture. We reject this limited definition
of human rights but believe it is a significant
step forward that China is willing to debate
human rights issues with its international critics.
The U.S. continually raises with the Chinese
government the need for protection of Tibet's
distinctive religion and culture. We are concerned about China's heavy-handed suppression
of political demonstrations in the Tibetan Autonomous Region. Demonstrations continue to result in instances of brutal beatings and long detentions. China has admitted some foreign observers to Tibet and to the main Lhasa prison.
Diplomatic reports state that the Chinese Government is providing funds for rebuilding monasteries and that monks are now provided more
leeway in their religious practices. In recent
years, an increasing number of Han Chinese
have moved to the Tibetan Autonomous Region
in search of economic opportunity. We will continue to monitor closely reports that the PRC
is encouraging involuntary emigration to areas
traditionally settled by Tibetans. So far, we have
found no evidence of a Chinese government
policy to this effect. This is, however, an area
of considerable concern given the relatively
small Tibetan population. We join many others
in urging the Chinese government to establish
conditions under which the unique Tibetan culture and religion will be protected.


773




May 28 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


Nonproliferation Issues
China's support for global nonproliferation initiatives has increased substantially since the beginning of 1992. In March 1992, China acceded
to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)
and adhered to the Missile Technology Control
Regime (MTCR) guidelines and parameters. In
January 1993, Beijing became an original signatory to the Chemical Weapons Convention
(CWC). China now is a party to all of the leading nonproliferation agreements. These commitments have influenced Chinese behavior: Beijing
has refrained from selling certain sensitive items
because of proliferation concerns, and nonproliferation as an issue appears to receive more
senior consideration in Chinese policy-making
circles.
At the same time, certain sensitive Chinese
exports raise questions about PRC compliance
with these commitments. At present, the greatest concern involves reports that China in November 1992 transferred MTCR-class M-ll
missiles or related equipment to Pakistan. Such
a transfer would violate China's MTCR commitment and trigger powerful sanctions under U.S.
missile proliferation law. There also are reports
that China is exercising inadequate control over
sensitive nuclear, chemical, and missile technology exports to countries of proliferation concern. Even if these sales do not violate PRC
obligations, they raise questions about China's
appreciation of the importance of preventing the
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and
their ballistic missile delivery systems.
We are also concerned that China has withdrawn from the Middle East arms control
(ACME) talks. The U.S. holds that, as a permanent member of the UN Security Council,
China has a special responsibility to continue
in these talks.
Seeking full Chinese compliance with multilateral obligations and support for international
nonproliferation goals is a top Administration
priority. The U.S. is prepared to employ the
resources under U.S. law and executive determinations-including the imposition of sanctions-if the PRC engages in irresponsible transfers that violate its commitments.
Trade Issues, Including Prison Labor
Reciprocal granting of MFN tariff status was
a key element cementing the normalization of
Sino-U.S. relations by providing a framework for


major expansion of our economic and trade relations. In 1992, bilateral trade topped $33 billion,
with Chinese exports of $25.8 billion and U.S.
exports of $7.5 billion. China was our fastest
growing export market in Asia in 1992 as U.S.
exports to China rose by 19 percent. In turn,
the United States remains China's largest export
market, absorbing about 30 percent of China's
total exports.
China maintains multiple, overlapping barriers
to imports in an effort to protect non-competitive, state-owned industries. China also has recognized that its development goals cannot be
achieved without gradually reducing protection
and opening its domestic market to the stimulus
for change brought by import competition.
Our market access agreement, signed October
10, 1992, if implemented by the PRC, will increase opportunities for U.S. exports by phasingout 70 to 80 percent of China's non-tariff trade
barriers over the next four years. The regular
consultation process required by this agreement
allows us to monitor implementation and take
appropriate action should China violate its commitments. Progress has been made in opening
the market to U.S. products but we still need
to resolve several issues regarding implementation.
Recently, the Chinese have indicated an interest in doing more business with U.S. companies.
As U.S. corporate executives are arriving in
droves to explore new commercial opportunities
in Beijing, at least eight Chinese delegations
have been or will soon be dispatched to the
U.S. with orders to "buy American". These missions have the potential to generate billions of
dollars of exports of aircraft, autos, satellites,
oil drilling equipment, aviation electronics,
wheat, fertilizer, and other U.S. products.
Still, the large and growing U.S.-China trade
deficit is unacceptable. The over $40 billion
trade surplus China has accumulated with the
United States since June 1989 has been very
destructive to American industries, particularly
the textile and footwear sectors, resulting in the
loss of American jobs. It is therefore essential
that the PRC implement the market access
agreement we have negotiated, which would
produce a much greater equilibrium and fairness
in Sino-American trade. It is also important that
China liberalize its foreign exchange regime, including a market-determined exchange rate. Regarding the 1992 Intellectual Property Rights
(IPR) agreement, the Chinese government has


774




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / May 28


carried out the great bulk of its commitments,
although there are some problems that have
arisen in implementation.
Prison Labor
China officially banned the export of products
produced by prison labor in October 1991. In
August 1992, we signed a Memorandum of Understanding under which the Chinese agreed to
investigate cases we presented and to allow U.S.
officials access to suspect facilities in China.
The U.S. has presented the Chinese government information on 16 cases of alleged use
of prison labor. The Chinese have reported back
on all 16 cases, admitting that four of the facilities involved have used prison labor for export
production in the past. The Chinese maintain
that the factories either have ceased exporting,
or have removed prisoners from the production
line. U.S. officials have visited three prisons and
have standing requests to visit five others, including a revisit to one facility.
In the past two years, U.S. Customs has aggressively expanded its enforcement of U.S. laws
banning the import of prison labor products.
Customs has issued over twenty orders banning
suspected Chinese goods from entering the U.S.,
achieved one court conviction of a U.S. company
for importing prison made machine tools and
detained suspected equipment in another case.
We are actively looking into recent allegations
of violations of the prison labor MOU. Talks
with China will continue on the full enforcement
of the provisions of this agreement.
Conditions for Renewal in 1994
China has made progress in recent years in
the areas of human rights, nonproliferation, and
trade. Nevertheless, I believe more progress is
necessary and possible in each of these three
areas. In considering the optimal method of encouraging further progress on these issues, I
have decided to issue the attached Executive
Order which outlines the areas in the field of
human rights with respect to which China, in
order to receive positive consideration for a renewal of MFN in 1994, will have to make overall, significant progress in the next 12 months.
In considering extension of MFN, we will take
into account Chinese actions with respect to the
following:
-Respecting the fundamental human rights
recognized in the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights.


-Complying with China's commitment to
allow its citizens, regardless of their political
views, freedom to emigrate and travel
abroad (excepting those who are imprisoned, have criminal proceedings pending
against them, or have received court notices
concerning civil cases).
-Providing an acceptable accounting for and
release of Chinese citizens imprisoned or
detained for the peaceful expression of their
political views, including Democracy Wall
and Tiananmen activists.
-Taking effective steps to ensure that forced
abortion and sterilization are not used to
implement China's family planning policies.
-Ceasing religious persecution, particularly
by releasing leaders and members of religious groups detained or imprisoned for expression of their religious beliefs.
-Taking effective actions to ensure that prisoners are not being mistreated and are receiving necessary medical treatment, such
as by granting access to Chinese prisons
by international humanitarian organizations.
-Seeking to resume dialogue with the Dalai
Lama or his representatives, and taking
measures to protect Tibet's distinctive religious and cultural heritage.
-Continuing cooperation concerning U.S.
military personnel who are listed as prisoners of war or missing in action.
-Ceasing the jamming of Voice of America
broadcasts.
The Administration will also use tools under
existing legislation and executive determinations
to encourage further progress in human rights.
In addition, I wish to make clear my continuing and strong determination to pursue objectives in the areas of nonproliferation and trade,
utilizing other instruments available, including
appropriate legislation and executive determinations. For example, various provisions of U.S.
law contain strong measures against irresponsible proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and nuclear weapons technology. These include missile proliferation sanctions under the
National Defense Authorization Act. Using these
tools as necessary, we will continue to press
China to implement its commitments to abide
by international standards and agreements in the
nonproliferation area.
In the area of trade, the Clinton Administration will continue to press for full and faithful
implementation of bilateral agreements with


775




May 28 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


China on market access, intellectual property  areas of market access and intellectual property
rights, and prison labor. Section 301 of the 1974  rights. The Administration will also continue to
Trade Act is a powerful instrument to ensure  implement vigorously the provisions of the Tariff
our interests are protected and advanced in the  Act of 1930 to prevent importation of goods
made by forced labor.
Remarks Announcing White House Staff Changes and an Exchange With
Reporters
May 29, 1993


The President. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. The objective of this White House and
everyone who works in it is to improve the
lives of the American people and to change their
lives for the better. We have been working on
that from the beginning. It takes the right people and the right organization to achieve those
objectives. For the last several weeks the Chief
of Staff Mack McLarty has been working to
make appropriate changes in the White House
to strengthen our ability to do our job for the
American people.
I am pleased today to welcome to the White
House staff one of the Nation's most respected
journalists and commentators, David Gergen. I
have known David for many years. He is a trusted friend and a dedicated public servant. By
agreeing to accept Mack McLarty's invitation to
join the White House team he is demonstrating
one of the qualities for which he is well known,
a sense of patriotism that transcends partisanship.
David Gergen is a Republican, as well as a
longtime friend of mine. He is a moderate,
prochange, patriotic American. We have shared
many ideas over the years and found much
agreement in the work I have done as Governor
and with the Democratic Leadership Council
and in many of the ideas I espoused in the
campaign of 1992. I want him to help me make
those ideas a reality in the lives of the American
people.
The message here is that we are rising above
politics. We are going beyond the partisanship
that damaged this country so badly in the last
several years to search for new ideas, a new
common ground, a new national unity.
I am also announcing that my longtime and
trusted aide George Stephanopoulos will be
working with me more closely, as he did in


the campaign, on important matters of policy
and strategy and day-to-day decisionmaking,
helping me to integrate all the complicated debates that confront my Office. One of the reasons for this move is that I have missed very
badly and I have needed the kind of contact
and support that I received from George in the
campaign, that I think was absolutely essential
to the victory that was secured.
I'd now like to introduce the Chief of Staff
and thank Mack McLarty for all the hard work
that he has been doing, especially in the last
few weeks, to try to strengthen the White House
and make it able to do the things that we
pledged to do for the American people. Mr.
McLarty.
[At this point, Thomas McLarty, David Gergen,
and George Stephanopoulos made statements in
support of the changes in the White House staff]
White House Staff
Q. Mr. President, the decision to bring in
a Republican for this key position, does this
mean you're going back to your centrist or New
Democrat roots that you articulated during the
campaign? And what does it mean about some
of the more controversial decisions recently that
suggested you were moving towards the more
liberal wing of the Democratic Party, specifically
your civil rights Assistant Attorney General
nominee Lani Guinier? Do you still want her
to become the Assistant Attorney General for
civil rights?
The President. Today I want to talk about
David Gergen, George Stephanopoulos, and the
White House staff. The announcement that I
have made today with Mr. McLarty-it was really his idea; I want to give him the credit for
it; I wish it had been mine, but it wasn'tsignals to the American people where I am,


776




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / May 29


what I believe, and what I'm going to do.
I did not get into this race for President to
divide the American people. I got into the race
to unite the American people and to move this
country forward. I have always, throughout my
public life, had supporters who were independents, who were Republicans, who were interested in ideas and movement and not in partisan
gridlock and moving the American people apart.
That's what I'm trying to do. That's what I've
always wanted to do. And that's what this announcement today means.
President's Priorities
Q. Mr. President, Mr. Gergen talked about
scorching partisanship on Capitol Hill and elsewhere in this town. He said that four of the
five last Presidents have been broken by the
weight of the office that you now hold. Do
you feel that you're at that point? Do you feel
the weight? And do you feel there's a chance
that you, too, could be broken by it?
The President. I don't know about the weight.
I feel the responsibility. I have made a deliberate decision to move rapidly to do things
which I think need to be done which have been
neglected, and to push the agenda forward, especially on the budget. And as you know, we're
moving forward in a record pace now with a
very tough and difficult set of choices for the
American people that I think will allow us to
reclaim our destiny.
I believe that, when the history of this administration is written, we will look back and see
that taking on the tough decisions early was
the right decision for the people of this country.
But I have been very concerned that the cumulative effect of some of the things which are
now very much in the news has given to the
administration a tinge that is too partisan and
not connected to the mainstream, prochange,
future-oriented politics and policies that I ran
for President to implement. And that's what I
want to do.
I think that this will help me to be a successful President. But the issue is not whether I'll
be a successful President, it's whether we'll have
a successful country. And I believe we will. And
I think this is one big step toward that today.
Improving Communication
Q. Mr. President, with your public opinion
polls fairly low right now, does this change suggest an inability to get your message out so


far, or change it?
The President. I don't think that anybody
would be surprised to admit that the major work
of this administration and the passionate concerns of this administration are not always the
things which come to mind in what's being communicated to the American people. So do we
want to improve our ability to communicate
what we believe and what we're doing? Yes,
we do.
When I had the nationally televised town hall
meeting here last week and all those people
came up to me and said afterward how much
better they felt about their country having been
here and having had a personal conversation,
knowing exactly where I and where my administration is coming from, what our values and
objectives are, it made it utterly clear to me
that if the American people knew exactly what
we were doing, just like they did on the night
of February 17th, they would support these
tough decisions and these difficult changes.
On the other hand, I think it unrealistic ever
to assume you can take on the kind of challenges that we are trying to take on without
having some momentary bumps and runs in the
public opinion polls. We can't be governed by
that. But what I want to know is that the American people at least know me, know who I am,
where I'm coming from, and more importantly,
know what our administration is about. Then
whatever their opinions in the polls will be will
actively reflect the reality of who we are and
their judgment about it. That's all I want. And
I think that's what the communications can do.
President's Priorities
Q. Mr. President, you've made much of cutting the White House staff in an effort to reduce
Government spending. With the addition of Mr.
Gergen and the rumored addition of others,
doesn't that seem out of keeping with a leaner
White House staff?
The President. The White House staff is going
to be much leaner than it was before, but the
number one task that I have is to serve the
American people. Let me just give you an example. One of the things we never could have
anticipated is that we'd get more mail here in
3-1/2 months than the White House did in all
of 1992.
I am cutting the Federal Government. I am
cutting the White House staff. We are doing
that. But I think our number one objective is


777




May 29 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


to serve the American people well. And that's
what we're trying to do.
I have got to go to West Point. I am going
to be late, and that would be a terrible mistake.
I owe it to the graduating seniors at West Point


to get them off on their military careers on
time. I'm sorry.
Thank you.
NOTE: The President spoke at 7:30 a.m. in the
Rose Garden at the White House.


The President's Radio Address
May 29, 1993
Good morning. This weekend, in solemn ceremonies and joyful gatherings, families will honor
the military personnel who have kept us free.
In honoring these patriots we honor what is
best in the American spirit.
I'll be joining those families at West Point
to pay tribute to the officers graduating from
the military academy, at Arlington National
Cemetery to lay a wreath and pray for the fallen,
and at the remarkable memorial to the men
and women who died in Vietnam whose names
are engraved in its polished walls and whose
memories are etched in the hearts of the American people. These are the heroes who have
protected our borders, defended our interests,
and preserved our values.
Our military strength makes our freedom possible. But our military might depends on our
economic strength. Just as our liberty cannot
rest upon a hollow army, our strong military
cannot rest upon a hollow economy. Our ability
to remain strong abroad is founded on our ability to remain strong here at home. For too many
years the people in Washington in both parties
have permitted our strength to ebb. Government
of gridlock and favoritism for the few has caused
our economy to lose its historic promise in a
time of intense global competition when we
have to change and when the status quo isn't
enough.
Look at the results of the last several years:
middle class families working longer hours for
lower wages; economic growth in this recovery
slowing to historically low levels; 9 million
Americans out of work in the 25th month of
what is supposed to be a recovery. Thirty-five
million Americans go to bed every night facing
a serious illness or injury which could bankrupt
their families because they have no health insurance, and many, many millions more fear losing


their health insurance if they have to change
jobs and they have a sick person in their family
or if their company goes down.
In the midst of all of these challenges our
National Government too long has given enormous tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans and
special interests and, at the same time, reduced
investments in areas essential to productivity and
security of working families. And in our cities,
small towns, and rural areas, look what's happened. In the last 12 years the Government's
debt has grown from $1 trillion to $4 trillion,
in just 12 years. And what a burden and shackle
it has become.
The American economy is in the middle of
the global marketplace, challenged by nations
who have made wise investments in their people, their workers, and their technological edge,
and who have disciplined their own spending
on other things. If we don't start getting better,
we can fall behind, and the American way of
life will be denied to this generation and the
next. This is the great struggle of our time.
And it is a challenge I am determined our country will meet, a battle we will win.
At stake is whether Washington will stop
doing business as usual and put our own house
in order and put our people first, whether we
will be satisfied with the status quo and let
the special interests continue to dictate our
country's future, or whether we will expand
American prosperity and preserve the American
dream.
Just this week, the House of Representatives
stepped up to the plate and voted for change,
for growth, for renewal. The House voted for
an economic program that really reduces the
deficit through specific spending cuts that will
lead to economic growth. They voted for 200
cuts in old spending programs, $250 billion in


778




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / May 29


deficit reduction through spending cuts alone.
We also asked the wealthy to pay their fair
share because they are able to pay more and
because in the last 12 years taxes have gone
down on the wealthy as their incomes have gone
up. Of the money we raise in taxes 75 percent
of it comes from individuals with incomes above
$100,000.
The plan also asks the middle class to make
a modest contribution through an energy tax.
In 1994, a family making $40,000 a year will
pay a dollar a month; the next year, $7 a month;
the next year $17 a month when the energy
tax is fully phased in.
Our plan for economic growth is serious about
deficit reduction, by asking all but the most
meagerly supplied working families and the poor
to make a contribution. We reduce our deficit
by $500 billion. That puts our fiscal house in
order. It pays down the deficit, and at the same
time, it does something else we have to do:
we make a down payment on future economic
growth, investing in the work skills, the education standards, the technologies that our people need to be able to compete and win in
global markets.
This plan rewards full-time work instead of
lifetime welfare. For the first time, this plan
will make it possible for us to say to every
American family, if you work 40 hours a week
and you have children in the home, you won't
be in poverty. That means that people will no
longer have an incentive to prefer welfare to
work. In fact, it will be the other way around.
The House of Representatives deserves our
special thanks for passing our plan. Now it's
time for the Senators to do the right thing as
well. But unfortunately, even well-intentioned
and respected legislators are still clinging to the
illusions of the past, that somehow there are
easy ways out of this and no-pain decisions.
Remarks at the United States Military
Ceremony in West Point, New York
May 29, 1993
Thank you very much. Please be seated.
General Graves, thank you for that fine introduction and for your outstanding leadership
here. General Sullivan and the distinguished


Then other people in the Senate would actually
pay for lower taxes on the very wealthy by cutting Social Security benefits for older Americans
living barely above the poverty line. And for
working Americans living barely above the poverty line, they'd be denied tax benefits so there
could be more to upper-income people. If we
were to protect interest groups from paying
their fair share of taxes by cutting the earnedincome tax credit for low-income working Americans, we'd just force millions of low-wage workers back into poverty and force many into welfare.
These ideas would return us to the failed
policies of the past, policies that increased our
deficit, short-changed our future, and put narrow interests over national interests. But those
days are over. Gridlock is out. Growth is in.
It's time for the Senate to join the House and
get with this program.
This is not about politics. It's about America's
future, about rebuilding the foundation of our
prosperity, about restoring the confidence of our
people in Washington's capacity to deal with
our common problems. It's about being strong
nationally and about our families being secure
and strong in their homes and in their lives.
We're making progress. We're turning things
around. We're doing it together like a family.
On Memorial Day, let's rededicate ourselves to
our Armed Services who are fighting for our
national security and to our common economic
future which makes that national security possible.
Thanks for listening.
NOTE: The address was recorded at 1:27 p.m. on
May 28 in the Wyndham Franklin Plaza Hotel
in Philadelphia, PA, for broadcast at 10:06 a.m.
on May 29.
Academy Commencement
platform guests, distinguished guests, all the
families and guests of this graduating class, and
most of all, to the young men and women of
the Corps of Cadets, it is a great privilege for


779




May 29 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


me today to join in this celebration of accomplishment.
To the class of 1993, I want to extend my
heartfelt congratulations. You've worked hard,
and you've well earned the honor bestowed
upon you today.
To your parents and your relatives, let me
assure you that however often you've wondered
about it, you really aren't dreaming. Your sons
and daughters, your brothers and sisters really
made it. And you can take pride in their graduation and in the strong values that you must
have helped to instill in them that made this
day possible for them.
To the faculty and staff of this wonderful
Academy, let me offer my gratitude for your
dedication as this historic institution graduates
its 50,000th cadet. It is said here at West Point
that much of the history you teach was made
by the people you taught. That's true and very
much to your credit. The work you and your
predecessors have carried forward since 1802
is truly that of nation-building, and today your
Nation thanks you once again.
For the class of 1993, today marks the completion of an arduous process. I look out at
you and think you endured Beast Barracks. You
passed countless PT tests, none of which I could
pass anymore. [Laughter] You have met high
standards for discipline, for physical fitness, for
academics, and I must say, I am impressed by
your haircuts. [Laughter]
No one is perfect, of course, as even the
President demonstrates from time to time. I'm
reminded that one of your greatest graduates
and one of my predecessors as Commander in
Chief, General Dwight Eisenhower, was punished as a cadet for such terrible offenses as,
I quote, "apparently making no reasonable effort
to have his room properly cleaned at a.m. inspection," and-I wonder what a "reasonable
effort" is-and second, "being late for breakfast." In the unlikely event that there have been
any such breaches of discipline on your part,
let me announce today that in keeping with
customary practice, I exercise my prerogative
as Commander in Chief to grant amnesty to
the Corps of Cadets. [Applause] I hope the assembled crowd is not too troubled that so many
seem to be celebrating. [Laughter]
Two centuries ago at this bend in the Hudson
River, America's first defenders stretched a
chain across the river to prevent British ships
from dividing and conquering our new Nation.


Today we add 1,003 new links to that unbroken
chain of America's defenders, 1,003 new and
solid segments in the Long Gray Line, a line
that stretches back 191 years through your ranks
and as far into the future as the Lord lets the
United States of America exist. The Long Gray
Line has never failed us, and I believe it never
will.
Like the great chain itself, you have emerged
from the forge, tested and tempered, composed
of a stronger metal than you brought here.
Forty-eight months ago, you came here as young
adults. Today when you leave this stadium, you
will be officers of the United States Army.
West Point has prepared you for a life of
service. And as you well know, West Point's
graduates have served America in many, many
ways, not only by leading troops into combat
but also by exploring frontiers, founding universities, laying out the railroads, building the Panama Canal, running corporations, serving in the
Congress and in the White House, and walking
on the Moon.
Yet, no service is more important or admirable than your simple decision to put on the
uniform of this great Nation and to serve wherever America calls you in defense of freedom.
The willingness to serve and sacrifice for the
greater good is the ultimate tribute to your character and your efforts. For those services and
sacrifices, those that brought you here and those
that will take you and our great Nation into
the future, you have the appreciation of all the
American people.
You have stepped forward not only to serve
but to lead. For the hallmark of West Point
has been its tradition of growing leaders of character. Whenever the Nation called, members of
the Long Gray Line have led the way. Your
predecessors led tight-lipped troops into the
smoke and flame of battle at Chancellorsville
and Gettysburg. They were first out of the
muddy trenches into the attack at the MeuseArgonne. They led the first wave of assaults
from Normandy. They held the line at Pusan
and were first off the helicopters in the Ia
Drang Valley and the Iron Triangle. More recent graduates were among those who jumped
into Panama and led the charge into Iraq. And
the corps was there as well when the call came
from the victims of hunger, when the call came
from the victims of Hurricane Andrew. From
Florida to Somalia, you have been there.
The 172 battle streamers on the Army flag


780




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / May 29


commemorate the skill and courage of those
who have gone before you. Marked and unmarked graves around the world testify to the
corps' selfless devotion to country. Your steadfast commitment to duty, honor, country is our
national strength.
My commitment and that of the Congress
and the American people is to stand by you.
That means before we ask you to put your life
and the lives of those whom you command in
harm's way, it is our solemn responsibility to
take your advice, to give you the tools you need,
and then to give you our complete support. That
is our pledge to you as you enter this career.
You are pinning on your gold bars at a time
of remarkable challenge and change for the
United States. On this Memorial Day weekend,
we all pray that we have sent America's sons
and daughters to war for the last time. Yet,
history suggests that during your years of service, we will again need to call upon America's
weapons and warriors to defend our national
interests.
The changes of recent years allow us to be
hopeful. But common sense reminds us to be
prepared. One way we must be prepared is by
ensuring that our forces have what they need
to get the job done, the equipment and the
quality people needed to ensure that we can
achieve decisive victory should we be called to
battle once again. As our forces must change
to meet the challenges and dangers of a new
world, one need will remain constant, the requirement for leaders of character.
You will be called upon in many ways in
this era: to keep the peace, to relieve suffering,
to help teach officers from new democracies
in the ways of a democratic army, and still to
fulfill the fundamental mission which General
MacArthur reminded us of, which is always to
be ready to win our wars.
But whatever the challenge, I know you will
accomplish your mission, not only because of
your training but because of your values and
character. I will do my part by doing whatever
is necessary to keep our forces ready-and to
keep our microphones up. [Laughter] I will do
my part-and I think the Congress will, tooto make sure that our forces are always ready
to fight and win on a moment's notice. We
ought, really, to meet the standard of one of
your classmates, Pat Malcolm, who came in the
clutch and delivered the goods for you. If we
can do that, you will be able to serve.


If you have the character and will to win,
we owe it to you to make you the best trained,
the best prepared, the best equipped, and the
best supported fighting force on the face of the
Earth.
The budget cuts that have come at the end
of the cold war were necessary, even welcome,
appropriate in light of the collapse of the Soviet
Union and other changes. But we must be
mindful, even as we try so hard to reduce this
terrible national deficit, that there is a limit beyond which we must not go. We have to ensure
that the United States is ready, ready to win
and superior to all other military forces in the
world.
In doing that, we can ensure that the values
you learned here and the values you brought
here from your families and your communities
back home will be able to spread throughout
this country and throughout the world and give
other people the opportunity to live as you have
lived, to fulfill your God-given capacities.
We must also stay prepared by understanding
the threats of this new era. We can't predict
the future. We cannot tell precisely when the
next challenge will come or exactly what form
it will take. Yet, we do know that the threats
we face are fundamentally different from those
of the recent past. The end of the bipolar superpower cold war leaves us with unfamiliar threats,
not the absence of danger.
Consider what we witness today in the world
you will move into: ethnic and religious conflict,
the violent turmoil of dissolving or newly created
states, the random violence of the assassin and
the terrorist. These are forces that plagued the
world in the early days of this century. As we
scan today's bloodiest conflicts, from the former
Soviet Union and Yugoslavia to Armenia to
Sudan, the dynamics of the cold war have been
replaced by many of the dynamics of old war.
A particularly troubling new element in the
world you face, however, is the proliferation
around the globe of weapons of mass destruction
and the means for their delivery. Today, ambitious and violent regimes seek to acquire arsenals of nuclear, biological, and chemical warfare.
As we discovered in Iraq, surging stocks of
ballistic missiles and other advanced arms have
enabled outlaw nations to extend the threat of
mass destruction a long way beyond their own
borders. And meeting these new threats will require a new approach and a new determination
shared by all peace-loving nations to oppose the


781




May 29 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


spread of these dread weapons. In the coming
months, our administration will address the dangers from growing stockpiles of nuclear materials
that could be used in these weapons and the
risk of nuclear smuggling and terrorism.
We will soon begin negotiations on a comprehensive test ban treaty which will increase
our political leverage to combat this proliferation. We will reform our export controls to keep
weapons-related technologies out of the wrong
hands, while cutting redtape for legitimate
American export activities. And we must make
further changes in how we organize the Government to reflect the priority that we place on
nonproliferation. For, if we must contemplate
the possibility of sending America's men and
women once again into harm's way, then we
owe it to you to do our best to prevent the
proliferation of weapons that could vastly multiply the dangers and the casualties of any conflict.
Ultimately, preparedness lies in strength. And
if our Nation is to be strong abroad, it must
also be strong at home. It was President Eisenhower who once said, "A strong economy is
the physical basis, the physical basis of all our
military power."
One of the most potent weapons behind our
victory in World War II was the industrial might
of the United States. What ultimately enabled
us to prevail in the cold war was the simple
fact that our free political and economic institutions had produced more prosperity and more
personal human happiness than did the confining institutions of communism. In the same way
our global era leadership must, must depend
on our ability to create jobs and growth and
opportunity for Americans here at home who,
in turn, will have the finances to make sure
we can maintain the world's strongest military.
Unfortunately, for too many years in this new
global economy, we have had difficulty maintaining opportunity at home. In the face of intense
competition around the world and the now-familiar problems we have in the United States,
our debt has grown from $1 trillion to $4 trillion, even as we have reduced military spending
and investments in areas that are crucial to our
future in new technologies, in education and
training, and in converting defense cutbacks into
domestic economic opportunities.
Today we face an especially troubling phenomenon that the United States has never faced
before at home: slow economic growth which


does not create new jobs. We must refuse to
accept this as a pattern that will be repeated
in the future. Just as our security cannot rest
upon a hollow army, neither can it rest upon
a hollow economy.
If we are to sustain the American way of
life that you have been trained so well to defend, we must do more and do better. We must
cultivate the teacher who can hold her class'
attention, encourage the entrepreneur who bets
his savings on his own ideas. We must do right
by the middle class families of this country who
work hard and play by the rules. We must pay
down the deficit and make downpayments on
the future, both at the same time, honoring
work, rewarding investment, and sharpening our
competitive edge. If you can win on the battlefield, surely America can win in every field of
competition we must face as we march toward
the 21st century.
That is the great challenge facing our country.
And the Congress today is facing that challenge
in dealing with the economic plan I have presented. The House of Representatives, led by
concerned Americans like Congressman Jack
Reed, who is the only West Point graduate in
the United States Congress, has sent a plan to
the Senate which now must be produced from
the Senate in the form of an economic plan
to bring this country back.
In this new era, those of us in political life
need a new strategy, need sound tactics, need
the kind of discipline in implementing it that
all of you have learned to provide for our Nation's defense here at West Point. In short, we
must approach the job of rebuilding our Nation
with the same kind of single-minded determination that you have brought your skills, your dedication, and leadership ability to in these 4 years
and that you will bring to the defense of our
Nation in the years ahead. We can do no less
for you.
Finally, let me say this. Someday, some of
you out here will be sitting in the Situation
Room at the White House or with the President
or with the Secretary of Defense in some other
circumstance. At that moment you will be called
to give your advice on an issue which may be
small but also may be large and of incredible
significance to the future of this country. I ask
you in all the years ahead to keep preparing
for that day throughout your careers by continuing study and continuous listening and continuous absorption of every experience you have.


782




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / May 31


The world is changing rapidly, and if you do
not work to make change our friend, then it
can become our enemy. You represent the very
best of the American people. It will be your
understanding of our Nation's challenges and
your embodiment of our Nation's values, enriched by what you have learned here, leavened
by the experiences to come, bound by your commitment to "Duty, Honor, Country" which will
permit you to make our greatest contribution
to the Nation: continuing service. You have
earned your turn to lead, to follow in the footsteps of those who have been on the Plain before you.
Over the past 4 years, your Nation has invested heavily in you. The skills and dedication
you now bring to the defense of our Nation


are more than ample repayment. I am proud
of the work you do, honored to serve as your
Commander in Chief, confident that all Americans join me in saluting your achievement, and
very, very optimistic about the future of our
Nation in your hands.
Good luck. God bless you, and God bless
America.
NOTE: The President spoke at 10:20 a.m. in
Michie Stadium. In his remarks, he referred to
Lt. Gen. Howard D. Graves, USA, Superintendent, U.S. Military Academy; Gen. Gordon R. Sullivan, USA, Chief of Staff, U.S. Army; and Pat Malcolm, who kicked the winning field goal in the
1992 Army-Navy football game.


Remarks on the Observance of the 50th Anniversary of World War II
May 31, 1993


Good morning. Please be seated. It's a great
honor for the First Lady and for me to have
all of you here in the White House today. I
want to welcome all of you, and a few by name,
beginning with the Secretary of Veterans Affairs
Jesse Brown; the Deputy Secretary of Defense
Dr. William Perry; Marvin Runyon, the Postmaster General; Lt. General Claude Kicklighter,
the Executive Director of the World War II
Commemoration Committee; Mr. Roger Durbin,
a World War II veteran and the initiator of
the World War II Commemorative Coin legislation. Also here with me, representing all World
War II veterans, is Admiral Eugene Fluckey.
I'd like to welcome Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur from Ohio, an ardent supporter of veterans'
cause who heeded the call of her constituent,
Mr. Durbin, and took the lead on the legislation
to issue the World War II 50th Anniversary
Commemorative Coin, to fund a building of the
World War II Memorial here in Washington
with no net cost to the United States Treasury.
I wonder if we might undertake some other
programs with that device. [Laughter]
I'd like to thank our good friend, Senator
Jay Rockefeller from West Virginia, another
great advocate for veterans, for being here with
us; Secretary Shannon from the Army; Admiral
Kelso, wearing both his Chief of Naval Oper

ations and Navy Secretary hats today; Secretary
Donley from the Air Force; Admiral Jeremiah,
the Vice Chair of the Joint Chiefs; General Sullivan, the Army Chief of Staff who took me to
West Point on Saturday for one of the better
days of my life, thank you, General; General
McPeak, the Chief of Staff of the Air Force;
General Mundy, the Commandant of the Marine Corps; and Admiral Kime, the Commandant of the Coast Guard. I'm delighted to
welcome the many representatives of veteran
service organizations who are here with us today.
I want to say a special word of thanks to
the veterans organizations, and the VA particularly, for working with the health care task force
that the First Lady is chairing so closely on
health care. Hillary visited the Washington, DC,
VA medical centers on May 29th, and she talked
to me in our brief stay at Camp David for
30 or 40 minutes about how impressed she was
about what she saw there. And we are very,
very hopeful that we can work with the active
military health operations and with the VA in
working through this health care issue. I think
you have a major role to play.
I'd also like to say a special word of thanks
to the people who were involved in the May
28th kickoff of this weekend's Memorial Day
remembrances. There I had the opportunity to


783




May 31 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


speak with three VA medical centers, a telephone conversation that initiated a program replacing the old system of isolating veterans in
these hospitals from their families and friends
by replacing it with a system where telephones
are placed alongside their beds and are usable
by veterans even with severe disabilities. We
now are having five hospitals so equipped, but
eventually will have 174 veterans hospitals where
veterans will be able to call from their bedside
to their families and friends.
This is an important issue. One of the men
I talked with in Queens has three children; two
of them are in the service and are overseas.
And now, even though he is quite ill, he'll be
able to talk on this day to both of his children
who, like him, are serving in the armed services.
In just a few moments I'm going to sign a
resolution and a proclamation designating this
May 31st through June 7th as a period of national observance, as part of the 50th anniversary
of World War II. But before I do that, and
before Postmaster General Runyon and I unveil
this year's additions of the World War II Commemorative Stamps, I'd like to say just a few
things about the debt that all of us owe to
our veterans.
Fifty years ago, the United States and its allies
were engaged in a monumental struggle to defeat a totalitarian Axis bent on controlling the
world, to preserve the dignity of mankind and
to protect individual freedom. Americans from
every walk of life were called upon to sacrifice
their freedoms and their comforts, to undergo
great danger to shore up our Nation's future,
and to fight for democracy.
As we observe the 50th anniversary of World
War II, our country must remember and honor
the million who defended democracy and defeated aggression. We learned from those early
defeats in World War II that we must remain
vigilant and always prepared to resist future aggression and that all nations dedicated to freedom must stand together. The freedoms we
enjoy today are results of our victory over aggression, and the efforts the United States
makes today to work with all other nations who
love and believe in freedom are a testimony
to the wisdom of the lessons learned then.
We must be committed now to leave our children a world free of the horrors of war: hatred,
violence, and inhumanity. Franklin Roosevelt
once said, "We must cultivate the science of


human relationships, the ability of all people
to live and work together in the same world
at peace." I think Admiral Fluckey, a courageous
man, would agree that while courage and deeds
of warriors are indeed heroic, the ultimate goal
of this courage is to make it unnecessary for
future generations.
President Kennedy once said, "It is an unfortunate fact that we can secure the peace only
by preparing for war." Our Nation stands committed to defend itself and our allies by remaining strong and vigilant and ready. And therefore,
it is very fitting that this week-long period of
national observance of the 50th anniversary of
World War II begins on Memorial Day, a day
when we remember and honor our Nation's war
dead. As we work toward a more peaceful future, it is appropriate that we remember and
thank the brave and selfless patriots who served
our Nation 50 years ago.
During this commemoration, Americans of all
ages must also remember those who gave their
lives and dedicated themselves in other wars
so that our Nation could remain free and strong,
so that the deeds, the commitment, and the
sacrifice of those who made this commitment
will not have been in vain.
I have asked the Secretary of Defense Les
Aspin, who is in Brussels today, in conjunction
with the Secretary of Veterans Affairs Jesse
Brown, to continue coordinating the commemorative events of the 50th anniversary of the Second World War. I want to urge all the veterans,
the Government, the civic, the business, and
the patriotic organizations to join together in
expression so that a grateful Nation will remember. Our Nation will rededicate itself during this
time to studying the lessons of the past.
I want to say in closing, again, how grateful
I am to have all of you here in the White
House today. This is your house. You have paid
the price for it, and those whom you represent
made the fact that it is still standing possible.
We are all very, very grateful to you.
Thank you very much.
NOTE: The President spoke at 9:15 a.m. in the
East Room at the White House. H.J. Res. 80, approved May 31, was assigned Public Law 103 -34. The proclamation on the national observance
of the 50th anniversary of World War II is listed
in Appendix D at the end of this volume.


784




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / May 31


Remarks at a Memorial Day Ceremony at Arlington National Cemetery in
Arlington, Virginia
May 31, 1993


Thank you very much. General Gordon, distinguished leaders of the armed services, the
Defense Department, the Cabinet, the Congress, the leaders of our veterans organizations
here, to all the veterans and their families who
are here and to all those here who are family
members of veterans buried in this cemetery
or in any other place around the globe, and
to my fellow Americans: We come together this
morning, along with our countrymen and women
in cities across the land, to honor those who
died that we might live in freedom, the only
way that Americans can ever truly live. Today
we put aside our differences to better reflect
on what unites us. The lines so often drawn
between and among us, lines of region or race
or partisanship, all those lines fall away today
as we gaze upon the lines of markers that surround us on these hallowed hills. The lines of
difference are freedom's privilege. The lines of
these markers are freedom's cost.
Today Americans all across our land draw together in shared experience and shared remembrance. And whether it is an older veteran in
Florida, or a teenager in New Mexico, or a
mother in Wisconsin, all today will bow their
heads and put hand to heart. And without knowing each other, still we will all be joined in
spirit, because we are Americans and because
we know we are equal shareholders in humanity's most uplifting dream.
Today, as we fly the American flag, some will
recall the pledge we began to recite daily as
youngsters in grade school, with solemn faith
and awkward salute, some of us even before
we learned the difference between our right
and left hands. Others will remember the flag
waving over public gatherings, large and very
small. But on this day, in this serene and solemn
setting, conscious of the past, conscious, too,
of the perils all too present, what we see most
vividly in that flag are the faces of American
soldiers who gave their lives in battle and the
faces of this generation of young service men
and women, very, very much alive, still training
and preparing for possible conflicts tomorrow.
From the first militiaman downed at Lexington
to today's rawest recruit, the flag unites them,


soldiers living and dead, and reminds the rest
of us that we are all the inheritors of a sacred
trust.
it is with that flag and that trust in mind
that we resolve this May morning to keep America free, strong, and proud. We resolve in this
era of profound change and continuing peril to
be ever vigilant against any foe that could endanger us and against any undercurrent that
might erode our security, including the economic security that is the ultimate foundation
of our Nation's strength. We resolve, as well,
always to keep America's Armed Forces the finest in the world. And we resolve that if we
ask them to fight in our behalf, we will give
them the clear mission, the means, and the support they need to win.
In honoring those who died in the defense
of our country, we must never neglect to honor
as well our living American veterans. The Nation
owes a special debt to the millions of men and
women who took up posts at home or abroad
to secure our defenses or to fight for our freedom. Because of what they have done for us,
their health and well-being must always be a
cause for our special concern.
Here by the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier,
we renew our Nation's solemn pledge also to
the POW and MIA families from all wars, a
pledge to provide not just the prayers and memorials but also to the extent humanly possible
to provide the answers you deserve. And we
vow, with the new Korean War Memorial
project finally underway, that no future conflict,
if conflict there must be, must ever be regarded
as a forgotten war. The inscription on the Tomb
of the Unknown Soldier says that he is, quote,
"Known only to God." But that is only partly
true. While the soldier's name is known only
to God, we know a lot about him. We know
he served his country, honored his community,
and died for the cause of freedom. And we
know that no higher praise can be assigned to
any human being than those simple words.
Today we are at peace, but we live in a troubled world. From that flag and from these, our
honored dead, we draw strength and inspiration
to carry on in our time the tasks of defending


785




May 31 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


and preserving freedom that were so nobly ful-  of God Almighty. Thank you very much.
filled by all those we come here to honor in
this time. In that effort and in the presence  NOTE: The President spoke at 11:30 a.m. at the
of those buried all around us, we ask the sup-  Memorial Amphitheater. In his remarks, he report of all Americans in the aid and blessing  ferred to Maj. Gen. F.A. Gordon, USA, commander of the Military District of Washington.
Remarks at a Memorial Day Ceremony at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial
May 31, 1993


Thank you very much. General Powell, General McCaffrey, and my good friend Lew Puller,
whom I did not know was coming here today,
I thank you so much.
To all of you who are shouting, I have heard
you. I ask you now to hear me. I have heard
you. Some have suggested that it is wrong for
me to be here with you today because I did
not agree a quarter of a century ago with the
decision made to send the young men and
women to battle in Vietnam. Well, so much
the better. Here we are celebrating America
today. Just as war is freedom's cost, disagreement is freedom's privilege, and we honor it
here today. But I ask all of you to remember
the words that have been said here today. And
I ask you at this monument: Can any American
be out of place? And can any Commander in
Chief be in any other place but here on this
day? I think not.
Many volumes have been written about this
war and those complicated times. But the message of this memorial is quite simple: These
men and women fought for freedom, brought
honor to their communities, loved their country,
and died for it. They were known to all of
us. There's not a person in this crowd today
who did not know someone on this wall. Four
of my high school classmates are there. Four
who shared with me the joys and trials of childhood and did not live to see the three score
and ten years the Scripture says we are entitled
to.
Let us continue to disagree, if we must, about
the war. But let us not let it divide us as a
people any longer. No one has come here today
to disagree about the heroism of those whom
we honor. But the only way we can really honor
their memory is to resolve to live and serve
today and tomorrow as best we can and to make


America the best that she can be. Surely that
is what we owe to all those whose names are
etched in this beautiful memorial. As we all
resolve to keep the finest military in the world,
let us remember some of the lessons that all
agree on. If the day should come when our
service men and women must again go into
combat, let us all resolve they will go with the
training, the equipment, the support necessary
to win, and most important of all, with a clear
mission to win.
Let us do what is necessary to regain control
over our destiny as a people here at home,
to strengthen our economy and develop the capacities of all of our people, to rebuild our communities and our families where children are
raised and character is developed. Let us keep
the American dream alive.
Today, let us also renew a pledge to the families whose names are not on this wall because
their sons and daughters did not come home.
We will do all we can to give you not only
the attention you have asked for but the answers
you deserve.
Today I have ordered that by Veterans Day
we will have declassified all United States Government records related to POW's and MIA's
from the Vietnam war, all those records, except
for a tiny fraction which could still affect our
national security or invade the privacy of their
families. As we allow the American public to
have access to what our Government knows,
we will press harder to find out what other
governments know. We are pressing the Vietnamese to provide this accounting not only because it is the central outstanding issue in our
relationship with Vietnam but because it is a
central commitment made by the American
Government to our people, and I intend to keep
it.


786




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / June 1


You heard General Powell quoting President
Lincoln: "With malice toward none and charity
for all let us bind up the Nation's wounds."
Lincoln speaks to us today across the years. Let
us resolve to take from this haunting and beautiful memorial a renewed sense of our national
unity and purpose, a deepened gratitude for the
sacrifice of those whose names we touched and
whose memories we revere, and a finer dedicaMemorandum on Trade Agreements
May 31, 1993
Memorandum for the United States Trade
Representative
Subject: Presidential Determination Under
Section 1105(b)(1) of the Omnibus Trade and
Competitiveness Act of 1988
Section 1105(b)(1) of the Omnibus Trade and
Competitiveness Act of 1988 (Public Law 100 -48; 19 U.S.C. 2904(b)(1)) ("the Act"), provides
that the President shall determine, before June
1, 1993, whether any major industrial country
has failed to make concessions under trade
agreements entered into under section 1102(a)
and (b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 2902(a) and (b))


tion to making America a better place for their
children and for our children, too.
Thank you all for coming here today. God
bless you, and God bless America.
NOTE: The President spoke at 2:07 p.m. at the
memorial. In his remarks, he referred to Lewis
B. Puller, Jr., Vietnam veteran and Pulitzer prizewinning author.


which provide opportunities for the commerce
of the United States in such country substantially equivalent to the competitive opportunities, provided by concessions made by the United States under trade agreements entered into
under section 1102(a) and (b) of the Act, for
the commerce of such country in the United
States.
Since the United States has not entered into
any agreements under section 1102(a) or (b)
of the Act, I hereby determine that there has
been no failure to make concessions thereunder.
WILLIAM J. CLINTON


Remarks to the Community in Milwaukee, Wisconsin
June 1, 1993


The President. Thank you very much. Senator
Kohl, Congressman Barrett, Mayor Norquist, ladies and gentlemen, it's wonderful to be back
in Wisconsin and back in Milwaukee again for
the first time since I became President. I suppose I ought to begin by thanking the State
of Wisconsin for your electoral votes. I'm very
grateful for that. I'd also like to thank the Metropolitan Milwaukee Association of Commerce
and the Public Policy Forum for hosting this
opportunity for me to visit with you, and
through you, all the people of Wisconsin, about
the economic issues facing our country.
I'd like to introduce some other people who
are here, up there somewhere. I asked Senator
Kohl where they were, and he said, "Up there


somewhere." But it's dark. I can't see. I brought
with me the former chancellor of the University
of Wisconsin, now the Director of the Department of Health and Human Services, Donna
Shalala, who is here; the chairman of the Joint
Economic Committee in the House, your Congressman, David Obey, is here with me somewhere there; and we were met at the airport
by Congressman Gerry Kleczka, who is here,
Gerry; and Congressman-elect Peter Barca, who
is also here somewhere. Thank you.
You know, a lot of times when I get out
in the country now, people who worked for
me-or who didn't, who just feel like they can
come up and talk-say, "Well, aren't you worried about getting isolated up there in Washing

787




June 1 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


ton? I mean, what's the real difference in being
President and just being out here living?" And
I had one thing happen to me a couple of
weeks ago that illustrates the problem of being
President or in the Congress or anything else.
I was in the White House and I was up
on the residence floor. And I got on the elevator, and I was going down to the first floor
where all big-if you've ever taken a tour of
the White House, that's where all the big, fancy
rooms are that the public tours. But we also
use them when they're not open for tours, and
I was going to a meeting there. And the young
man who was taking me down in the elevator
works for the Usher's Office, and of course,
they were all hired under my predecessors. He
didn't know me very well, and he was a little
awkward, you know. So he took me downstairs,
and he opened the doors of the elevator, and
I found myself immediately in the presence of
30 total strangers who were standing there in
front of the elevator. And it turned out that
they had been walking out of a meeting with
my wife on something entirely different. I didn't
know them. They didn't-they knew who I was,
but I'd never met any of them. [Laughter] And
there I was. So I said hello to them, shook
hands with them, and they walked by. And I
turned around and looked at the young fellow
running the elevator, and he was all red-faced.
And he said, "Oh, Mr. President," he said, "I'm
so sorry I let you out in the midst of all those
people." And I looked at him, and I said, "John,
that's okay. I used to be one myself." [Laughter]
I want to say a lot of things that I'll get
into in a moment, but there are one or two
things I want to say especially about Wisconsin.
First, I was very moved by the drinking water
crisis here. And one of the things that we tried
to invest in that I don't think is a waste of
your money in the next 5 years is more Federal
investment in dealing with drinking water problems, waste water problems, and other environmentally related issues. I think that's a good
investment of our tax dollars. And I did enjoy
my conversation with your Mayor about that.
The other thing I'd like to do is to-[applause]. Thank you. I want to say a little more
about this in a moment, but since it was brought
up, I want to compliment Congressman Barrett
and Congressman Kleczka for reintroducing the
appropriations to fund the New Hope welfare
reform project. It was vetoed last year. And
I just want to tell you that, as I said, I want


to say a little more about this in my speech,
but the idea of giving people the tools they
need to move off welfare and then calling a
halt to it after 2 years, saying it has to come
to an end and people who can should go to
work, I think is a good thing. And I think we
ought to fund that experiment in Wisconsin and
see if it won't work. I think a lot of people
will be for it, and I think it will work.
For any visitor who comes here to Milwaukee,
as I have many times, the church steeples and
the factory smokestacks are a vivid reminder
of the faith and the work that made our country
what it is today. People from every continent
have come to our Nation and come to cities
like Milwaukee and Chicago and Detroit without
much money in their pockets, but filled with
the faith that if they worked hard and played
by the rules, they would find a better life for
themselves and give their children a better
chance.
In my part of the country, in the rural South,
when the agricultural economy collapsed in the
Depression and then didn't pick up after the
Second World War, for 30 years people poured
out of the places where my folks farmed in
Arkansas and Mississippi and southern States
and came up here to the northern cities seeking
that same kind of opportunity.
Over the years in different ways our country
has dealt with different economic challenges,
but we have always tried to keep alive that
American dream that if you worked hard and
played by the rules you would be rewarded.
If you were especially good you could get very,
very wealthy, but everyone knew that the country would rise or fall based on the broad middle
class, the small business people, the factory
workers, the farmers, the people who really lifted the country and made it work.
We have, to a large extent, in the 20th century succeeded in doing that until just recently.
Until recently, that is, in the last 20 years, we
had succeeded in building the world's most diverse society and keeping it growing together,
not coming apart.
Today, we're more diverse than ever before.
One county in California, Los Angeles County,
has 150 different racial and ethnic groups.
Today, we still have the strongest, most vibrant
free enterprise economy in the world. We have
some of the most productive businesses in the
world. But we have serious economic problems,
as you all know.


788




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / June 1


Hard work rewarded by rising living standards
is literally at the heart of what it means to
be an American. It's at the heart of my family's
heritage and probably at the heart of most of
your families' heritage. And it's at the heart of
the economic philosophy that compelled me to
enter the race for President in 1991 and that
brings me here again to Milwaukee today.
Once Americans looked forward to doubling
their standard of living roughly every 25 years.
As I said, that stopped about 20 years ago, as
we began to be confronted with the highly competitive global economy and a slower rate of
economic growth in our own country. Now, it
will take us about 75 years to double our standard of living at the present pace. That means
that not only do you have too many people
who want to work who can't work, you have
too many people working part-time, and you
have too many people who are working like
crazy and falling further and further behind. Because I believe we can do better, I asked the
people of this country to give me a chance to
serve as President.
As I said, it's very important to note what
happened and when. Our real average hourly
wages peaked about two decades ago. And since
then, they've either been stagnant or declining
as a whole. Indeed, the average working family
is spending more hours a week on the job than
they were in 1969 for lower real wages than
they were making certainly 12 years ago, and
in many cases, 20 years ago. This is because,
as I said, of changes in the global economy,
more competition from people who were either
more productive than we are or who work for
wages we can't live on, or lack of productivity
growth, of efficiency growth in our own country,
or other problems with our economy.
Twelve years ago, in 1981, after the Presidential election of 1980-another election conducted  in  very   difficult  economic  circumstances-the American people decided to
give another President the chance to try an approach to deal with this problem. The whole
idea of Reaganomics was trickle-down economics, that we should lower taxes on the wealthiest
Americans, depend upon them to invest in our
economy to grow it; we should reduce domestic
spending, but increase defense spending even
more than we reduced domestic spending.
Now, in the last 12 years, that philosophy
was modified around the edges some, but it
maintained itself at the heart of our economic


dealings. Because the taxes were cut so much
in '81, they were added back a little bit over
the last 12 years, mostly on the middle class.
And after a while, defense spending could not
be sustained because of the end of the cold
war, so it began to be cut. But by the time
it was cut, health care costs were exploding.
So all the defense cuts were swallowed up by
exploding health care costs and interest payments on the debt.
But the fundamental idea remains, that the
most important thing was not to worry about
investment or the deficit or anything else; the
most important thing was to worry about keeping taxes low on upper income people and keeping the Government's hands off the economy,
except when it was necessary to invest in defense, and then when it wasn't necessary, to
even get out of that.
Now, that was the theory, and we now have
had a chance to see how it works. I think it's
fair to say that the only reason I was elected
in 1992 is that the American people thought
that it hadn't worked very well, that there were
problems. I say this-as I will make clear in
a minute, this is not a partisan criticism, because
it took bipartisan agreement at least to go along
with the framework of this. But what had happened was that we had a good deal of growth
in the early eighties, where we had defense increases and tax cuts, but the deficit got big.
Then when the defense business got cut, all
we did was pay more for the same health care.
No one reinvested in the economy to give those
defense workers something else to do, and the
deficit got bigger and bigger and bigger.
Now, the American people voted for change.
They wanted me to try to rebuild the middle
class both in terms of jobs and incomes, to invest in our own people and our jobs, to cut
the deficit, to open the doors of education to
all, and to deal with the terrible health care
crisis, and to make a real dent at welfare reform,
removing people from dependence and moving
them to independence.
I was sent to the White House, I think, to
take on brain-dead politics in Washington from
either party, or from both. Some, but not all,
in the national Democratic Party have placed
too much faith in the whole politics of entitlement, the idea that big bureaucracies and Government spending, demanding nothing in return,
can produce the results we want. We know that
is simply not true. There is a limit to how much


789




June 1 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


Government can do in the absence of an appropriate response by the American people at the
grassroots level. And there is a limit to how
many decisions can be made properly in Washington. And most of our growth has and always
will come from the private sector.
On the other hand, some, but not all, in the
national Republican Party have practiced the
politics of abandonment, of walking away from
common concerns like dropping test scores or
rising crime rates or an insufficient infrastructure or taking care of the people who won the
cold war for us and now don't have anything
to do in the wake of defense cutbacks, and
in simply insisting that as long as you don't
raise taxes on upper income people and don't
talk about it when you raise taxes on anybody
else, everything's going to be fine. Well, that's
not right either. We have to move beyond entitlement and abandonment.
I ran for President basically on the same
things that I found had worked for me when
I was a Governor, not entitlement, not abandonment but empowerment, the idea of creating
a new American community by offering people
more opportunity and demanding more responsibility.
I think we have made a real start at that.
In the first few weeks of this administration
we have passed an important political reform
measure, the motor voter bill, and we have moving through the Congress a really tough lobby
disclosure bill and a campaign finance reform
bill that are the kind of things Wisconsin has
been famous for for years.
We have tried to support the middle class
in this administration. Only 17 days into the
administration, I signed the family leave bill to
guarantee that people don't lose their jobs when
they have to take a little time off to have a
baby or when there's a sick parent. The Congress is now considering our national service
legislation, which would open the doors of college education to all, and soon will have a health
care program that will provide real security to
working families.
For the first time in 17 years the Congress
passed the budget resolution, the outline of our
deficit reduction plan and our plans to invest
in the country, on time, for the first time in
17 years. And that helped to produce the lowest
home mortgage rates in 20 years and other low
interest rates because people believe we're trying to bring this deficit down. So we have made


a good beginning.
But to be fair, the hard work is still ahead.
The House of Representatives passed my economic program last week with some minor
modifications, many of which made them better,
I thought. But the hard work lies ahead. All
the difficulties in this world are in the details.
We can always agree on generalities. The question is, what are the specifics?
I came here to ask you to join with me in
trying to tackle the three deficits that are paralyzing this country today: the deficit of dollars
in our Federal budget, the deficit of investment
in the private and public sectors, and the deficit
of responsibility in our National Government.
Now, let's talk about this deficit, the Government's budget deficit. Our country last ran a
balanced budget in 1969. We haven't balanced
our national books since then. But to be fair,
the deficit was not a serious problem for our
economic performance until 1981 when we built
permanent deficits into our Federal Government
system.
What happened? President Reagan, in the
midst of a recession, made what has been a
typical proposal by Presidents throughout American history. He said, "We're in a recession.
We ought to have a tax cut." The problem was,
by the time he and the Congress got through
bidding each other up and playing to the American people's hatred of taxes, the tax cut was
twice the percentage of our annual income that
he originally proposed. And it was adopted anyway. Nobody really thought about what it would
do to the structure of the Federal budget.
And ever since then, we've been dealing with
the consequences of that, plus increasing spending, as I said, first in defense, and then after
defense was cut, an absolute explosion in health
care costs, which I'll bet many of you have also
experienced in your private health insurance
premiums as well as your Government tax dollars.
Listen to this: Over the past dozen years
alone, the annual deficit soared from $79 billion
to $322 billion. The national debt in 12 years,
after over 200 years as a nation, quadrupled
from $1 trillion to $4 trillion. While Washington
cut taxes on the wealthiest individuals, even
after the deficit went up, we had exploding
health care costs, exploding costs to pay interest
on a bigger and bigger debt. And while the
Government was used as a punching bag-everybody talked against big Government-no one


790




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / June 1


ever really did anything fundamentally to reform
the way it operates or rein in its unnecessary
spending.
As this deficit soaked up more and more of
our national savings which could otherwise have
been invested in private plant and equipment
and human skills, we created a second deficit,
an investment deficit. From the 1960's to the
1980's public investment-that is, the expenditure of your Federal tax dollars in education
and training, in new technologies for new jobs,
and in infrastructure, things like better water
systems and bridges and roads and airportsdwindled from 4~/2percent to just 2.6 percent
of our annual income.
Every time a company can't find qualified
workers, every time trucks are rattled by highways riddled with potholes, every time a department store closes because a city is not safe
after dark, we see the consequences of the investment deficit. Our income as a nation goes
down, and we have fewer jobs as well.
Meanwhile, national policy rewarded companies for their financial strategies, not their investment strategies; for making deals, not products; for seeking new mergers, not new markets.
Business investment declined from 7.2 percent
of our gross national product in the 1970's to
only 5.4 percent in the eighties.
The investment deficit also slows the growth
of our workers' productivity. And in a market
economy, people get paid by what they can
produce by global standards. Compensation per
hour, what workers earn in wages and fringe
benefits, grew more slowly in the last 20 years
than in the previous 100. From 1954 to 1973,
hourly compensation grew at over 3 percent per
year. The more people produced, the more they
earned. But in the last 20 years, as productivity
slowed down, compensation increased by less
than one percent per year.
This low productivity led to higher unemployment, stagnant wages, and-guess what-lower
tax receipts. So the deficit got bigger, because
people weren't earning enough money to pay
into the Government to keep the deficit down.
They relate one to the other.
This was aggravated when we cut the defense
budget with no plan to put the defense workers
back to work in the new civilian economy. And
in some of our biggest unemployment areas,
you see, from Connecticut to southern California, you see high-dollar scientific workers, people with advanced degrees and very skilled fac

tory workers, with nothing else to do because
there was no thought given to what these people
would do once the defense work was shut down,
even though we know there are tens of thousands of jobs waiting to be had in the global
economy in new technologies, in aerospace, in
electronics, in biotechnology, and environment
cleanup, just to name four. We know those jobs
are out there. But we know our competitors
are working hard in partnership with the government and the private sector to develop them.
At the same time, the exploding costs of
health care and education put a crimp not only
on the growth of average families' incomes and
small business incomes but on the overall health
of our economy. Average health costs per family
tripled in the last dozen years. Too many middle
class people at the same time experienced "job
block," that is, they couldn't move jobs because
someone in their family had been sick. They
had what the insurers call a preexisting condition, meaning that if they wanted to have their
health insurance, they had to stay in the job
they were in.
Now, we're living in a country, folks, where
the average 18-year-old will change work seven
or eight times in a lifetime. If you can't change
jobs in this kind of an economy, your future
is dramatically constricted, all because we are
the only nation with an advanced economy that
hasn't figured out how to provide basic health
care at affordable cost to all of our people.
And look what's happened to education. In
the 1980's, the value of an education virtually
doubled. By the end of the decade, the average
college graduate was earning twice the average
high school graduate; the difference between
what a college graduate and a high school graduate earned at the end of the decade was twice
what it was in 1980 at the beginning. And yet,
look what happened to college costs. The cost
of public colleges went up by 109 percent and
private colleges by 145 percent; college drifting,
drifting, drifting out of the reach of ordinary
Americans. And the college dropout rate became
more than twice as high as the high school dropout rate, either because people were sent unprepared, which was wrong, or they couldn't afford
to stay, which happened all too often.
Virtually every economic decision that was
made in Washington, or not made properly, sent
signals to our people that the old rewards for
hard work and playing by the rules and responsibility were declining. Most of the economic


791




June 1 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


gains of the 1980's went to people in the top
one percent of the income brackets, and most
of them were not those that were producing
new products and services but instead were
those who were producing financial arrangements, which exploded the cost of paperwork
and didn't do much to create more jobs in
America.
Too many people who were at the bottom
rung of the ladder and working hard to get
out, which, after all, is where most of our families started somewhere along the way, found
that their hard-earned wages left them below
the poverty line and removed even more the
incentive to work instead of to be on welfare.
If work doesn't pay, why not go on welfare?
How many times have we heard that said in
the last 10 or 12 years in the city streets and
in the rural communities of America?
These are the things, my fellow Americans,
that we have to change. This is a historic moment. Now that the House has passed this budget plan to reduce the deficit and to target investments in our future, and it's going to the Senate
for further debate, we can make a decision to
seize control of our economic destiny. That is
why I have asked everyone in Washington to
go beyond politics as usual, to forget about partisan divisions, to try to find bipartisan responsibility in place of bipartisan blame and irresponsibility.
Now, the plan that I have proposed cuts $500
billion from the Federal deficit, the largest deficit reduction program in our history. It makes
decisions long delayed and avoided. The plan
is balanced and fair. About half of the deficit
reduction comes from spending reductions and
restraints on entitlements; about half comes
from tax increases. Entitlements-that is, medical programs, Social Security benefits, agriculture benefits, welfare benefits, food stamp
benefits, things you get because of who you
are-those things, we rein in spending by $100
billion over the next 5 years. We cut 200 other
areas of the budget by more than $150 billion
in the next 5 years. We cut some very popular
programs in this country, from highway demonstration projects to rural electrification. But
that has to be done. We cut about $47 billion
directly out of the operations of the Federal
Government: freezes in Federal pay, restrictions
on Federal retirement, the reduction in the Federal work force by 149,000 people over the next
5 years.


All of that has been written into this budget.
The plan imposes new discipline on Government
spending: no increases in taxes unless there are
cuts in spending, and all of it put into a trust
fund that must remain there for the 5-year life
of the deficit.
We also adopted a unique mechanism right
at the end of the House of Representatives debate which requires every year, if we miss this
deficit reduction target-and Congressman Obey
got a bunch of charts, I wish he were up here
showing them to you, about how the two previous administrations said the deficit would go
down to zero three different times, and they
never did make a target-if we miss our target,
every year now the President is legally bound
to come in and offer a correction in the budget
to meet that deficit reduction target, and the
Congress has to vote on it.
Now, I lead with all this-I dare say that
most of you, since all you've heard are about
the fights on taxes, didn't know how much
spending was cut and probably don't know what
incentives are there for investment. I'll get to
that in a minute. Some taxes are raised. No
less authority than David Stockman, who was
President Reagan's Budget Director, was quoted
not long ago as saying, anybody, Republican or
Democrat, who thinks you can get this deficit
down without increasing taxes does not understand what we did to the tax system in 1981.
Now, those are the spending cuts we had.
The spending cuts are real. There are more
than 200 of them. There are more than I recommended in the campaign because I didn't
know in the campaign what happened right after
the election, which is that the deficit miraculously was increased by $165 billion, announced
by the Government before I took office but
after the election. So we cut spending some
more.
And there are some more tax increases, too.
But look how they fall. Seventy-four percent
of the money we raise comes from people with
incomes above $100,000. Over 60 percent of
this money comes from people with incomes
above $200,000. Now, that is not an attack on
the wealthy. It is an acknowledgement that people in that income group had their incomes go
up and their taxes go down in the eighties. Middle class people had their taxes go up and their
incomes go down in the eighties. So we're just
trying to redress the fairness of the matter.
Now, let me tell you exactly what you will


792




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / June 1


pay if you're a middle class American, if your
family income is under $100,000. I had wanted,
and I advocated in the campaign, tax relief for
middle class families, especially those with children. I still want that, and I still intend to propose that before I'm done. But I can't do it
now because the deficit is so much bigger than
it was when I was making these proposals. It
would be irresponsible for me to advocate a
very substantial increase on upper incomes and
not ask the middle class Americans to make
any contribution at all.
But listen to what it costs. First of all, for
working families with incomes under $30,000,
we have done everything we could to make sure
that the energy tax, which is the middle class
tax here, will cost nothing by giving an income
tax credit to offset the income tax. One fellow
out here has been heckling me and saying I'm
not telling the truth. So I'll say, Arthur Anderson, which is a fairly reputable firm, hardly
packed full of Democrats, has examined my program and says that a family of three with an
income of $25,000 a year or less will actually
get a tax cut under the Clinton economic plan
as it is now. For a family with an income of
$40,000 a year, if the energy tax passes just
as it is, and if there are four people in the
family, the bill will be a dollar a month next
year, $7 a month the year after that, and $17
a month the year after that. All of the money,
every last red cent of it, will go into a deficit
reduction trust fund to bring down the deficit,
every penny.
Now, the question is, is it worth it? Is it
worth it? And here's my answer to you. You
may say it's not worth it, but look what's happened since November. First, when we announced the energy tax and the deficit reduction
plan, long-term interest rates started to go down.
Second, after I actually presented it to Congress
in February, they went down some more. Now,
for most of the last 3 months, long-term interest
rates have been at their lowest rate in decades:
mortgage rates at the lowest rate in 20 years;
consumer loans down; college loans down; car
loans down; business loans down. Millions and
millions of Americans are out there breaking
their necks to refinance their home loans and
their business loans, so much so that the business analysts say that if we can keep interest
rates down at this level for a year, we will put
$100 billion back into this economy in lower
interest rates because people think we're serious


about bringing the deficit down.
What does that mean? What does that mean?
Let's just say if someone had a $100,000 home
mortgage financed at 10 percent and they refinanced it at 71/2 percent, that would be a $2,000
saving in one year, a $2,000 saving in one year.
In other words, there would be more than twice
the savings in one year as this program would
cost that same family in 4 years if it were passed
exactly as it is today.
Now, I think that's pretty good for America.
If we don't do something to get the interest
rates down, clean the debt out, and get control
of our economic destiny, we're going to be in
big trouble.
Now, there are also a lot of incentives in
this program for people to further save money.
Let me just give you a few. Let's take a typical
farm family in Wisconsin. The family's income
net is under $30,000. They will be eligible for
tax credits. A single-family farm under this program for the first time will be able to get a
tax deduction for their health insurance premiums, something they haven't been able to do
before. The expensing provisions for small businesses and farmers will allow them to write off
$25,000, not $10,000, of investment now. So
much so that the average Wisconsin farm, even
after they pay higher energy costs and have agricultural budget cuts, will wind up with a lower
bill rather than a higher bill if this whole program passes.
And I think it's very important to look at
the incentives here. We have more incentives
for small businesses, an historic incentive for
people to invest in new business, real incentives
for people to put money into plant and equipment and hire people in America, instead of
just put money into financial transactions or invest money overseas. These are incentives that
will give the American people the way to lower
their taxes by creating jobs here in America,
which is what I talked about in the campaign.
That's how you ought to be able to lower your
tax bill.
Now, let me also tell you that this plan invests
some new money. You have to ask yourself
whether you think it's worth it. Is it worth it
for us to invest enough money at the national
level to do the following things: to try to provide
some incentives for companies who won't have
defense contracts anymore to develop domestic
technologies to put those high wage workers
back to work. Is it worth it to try to provide


793




June 1 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


jobs in America in areas where America needs
work with new water systems and new environmental cleanup systems? Is it worth it to provide
a small amount of money to try to see that
America joins Germany, Japan, and every other
advanced country in saying if you don't go to
a 4-year college, at least you ought to have access to 2 years of further education and training
so you can get a good and decent job? Is it
worth it or not? You have to decide.
Now, if you believe all Government spending
is evil and bad, you would say no, it's not worth
it. But if you look at our competitors and if
you look at what works and what produces
growth and the fact that it is clearly the skill
levels of our people which will determine as
much as anything else the economic future of
America, I think you'd have to say yes, it is
worth it. We've got too many people who are
not competitive in a global economy today.
One final thing: This State has always been
a pioneer. People in both parties have always
been interested, at least in my experience as
Governor, in welfare reform, in moving people
from welfare to work. One of the biggest problems with welfare reform is this: If you take
somebody off welfare and you put them in a
low-wage job because they don't have much
education, they have to take that wage and pay
for child care out of it, because they're not
home taking care of the kids anymore, and they
may not have medical insurance. And the earnings are so low there is a big incentive not
to do it.
This bill, this economic program, makes a
major downpayment on welfare reform, doing
what I want to do, which is to change the whole
system and say after you get education and
training, if after 2 years you don't have a job,
you have to go to work in the public or private
sector. This bill starts that by saying this: If
you work 40 hours a week and you've got a
kid in your house, the tax system will lift you
out of poverty. We'll give you a tax break so
that you will not be living in poverty if you
work full-time with children in your home. What
else could be more American, and what else
would do more to end the welfare dependency
we have in this country?
Now, let's talk about where we are with this.
This bill's going to the Senate now. Senator
Kohl and Senator Feingold are going to get a
chance to work on it. And everybody in America-if I said, wouldn't you like it if we did


everything I just said but we did it with more
budget cuts and even less tax, and you would
say, yes; I would say yes. Who could disagree?
Who could disagree? The question is, what are
the details?
Let me try to describe to you what's going
on. When you hear all this stuff, that this is
a tax program, this is not just a tax program.
This is a budget cutting program. This is an
investment program in your future. This is incentives for the private sector to create new
jobs in ways that have never been provided before.
You know, in this bill, if you invest in a new
business and it makes money, and you hold that
investment 5 years, you cut your tax rate in
half under this program. That's a real incentive.
Under this bill, if you invest money in a poor
neighborhood in Milwaukee, if it gets designated
an empowerment zone, you can get all kinds
of incentives for private sector investment that
have never been available before, ever; never
proposed by Republicans or Democrats before
to get private sector investment to rebuild. So
there's a lot of things in this bill.
But let's just take the rhetoric. Everybody
would like to do all this with less tax and more
budget cuts. But look behind the rhetoric. For
example, when the House voted on my program
last week, there was a Republican substitute.
The Republican substitute purported to have the
same amount of deficit reduction I did with
no taxes and all budget cuts. Guess what. More
Republicans voted against a Republican bill than
Democrats voted against my bill. Why? Why?
Because the Republicans who voted against it
thought it cut too much out of Social Security,
too much out of medical care, too much out
of farm programs, too much out of things that
are part of the fabric of this Nation's economy
or part of our built-in obligation to one another.
So they disagreed. They couldn't agree on that.
Let me give you another example. Some define less tax and more cuts as lower taxes on
the very wealthy, replaced by reducing the cost
of living increase to Social Security recipients
barely above the poverty line, or to people barely above the poverty line who are working, they
want to reduce the tax credits they get.
Let me give you another example. Others say,
'Well, just cut more Medicare costs. Don't give
those doctors and hospitals any more money."
Now, that's got a lot of appeal to a lot of people.
But let me tell you what happens. If you cut


794




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / June 1


Medicare costs without reforming the health
care system, you can do it to some extent, but
if you do it too much, you know what will happen? Every one of you who works in the private
sector who has a private health insurance policy,
will have your premiums go up as a result. Because if the Government doesn't pay for the
care that the Government mandates that people
get, what do the doctors and hospitals do? They
put the cost onto private business, onto private
employers and private employees. And your
health insurance premiums soar.
One of the reasons a lot of you are paying
too much for health care today is that America
has 35 million people with no health insurance
and    other   people   who     are   being
undercompensated. And as a result of that,
you're paying more. Because everybody in this
country gets health care, don't they? They just
get it when it's too late, too expensive, and
at the emergency room. And you get sent the
bill if you have health insurance. So it sounds
good, but it may not be so good.
I could give you a lot of other examples. The
way words are used, for example, the way our
adversaries calculate this, if we ask upper income Social Security recipients, who are getting
more out of the system than they put in, plus
interest, to pay a little more of their income
to taxation, then that's a tax. But if we cut
the cost of living allowance to the poorest Social
Security recipients, that's a budget cut. Right?
That's the way they define it.
Now, but most people in this room say, "Well,
if you have to do one or the other, better to
ask people who can pay and who are getting
more back out than they put in plus interest
to give a little more than to take it out of
the poorest ones who are just above the poverty
line." But if you get into these word games,
it sounds terrible if it's tax and cut. It doesn't
sound so bad when you talk about what it really
is.
Here are the principles that I hope the Senate
will honor next week:
Number one, we've got to cut the deficit at
least $500 billion, and we ought to put it in
a trust fund so the money can't be fooled with
for the next 5 years.
Number two, because of what happened in
the last 12 years, any taxes we raise must, in
the end, be progressive. Those who can pay
more should pay more, and we should minimize
the burden on the middle class.


Number three, don't do anything to the incentive to move people from welfare to work.
Let's go ahead and say that if you work 40
hours a week and you have a child in your
home, you don't deserve to be in poverty.
You've played by the rules, and we'll let you
out of poverty.
Number four, keep the incentives for small
businesses, for new businesses, for investment
in our cities, for housing incentives, for research
and development, keep all those tax incentives
in there to grow this economy. Don't take them
out.
And number five, when we cut spending, and
we'll cut some more and raise some, we'll cut
the taxes and have more spending cuts next
week. But when we do it, let's leave the money
in there that will shape these children's economic future. Let's have the money for education and training, for investment in technology, for help for the defense industries that
are building down. Let's rebuild the American
economy. Because, after all, you can cut all the
spending you want, and if people don't have
jobs and they aren't earning money, we're still
not going to be able to balance the budget.
So let's keep the economic future of the country
uppermost in our minds.
The last thing I'd like to say to you, my fellow
Americans, is that none of this is going to be
easy, but you should not be discouraged. After
all, these trends, as I said, have gone through
administrations of Democrats and Republicans
for 20 years now. We are moving away from
a set of policies that have been the rule for
12 years. I'm trying to move beyond a bipartisan
gridlock which has existed for about a decade.
We are trying to do it in a global economy
where other rich nations have unemployment
rates as high or higher than ours, and there's
a recession all over the world. This is not easy,
but it can be done. It can be done if we have
the courage to change direction. And if we will
listen and look beneath the labels to the facts,
I believe we can do it. It is simply a question
of asking what we have to do to regain control
of our destiny, what we have to do to invest
in our people, what we have to do to get jobs
and incomes and health security back into this
country again.
And let me just say one last thing in closing.
When I was a Governor for 12 years, my State
in every one of those 12 years had a tax burden-the State and local tax burden was in the


795




June 1 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


bottom five in America. We had one of the
toughest balanced budget laws in the country.
And when I asked the people of my State for
more taxes it was always to pay for something
specific, better schools, better roads, more jobs,
in a trust fund. I never ever dreamed I would
be in a position in my life asking people to
pay $1 just to bring the deficit down. But we
got ourselves in this fix, folks, over a long period
of time. And until we get our interest rates
down and regain control of our economic future
and show that we have the discipline to handle
our affairs, it is going to be very difficult for
us to do a lot of these other things that all
of us want to do.
These decisions are not easy, but we must
make them. So I ask you again, encourage Senator Kohl and all the other people in the United
States Senate, encourage Senator Feingold, encourage them all to give me a good budget
with less taxes and more spending cuts. But
remember the principles: make sure the money
goes to deficit reduction; invest some in our


economic future, because that's important; make
sure the people who can pay do; don't take
the welfare reform initiatives out of it; and remember that in the end, the private sector creates the jobs, so leave the incentives in there.
And let me say this: 50 of the 100 biggest
companies in this country have endorsed this
program. I have been very moved that so many
people in upper income groups, who are going
to pay the overwhelming majority of these taxes,
have endorsed this program, because they know
that it is imperative to get control of our future.
And I ask you, the people of Wisconsin, to endorse the program for the future of your children and our Nation.
Thank you very much, and God bless you
all.
NOTE: The President spoke at 12:10 p.m. in the
Milwaukee Exposition Convention Center and
Arena. In his remarks, he referred to Milwaukee
Mayor John 0. Norquist.


Exchange With Reporters in Milwaukee
June 1, 1993


President's Priorities
Q. [Inaudible]-view the whole treatment
where you basically-first with having to deal
day after day with the news accounts that kind
of talk about the haircuts and the Travel Office
and things? No, no, I'm asking you how
important
Q. That's a cheap shot. That's a cheap shot.
You are the President of the United States. You
shouldQ. Can I do my job, please?
Q. Get out of here. We don't need those
cheap shots. That's a cheap shot. Get out of
here.
The President. The answer is, I have to work
in Washington, but you have to work outside,
too. The real issue is not so much what you
said, but the real issue is, I secured agreement
early on for about $250 billion in tax cuts,
spending cuts, I mean, a little under, about $245
billion. And as a result of that, because they
weren't the focus of controversy, no one knows
we did it.


And then we got agreement early on for the
new incentives, for small businesses and for
starting new businesses and for investing in our
depressed areas, reviving the housing market.
Because there was no controversy, people don't
know we did it. So the only controversy has
been over the taxes. It's important that people
know that there are budget cuts in here. It's
important that people know there are real incentives to the private sector in here. It's important
that people know what we still spend money
on. And it's important for people to know that
over 70 percent of the money is being paid
by the top 6 percent of income earners. If I
don't get out here and do all that work, they
won't know it. So that's what I'm doing.
Health Care Reform
Q. Let me follow, sir. Are you going to recommend a tax on hospitals to pay for the health
care program on the theory that they're going
to have a windfall profit from your reform program?
The President. Well, let me say this, if we


796




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / June 1


do it right, they will have significantly lower
administrative costs. That is, if we do health
care right, they will have lower administrative
costs. Let me just give you one example: The
average American doctor in 1980 took home
75 percent of the income that he or she generated into the clinic. By 1992, that figure had
dropped to 52 percent, all the rest of it going
to administrative costs caused by insurance companies and the Government just piling on regulations and rules and paperwork and thousands
of different insurance costs. If we simplify that,
their costs will drop dramatically.
So one of the options that has been recommended is that we leave some of that money
with them but have some of that money flow
back in to cover the uninsured, which will also
help them because that will come right back
to the doctors and the hospitals in the form
of insurance for the uninsured. So it would be
almost like returning the money to them in a
different form for services rendered. We'll just
have to see whether that works out. No final
decision has been made on that.
Q. But you like that idea?
The President. I have made no decision on
it. I don't want to flame the story anymore.
That is one of the options that has been presented, and one of ones that, frankly, some hospital people have talked to us about.
Q. Are you going to hold off the health plan
until the fall, Mr. President?
Q. That's all. You talkThe President. Hold it off until what?
Q. Are you going to hold off the plan until
the fall to let the Congress concentrateQ. That's enough.
The President. Oh, no, no, no. I hope we
move this budget through in a hurry.
Budget
Q. [Inaudible]
The President. [Inaudible]-I think he's got
some really good ideas. But once he committed
himself to cutting as much as he did, he actually
lost more Republicans than I lost Democrats.
Q. It's just the issue of party politics that
you talked about. The Democrats, I feel, are
doing the same thing. So I just think you should
address that part of it. The Democrats are doing
the same thing.
The President. Well, I didn't let them off the
hook.
Q. I'm just bringing up the point because


the people need to know that.
The President. I have nothing to add over
and above what's been in the paper already.
I mean, the Senators on the Senate Finance
Committee have discussed with me and also
with the House Members who voted for this
program the options that are there within the
principles that I established. I always said-on
February 17th I said if we can meet these principles, $500 billion in deficit reduction, aggressive taxation, incentives to invest in America,
move from welfare to work, lift the working
poor out of poverty, and these targeted investments in technology, jobs, and education which
will meet those principles, with some less tax
and some more spending cuts, I'm for it. And
I think that's what we're working toward.
Q. What would you be willing to accept in
less taxesThe President. I'm not going to get into that.
Q. How aboutThe President. No, I'm not going to get into
it because Congress is on recess and our commitment is twofold, of our administration. One
is to work with the Senators of any party who
will work with us and, secondly, to make sure
the Senate Finance Committee works with all
the House Members who voted for this budget
with our solemn commitment that we would
all work together in the Senate to keep these
principles intact and see if these principles can
be achieved with less tax and more spending
cuts. So that's what we're trying to do.
Q. Good way to sell your plan here?
The President. Oh, I think so. This was terrific. I loved it.
Russia
Q. What's your position on Russia's not paying
back your $80 billion in debt, loans that are
still outstanding?
The President. They're broke. They can't right
now.
Q. What is your feeling on that? Are you
looking for them to repay those loans in the
next 2 years, or is that part of their plan to
balance the budget?
The President. They can't do it right now.
They have no money. They're absolutely flat
broke. What we ought to do-I think the Russians have now undertaken-their recent credits,
in other words, the things that they've gotten
since they adopted a free market approach, since
they got rid of communism, I think they will


797




June I / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


honor those debts once they start making money
again. But the history is that countries need
a few years to basically move from a Communist
economy to a free market economy. As they
do that and they begin to acquire some success,
then I think they'll be able to pay down their
debt. But the dilemma now is if we tried to
make them pay it off now, we'd just drive them
further in the economic hole and run the risk
of having them revert to a dictatorship of some
kind. And we don't want to do that.
So I wouldn't let anybody off the hook that
could pay it back, but the point is for them,
they never really-unlike the Chinese, for exam

ple, who were traders for centuries and had
a whole market history, the Russians essentially
went from a feudal agricultural economy under
the Czars to a Communist economy that then
became dominated by heavy industry. And moving into a modem free market economy is very
difficult for them.
Q. So we're going to work with them?
The President. Yes, I think we should.
NOTE: The exchange began at approximately 1
p.m. outside the Milwaukee Exposition Convention Center and Arena. A tape was not available
for verification of the content of this exchange.


Remarks to Bay View Community Members in Milwaukee
June 1, 1993


The President. Thank you very much. I want
to thank Gerry Kleczka and everybody else. But
I especially want to thank the Langer family
for bringing me to Bay View. I'm glad to be
here. When I was on the way out here today
the mayor said that he was the mayor of Milwaukee and Bay View and that I needed to
know that if I was going to come here. So
I'm glad to be here. I also want to introduce
to you Wisconsin's newest Member of Congress,
Mr. Peter Barca, who just showed up.
I'm sorry you all are in there behind that
fence, and I look forward to getting out and
shaking hands with you. I just wanted to say
one or two things before I do. I was just in
downtown Milwaukee, speaking with several
thousand people about the economic plan that
I have presented to Congress. And there are
two or three things that I want to say to you
about it so you'll all know, because there are
a lot of things that have not been brought out
that I think you're entitled to hear.
First of all, this plan has over 200 spending
cuts. I see all these signs saying, "Cut spending."
Where were you when we cut them? It has
a lot of spending cuts in it, over $240 billion.
Secondly, the tax increases in this plan all
go to reduce the deficit, and over 74 percent
of the money comes from people with incomes
above $100,000. Families with incomes below
$30,000 pay nothing. The other thing I want
to tell you is, if your income is above $30,000


and below $100,000, depending on the size of
your family, the energy tax that the House approved costs you a dollar a month next year,
$7 a month the year after that, and for a family
of four, $17 a month the year after that. All
of it goes to reduce the debt.
I think it's worth doing. It's brought interest
rates down to a 20-year low. We have interest
rates at a 20-year low. That means Americans
are going to refinance their homes, get lower
car loans, refinance their business loans, get
lower consumer loans, lower college loans. It
will save $100 billion for American businesses
and individuals this year if we can keep those
interest rates down. So I want you to support
that.
The second thing I want to say about it is
this: We have put forward a program which
will open the doors of college education to all
Americans, just like I promised in the campaign,
lower interest loans, better repayment terms,
and giving tens of thousands of Americans a
chance to pay their college loans by serving their
communities here at home, by working to make
their communities a better place.
The next point I want to make is that as
soon as this budget is over, just like I said in
the campaign, we're coming forward with a plan
to provide health care security, affordable health
care, to the working families of this country,
who have been savaged by high costs, insufficient coverage, and the inability to change jobs


798




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / June 2


because somebody in their family has been sick.
This administration is about jobs, incomes,
health care, education, and training, and bringing this deficit down.
Now, I want to say one last thing. I heard
all this talk in the country about how this is
a tax program. I just want to make this point.
It is not just a tax program. It's an economic
program. It is over $240 billion in budget cuts.
We're going to reduce the size of the Federal
Government by 150,000. We are
Audience member. Make the cuts first!
The President. We are cutting first. That's
what the budget resolution is all about. You
can't raise taxes without the budget cuts. It's
illegal now. That's the whole point. We won't
have the tax increases without the budget cuts.
It's all going to be put in a trust fund. And
unlike all previous years, if we don't make our
reduction targets and reduce that debt, the
President by law is now required to come in
and fix it, something previous Presidents did
not have to do. We have changed the law.
And what you've got to decide is whether
you want more hot air, more rhetoric, more
politicians up there telling you what you want
to hear, or somebody who will tell you the truth,
turn the country around, and get the economy


going again. I think that's what you want, and
I hope you'll support your Members of Congress
and me as we try to do that.
Let me say one final thing. I think that a
lot of you before I came here today had no
earthly idea that we'd cut all that spending because the Congress didn't fight it; they just did
it. I think you did not know also that families
with incomes under $30,000 were being held
harmless because we had support for that. And
you may not know that small businesses like
Langer's Pharmacy are going to have tax incentives to reinvest in their businesses that were
not there before if this plan passes.
This is a good plan for the economy. It's
a fair plan for the middle class. It asks the
wealthiest Americans to pay their fair share. And
unlike previous plans, it's not a lot of hot air.
It will do what it's supposed to do. I think
we've had enough hot air for the last 12 years.
Let's do something real and strong and move
this country forward.
Thank you, and God bless you all.
NOTE: The President spoke at 3:45 p.m. at Jack
Langer's Pharmacy. In his remarks, he referred
to Representative Gerald D. Kleczka.


Exchange With Reporters Prior to Discussions With Prime Minister Brian
Mulroney of Canada
June 2, 1993


Prime Minister's Visit
Q. Is this a hail-and-farewell visit?
Prime Minister Mulroney. I came down to
see the President about NAFTA and some trade
matters and Bosnia, where we have troops on
the ground, and to work with him. We agree
with the prudent and thoughtful course he's
been pursuing there. And I'd like to talk to
him about further engagement at the United
Nations and also to say good-bye and to you,
Helen [Helen Thomas, United Press International]. After a decade I thought I owed you
a trip.
Q. Are you going to miss it?
Prime Minister Mulroney. Pardon?
Q. Going to miss it, aren't you?
Prime Minister Mulroney. Yes. All politicians


suffer from decompression when they leave office.
Bosnia
Q. Do you agree with the Bosnia policy?
Prinme Minister Mulroney. Yes, I do. I agree
thatQ. You don't think it should have been more
aggressive on the allied part?
Prime Minister Mulroney. Well, I've been astonished by some American commentators and
observers asking for an American solution in
Bosnia. There's no such thing. There is only
a common solution, for all of us have to get
into this together and accept our responsibilities.
It's unfair to say that, oh, why don't we have
an American solution to this intractable problem


799




June 2 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


that's gone on for hundreds of years. It's not
available. But there is, perhaps, a better, as the
President's pointed out, a better common approach that we can develop at the United Nations Security Council with everybody pulling
his weight or her weight. And that's what we're
going to talk about today.
Btu Tax
Q. Mr. President, Senator Boren says now
that there can be no Btu tax-no longer a compromise, it's now none.
The President. I don't have any comment on
that. I had a good visit with him. He called
me the other day, said he was encouraged by
where we were going, and he thought we would
reach agreement. I'm not going to get into a
verbal war of words. The Congress is out this
week, and we're going to meet next week and
try to work it out.
Health Care Reform
Q. Have you decided to push a health care
plan?
Q. Are you going to pull the nomination of
Guinier?
The President. No, we're working ahead. As
a matter of fact, I've got another meeting, a
big meeting on the health care issue this week.
We are, you know, trying to-we're trying to
do two things. We're trying to, first of all, to
get as many of the kinks worked out as we
can before we go forward. It's an enormously
complicated issue. And then we want to make
sure that we have, you know, discussed it with
as many people as possible, many groups and
everything, after we've reached some final conclusions, and that when we present it to the
Congress, it's presented at a time and in a way
that both the Congress and the American people
can focus on it. But there's been no decision
for a sustained delay here. I'm focusing right
now on passing the budget when the Senate
comes back next week.
Q. Will it be released this month?
The President. I don't want to get-I'm not
in a time-I don't want to get
Q. How about Guinier? Are you pulling out
the nomination of Guinier?
Prime Minister Mulroney. Bye, Helen.
[Laughter] On behalf of all Canadians, Helen,
good-bye.
Q. Nothing ventured-[laughter].
[At this point, one group of reporters left the


room, and another group entered.]
Public Perception
Q. Mr. President, are you as certain as the
Prime Minister that NAFTA will pass? And do
you plan on calling on his considerable experience in dealing with the perils of unpopularity?
The President. Well, these things go up and
down. I mean, you know, the American people
want something done about the deficit but very
often don't want to-you know, when the coverage gets negative, because of the pain of it,
it's something no one wants to face. I think
what I have to do here is do more of what
I did yesterday, force, force full coverage ofwhat's happened in our country is that there
has only been discussion about the tax increases
in the budget plan. So no Americans really know
very much about all the budget cuts that are
in there and all the tax incentives that are in
there for investment for new jobs. When they
know the whole thing and also when the middle
class knows how small the burden is on them,
then the support for the program and for the
administration goes way up. So I'm laboring out
there under a general perception that the administration has a tax plan that falls almost entirely on the middle class when, in fact, the
administration has a plan for spending cuts, investment incentives to create jobs, and some
taxes, which fall almost entirely on upper income people. And that's my problem. It's very
difficult in the midst of a legislative debate to
keep the public focus on that since the focus
is always on controversy. But that's my problem,
and I'll fix it.
NAFTA
Q. Why have you not gone out and
foughtThe President. On NAFTA I think we can
pass it with a very concerted effort if the Congress has some assurances on the environmental
and labor issues. Keep in mind, the United
States-as far as I know, no country has ever
signed a trade agreement which-also an investment agreement, which-at least millions of
Americans feel is an investment agreement that
would encourage people to invest in another
country for production in our market, not in
theirs. And so that is the tension here thatI keep arguing to the American people that that
could happen anyway, that under our present
law, people, if they choose, can go and produce


800




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / June 2


in Mexico for the American market. But that
causes great tension here when we've had 20
years of virtually flat wages for middle class
working people.
I believe NAFTA will create jobs and raise
incomes in both the United States and Mexico,
and I think it will help Canada. I have always
believed that over the long run, the integration
of our three economies and the potential that
gave us to continue to move south into other
market economies in Chile and Argentina and
Venezuela and others was enormous. And I
think eventually we'll get there. But it is going
to be a very tough fight.
Ross Perot
Q. Why have you allowed Ross Perot to shape
the debate on thatThe President. I haven't. I haven't allowed
it at all. I don't agree with his position. I don't
agree with his assertions, and I don't agree with
the evidence that he offers. But you know, in
this country we have a free press. I can't control
who gets what kind of press coverage. That's
what the first amendment is all about.
Prime Minister Mulroney. I saw Ross Perot's
appearance on television the other night, and
I've heard every single one of those arguments
from the Socialists and the protectionists in the
Canadian House of Commons. There's not a
single word that was new. The fact of the matter
is that it's all contradicted by the facts. Canada
and the United States entered into a free trade
agreement in 1988. We've since been mired in
a recession. Even in those 4 difficult years for
both countries, American exports to Canada
have increased by approximately 25 percent,
thereby creating 1.4 million new jobs in the
United States. And Canadian exports to the
United States have increased by a like amount.
Well, this is clear indication that prosperity
comes through these lowering of trade barriers
and the creating of new pools of common
wealth.
What Mr. Perot's argument is-I saw anyway,
and I don't know him and he seems to be a
fine fellow-is that wage rates alone are a determinant of competitiveness. Wage rates are one
of many considerations of competitiveness, cost
of capital, infrastructure, education, technology.
And if wage rates alone determine the location
of industry, Haiti would be the manufacturing
capital of the world. Our productivity is so far
and ahead above that of Mexico that to make


the argument simply on the basis of wages is
misleading in the extreme.
I think the President's point of view is a very
valid one. It's one that we support. And the
evidence appears to be there that when you
lower barriers to trade between and among
friendly countries, you create new pools of
wealth, and you raise the living standards of
everybody affected by it. You don't lower standards. And so these arguments, I have to tell
you-Mr. Perot may have some better days. But
I want to tell you that his arguments, he might
be surprised to find that he's been poaching
those arguments from the Socialists in the Canadian House of Commons, and they might sue
him for copyright infringement. [Laughter]
Q. Mr. President, you that Mr. Mulroney is
leaving officeThe President. On NAFTA, let me say one
other thing about NAFTA. President Salinas,
when he took over in Mexico, unilaterally reduced a lot of very high Mexican tariffs with
the consequence that the United States went
from a $5 billion trade deficit with Mexico to
a $6 billion trade surplus. And last month, Mexico replaced Japan as the second largest purchaser of our manufacturing products. So we
are, in effect, opening our trade relationships
anyway. It's been, on balance, beneficial to the
United States. And I just-if you look at where
the world is going, where Europe is going,
where Asia is going, there's no question that
both Canada and the United States need more
trading partners in our own backyard, and we
need for them to be richer, to grow, to do
more, so they can buy more from us. And I
feel very strongly that it's the right thing to
do, and I'm going to keep plugging away and
hope we can pass it. I think we can.
Haiti
Q. On Haiti, Mr. President. Is it time to
show some muscle on Haiti if diplomacy doesn't
work?
The President. Well, we thought we had an
agreement on Haiti and, of course, it didn't
work out, and I'm very disappointed. We worked
very, very hard. And I talked to the Prime Minister about this on several occasions. It is time
to reexamine our options and consider some
others, and I expect the United States will do
that.


801




June 2 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


Prime Minister Mulroney                     well and for a long time, and I wish him well.
Q. Mr. Clinton, any parting words for Mr.  And he's given me a lot of very good advice.
Mulroney now that he's going to be leaving of-  He's been very helpful.
fiCe?                                       NOTE: The exchange began at 8:49 a.m. in the
The President. I wish him well. He served  Oval Office at the White House.
Remarks and an Exchange With Reporters During a Luncheon With
Business Leaders
June 2, 1993


Interest Rates
The President. Let me just make one remark.
You know, once a week if at all possible I attempt to have lunch here in the White House
with business leaders from around America and
solicit their views and their opinions, their suggestions. These lunches have been enormously
valuable to me and, I think, are helping us develop the kind of partnership with the private
sector we need.
I'd just like to mention two things that I think
support the economic position that I have taken
and the work we're doing in the Senate. First
of all, there were news stories today and yesterday pointing out that long-term interest rates
are down again, the stock market is strong again
in anticipation of the passage of a real deficit
reduction package after the vote in the House.
And that means we're taking the right course.
And I'm looking forward to working with the
Senate when they get back next week.
Secondly, just today we've learned that we
had the largest monthly increase in new housing
sales in 7 years, which is clearly the result of
lower interest rates and proves the point that
we've been trying to make that if we can get
the deficit down, get the interest rates down,
that will be the biggest job stimulus to the economy. It will put another $100 billion back in
this economy.
So there are lots of things that we have to
discuss and lots of things that perhaps we can
all change for the better. But at least the general


direction, I think, is clearly right. And I thank
these kind business leaders for coming here
today, and I look forward to continuing to do
this every week as long as I'm President. I think
it will be very helpful to the country.
Thank you very much.
Lani Guinier
Q. [Inaudible]-nomination, Mr. President?
The President. Well, let me say this, I think
that I have to talk to some of the Senators
about it because of the reservations that have
been raised both publicly and privately. I want
to reaffirm two positive things about her. One
is everyone concedes she is a first rate civil
rights lawyer, and no real civil rights lawyer
has ever held that position before, someone who
made a career of it.
Secondly, I think any reasonable reading of
her writings would lead someone to conclude
that a lot of the attacks cannot be supported
by a fair reading of the writings. And that's
not to say that I agree with everything in the
writings. I don't. But I think that a lot of what
has been said is not accurate. On the other
hand, I have to take into account where the
Senate is, and I will be doing that and talking
to them. And I think until I do that, I should
have nothing else to say.
NOTE: The President spoke at 12:29 p.m. in the
Old Family Dining Room at the White House.
A tape was not available for verification of the
content of these remarks.


802




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / June 3


Nomination for Ambassador to Mexico
June 2, 1993


The President declared his intention today to
nominate Jim Jones, the CEO of the American
Stock Exchange and former House Budget
Committee chairman, to the position of Ambassador to Mexico.
"A great deal of our economic future," said
the President, "is bound up in our relationships
in this hemisphere, particularly our relationship


with Mexico. That is why I have chosen an
Ambassador who is seasoned by years of economic leadership in both the private and public
sectors. Jim Jones brings a unique perspective
and uncommon talents to the continuing dialog
with our Mexican neighbors."
NOTE: A biography of the nominee was made
available by the Office of the Press Secretary.


Exchange With Reporters in Frederick, Maryland
June 3, 1993


Economic Program                           down by passing the economic program, getting
Q. Mr. President, speaking of construction,  the deficit down, you're going to see a lot more
should Lani Guinier withdraw?              jobs, a lot more homes, a lot of money putting
The President. I'll have more to say about  into this economy. That's the real important
that later. But this is the most important thing  thing that this administration was elected to do
I'm working on. This is the illustration of why  and that's what I'm working on.
the economic program is important. Housing
sales at a 7-month high last month, creating  NOTE: The exchange began at 11:11 a.m. while
jobs for people like this because of low mort- the President was touring a house under construcgage rates. If we can keep the interest rates  tion in Fredericktown Village.
Remarks at Fredericktown Village in Frederick
June 3, 1993


Thank you very much. Good morning, ladies
and gentlemen, and good morning, boys and
girls. It's great to be here in Frederick today.
I want to thank Roger Glunt, the President of
the National Association of Home Builders, for
being here and for his support of our economic
program, as well as the support of homebuilders
and realtors all across America who understand
what we can do for the American economy if
we can get interest rates down and keep them
there.
I want to thank the Murrays for giving me
a tour of their home before it was finished.
One of the things I did in my former life, back
when I had one-[laughter]-when I was a
young man, was engage in a little bit of home

building. That's hard work. And I'm glad to see
somebody else doing it back there. But they
did a great job. I want to say thanks to the
Dragers and the Fishmans and the Taylors, the
other families here on this circle who showed
me their home and talked to me a little bit
about their lives. I want to thank Jim Johnson
for being here and for the wonderful job that
he does at Fanny Mae to help finance homes
and make the American dream come real for
Americans. And I want to say thanks to Don
Meade, the construction site supervisor, who
hasn't spoken today. That will make him the
most popular person here. I thank him for showing me around.
Ladies and gentlemen, last year when I was


803




June 3 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


out campaigning for the job I now hold, I think
all of us realized that our country was in a
period of short-term recession, which it lasted
for about 3 years, but of long-term economic
problems brought on by some economic competition from other countries around the world
and from some problems that we had created
for ourselves and that it was impossible to point
the blame at one person, that both parties in
Washington were to blame, but that it was absolutely clear that we couldn't keep going the way
we were going, where the deficit was going up
and up and up every year, so our debts were
piling higher.
In 12 years, 12 years, we went from a $1
trillion to a $4 trillion national debt. And the
deficit was over $300 billion a year. And at
the same time, we were reducing our investment
in the things that make us a rich country: in
incentives for people to build houses, in new
technologies to compete with other countries,
in the education, and training of our work force.
So what I tried to do was to turn that around.
It seemed to me that the faith-we had to begin
was to bring down the deficit with a combination of tough spending cuts and tax increases
that would be mostly on those who had been
more successful, whose taxes had gone down
and were in higher income groups.
This plan that I have presented to Congress
does that. But I want to emphasize to youI'll talk a little more about the details in a moment-but why would the homebuilders be here
supporting it if it were bad for business and
bad for America? They wouldn't be. They're
here because all these people building these
houses need jobs, and we need more people
like them working. And if people can work, we
wouldn't have half the problems we've got in
this country.
Six million Americans are employed in the
housing and related industry. Homebuilding is
critical to our future and critical to the dreams
of millions of American families. A year ago,
less than half of the American people under
the age of 35 thought they had a good chance
to buy a home. Today, over 70 percent of them
do. And there's one clear reason: lower longterm interest rates, which make mortgage rates
as low as they've been in 20 years.
If you think about it, mortgage rates currently
are at about 7.5 percent. Now, if someone had
a home mortgage at 10 percent and they refinance that at 7.5 percent, in the very first year


of the refinancing, they'd save $2,100. That is
way over twice as much in one year as the
same family, let's say, a family with an income
of $40,000 to $60,000 would pay in new taxes
under the energy tax in 4 years under our program.
That is the key to this whole thing. A balanced approach, cut spending, raise money from
people who can afford it, minimize the burden
on the middle class, but ask people to pay something, but give them back low interest rates,
more jobs, and a growing economy. That is the
idea, and the critical thing is the interest rates.
Every time mortgage rates go down a point,
an additional 350,000 people are able to buy
homes. In November, shortly after the election,
our administration announced a serious attempt
to reduce the deficit based on spending cuts,
targeted revenue increases. Long-term interest
rates started to drop. They've dropped almost
one full point since the election. Last week,
after the House of Representatives adopted the
economic program, they dropped again, and the
stock market went up again because people who
control these decisions began to believe again
that we could take control of our destiny and
really move America forward.
You've already heard some of these specific
ideas, but let me just reiterate. In this bill there
aren't just tax increases; there are spending cuts,
$100 billion in the entitlement areas, and another $150 billion in 200 specific cuts in other
areas, including a reduction in the size of the
Federal Government by 150,000 employees over
the next 4 years, an across-the-board cut of 14
percent in the administrative costs of Government, and hundreds of other specific cuts in
spending.
But there are also some incentives in this
program which are important. The small business community, some of you would be in that,
have been asking for years to increase the
expensing provisions in the Tax Code so they
could write off $25,000 a year, not $10,000 a
year, if they invested in their business to make
it more productive. That's in this provision.
Larger businesses who invest a lot of money
in new plant and new equipment, which put
people to work, have been asking for years for
us to change the minimum tax provisions so
they won't have to pay taxes on investments
they make to put people to work. And we did
that in this tax bill, and that will put people
to work.


804




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / June 3


People in real estate have been asking for
years that they simply be treated on what are
called their passive losses, like people in every
other business in the United States of America.
And that is in this tax bill, and that will put
people to work. These things will create jobs.
Maybe most important of all, for something
I care a lot about, I'll bet you that more than
half the people in this audience from time to
time in the last 10 or 15 years, have complained
about the welfare system and have said sometimes there seems like there are more incentives
to stay on welfare than off. Well, let me tell
you something else this bill does. Some people
stay on welfare rather than work 40 hours a
week, because if they take a minimum wage
job and go to work, they've got to pay somebody
for child care; they don't have any health insurance, so they go back on welfare; you pay it
through Medicaid, and they can stay home with
the kids. It's not because the welfare check is
big, it's because of the child care and the medical benefits. This tax bill says that, look, we're
going to favor work over welfare forever. If you
go to work, you work 40 hours a week, you
have a child in your house, the tax system will
lift you out of poverty. We're going to favor
work over welfare. That's a very important thing
that this tax bill does.
Now, next week the United States Senate is
coming back into session, and we have to pass
this bill in the Senate. Many Senators and many
House Members and the President would like
to pass the bill with even fewer taxes and more
spending cuts, and we're going to look for that.
But let me remind you, look at the results already. The most important thing is to pass a
bill that has real deficit reduction, real spending
cuts, put it all in a trust fund so the money
can't go to anything else, and no tax increases


without the spending cuts, and keep the interest
rates down. That is what is important here.
I have been overwhelmed-yesterday I had
lunch again, as I do about every week with
a lot of business executives who themselves will
have to pay the lion's share of the tax bill. Over
60 percent of this money will come from people
with annual incomes in excess of $200,000, over
75 percent of it from people in the top 7 percent of the income bracket. And most of them
are willing to pay as long as they know the
interest rates will go down because the deficit
is going down. So I think it's important to say,
yes, let's shoot for more spending cuts and less
taxes, but let's pass the bill and get the deficit
down.
I want to just leave you with this. New home
sales last month reached a 7-year high in April,
7-year high. That's worth doing. Mortgages rates
are at a 20-year low. That's worth keeping. Well,
I ask you, let's don't take our eye off the ball.
It is estimated that in this year alone, if we
can keep these interest rates down at this level,
it will put $100 billion back into the American
economy, in people refinancing their mortgages,
refinancing business loans, lower consumer
loans, lower college loans, lower car rates. That's
what we've got to do.
I ask for your support. I ask for your support
not on a partisan basis but to rebuild the American economy. There is no party label; there's
just jobs and incomes behind this. We've got
to grow this economy.
I thank the people on this stage and all of
you for being here today to make that point.
Thank you very much.
NOTE: The President spoke at 11:12 a.m. A tape
was not available for verification of the content
of these remarks.


Exchange With Reporters on the Economic Program in Frederick
June 3, 1993


The President. [Inaudible]-deficit down to
keep these interest rates low. Here at this place,
people understand low deficits means lower interest rates, more jobs and more money in middle class people's pockets. That's what's going
to happen.


Q. You seemed more adamant and forceful
in your speech today.
Q. Mr. President, why did you come to Republican territory?
The President. This is an illustration of what
really counts. Coming here today and being able


805




June 3 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


to put the charts and the words and the numbers with real jobs, real homes, and real people's
lives is what really makes this go for me. And
this is what I got elected to do. This is why
I ran for President. And I'm doing my best
to give real opportunity and hope back to the
American people.
Q. But Mr. President, why did you come to
someplace where you didn't9. [Inaudible]-back off with the Btu tax?
Q. It's Republican territory.
Q. Why did you come to someplace where
you didn't succeed in November? You only got
32 percent of the vote here.
The President. Doesn't matter, because even
here I wanted to make the point that it's not
a partisan issue. I mean, I don't know that a
majority of the homebuilders in America or a
majority of the realtors in America voted for
me in November. Most of them were probably
Republicans. But the homebuilders and the realtors, as a group, nationwide, are supporting this
program because it's good for the economy; it
means jobs; it means lower interest payments
for middle class people, for businesses; and it
means economic opportunities. And I wanted
to illustrate that this is not a partisan issue.
It's a bipartisan effort to move this economy
forward.
Q. Is it still an uphill battle in the Senate,
sir?
The President. I'm encouraged. I feel good
about it.
Q. Is Lani Guinier a partisan issue, sir?
[At this point, the President greeted community
members before taking further questions from


reporters. ]
The President. [Inaudible]-and some-if
there can be-if there are more cuts, and we're
all trying to agree with that.
Q. What's the status9. Do you think that Lani Guinier deserves
a public Senate hearing?
The President. I'm here to talk about jobs
and the economy today.
9. Hi. I'm State Senator Jack Derr. We're
happy to have you here in Frederick today.
The President. Good to see you.
9. Are you reconsidering keeping her, sir?
9. Are you afraid it's going to look like you're
cutting and running in the face of Senate opposition?
The President. You can't have it both ways,
folks. You can't say that I'm brave to the point
of being crazy for offering an economic plan
that raises taxes, cuts spending, and changes
things, and for taking on issues like gays in
the military and then say we're cutting and running. This administration has taken more tough
positions on more tough issues earlier than any
one I can remember. So I don't think you can
have that both ways. This is an idea issue, and
I will have more to say about it later.
Q. Are you going to have a speech, Mr. President, this afternoon?
The President. Lower interest rates and real
growth. That's what people who don't have jobs
are worried about.
NOTE: The exchange began at approximately
11:30 a.m. A tape was not available for verification
of the content of this exchange.


Remarks to Central State University NAIA Champion Athletic Teams
June 3, 1993


Thank you. Please sit down, ladies and gentlemen. I want to welcome all of you here and
especially say a word of welcome and thanks
to Senator Glenn and Mrs. Glenn and their
daughter. Senator Glenn made this occasion
possible today.
I want to welcome a group of extraordinary
student athletes, the Marauders and Lady Marauders of Central State University, winners of
the NAIA championships in football as well as


men and women's indoor and outdoor track and
field. I want to welcome the Central State president Dr. Arthur Thomas.
These teams have been remarkably successful.
First of all, Central State's football team captured the 1992 NAIA Division One national
championship with a come-from-behind victory
over-what school? [Laughter] This was no
fluke. For Coach Billy Joe, named Division One
Coach of the Year, it was the second time that


806




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / June 3


he's won a national title in 3 years. Coach Joe
has guided Central State to the playoffs for the
past six seasons and to the finals for the past
three. His winning formula: the three D's he
preaches to his players, drive, desire, and determination. These are good words to live by not
only on the playing field but here in Washington
as well. That is surely what drove the senior
quarterback, Henderson Moseley, to lead his
team to two touchdowns in the second half of
the championship, after being carried off in the
first half with a severe ankle injury. I've been
through that sort of campaign myself. [Laughter]
Coach Joe, you've earned a fourth D for the
Marauders, dynasty. That's what you've put together. And I must say, I've carried a special
interest in this team because you had to run
over the University of Central Arkansas a couple
of times in playing for these championships. So
we followed it very interestingly.
Now, let me move on to track. The Marauders and the Lady Marauders this year swept
the Division One national indoor and outdoor
track and field championships, making history.
I'm told that this is the first time any college
in any league has won four outright team championships in track and field in one year. What
a sweet victory, especially for Coach Josh
Culbreath, a former Olympian who was also
named Coach of the Year. Where is he? You
come on down here.
Now, I'm told that Coach Culbreath is known
as Pop, although he doesn't look old enough
to be my pop. [Laughter] He came out of retirement 4 years ago to revitalize track and field
at Central State. It's amazing what somebody
can accomplish in just 4 years.


This was the first national title in both indoor
and outdoor track. At the indoor championship,
they captured the title by winning the mile relay
in the final event. They also swept the 600 -yard run behind the winning pace of team member Neil DeSilva. This young man went on to
clock winning times in both the 200- and 400 -meter dash, to help them win the outdoor championship.
The Lady Marauders took their indoor title
and also their first, winning 6 out of 16 events
with record-setting performance and double
wins by both Carolyn Sterling and Sherdon
Smith. Outdoors, the Lady Marauders claimed
their third consecutive NAIA championship, a
"threepeat." Dionne Hemming set a world
record for the 400-meter hurdles on her way
to earning the title of Most Outstanding Female
Performer. Jumping hurdles can also be a useful
skill in this city. But I understand Dionne could
not be with us here today because she's in
Spain.
On behalf of our Nation, let me salute all
of you for your fine performances. You are
teams with truly a proven track record. As student athletes at an historically African- American
institution, you can be proud of your many
achievements. Your drive and your desire and
your determination are an example for all Americans.
I want to congratulate both the coaches, give
them a chance to say something. And thank
you again, Senator Glenn, for bringing them
here today to the Rose Garden.
NOTE: The President spoke at 5 p.m. in the Rose
Garden at the White House.


Letter to Congressional Leaders on Trade With Albania, Mongolia,
Romania, and Certain States of the Former Soviet Union
June 3, 1993


Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)
I hereby transmit the documents referred to
in section 402(d)(1) of the Trade Act of 1974,
as amended (19 U.S.C. 2432(d)(1)) ("the Act"),
with respect to a further 12-month extension
of the authority to waive sections (a) and (b)
of section 402 of the Act. These documents
constitute my recommendation to continue in


effect the waiver authority for a further 12 -month period, and include my reasons for determining that continuation of the waiver authority
and waivers currently in effect for Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan,
Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Mongolia, Romania, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and
Uzbekistan will substantially promote the objec

807




June 3 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


tives of section 402 of the Act.
Sincerely,


NOTE: Identical letters were sent to Thomas S.
Foley, Speaker of the House of Representatives,
and Albert Gore, Jr., President of the Senate. The
Presidential determination of June 2 is listed in
Appendix D at the end of this volume.


BILL CLINTON


Letter to Congressional Leaders on Trade With Bulgaria
June 3, 1993


Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)
I hereby transmit a report concerning emigration laws and policies of the Republic of Bulgaria as required by subsections 402(b) and
409(b) of Title IV of the Trade Act of 1974,
as amended ("the Act") (19 U.S.C. 2432(b) and
2439(b)). I have determined that Bulgaria is in
full compliance with the criteria in subsections
402(a) and 409(a) of the Act. As required by
Title IV, I will provide the Congress with peri

odic reports regarding Bulgaria's compliance
with these emigration standards.
Sincerely,
WILLIAM J. CLINTON
NOTE: Identical letters were sent to Thomas S.
Foley, Speaker of the House of Representatives,
and Albert Gore, Jr., President of the Senate. The
Presidential determination is listed in Appendix
D at the end of this volume.


Remarks on the Withdrawal of the Nomination of Lani Guinier To Be an
Assistant Attorney General and an Exchange With Reporters
June 3, 1993


The President. Good evening. It is with deep
regret that I am announcing tonight the withdrawal of the nomination of Lani Guinier to
be Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights.
Earlier this evening I met with Ms. Guinier
to talk through the issues that prompted my
decision. I told her that had I known all along
the intense controversy this nomination would
inspire I would not have asked her to undergo
the ordeal, and I am sorry that she has suffered
as much as she has.
At the time of the nomination I had not read
her writings. In retrospect, I wish I had. Today,
as a matter of fairness to her, I read some
of them again in good detail. They clearly lend
themselves to interpretations that do not represent the views that I expressed on civil rights
during my campaign and views that I hold very
dearly, even though there is much in them with
which I agree. I have to tell you that had I
read them before I nominated her, I would not
have done so.


Now, I want to make it clear that that is
not to say that I agree with all the attacks on
her. She has been subject to a vicious series
of willful distortions on many issues, including
the quota issue. And that has made this decision
all the more difficult.
The Lani Guinier I know is a person of high
integrity, great intellect, strong character, and
a superb civil rights record. That's why I nominated her. I agree with civil rights leaders and
members of the Congressional Black Caucus
that she is a wonderful lawyer. And I want all
of you to know that if this nomination could
be fought out on her character or her record
as a civil rights lawyer, I would stay with it
to the end, if we didn't get but one or two
votes in the Senate.
It is not the fear of defeat that has prompted
this decision. It is the certainty that the battle
would be carried on a ground that I could not
defend. The dilemma with which I have struggled basically comes down to this: Should we


808




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / June 3


have proceeded with a confirmation battle that
would give her more ample opportunity to clarify her views but would guarantee a bloody and
divisive conflict over civil rights based on ideas
that I, as President, could not defend.
Because the controversy over her academic
writings includes mischaracterizations, this battle, unfortunately, has already polarized our
country. My campaign for the Presidency was
based on trying to unite Americans on the basis
of race, opportunity, and responsibility, the idea
that we could all work together to reach common solutions. And I regret very much the bitterness and the divisiveness which has occurred
already.
I am well aware that this withdrawal will
upset many people in this country who believe
in Lani and had hoped that she might be confirmed. I can only pledge to them that I will
continue to work, as I have for nearly 20 years,
for the cause of civil rights and that I want
an administration second to none in its dedication to civil rights.
I will be consulting promptly with the Attorney General and with other Members of the
Senate and House committees and with civil
rights leaders about a replacement for Lani. I
hope to have an announcement in the next few
days. In the meantime, I want to again say I
take full responsibility for what has happened
here. I want to express my sorrow about what
has happened to Lani Guinier and to say again
I think that she is one of the ablest civil rights
lawyers I have ever known, and I wish this battle
could be fought over that rather than ideas that
I myself cannot embrace.
Q. Mr. President, Attorney General Reno has
been a staunch defender of Ms. Guinier. Did
she urge you to keep her on, or is she fully
on board with your decision to abandon this
nomination?
The President. I believe she is. I would urge
you to talk to her about that.
Q. Mr. President, could you just give us an
idea of what part of her writings you really
had trouble with?
The President. Yes, I can give you an idea.
In the Michigan Law Review there was an article. Lani analyzed the weaknesses of the present
remedies available under the Voting Rights
Act-and many of her analyses I agree withbut seemed to be arguing for principles of proportional representation in minority veto as general remedies that I think are inappropriate as


general remedies and antidemocratic, very difficult to defend.
Now, the Supreme Court has obviously
changed the law on that, but the whole thrust
of that kind of argument, it seems to me, is
inconsistent with the arguments that I tried to
make to members of all races all during my
campaign.
Q. Mr. President, what part did your friendship, yours and Mrs. Clinton's, with Guinier play
in your decision to nominate her and perhaps
in your decision-or your neglect of her record
at the time that you did nominate her?
The President. Well, Hillary played no role
in this nomination or this decision and so deserves no blame or credit for it. But the fact
that I have known her since law school and
had actually seen her in action as a civil rights
practitioner played a very large role in my desire
to nominate her. That is, I thought it would
be not only interesting, but positive to have,
for the first time, someone who had been a
career civil rights lawyer head that division.
And frankly, I think the fact that I had known
her and cared about her and admired her probably contributed to the way this thing has been
handled in a kind of a drawn-out fashion. And
it may be the adequacy or inadequacy of the
briefings I received about this issue is partly
based on the assumption that I must have
known everything she'd written about since I
knew her as a lawyer. I think that's probably
true.
Q. Mr. President, there's a perception among
some of your critics among the Black Caucus
that your move to the center and your desire
to have conservative Democratic votes in the
Senate for your economic plan, and your health
*plan to come, played a large role in this. And
they are saying-Craig Washington said, for instance, today, that he was with you in the House
vote on the economic plan but won't be with
you because of your decision to, in his view,
cut and run on Lani Guinier. What do you say
to those people and how
The President. I would say two things. Number one, this is about my center, not about
the political center. I will say again, I would
gladly fight this nomination to the last moment,
if nobody wanted to vote her, nobody, if it were
on the grounds that I could defend. If somebody
said, "You know, she sued the State of Arkansas,
and she sued all these other people, and she
came out for remedies in her law practice that


809




June 3 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


weren't right, and she ran over this group and
that group," I would say, "Fine, let's fight this
thing out. You know, I know that. I have personal knowledge of that. You are wrong." And
if everybody in the Senate disagreed with me,
I would stay with it to the bitter end.
The problem is that this battle will be waged
based on her academic writings. And I cannot
fight a battle that I know is divisive, that is
an uphill battle, that is distracting to the country, if I do not believe in the ground of the
battle. That is the only problem. This has nothing to do with a political center. This has to
do with my center.
Now, let me say about Craig Washington,
whatever he does for the rest of his life, I'll
be grateful to him for what he did and what
he said in fighting that economic problem
through. I know how strongly he feels about
it. I can tell you, I received-if any-there's
pressure over the issue. I got more pressure
to stay with this than to drop it. But in the
end, I had to do what I thought was right.
Whether I am right or wrong, I tell you tonight,
I have done what I think is right.
Statement on Sanctions Against Haiti
June 4, 1993
One of the cornerstones of our foreign policy
is to support the global march toward democracy
and to stand by the world's new democracies.
The promotion of democracy, which not only
reflects our values but also increases our security, is especially important in our own hemisphere. As part of that goal, I consider it a
high priority to return democracy to Haiti and
to return its democratically elected President,
Jean-Bertrand Aristide, to his office.
We should recall Haiti's strides toward democracy just a few years back. Seven years ago,
tired of the exploitative rule that had left them
the poorest nation in our hemisphere, the Haitian people rose up and forced the dictator JeanClaude Duvalier to flee. In December 1990,
in a remarkable exercise of democracy, the Haitian people held a free and fair election, and
two-thirds of them voted for President Aristide.
Nineteen months ago, however, that progress
toward democracy was thwarted when the Hai

Q. Mr. President, did she agree with you?
Q. Did she agree with you?
Q. Has she withdrawn or are you withdrawing
her?
The President. I am-I think you'd better ask
her what she said.
Q. Well, if she comes-have you withdrawn
her name?
The President. Well, she's in town and
we've-I think she'll probably have a statement
later tonight. I have no idea what she will say.
Q. Did she ask you not to withdraw her name,
sir?
The President. Well, you know what she wanted. She wanted her hearing. But she was surprised that I felt the way I did. You know,
this is the first long, detailed conversation we've
had about it. It was a very painful thing between
two people who have liked and admired each
other a long time. This was one of the most
difficult meetings I've ever had in my life. But
I did what I thought was right.
NOTE: The President spoke at 9:05 p.m. in the
Briefing Room at the White House.


tian military illegally and violently ousted President Aristide from office. Since taking office
in January, the United States Government has
worked steadily with the international community in an effort to restore President Aristide
and democracy to Haiti. The OAS and United
Nations Special Envoy, Dante Caputo, has demonstrated great dedication and tenacity. To support Mr. Caputo's effort, Secretary of State
Christopher in March named U.S. Ambassador
Lawrence Pezzullo as our Special Adviser for
Haiti.
We and the international community have
made progress. The presence of the International Civilian Mission has made a concrete
contribution to human rights in Haiti. Mr.
Caputo's consultations with all the parties indicated that a negotiated solution is possible.
Unfortunately, the parties in Haiti have not
been willing to make the decisions or take the
steps necessary to begin democracy's restoration.


810




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / June 4


And while they seek to shift responsibility, Haiti's people continue to suffer.
In light of their own failure to act constructively, I have determined that the time has come
to increase the pressure on the Haitian military,
the de facto regime in Haiti and their supporters.
The United States has been at the forefront
of the international community's efforts to back
up the U.NJOAS negotiations with sanctions
and other measures. Beginning in October 1991,
we froze all Haitian Government assets in the
United States and prohibited unlicensed financial transactions with Haitian persons. Today,
I am acting to strengthen those existing provisions in several ways.
First, I have signed a proclamation pursuant
to Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act prohibiting the entry into the U.S.
of Haitian nationals who impede the progress
of negotiations designed to restore constitutional
government to Haiti and of the immediate relatives of such persons. The Secretary of State
will determine the persons whose actions are
impeding a solution to the Haitian crisis. These
people will be barred from entering the United
States.
Second, pursuant to the authority of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and
the Executive orders on the Haiti emergency,
I have directed the Secretary of the Treasury
to designate as "specially designated nationals"
those Haitians who act for or on behalf of the
junta, or who make material, financial, or commercial contributions to the de facto regime or
the Haitian armed forces. In effect, this measure
will freeze the personal assets of such persons
subject to U.S. jurisdiction and bar them from
conducting any transactions whatsoever with the
individuals and entities named.


Third, I have directed Secretary Christopher
to consult with the OAS and its member states
on ways to enhance enforcement of the existing
OAS sanctions program. And I have directed
Secretary Christopher and Ambassador Albright
to consult with the U.N. and member states
on the possibility of creating a worldwide sanctions program against Haiti.
Sanctions alone do not constitute a solution.
The surest path toward the restoration of democracy in Haiti is a negotiated solution that
assures the safety of all parties. We will therefore strongly support a continuation and intensification of the negotiating effort. We will impress on all parties the need to take seriously
their own responsibilities for a successful resolution to this impasse.
Our policy on Haiti is not a policy for Haiti
alone. It is a policy in favor of democracy everywhere. Those who seek to derail a return to
constitutional government, whether in Haiti or
Guatemala, must recognize that we will not be
swayed from our purpose.
At the same time, individuals should not have
to fear that supporting democracy's restoration
will ultimately put their own safety at risk. Those
who have opposed President Aristide in the past
should recognize that, once President Aristide
has returned, we and the rest of the international community will defend assiduously their
legitimate political rights.
It is my hope that the measures we have
announced today will encourage greater effort
and flexibility in the negotiations to restore democracy and President Aristide to Haiti.
NOTE: The proclamation of June 3 barring the
entry of certain Haitian nationals into the United
States is listed in Appendix D at the end of this
volume.


Letter to Congressional Leaders Reporting Budget Rescissions
June 4, 1993


Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)
In accordance with the Congressional Budget
and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, I herewith report six proposed rescissions, totaling
$176.0 million in budgetary resources.
These proposed rescissions affect the Depart

ments of Housing and Urban Development, Justice, and Transportation. The details of the proposed rescissions are contained in the attached
reports.
Sincerely,
WILLIAM J. CLINTON


811




June 4 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


NOTE: Identical letters were sent to Thomas S.  and Albert Gore, Jr., President of the Senate. The
Foley, Speaker of the House of Representatives,  reports detailing the proposed rescissions were
published in the Federal Register on June 15.
Statement by the Press Secretary on the President's Task Force on
National Health Care Reform
June 4, 1993


On January 25, 1993, the President announced the creation of a Task Force on National Health Care Reform. The President asked
the task force to provide him with proposals
for comprehensive health care reform. The
President also announced on January 25 the creation of an interdepartmental working group that
would gather and analyze information and options for the task force.
In over 20 meetings held during April and
May, the task force reviewed materials it received from the interdepartmental working
The President's Radio Address
June 5, 1993
Good morning. On February the 17th, I presented to our country a national economic strategy to create jobs and increase incomes through
investments in our future and bringing our Government's deficit down. This plan is tough, and
it requires real contributions from everyone. It
was written to improve our economy long-term,
but I believed back in February, just as I did
in the campaign of 1992, that this plan could
produce positive short-term results, and it already has.
Once it became clear that we would take responsibility for bringing our deficit down, interest rates started coming down. Analysts say that
if we can keep these interest rates down for
a year, we'll put over $100 billion back into
this economy. How? Because people will refinance their home loans or their business loans.
Many of you listening to this program have already done that and have saved a great deal
of money. Think what an extra $100 billion can
do, through lower interest rates on consumer
loans, car loans, college loans, home loans, and


group, formulated proposals and options for
health care reform, and presented those proposals and options to the President. Each of those
task force meetings was noticed in the Federal
Register.
Having completed its mission, the task force
terminated on May 30, as provided in its charter.
The President is now in the process of reviewing the proposals he has received from the task
force and choosing from among the policy options that have been presented to him.


business loans. It means more jobs for ordinary
Americans, higher business profits, better
consumer confidence, and more consumer
spending. All that will grow the economy. It's
already beginning to work.
Just yesterday, unemployment fell below 7
percent for the first time in a year and a half.
In just the last 4 months, the economy has
added 755,000 new jobs. And last month, as
mortgage rates hit a 20-year low, new home
sales reached a 7-year high. That too means
more jobs for ordinary Americans and more
Americans realizing the dream of home ownership, building stronger neighborhoods and
stronger communities, and making America a
better place to live. We're moving on the right
track. If we get our priorities right and our
Government house in order, more people will
be able to order houses for themselves. If we
drive interest rates down, jobs and investment
will keep going up.
Now the U.S. House of Representatives has
acted courageously and decisively to approve our


812




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / June 5


economic growth plan, and it's time for the Senate to do the right thing as well.
In the plan before the Senate, we cut the
deficit $500 billion over the next 5 years, the
largest reduction program ever proposed by a
President. The plan is balanced and fair. About
half the deficit reduction comes from spending
cuts and restraints in Federal entitlement programs and health care programs, and about half
of it comes from new revenues.
Included in the $250 billion of spending cuts
are reductions in more than 200 specific programs. We also raised some taxes. But this time,
unlike the last 12 years, we're doing it in a
fair way. Seventy-five percent of the new money
comes from people with incomes above
$100,000, people who can better afford it and
whose tax rates went down in the 1980's.
Middle class Americans are asked to make
a contribution in the form of an energy tax.
For families of four with incomes of $40,000
a year or more, that amounts to about $1 a
month in 1994, $7 a month in 1995, and no
more than $17 a month when the plan is fully
in place in 1996 and thereafter. For working
families with incomes under $30,000, the income tax system has been changed so that the
burden will be virtually nonexistent. And for the
working poor, people who are working 40 hours
a week or less, we put in place the first big
block of our welfare reform program. Because
if this plan passes, people who work 40 hours
a week and have children in their homes will
be lifted above the poverty line for the first
time in American history.
Now, no one wants to pay any additional taxes
or see anybody else pay taxes. And we're working hard to minimize the tax increases and maximize the spending cuts.
But let me remind you, my fellow Americans,
all the people who are out here calling this
a tax-and-spend program are the same people
who for the last 12 years have lowered taxes
on the rich, raised taxes on the middle class,
taken the national debt from $1 trillion to $4
trillion, and reduced our investment in our future so that jobs went down and incomes did
too. My plan is working to take us in the reverse
direction. It does require tough choices. You've
had all the easy choices for 12 years and the
hidden taxes. We have given you some very
simple and open truths. We've got to be tough
enough to bring down the deficit, but we have
to be smart enough to keep investing in our


people and our technologies to have a growing
modem economy.
Next week, the Senate will begin considering
this plan for deficit reduction and economic
growth. There are principles the Senate should
honor when it considers our plan, the things
I believe we must have. Number one, we have
to cut this deficit by at least $500 billion over
the next 5 years. Number two, there could be
no increases in taxes before there are real cuts
in spending, and all the savings should be locked
up in a trust fund for the 5-year life of the
plan. Number three, because of what's happened over the last 12 years, those who are
successful enough to be able to pay more should
pay more, and we must minimize the burden
on the middle class and the working poor. Number four, we have to preserve these incentives
to reform the welfare system and to encourage
people who are working, so that more people
will move from welfare to work. And number
five, when we cut spending, we still have to
leave some investment resources for education
and training, for new technologies, for converting from a defense to a domestic economy, and
for incentives for businesses and private individuals to invest in communities that are distressed
and to create new jobs and new enterprises.
These are the steps we must take to rebuild
our economy. We can do it.
Although the changes I am asking Congress
to approve are difficult, especially after more
than a decade of everybody being told exactly
what they want to hear while things get worse
and worse and worse, these changes have to
be made. Our living standards are at stake, and
we must rise to the occasion. That is, after all,
the promise of America. A community at its
best provides a growing measure of prosperity
for everyone who works hard and plays by the
rules. But our challenge is to fulfill that promise
by ensuring that as we expand opportunity and
growth, everyone has a shot to earn their share.
In my lifetime, no one has addressed that
challenge with greater courage or constancy than
the late Senator Robert Kennedy. On Sunday,
25 years after his death, I will be joining his
family, their supporters and friends in celebrating his short but exceptional life as one of the
most candid and unifying public servants our
country has ever known.
At a time when so many citizens feel disconnected from their political leaders, Senator Kennedy had an uncommon feel for what people


813




June 5 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


experienced in their daily lives. He fought to
expand economic opportunity, to remind citizens
that our rights are accompanied by responsibilities. He sought to close the gap between working class whites and African-Americans when
others tried for political advantage to keep them
apart.
Most of all, Robert Kennedy reminded us that
whatever our differences with our leaders are
and our differences with our policies, we can
and should all love our country. And that is
why, even as we remember his life and mourn
his loss, we must celebrate his spirit because


his example is what we should be following
today.
I will keep fighting for a society filled with
opportunity for every American, free of discrimination, full of the hopes and dreams that Bobby
Kennedy fought for. Realizing these dreams
would be the greatest tribute we could offer
him and the greatest gift we could give to our
children.
Thanks for listening.
NOTE: The President spoke at 10:06 a.m. from
the Oval Office at the White House.


Remarks at the Memorial Mass for Robert F. Kennedy in Arlington,
Virginia
June 6, 1993


Father Creedon, Mrs. Kennedy, the children
of Robert Kennedy, and the Kennedy family,
to all the distinguished Americans here present,
and most of all, to all of you who bear the
noble title, citizen of this country: Twenty-five
years ago today, on the eve of my college graduation, I cheered the victory of Robert Kennedy
in the California primary and felt again that
our country might face its problems openly,
meet its challenges bravely, and go forward together. He dared us all. He dared the grieving
not to retreat into despair. He dared the comfortable not to be complacent. He dared the
doubting to keep going.
As I looked around this crowd today and saw
us all graced not only by the laughter of children
but by the tears of those of us old enough
to remember, it struck me again that the memory of Robert Kennedy is so powerful that in
a profound way we are all in two places today.
We are here and now, and we are there, then.
For in Robert Kennedy we all invested our
hopes and our dreams that somehow we might
redeem the promise of the America we then
feared we were losing, somehow we might call
back the promise of President Kennedy and
Martin Luther King and heal the divisions of
Vietnam and the violence and pain in our own
country. But I believe if Robert Kennedy were
here today, he would dare us not to mourn
his passing but to fulfill his promise and to
be the people that he so badly wanted us all


to be. He would dare us to leave yesterday
and embrace tomorrow.
We remember him, almost captured in freezeframe, standing on the hood of a car, grasping
at outreached hands, black and brown and
white. His promise was that the hands which
reached out to him might someday actually
reach out to each other. And together, those
hands could make America everything that it
ought to be, a nation reunited with itself and
rededicated to its best ideals.
When his funeral train passed through the
gritty cities of the Northeast, people from both
sides of the tracks stood silent. He had earned
their respect because he went to places most
leaders never visit and listened to people most
leaders never hear and spoke simple truth most
leaders never speak.
He spoke out against neglect, but he challenged the neglected to seize their own destiny.
He wanted so badly for Government to act,
but he did not trust bureaucracy. And he believed that Government had to do things with
people, not for them. He knew we had to do
things together or not at all. He spoke to the
sons and daughters of immigrants and the sons
and daughters of sharecroppers and told them
all, "As long as you stay apart from each other,
you will never be what you ought to be."
He saw the world not in terms of right and
left but right and wrong. And he taught us lessons that cannot be labeled except as powerful


814




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / June 7


proof. Robert Kennedy reminded us that on any
day, in any place, at any time, racism is wrong,
exploitation is wrong, violence is wrong, anything
that denies the simple humanity and potential
of any man or woman is wrong.
He touched children whose stomachs were
swollen with hunger but whose eyes still sparkled with life. He marched with workers who
strained their backs for poverty wages while harvesting our food. He walked down city streets
with people who ached, not from work but from
the lack of it. Then as now, his piercing eyes
and urgent voice speak of the things we all
like to think that we believe in.
When he was alive, some said he was ruthless.
Some said he wasn't a real liberal, and others
claimed he was a real radical. If he were here
today, I think he would laugh and say they were
both right. But now as we see him more clearly,
we understand he was a man who was very
gentle to those who were most vulnerable, very
tough in the standards he kept for himself, very
old-fashioned in the virtues in which he believed, and a relentless searcher for change, for
growth, for the potential of heart and mind that
he sought in himself and he demanded of others.
Robert Kennedy understood that the real purpose of leadership is to bring out the best in
others. He believed the destiny of our Nation
is the sum total of all the decisions that all
of us make. He often said that one person can
make a difference, and each of us must try.
Some still believe we lost what is best about
America when President Kennedy and Martin
Luther King and Robert Kennedy were killed.
But I ask you to remember, my fellow Ameri

cans, that Robert Kennedy did not lose his faith
when his own brother was killed. And when
Martin Luther King was killed, he gave from
his heart what was perhaps his finest speech.
He lifted himself from despair time after time
and went back to work.
If you listen now you can hear with me his
voice telling me and telling you and telling everyone here, "We can do better." Today's troubles call us to do better. The legacy of Robert
Kennedy is a stem rebuke to the cynicism, to
the trivialization that grips so much of our public
life today. What use is it in the face of the
aching problems gripping millions of Americans,
the American without a job, the American without health care, the American without a safe
street to live on or a good school to send a
child to? What use is it in the face of all the
divisions that keep our country down and rob
our children of their rightful future?
Let us learn here once again the simple, powerful, beautiful lesson, the simple faith of Robert
Kennedy: We can do better. Let us leave here
no longer in two places, but once again in one
only: in the here and now, with a commitment
to tomorrow, the only part of our time that
we can control. Let us embrace the memory
of Robert Kennedy by living as he would have
us to live. For the sake of his memory, of ourselves, and of all of our children and all those
to come, let us believe again, we can do better.
NOTE: The President spoke at 8:13 p.m. at Arlington National Cemetery. In his remarks, he referred to Rev. Gerard Creedon, missionary to the
Dominican Republic and celebrant of the Mass.


Remarks to the League of Women Voters
June 7, 1993


The President. Thank you very much, Becky,
for that wonderful introduction. I want to thank
you and Gracia Hillman and all the leaders of
the State and local chapters of the League of
Women Voters from around the country who
are here. I know there are at least three members from my home State here. I'm glad to
see you all. Karen Stevens, Bobbie Hill, and
Linda Polk, I thank them for coming. This is


your house. And I'm glad to have you back
here.
When I ran for President, I did so with the
conviction that we had to create a new season
of opportunity and a new climate of responsibility in America so that together we could rebuild
the American community. And there were some
very specific commitments that I made in that
regard: an economic program that would be
good for America's families and working people;


815




June 7 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


a health care program that would control cost
and provide basic coverage to all Americans;
a program of national service and reform of
the student loan program to open the doors
of college education to all Americans; a program
to change the welfare system to move families
from dependence to independence; and a program of political reform to open the system of
this country so that ordinary Americans could
pull the levers of power and have their voices
heard.
Your presence here today, for the first time
since 1980, after decades and decades, the
League of Women Voters coming to the White
House without regard to party, in a bipartisan
fashion, coming back here for the first time
since 1980, is a symbol of the importance of
opening the political system to informed citizens
to let them have influence over the decisions
that are made affecting the lives of ordinary
Americans. And I welcome you here today.
Not long ago, as Becky said, we gathered here
to sign the motor voter bill-again, a strong
priority of the League of Women Voters-without regard to party, opening the franchise more
to all Americans and especially to many younger
Americans who were so terribly interested in
this issue. That was a very, very important day
for all of us. It was not only good for voter
registration, it was in a very fundamental sense
a civil rights law and a real advance for all
the people of the United States.
Not long before that, I gathered here with
other Americans to sign the family leave bill
into law, which is a very important thing because
it attempts to unite two of our most important
values, work and family, guaranteeing ordinary
citizens that if they have to take a little time
off for a baby to be born or a parent to be
cared for, they won't lose their jobs.
These are the kinds of things that Government ought to do with the American people,
not to just do things for people but to empower
people to take care of their own business. That's
what motor voter does; that's what family leave
does. That's what we ought to be about in this
country.
Now, we are moving ahead in the Congress
with the economic plan, soon to be followed
by the health care plan. And there is a very
ambitious agenda of political reform before the
Congress. I know that's what you're here about,
so I'd like to say just a word about that, if
I might.


There are actually two important political reform bills in the United States Congress today.
And I urge you to embrace them both. The
first one you know about and that is the campaign finance reform bill in the United States
Senate. The bill does exactly what we ought
to do: it lowers the cost of campaigns, reduces
the influence of special interest groups, and
opens the airwaves to more honest debates so
that incumbents are not unduly protected and
wealth is not the primary determinant of whether a person can wage a credible campaign. It
is a very, very important advance. And we have
proposed to-you can clap for that, I like that[applause]-we have proposed to pay for this
by repealing a tax deduction that is only 30
years old and that is the tax deduction for lobbying. We've proposed to repeal it and pay for
campaign finance reform. No other money will
go into campaign finance reform except that
which is voluntarily contributed by the American
taxpayers if this bill passes as it has been proposed. So I urge you to go up there and plead
with the United States Senate and talk to the
House Members while you're at it and say, give
us a bill we can be proud of to give the election
process back to the American people. One of
the reasons more people voted in the Presidential election in 1992 than had voted in a
long time is because of all the debates, all the
town meetings, all the open forums, all the ways
that people found to say this is your place, not
the politicians' place. This is your country. This
is your Government; take it back. And campaign
finance reform will help us to do that.
The second bill has already been passed by
the Senate and is now in the House. It is a
bill long overdue, which will require all people
who lobby the United States Congress to register and report and will require the reporting
of virtually all funds expended on Members of
Congress by lobbyists. It is a very important
bill, and I urge you to support that.
Secondly, I appreciate your support for health
care reform. Let me say that the First Lady
and the hundreds of people who worked on
the task force and the people in the administration who are still reaching out over America
to the health care providers and the health care
consumers and the business community, the
labor community, everybody affected by this, deserve a lot of credit. They have done more complex, exhaustive work in less time than any other
group like this, I think, in the entire history


816




Admnistration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / June 7


of the United States. And I'm very grateful to
them for that. And soon we will have a health
care proposal that I believe will be self-evidently
in the interest of the vast majority of the American people, not only to provide universal coverage but to do it in a way which preserves
what is best about American health care and
brings these costs down before we bankrupt the
United States with health care costs and without
universal coverage.
Let me say, before we do that, we have got
to get the Government's house in order. In 12
years-the 12 years you weren't here; it may
be because you weren't here-[laughter]-in the
12 years you weren't here, the debt of this country went from $1 trillion to $4 trillion. Our
national deficit was over $300 billion this year.
We have got to do something about it. But
the most frustrating thing of all, it's like health
care; we spend 35 percent more than anybody
else in the world and do less with it. With
our Government's deficit soaring, with our debt
exploding, we have reduced our investments in
the things that make us a richer, stronger, more
productive country and that offer our children
the chance to seize the American dream.
We have to put our house in order and reverse a lot of those practices, practices that have,
to be sure, the stamp of not only Republican
Presidents but also Democratic Congresses,
practices born of taking the path of least resistance and telling people what they want to hear.
It is always more popular to cut people's taxes
and send them more money and deplore the
Government every step of the way. But in the
end, you have to live with the consequences
of what you have wrought. And that is what
we are doing today. And we are determined
in this administration to change those consequences.
The House of Representatives acted very courageously to pass the largest deficit reduction
program ever proposed by an administration. At
the same time they did it, I pledged to review
the budget to ensure that we maximized our
reliance on spending cuts, minimized our reliance on new taxes, and kept the burden on
middle class working Americans as light as possible.
As we move into the Senate this week, we
will fight for all the $250 billion in spending
cuts contained in this program, including $100
billion in reductions in entitlements already in
this program. We will fight for the fairness of


the program, which has over 60 percent of the
new taxes coming from people with incomes
above $200,000, over 74 percent coming above
$100,000; which costs the average family with
a $40,000 or $50,000 income $1 a month next
year, $7 a month the year after, and $17 a
month at a maximum rate; and which holds
harmless working families under $30,000 a year;
and which has the first incentive in the history
of the United States of America to lift the working poor out of poverty by using the tax system
to say if you work 40 hours a week and you
have a child in the house, you will not be below
the poverty line. If you want welfare reform,
that's it.
Now, later today I will meet with Senator
Mitchell, the Senate majority leader, and Senator Moynihan, the chairman of the Finance
Committee, and I will tell them that I intend
to designate the Treasury Secretary, Secretary
Bentsen, to work with them to come up with
a budget that the American people will accept
and that the Congress will pass. As we complete
work on this growth plan, I intend to do everything I can to say I welcome additional cuts.
But I will fight to protect the most vulnerable
people in this country. And I will fight to protect our investments to create jobs. For in the
end, this cannot be about passing budgets or
reducing deficits. It certainly can't be about raising taxes or even cutting spending. What it is
in the end is about giving us control over our
destiny again, giving us the ability to create jobs
and opportunity and increase incomes for the
American people.
And let's not lose sight of what has been
done. This program which cuts spending, raises
revenues, cuts the deficit, and invests in jobs
and technology for the future has already by
its advocacy and passing, dramatically contributed to bringing interest rates to their lowest
point in 20 years; so that you've got a 7-year
high in home buying, unemployment below 7
percent for the first time in a year and a half,
and 755,000 new jobs in this economy in the
last 4 months. I think that's something to be
proud of, and I don't understand why people
are not glad that those consequences are flowing
from these efforts.
I believe the American people want us to
move in this direction. Last week the Home
Builders Association endorsed the economic program, not a traditionally Democratic group.
[Laughter] The Realtors Association has en

817




June 7 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


dorsed it. More than half the 100 biggest companies in the United States have endorsed it
along with the largest labor organizations in
America. This is a program that's good for jobs.
The Congressional Black Caucus voted for it
unanimously because of the empowerment zones
in the program which gives the private sector
incentives to invest in putting people back to
work in the most depressed areas in America.
The business community is pleased because of
the incentives for starting new business and for
helping small businesses.
If you will look at this program you will see
it is no accident why the interest rates are down,
the jobs are up, and investment is coming back
into America. If we can keep interest rates
down, then all this debt that has piled up in
the last 12 years at least can be refinanced in
terms of home mortgages, business loans, college loans, consumer loans, car loans. And all
that lower interest rate will then free up money
to invest. That is what is creating these jobs
now, and we cannot turn our backs on it.
So I say, let's move on to the Senate. Let's
pass the economic program; then let's move on
to health care. And let's never forget that it
will all work better over the long run if we
pass campaign finance reform and lobbying reform and continue to fight to open this system
to the American people.
Thank you very much.


Supreme Court Nomination
Q. Mr. President, how close are you to a
Supreme Court nomination?
The President. Pretty close. I have not made
a decision yet, but I'm working on it, talking
to people. I expect a decision very soon.
Q. [Inaudible]-spoken to anyone about the
decisionQ. Why are you backing off of Babbitt?
Q.     any of the potential nominees?
The President. Stay tuned.
Q. Why are you backing off of Babbitt?
The President. I'm not. I've never
Q. Babbitt's in the race?
The President. I'm not backing off or on anybody. I haven't made a decision yet.
Q. Is he in the race?
The President. I haven't made a decision yet.
When I do, I'll tell you. Thanks.
NOTE: The President spoke at 2:23 p.m. in the
Rose Garden. In his remarks, he referred to Becky
Cain and Gracia Hillman, president and executive
director, League of Women Voters of the United
States; Karen Stevens and Linda Polk, member
and president, Arkansas League of Women Voters; and Bobbie Hill, member of the boards of
directors of both the national and Arkansas
leagues. The exchange portion of this item could
not be verified because the tape was incomplete.


Exchange With Reporters Prior to a Meeting With Senate Leaders
June 7, 1993


Economic Program
Q. How far are you on a compromise on
the economics program?
The President. Well, we just started. I have
asked Secretary Bentsen to work with Mr. Panetta, to work with the Senate, to basically embody the principles that I think are important.
We have to have $500 billion in deficit reduction. We have to have the spending cuts. And
no tax increases without the spending cuts. The
deficit trust fund is important. The tax burden
has to be progressive.
Right now, over 60 percent of this money
is coming from people with incomes above
$200,000, over 74 percent from people with in

comes above $100,000. That has to be kept.
And then we have to keep the pro-work, projobs portions of this intact. This plan gives the
best incentives to small business, to new businesses, and for working poor people to work
their way out of poverty, of any tax program
we have ever had. And it's not just a tax program. It's an investment program, and it's a
spending-cut program. And the whole thing has
to be put together. Now, within those principles,
these people are going to work out a bill that
can pass the Senate, pass the Congress, and
can keep the economic growth going.
Keep in mind the main objective is to keep
interest rates down, keep the growth going.


818




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / June 8


We've got 755,000 new jobs since January, a
7-year high in housing starts, first time in 18
months unemployment below 7 percent. This
thing is working. We've got to keep it going.
That's my concern.
Q. How far are you on a Btu tax? Would
you give a little on that?
The President. I want an energy component
that promotes energy conservation in clean fuels.
That's what I want. I believe that's an important
part of our future. Everybody knows that if
we're going to have high productivity growth
and be a rich country, we have to promote that.
That's an important principle to me, too.
Q. [Inaudible]-on Senator Boren to get that


passed?
The President. I'm promoting the principles.
These guys are going to work it out. My job
is to advocate for the kinds of product-I want
the results. I want jobs and incomes and growth.
That's what we're producing now. That's my job.
I'm confident they'll produce a plan that will
give us that.
NOTE: The exchange began at 5:35 p.m. in the
Oval Office at the White House, prior to a meeting with Senators George J. Mitchell and Daniel
Patrick Moynihan. A tape was not available for
verification of the content of this exchange.


Exchange With Reporters Prior to a Meeting With Congressional Leaders
June 8, 1993


Economic Program
Q. Mr. President, the Republicans have said
they won't accept a plan with any taxes. How
are you going to bridge that gap with Bob Dole?
The President. I don't know what the bridge
will be. Let me just say this, I think it's very
important that we move this promptly as possible to pass the economic plan. After the House
acted, long-term interest rates dropped again.
We now have a 7-year high in housing sales,
unemployment below 7 percent-it's the first
time in a year and a half-755,000 new jobs
since January. And that's because there's a serious attempt to reduce this deficit through a
combination of cuts and tax increases, almost
all of which come on wealthier individuals. So
I think we just need to move forward.
There will be some changes in the Senate,
and that is fine. Then we just need to hold
to the principles: there ought to be $500 billion
in deficit reduction; it ought to be in a trust
fund so that neither the taxes nor the spending
cuts can be diverted; and the tax burden ought
to be progressive, falling largely on the wealthiest Americans; and we ought to keep the incentives for private sector growth in there. We're
moving from welfare to work for investing in
the depressed areas of the country for starting
small businesses. Those are the principles that
I have. And the energy tax ought to encourage
conservation and the use of cleaner fuels. Those


are the things that I think ought to be done.
We'll just see what happens.
Q. Does it have to include-does it have to
be a Btu tax, or can you find another
energy
The President. I have delegated to-I don't
want to get into the name game here. I'm interested in the principles of the program: deficit
reduction, lower interest rates, job growth.
We've got job growth coming back into this
economy now, and I think we have to continue
to do what produces it, which is lower interest
rates. The lower interest rates are causing people to refinance all their debt and putting it
back into the economy. And that's the thing
I'm interested in.
We'll just see. Secretary Bentsen and Mr. Panetta are representing the administration in the
conversations with the Senate. And we'll just
see what comes out of it.
Q. Do you think you can start over with Bob
Dole, after all the bad blood?
The President. I like Senator Dole. I always
have. Besides that, he knows more jokes than
I do, and I resent it. Get him to share some
with you.
NOTE: The exchange began at 9:35 a.m. in the
Cabinet Room at the White House. A tape was
not available for verification of the content of this
exchange.


819




June 8 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


Statement on Signing the Government Printing Office Electronic
Information Access Enhancement Act of 1993
June 8, 1993


It is with great pleasure that I sign into law
S. 564, the "Government Printing Office Electronic Information Access Enhancement Act of
1993," which will enhance electronic access by
the public to Federal information. Under this
Act, the public will have on-line computer access to two of the major source documents that
inform us about the laws and regulations that
affect our daily lives: the Congressional Record
and the Federal Register. With recent advances
in information technology, we can go beyond
the costly printing of tons of paper documents
without diminishing the quick and accurate delivery of important information to the public.
As Vice President Gore and I announced in
our February 22nd statement, Technology for
America's Economic Growth, A New Direction
to Build Economic Strength, we are committed
to working with the private sector to use technology to make Government information available to the public in a timely and equitable
manner. Federal agencies can make Government information more accessible to the public,
and enhance the utility of Government information as a national resource, by disseminating information in electronic media.
For many years, Vice President Gore has been
a leader in this area. He introduced the Senate
Message to the Congress Transmitting
on the Aging
June 8, 1993
To the Congress of the United States:
In accordance with section 204(f) of the Older
Americans Act of 1965, as amended (42 U.S.C.
3015(f)), I hereby transmit the Annual Report
for 1992 of the Federal Council on the Aging.
The report reflects the Council's views in its


version of this Act last year and worked closely
with Chairmen Charlie Rose and Wendell Ford
and others on both sides of the aisle to refine
the Act.
This important step forward in the electronic
dissemination of Federal information will provide valuable insights into the most effective
means of disseminating all public Government
information. The system to be established by
the Government Printing Office (GPO) will
complement, not supplant, commercial information services and Federal agency information
dissemination programs. Likewise, it should not
supplant existing GPO mechanisms of information dissemination to the private sector. Indeed,
the lessons learned from this program will be
used by Federal agencies to develop the most
useful and cost-effective means of information
dissemination. To do this, the GPO initiative
must be coordinated with related projects in
the Executive branch.
WILLIAM J. CLINTON
The White House,
June 8, 1993.
NOTE: S. 564, approved June 8, was assigned
Public Law No. 10340.
the Report of the Federal Council
role of examining programs serving older Americans.
WILLIAM J. CLINTON
The White House,
June 8, 1993.


820




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / June 8


Nomination for Director of the Trade and Development Agency
June 8, 1993


The President announced his intention to
nominate New Hampshire management consultant and political activist J. Joseph Grandmaison
to be Director of the Trade and Development
Agency, U.S. International Development and
Cooperation Agency.
"Joe Grandmaison has many years of experi

ence in economic development, as well as in
civic affairs," said the President. "His knowledge
of how the private and public sectors can work
together will serve him well in this new position."
NOTE: A biography of the nominee was made
available by the Office of the Press Secretary.


Nominations for Posts at the Office of Science and Technology Policy
June 8, 1993


The President today announced his intention
to nominate NASA scientist Robert Watson Associate Director for the Environment at the Office of Science and Technology Policy and Mark
Schaefer, Washington office director of the Carnegie Commission on Science, Technology and
Government, as Assistant Director for the Environment at the OSTP.
"Bob Watson and Mark Schaefer are scientists
Remarks at the Congressional Barbecu
June 8, 1993
Thank you. Please sit down. Thank you very
much. We just want to welcome you here. The
big bonus of this evening is there are no speeches and no politics. Hillary and I just want to
welcome you here and thank you for coming.
I also want you to know that this tent now
has a hallowed heritage. On Saturday night I
had my 25th college reunion under this tent,
and nobody left until 1:30 a.m. So don't feel
bashful if you want to stay awhile.
It is always a privilege to serve our country,
but this is a unique time for all of us because
of the point in history in which we find ourselves. And I just thought it would be great


who have spent the bulk of their careers studying the connection between science and the environment," the President said. "With their understanding of the important connection between these two fields, I am confident they will
ensure American policies work to promote a
strong economy and a healthy environment."
NOTE: Biographies of the nominees were made
available by the Office of the Press Secretary.


if we could get together and enjoy each other's
company, get to know each other a little better.
I thank you all for coming, all of you for
bringing your spouses, your staff members, your
friends, and I hope you enjoy yourselves tonight.
This is, after all, your place. I'm just a temporary
tenant. I'm glad to be here, glad to welcome
you here, and I wanted Hillary to say a word,
too, because we're both so pleased to be a part
of this evening.
Thank you again for coming.
NOTE: The President spoke at 8:55 p.m. on the
South Lawn at the White House.


821




June 9 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


Remarks and a Question-and-Answer Session With the Business
Roundtable
June 9, 1993


The President. Thank you. Thank you, John,
and thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for the
invitation to come here and speak with you
today. I appreciate it not only because of the
important things that we need to discuss but
because you, as the CEO's of our Nation's top
businesses, have a vital role to play in providing
what our country needs most now, economic
renewal and an honest facing of our real challenges.
In recent years, members of the Business
Roundtable have often been among the most
enlightened leaders of our Nation, in any walk
of life. Many of you have supported the economic program that I have advanced, and for
your help I am extremely grateful. All of you
know there is a moment in the life of every
enterprise when a CEO looks up and realizes
that the company has been doing something that
simply doesn't work anymore, that the time has
come for overhaul and change, and though it
will be painful, it has to be done. When that
time comes, if you have the courage to do it,
you just have to go before the stockholders and
tell them that things aren't working, that there's
some pain in the short run, but there's a lot
of gain in the long run.
Many of you have had exactly that experience
in the last 10 to 15 years. You've had to restructure your companies, slim them down, eliminate
unnecessary layers of management, embrace
quality management, invest more in the training
of your work force and in the quality of your
equipment and in the competitiveness of your
operations.
And as a result of those calls, American companies now are once again the wonder of the
world. Detroit turns out much better cars than
it did 10 years ago. And guess what? It's gaining
market share now in America, something that
a lot of people thought would never happen
again. Motorola goes head-to-head in Japan and
often wins, and manufacturing as a whole has
come roaring back. Our workers are proving
once again that they are the best in the world.
That's exactly what can happen to our Nation
as a whole, and what I believe has to happen.
If we put our shoulder to the wheel and face


the issues squarely, I think it will happen. We'll
come roaring back, too.
As a new President, I feel the same as many
of you did a few years ago. I look around and
I see what I've inherited, and I realize that,
just as I said in the campaign, we have been
on the wrong track for too long. Just as you've
overhauled your companies, we've got to work
together to overhaul this country. And I believe
that we can. I promise you I'm doing everything
I can to get it done.
The people of this country are just like the
stockholders in your companies. You can tell
them the changes we need. First, the people
want to know what's wrong and what the problems are. Then they want to know what the
strategy is for solving the problems. And then
they want to know what's in it for them, both
good and bad. They deserve to have all those
questions answered, and I'm doing my best to
answer them. They are tough questions but fair
ones. They have to be faced.
Four months ago when I came to office, our
country was suffering from a long period of economic slowdown, and the Government's deficit
figures had been revised upward after the election by $165 billion over the next 4 years. After
World War II, the income of the average American family was doubling about every 25 years,
an extraordinary feat that created a vast middle
class in our country. Everybody thought these
good times would go on forever, that the next
generation would always be better off than its
parents, that the quality of life and of social
justice would continue to increase.
But in the early 1970's, that upward escalator
came to a screeching halt, brought on by the
global economy, its competitive pressures, and
a lot of problems we had in our own country
which slowed down the productivity growth rate.
The incomes of many Americans started falling
and average hourly incomes have been stagnant
virtually ever since for the Nation as a whole,
in spite of the fact that the average family is
spending more hours per week at work than
it was in 1969.
Now we look forward to a doubling of our
standard of living not every 25 years but every


822




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / June 9


75 years. That is plainly an unacceptable rate.
Many unhappy trends accelerated during the
1980's and into the 1990's. Even though the
wealthiest Americans consistently did better,
middle class incomes stalled and the percentage
of people living in poverty exploded, especially
the percentage of people working and still living
in poverty. Our leaders continued to promise
us something for nothing. There was always an
easy answer. There was always a slogan that
solved the problems. And slogans are always appealing. But as Americans, we can't live like
that anymore.
You and I know that a major roadblock to
our long-term recovery is the Federal deficit.
You and I know that it hasn't been tackled seriously in the past. And I want you to know
today that I am committed to tackling this deficit, no matter how much political capital I have
to spend to do it, because unless we regain
control over our economic destiny, none of the
other things that I would hope to do as President will be possible.
What I faced when I came to office was the
prospect that unless we acted and acted decisively, deficits would soar out of sight in the
1990's. And notwithstanding the dramatic drop
in short-term interest rates, we would continue
to have the highest real long-term interest rates
of any of our competitors. That would cripple
the economy. The United States would relinquish its place of leadership. And most importantly, we would leave our children a mean and
surly existence of less economic opportunity and
more social division.
That's why I believe so strongly that, as a
nation, we have to have the courage to change.
And so I spent weeks and weeks working on
an economic plan for the Nation, one that would
dramatically reduce the deficit while also achieving an equally important aim: investing in a very
disciplined way in some of the areas we had
neglected in the 1980's but that are critical to
our growth and productivity, especially education, training, new technologies for the 21st
century, and strategies to ease the transition
from a defense-based high-tech economy to one
based on a dramatically reduced level of defense
spending but increased domestic spending.
Now, when I first presented this plan to Congress and to the American people in February,
it received rave reviews. The reaction of the
financial markets was immediate and very favorable, just as the reaction to the financial markets


had been favorable right after the election when
we said we would come forward with a strong
deficit reduction plan.
As the plan has moved its way through Congress, the outline of the budget resolution passing on time for the first time in 17 years, the
House of Representatives passing the plan rigorously and quickly under enormous pressure, the
financial markets have continued to respond in
a very positive way. And many of you have stuck
with us because you understand that this is a
balanced and fair plan. But most Americans
don't know about that because ever since February, the last time I had a chance to discuss
it entirely directly with the American people,
we have seen a barrage of the same old
sloganeering that got us in the fix we're in today.
There is an easy answer: Just don't raise taxes
and cut spending. It's a simple, unqualified
thing. This, from the people who raised all the
spending and cut the taxes in the 1980's.
I want to say again how very grateful I am
for the people who have supported this program,
from the CEO's of companies like AnheuserBusch, ARCO, Ford, NationsBank, Sara Lee,
Tenneco, TRW, Apple, Xerox, and others, to
the Home Builders Association, the Realtors Association, the American Electronics Industry Association, and others. I appreciate that.
You might be interested to know that a Congresswoman from California told me that after
she spent a week at home, after voting for the
plan, in town meetings she met with people
who were angry at her and who left supporting
the plan for two reasons: Number one, they
were astonished to find out what it actually did,
since they couldn't tell from the rhetoric of the
last 3 or 4 months; number two, they were
astonished to know who was for it.
The other day, the Home Builders Association
brought their national officers group in to Maryland to meet with me at a homebuilding site
to reaffirm their support for the program because we got mortgage rates at a 20-year low
and housing sales at a 7-year high.
There has been a calculated effort to distort
and to destroy this program by calling it "tax
and spend." Never mind that for years the leaders of this effort gave us "borrow and spend."
Never mind that they were the architects of
a program that took us from a $1 trillion to
a $4 trillion debt in 12 years, from an annual
deficit of $74 billion a year to over $300 billion
a year. Spending increased more than at any


823




June 9 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


time during World War II in the last 4 years,
and so did borrowing. And we're in a deep
hole. But one more time, the apostles of the
easy answers seek to divert the attention of the
American people with their simple slogans.
I've been through a lot of political wars in
my lifetime. I've, on occasion, gotten knocked
down. Sometimes I've knocked myself down.
But I always try to come back. And this time
the administration is going to come back, because we're telling the truth to the American
people, and if we don't face this problem now,
we're going to let it get out of hand and lose
control of our destiny. That is the big issue,
and we've got to have the courage to face it.
Because there have been so many distortions,
I'd like to go back through this program one
more time, to tell you about the principles that
have to be preserved as this plan works its way
through Congress. First of all, let's take a look
at where the deficit is heading. This is what
I found based on the previous actions of the
last 12 years. If we fail to act, look at where
it's heading and look what the plan now before
the Congress will do to bring it under control.
That's what this first chart shows.
This is the inherited deficit, even after the
1990 plan, the red line. The deficit, with our
budget, is the blue line. I want to come back
to that in a minute, but you will see what I
want to do with the blue line is take it from
where it is in 1997 all the way down to zero.
The slight increase in '98 is due to something
you all know very well; it's the same thing a
lot of you find in your balance sheets. That
is health care costs.
If you want to go from where it is in '97
to zero, we have to bring health care costs in
the Government as well as in the private sector
in line with inflation. That is the sole reason
for that line going up. But as you can see, there
is a huge difference. That's why there's been
a drop in long-term interest rates and mortgage
rates are at a 20-year low, the promise of moving this line from red to blue.
There are things that I think can be done
that will make a huge difference. Now, how
do we get to the red line? First of all, in the
1980's, there was a big tax cut in '81 and a
huge increase in national defense. And even
though there were some restraints in domestic
spending, there was no way in the wide world
the domestic spending cuts got even close to
the defense increases and the tax cuts.


Then in the mid-eighties, when the defense
budget started to go down, by that time, two
other bad things had happened from the point
of view of the deficit: Health care costs were
exploding at 2 and 3 times the rate of inflation,
and the interest payments on the debt had become a churning engine that kept going up and
up and up and were aggravated by high interest
rates, so that we got no benefit from the defense
cuts in terms of the deficit because of the health
care increase and the rise in interest payments.
Interest payments now consume about 15 cents
on the tax dollar. And if we don't do anything
about the size of the deficit, they will be up
over 20 cents on the tax dollar within the next
10 years. These things have to be faced.
Now, let's go to the next chart. My opponents
have been distorting the ratio of spending cuts
to tax increase in all manner of ways. First they
started off saying it was three to one; now
they're saying its six to one. Again, I will say
that this is the crowd that gave you the deficits
of the eighties, and all I used in trying to determine what the ratio of spending to taxes was,
was the same thing my predecessors did in defining what was a reduction in Federal spending.
There are some minor differences in the way
these things are calculated. Actually, the House
Budget Committee has given me more credit
for spending cuts as opposed to tax increases
than we do. But the rough balance is 50-50.
And let me give you an idea of why it's hard
to be exact, because of all the word games that
are played in Washington. I'll give you two examples: one that arguably redounds to my favor,
one that arguably doesn't.
One of the best things about this program
is we increased the earned-income tax creditI'll say a little more about that in a minuteto reward people who move from welfare to
work; to say that if you work 40 hours a week
and you've got kids in the house, the tax system
should lift you above the poverty line. Now,
that's a tax cut, right? Because the earned-income tax credit involves an outlay by the Government, some people count it as a spending
increase, even though it's a tax cut. I think it's
a tax cut. That's the way we count it.
Let me give you another example. Previous
Presidents had counted anything that restricted
Social Security benefits as a spending reduction
in entitlements. Now my adversaries say my proposal to extend income tax consideration to 85
percent of the incomes of the top 20 percent


824




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / June 9


of Social Security earners is a tax increase. In
a literal sense, it's a restriction on entitlements
and a tax increase. You can argue it either way.
Which is better policy? We could restrain
cost-of-living allowances to Social Security recipients, or we could apply taxation to the incomes of upper-income recipients. The fairer
way to do it plainly is to ask the people who
can afford it to pay more as opposed to holding
down the cost-of-living allowances to people just
above the poverty line. One is called a tax increase; the other is called a spending reduction.
It's six of one and half a dozen of the other.
So there are some arguments around the
edges. But basically, this plan is roughly equally
divided between spending cuts and tax increases.
And as those of you who follow this closely
know, we are moving into the Senate where
we hope and believe there will be less tax and
more spending cuts to further improve the ratio.
But I do want to emphasize that there are
significant and very real spending cuts in this
program and, as all of you know again, that
75 percent of the new taxes are paid for by
people with incomes above $100,000, two-thirds
of people with incomes above $200,000, me and
everybody else in this room included in that.
The spending cuts I want to talk to you about,
they're made in discretionary programs, entitlement programs, and interest payments on the
national debt. You can't make cuts of this size
unless you basically disappoint every interest
group in the Congress. For example, in agriculture, we have made cuts in commodity support, crop insurance, and rural electric. We've
asked Federal employees to forego the automatic pay increases tied to inflation they have
been getting for years and years and years to
the tune of $13 billion. We're trimming 150,000
people from the Federal payrolls by attrition
and saving $11 billion in overall administrative
cuts.
We're replacing the existing system of guaranteed student loans in a way that will save $4
billion and is wildly unpopular from the people
who were making money from the student loan
program because it was a Government guarantee
with no risk. If you ask about Medicare, there's
about $60 billion in cuts from Medicare from
the red line I showed you. There are cuts in
Medicaid. There are cuts in military and civilian
retirement, delaying payments for them to reduce our payments on retirement this year and
in the years ahead. No part of the Federal budg

et has been fully spared.
Of the cuts that are made-I don't think I
have a chart on this-but of the cuts that are
made, basically we cut over twice as much and
apply it to the deficit as we cut and apply to
new spending. I've been criticized because I've
advocated some new spending programs. I plead
guilty to that. But I want you to know exactly
what they are.
I plead guilty to believing that it is worth
it to have the Government replace some of these
defense cuts with investments in domestic commercial technologies and new partnerships with
the private sector. That's what our competitors
do. I think we have to compete.
I plead guilty to wanting to fully fund the
Head Start program, because we've got all these
underprivileged kids out there that need to be
very privileged and empowered adults, and I
think we ought to fully fund the program as
part of an overall strategy to meet the national
education goals. I plead guilty to that. I think
it's worth the money.
There are some targeted and limited funds
in there to help every State in the country work
with the private sector to set up a system of
apprenticeship for all the people who don't go
to college and a system of lifetime learning because the average worker will change jobs seven
or eight times in a lifetime. It's not a lot of
money, but it needs to be spent. I plead guilty.
I think it is worth the investment.
These kinds of things matter to a society over
the long run. The irony of the last 12 years
is that because of, first, our reliance on defense
spending to boost the economy, and then when
defense spending was cut, our explosion of
health care costs and interest payments, we have
actually reduced our investments in a lot of the
things that make us a richer country, even as
this deficit has exploded.
So, those are the things that have been cut.
A member of the more liberal wing of the
Democratic Party called me the other day and
said, "We have done you a terrible disservice.
You told us we had to cut this spending, and
we did it. And because there was no conflict,
there was no publicity on it. Now nobody in
America thinks you cut any spending. And you
cut retirement; you cut Medicare; you cut Medicaid; you went after Social Security. You cut
all these discretionary spending programs, and
nobody knows it." Well, I'll predict you'll hear
more about it in the days and weeks ahead


825




June 9 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


from the people who feel that they have been
rolled and gotten no credit for it. There are
a lot of budget cuts in this program, and there
will be some more. But the lion's share of the
work has been done there.
As I said before and as you can see-and
I might as well make full disclosure since I'm
here with you-the effect of the new taxes is
highly progressive, with almost all the real burden falling on people in the top one percent
of the income category and 75 percent of the
money being paid for by the top 6 percent.
Now, that tracks income growth and tax reductions in the eighties. That is, it reverses the
fact of the eighties where middle class taxes
were increased through the Social Security tax
while middle class incomes declined. But we
do ask, through the energy tax, a contribution
from virtually all Americans, not including those
with incomes under $30,000 with one or two
kids in the family. Otherwise, everybody else
is asked to pay something.
Now, as I said, I want to mention a couple
of other things. In addition to the spending programs, there are some incentives in this program
that a lot of people asked for; maybe some of
you in this room did. But I want to run through
them, because they cost money, too, but I think
they're worth it. And you have to decide whether you think they are.
The small business community for years has
been asking us to increase the expensing provisions from $10,000 to $25,000 on the theory
that they're creating most of the new jobs, and
this will help them to do it. So that's what
this bill does. The Venture Capital Association
for years has been asking us to adopt a venture
capital gains tax that would provide huge incentives for people to start new enterprises. We
do that in this bill. It costs some money. I
think it's worth it.
After the Tax Reform Act of 1986, many businesses, including businesses in this room, said
there had to be some changes in the alternative
minimum tax provisions of the Tax Code if we
wanted people to continue to invest in plant
and equipment in this country because of the
unfair way the alternative minimum tax works.
And we changed it in this Tax Code. We were
asked to do it by many people. I think it makes
sense. We did it. It's in the Code. It costs
money.
For years, Republicans and Democrats alike
who actually live out there where people are


struggling to make a living have believed that
if we wanted to do something meaningful for
inner cities and poor rural areas, we had to
try to get the private sector more involved, and
we had to use market mechanisms. And there
are any number of suggestions under the socalled enterprise zone rhetoric about that.
We have, in this proposal, an empowerment
zone concept which is by far the most ambitious
incentives program ever offered to try to get
the private sector involved in distressed areas
in America on an experimental basis: to pick
15 or 20 communities and say, "If you hire
people from there, you get a credit; if you invest
there, you get a permanent credit," and to provide all kinds of other resources in terms of
training and support to people who will try to
make the private sector work. It's almost 100
percent a private sector initiative. But it costs
money.
Is it worth it? I think it is. There's not enough
Government money in the world to rebuild
south central Los Angeles or some of the most
distressed areas in other cities in our country
or the Mississippi Delta where I live. But it
costs money. But we have to try, I think.
So you have spending reductions. You have
tax increases. You have some new spending, and
you have a significant amount of private sector
incentives in this bill. I think it's all worthwhile.
The most interesting thing is the signals that
have been sent to the markets and the result.
Now, if I had told you in December-to me
this is the most amazing thing of all, and I
can't take credit for this. This chart, in some
ways belongs to my friend John Scully at Apple
Computers. He came in last week, and he said,
"Bill, I know you must be low, and I read all
the press and the polls and everything." He
said, "I am happy as a clam." And I said, "Are
you happy as a clam because you're a Republican, and I'm in trouble?" He says, "No, I'm
happy as a clam because I'm an American."
He said, "If somebody had told you 4 months
ago that by June 1st unemployment would drop
below 7 percent for the first time in 17 months,
that we'd have 755,000 new jobs, over 90 percent of them in the private sector, that we'd
have a 20-year low in mortgage rates and a
7-year high in housing sales, and that people
would be responding to the program to seriously
reduce the deficit and grow the economy, would
you have been happy?" He said, "I don't know
why everybody's not happy." He said, "I make


826




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / June 9


a living thinking about the long run and thinking
about what's happening. This is working."
I believe it's working, too. Now the program
is going into the Senate, and they will change
it some in cooperation with the House Members, I might add. There's an unusual amount
of cooperation here among people who really
want to do something. There will be at least
one meeting a day between Senators and House
Members before the Senate even votes, something that's almost unheard of. People just trying
to work together to work this out.
Here's what I think ought to come out of
that. There should be some less tax and some
more spending cuts. We should have $500 billion in overall deficit reduction, all the cuts in
the taxes ought to be in a trust fund so they
can't be put anywhere else. There ought to be
an enforcement mechanism for the first time
that requires the President-because who can
foresee what's going to happen 5 years from
now? It would be hard for all of you to adopt
5-year budgets with absolute certainty. Nobody
can do that. This bill has an enforcement mechanism that says if we miss the deficit target
every year, the President has to come in and
offer a plan to fix it. Not just shrug your shoulders and say, oh, it's too bad, the economy was
down, or something else went wrong, but a plan
to fix it, to live with the discipline that the
numbers will impose. That's something new, and
it ought to stay in there.
The third thing that ought to be in there
is the progressivity of this program. Middle class
Americans are being asked to pay a modest
amount, much less than most of them think
now because of the rhetoric of the last few
months but a modest amount. It still ought to
be progressive because of the tax history and
the income history of the last 12 years. So it
should be progressive.
We should leave the empowerment initiatives
there. The empowerment zones, the small business incentives, the new business incentives, the
changes in the alternative minimum tax, in my
judgment, ought to be left in there. We should
have the targeted investments. And I believe
there must be some sort of broad-based energy
tax.
I must say that when I first started on thisand my economic adviser over here, Bob Rubin,
as most of you know, has laughed a lot when
he sees people say, oh, this is such a liberal
program-Rubin, Bentsen, and Panetta, my


three deficit hawks, were the people who convinced me that it was worth it even to raise
a little more tax if we had to do it to get
the deficit down and the interest rates down
to get the country going again, not the liberals
in my Cabinet who were worried about all of
that. The others, the business people did it,
the people who understood the financial markets. They said, "We've got to get the interest
rates down, and we've got to get the deficit
down, even if we have to take a little more
heat for the taxes."
So we are trying to come to grips with this.
But I know when we started I was told by
person after person after person in New York,
"If you want to have an influence on interest
rates, you've got to do two things: deal with
entitlements and have an energy tax, because
that looks real to us." Well, we did those things
and cut a lot of other spending besides.
So, is this a perfect program? No, there's no
such thing. Is it a good one? You bet it is.
You can tell by the results. Is the Senate going
to work on it? Yes, it is. The Senate will work
on it. Then the House and the Senate and the
White House will confer. And we'll try to come
out with a program which meets these principles. I believe we will.
The main thing I want to say is, it is hard
to quarrel with results. And I hope to goodness
it is going to be very hard to go back to the
same old siren song we've heard time and time
again. I've heard all these people say, "Well,
just cut spending." It turns out they always want
somebody else's spending cut. And we have cut
a lot of spending. There are some kinds of
spending that everybody in this room wouldn't
support. If we don't have it quite right, you
can tell us what you think.
Now, let me just also say, the House passed
the modified line-item veto. And if the Senate
would pass that, I'll give you some more spending cuts. If the Senate will give me that, I'll
be happy to give you some more spending cuts
and bring it down a little more. And I'm hoping
that will come out of this whole budgetary process, so the President can have some more discipline on spending.
But the thing we have to do most of all is
to act. We have to act. We have to act, because
that is the only thing that will produce results.
I believe that we're going to do that. I think
you will see the Senate act. I think you will
see the Senate and the House come forward


827




June 9 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


with a program that meets the basic principles
that I have outlined. I think you will see America in control of its economic destiny. I think
interest rates will stay down and growth will
stay up, and we'll continue to generate jobs for
this economy.
But it requires a lot of courage when all you
hear, day-in and day-out, are people trying to
paralyze action with the same old rhetoric that
put us to sleep for 12 years and got us in the
fix that the first chart showed. I like these results better than that first chart. And if you
do, I hope you'll support our efforts.
Thank you very much.
Moderator. Mr. President, we thank you for
a very substantive and significant speech. The
President, ladies and gentlemen, has offered to
answer some questions, so I'll turn it over to
him for that purpose.
The President. Is somebody carrying a microphone?
Taxes
Q. Mr. President, as one who just refinanced
my own home mortgage, I want to thank you
for that.
My question really goes to the apparent demise of the Btu tax, which was announced by
Secretary Bentsen yesterday, and obviously, the
work with Congress that's required in the last
administration or this one to make anything really happen. I heard you say that another broadbased energy tax would be recommended. I appreciate any comment you'd have on that and
why you think another broad-based energy tax
might get more reception or, rather, not have
the same treatment that the Btu tax did.
The President. Well, let me say I'm still not
sure how it's all going to come out. And let
me try to answer this very carefully. Secretary
Bentsen did not so much announce as to grudgingly acknowledge-[laughter]-the state of play
in the Senate. And it's quite interesting, because
he's from an energy State, and he came to this
Btu tax after going through a lot of other issues.
Let me tell you what the state of play in
the Senate is, first of all. You've got essentially
a Senate Finance Committee where no Republicans will vote for this bill because they are
not going to be for any taxes. And the Boren
substitute is a massive shift of the burden to
elderly people and the working people just
above the poverty line. And if it got on the
floor of the Senate, I bet it wouldn't get 20


votes. So there is no other viable alternative
out there.
But with an 11-to-9 majority, the Democrats
cannot lose any votes on the Senate Finance
Committee and get any bill out. Now, Secretary
Bentsen had what I thought was a great suggestion for modifying the Btu tax which would essentially have drastically alleviated, all but eliminated, the burden on production, whether industrial or agricultural, but would have otherwise
left the tax in shape, so that it applied to all
forms of energy and, therefore, was less burdensome to any region of the country but got out
of the whole business of whether we were being
uncompetitive with people from-when we exported our products or whether imports would
acquire a competitive advantage, and whether
we were putting too much of a burden on energy-intensive forms of industry which had led
the House to make too many exceptions to it.
So if you just essentially had a blanket alleviation
of the production sector, which is what Secretary
Bentsen was talking with them about, it looked
to us like that was the best thing.
There had been so much said about the wording of the Btu tax-and, I must say, some legitimate concern about the whole administrative
difficulty of starting a new one-the Senate
seems disinclined to go forward. That does not
mean that the House will give up on a modified
Btu tax. I don't know what's going to happen
from here on in. And we have not agreed to
anything or disagreed with anything. We have
been in consultation with the Senate and would
go to any meeting they asked us to. But they're
going to have to come up with their own program. And they know what the principles I have
outlined are. And I just gave them to you. So
I don't know what's going to happen now.
Senator Breaux has some ideas that he wants
to float, and some others have some ideas. I
think you'll have plenty of time to react to them.
A lot of them want to rely more on a broadbased transportation tax, but that also has some
economic difficulties even if you raise less
money.
The number one thing: 100 percent of us
agreed and the House Members agreed that
we would lower the dollar volume of the energy
tax, the total money raised, and make it up
in various kinds of cuts. And I think that's where
everybody is now. Everybody is there.
And let me just run a few other things out
here. There is also a discussion about whether


828




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / June 9


or not there should be a delay in the effective
date of the taxes, the income taxes. That's being
discussed, the economic grounds for that. And
there are all kinds of discussions about that.
I want to red-flag one issue for all of you
who provide comprehensive health policies for
your employees, though, again, because sometimes things are not what they seem. We cut
about $60 billion in Medicare expenditures over
and above the red line I showed you. That is,
that was a big part of our deficit reduction.
There are those who say, "Well, we ought to
cut a lot more, and we can freeze provider fees
and we can do all this kind of stuff with Medicare." I would urge all of you as employers
to look at that very closely because, again, it's
a sleight of hand. You know, yes, we can cut
the fool out of Medicare. But if we don't have
some sort of comprehensive resolution to the
health care crisis, what will happen? The same
thing that's been happening the last 12 years:
All those people will send you the bill.
There will be massive cost-shifting with certain kinds of Medicare cuts unless it is part
of an overall health care strategy, which just
means a hidden tax on employers and their employees, which is the very thing I'm trying to
get away from, anything hidden. And it contradicts one of the essential goals of our longterm strategy, which is to bring health costs
in line with inflation and fairly apportion the
burden throughout society, which it's not now.
Most of you are paying too much and your
employees are because of the way the thing
is.
So I'm not trying to avoid your question, I'm
just trying to tell you I do not know what the
Senate will do. My position has been to try
to tell them what my principles are; make Secretary Bentsen and Mr. Panetta available to
them to discuss everything; ask them to be faithful to the House by involving the House Members in the discussions, because a lot of House
Members passed this budget on the understanding there would be some less tax and some
more spending cuts and that they would be a
part of it. And I don't know what's going to
come out of there yet.
Deficit Reduction
Q. My question is this: We in the Roundtable,
of course, have made deficit reduction a major
issue for a long, long time. And we applaud
your efforts in that regard and certainly are


hopeful that the $500 billion sort of reduction
over the 4- or 5-year period will be forthcoming.
And we're working, as you know, with your administration and Bob Rubin and Leon and others. But even if that objective is achieved, it's
clear we have a very significant continuing deficit problem. What is it, $1 trillion over the next
4 or 5 years? The deficit only goes from the
baseline number of 3.3 percent to about 2.7
percent of GDP. We still have a big, big deficit
problem.
My question is, how do you feel about the
proposals for process reform that I gather are
gaining some currency in the Congress, to put
the spending caps on the entitlement programs,
the nondiscretionary programs, as well as the
discretionary programs, with the fire walls and
with the sequestration. How do you look at that
whole issue of process reform to deal with this
underlying problem of a deficit that doesn't
seem to come under manageable proportions?
The President. I want to answer it, but I'd
like to ask for-where did those charts go? Are
they still up here? I just wanted the first one
back to try to highlight the point you're making.
Just bring me back the first one, the one with
the red and blue lines.
This is what he's talking about. This line here
ought to go down to here. And I want to answer
your question, but I've got to put it into context.
This deficit here is actually about-it's more,
it's about-it's over 5 percent of GDP, and
we're going to cut it from 5.2 down to about
2.7 or 2.6 here, to a pretty good cut. But it
does continue to increase the total national debt
by what's down here.
Now, in the mid-seventies, I started looking
at what other countries had done on this. This
is not an unusual problem for a Western country
with a lot of support systems coming out of
the Government and difficulty generating jobs
and income. I mean, a lot of these Western
countries are in the same shape we're in, and
I include Japan with that.
Japan had a huge operating deficit in the midseventies. And they had a 10-year plan to bring
it into balance which they did over a 10-year
period, thinking that to rush it any faster might
cause a recession, but to delay it would be a
terrible mistake. So I thought to myself, maybe
we could do it in 8 or 9 or something likein that range, if we could just deal with this.
This is where you have to take the curve down.
Now, to get the curve down, I can just tell


829




June 9 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


you, we have to do a number of things. But
let me say what we cannot do and then what
we must do, and then I'll come back to your
cap device. There is a limit to how much we
can responsibly cut defense within a short time.
I think we are right at that edge. I do not
want to cut any more in this 5-year budget.
Based on what we now know, we are at that
limit, unless there-the only other way you can
do it that I know of is the Vice President has
this reinventing Government task force on. If
we can have significant procurement reform, we
might be able to have some savings. But in
just terms of "slash and burn," we don't need
to do any more in my opinion.
Secondly, as I said earlier, there are some
things that any government has to do to maintain its competitiveness. And thirdly, there are
just human concerns that have to be taken care
of, even though they're subject to constraints
of the budget. For example, a lot of people
don't know this, but actual out-of-pocket costs
on welfare and food stamps haven't kept up
with inflation in the last 10 or 15 years. The
reason those costs have gone up is that there's
a whole lot more poor people. You've got 1
in 10 Americans on food stamps now.
But this number, anyway, to go back to his
comment, is being driven by two things. One
is the entitlements and the fact that things like
retirement,' wages, Social Security, and whole
lot of other things have automatic cost escalators. The one that is not a problem is Social
Security. Social Security is no more of our national income than it was 20 years ago, and
the tax is higher. And it's producing a $60 billion
a year surplus that makes our deficit look smaller than it is. If anything, the payroll tax is too
big. But it is producing that.
On the income tax side, what you've got,
though-here's the problem with paying for the
rest of that stuff that's paid for with income
taxes. We are now indexing income taxes, which
is fair. That is, people don't get pushed into
higher brackets by inflation. But the flip side
of that is, if you index income taxes downward
and you index income upward for people who
are getting tax money, you don't have to be
a mathematical genius to realize that there is
a conflict there. Then, if you have health care
costs increasing at 2 and 3 times the rate of
inflation-because you've got more people on
the Government rolls, about 100,000 a month
losing their health insurance; you have more


people on the Government rolls, prices going
up and the ability to churn the system, if there's
a fee-for-service system, you've got some real
problems.
There are several suggestions which have
been made that would essentially require us
over the next 5 years to adopt a disciplined
system of bringing the cost of entitlements in
line with inflation, plus population, to be fair.
They're all acknowledging that if there's a
growth in poverty or an unexpected downturn
in the economy, we would take that into account. I would be open to that as a part of
the health care reform issue. That is, what I
would like to see is the budgetary discipline
on the entitlement issue taken up with health
care reform for this reason: If we impose the
entitlement caps and we don't face health care
reform because it's too controversial or we can't
bear to do it, then if the entitlement caps trigger, we will be massively shifting our cost to
you, like I said earlier.
The other tough decisions can be made within
the budget discipline. But the health care cost
issue which is driving it, in my judgment, should
be dealt with at the time we impose the overall
entitlement restrictions over a 5-year period.
That protects the employers and the employees
of the country from having mass cost-shifting
and forces us to make the tough decisions in
Government. But anyway, I know it's a long
answer, but I had to explain it in the context
that we're operating.
There was a question over here, I think.
Superfund
Q. The Business Roundtable believes that the
only way to fix Superfund is to make some fundamental change in the law. If you agree, would
you support a legislative fix?
The President. To change the Superfund?
Q. Yes.
The President. Oh, sure I would, but I would
want to know what the details are first. But
I agree that it needs to be changed, and I'm
certainly open to changing it. Lawyers are making more money than cleanup folks are right
now.
Let me say as a general proposition on the
spending issue, too, there are two other opportunities that the Congress and the President will
have to deal with, Government spending and
the efficiency of Government programs, this
year in addition to this reconciliation process


830




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / June 9


which is going on, and that is that all the appropriations committees are reviewing all their
spending.
Keep in mind, what you see now in the budget only includes tax cuts or tax increases and
the entitlement programs and the overall spending limits. The specific programs, whether
they're cut, increased, or kept the same, that's
all handled by the Appropriations Committee,
and that's going on now, too. And that will offer
other opportunities for dealing with the spending issues.
And the third thing that's going to happen
is in September the Vice President is going to
come in with this report about reexamining the
whole functioning of the Federal Government,
and that will open a new avenue of opportunities
for dealing with a lot of these issues also.
Is there another question back there? I
thought I saw one more hand up. The boss
here says we can do one more. Am I going
to get out without one more? I accept if-go
ahead. I'll do two more. Mr. Morecott once
let me play golf with him, so I owe him a
question. [Laughter]
Trade Negotiations
Q. Mr. President, we heard this morning,
some of us, from Mickey Kantor about trade
issues, North American trade agreement, Uruguay round, and negotiating with Japan. Can
you just comment on those subjects briefly,
starting with NAFTA?
The President. Yes. I'm for it, number one.
I'm for it.
Number two, we can't pass it in the House
of Representatives today, but I think we'll be
able to when the time comes.
Number three, the reason we can't pass it
and what we're doing with the Mexican and
the Canadian Governments are tied together but
not-it's not an exact fit, but let me-you know
that there's just an awful lot of economic insecurity out there now in this country. And a lot
of the Members are rebelling against NAFTA
because they see it as the first trade agreement
we've ever made where we're making investment easier in another country for the purpose
of setting up production to sell in our market,
not theirs.
So that's the basic tension, because of the
wage differentials. My argument back is the argument that most of you would make, I think,
which is that, first of all, you've got a free

market oriented government in Mexico that has
unilaterally dropped trade barriers and taken us
from a $5 billion deficit to a $6 billion surplus
in trade, creating an awful lot of jobs in America.
Secondly, two-thirds of our new jobs in the
last 3 or 4 years have come from expansion
of trade. Our unemployment problems today are
directly related to the fact that our economy,
even though it's in a fragile recovery, is in better
shape than a lot of other economies which is
making our trade situation worse because people
don't have the money to buy our products.
What will happen in Asia and in Europe is
unpredictable in the years ahead, but we believe
we need to establish a relationship not only with
Mexico but with the other market economies
to the south. Opportunities with Chile, with
Venezuela, with Argentina, with all kinds of
other countries could open up. So I'm for it.
What Mickey Kantor-he's already talked to
you about this-but we're trying to get an agreement on labor standards and the environment
with the Mexican and Canadian Governments
which would enable us to have some sort of
enforcement mechanism, not only if there is one
violation but if there is a whole pattern and
practice of violations as found by a neutral finder of facts. So that's what we're trying to work
out. My gut feeling is that will get worked out
pretty soon. We'll go forward with it, and we
will pass it. That's what I think will happen.
On GATT, as you probably saw in the press
this morning, the French Government has withdrawn some of its objections on the agriculture
points of view. That makes me elated. I think
that's where that's a real winner for us and
is likely to face less opposition in Congress.
Not very long ago, I met with the central
bankers and the finance ministers of the C7. And I told them that on behalf of the United
States I would make exceptional efforts to get
a GAFT agreement if they would, and I thought
we ought to stop talking about it and do it
and do it before the year is over because we
all needed the global growth. And so I'm hopeful there. And I think the French action is a
big plus, and I thank them for that.
On Japan, basically, we're trying to move toward a more results-oriented trade policy with
Japan, not to get to the managed trade quota
point that they're criticizing us for but in recognition of the fact that there are several areas
where by any objective measure we are competi

831




June 9 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


tive in price and quality for various products
and services. And while they don't have stated
tariffs and quotas and barriers that keep us out,
we nevertheless aren't in and don't get in and
can't get in. And so what we're trying to do
is to find our way into dealing with that issue
on the theory that it's just-I don't want to
close American borders to Japanese products,
but I do expect more opportunities for Americans in Japan if we're going to play this.
I know the Japanese have been very harsh
in their criticism of our new approach. But that
could be because it might work. And I know
that they've been harsh in their criticism, but
I also know that, notwithstanding all of the problems around, they not only have a massive surplus with us, they're about the only country
I know that's got a massive trade surplus with
all the Third World countries they deal with,
all of them.
So I just think a new approach is called for.
And I say that not in the spirit of hostility.
I think I probably have more pure admiration
for Japan and what they do right and well than
any other person that's ever held this job. But
I know what's happened to American productivity growth in the last 5 or 6 years. And I know
what we can do there if given the chance. And
I think we've got to do our best to do it.
If you think we're on the wrong track, feel


free to tell us. But I believe we've got to keep
pushing forward to try to show you some results
from all this talking. We've been talking until
we're blue in the face for a long time now.
I'd like to show a little bit of result.
Q. That was the question I had.
The President. Let me just say to all of you,
we're going to need your help on NAFTA because to pass it, the Congress, and particularly
the House, must believe that over the long run
it is good for American jobs and incomes. I
believe it is. I believe it is. I wouldn't be for
it if I didn't think it was. And it just doesn't
make sense to me that we can ever grow this
economy unless we expand the number of our
trading partners and unless we are doing more
trade with people whose incomes are rising rather rapidly.
The Mexicans have reached out their hand
to us. I want to reach out my hand to President
Salinas. And I think we can get over this negotiating impasse we're at now and then go forward. And that's what I intend to do.
Thank you very much.
NOTE: The President spoke at 3:22 p.m. at the
J.W. Marriott Hotel. In his remarks, he referred
to John Ong, chief executive officer, B.F. Goodrich.


Remarks and an Exchange With Reporters Prior to a Meeting With the
Domestic Policy Council
June 10, 1993


Economic Program
The President. I want to make a statement
now that we have the Domestic Policy Council
here, about what is going on in the Senate.
First of all, I'm very encouraged that the Senate Finance Committee is working hard in trying
to push the process forward. I want to reemphasize that, to me, in the end, we have to have
certain basic principles satisfied: $500 billion in
deficit reduction in the trust fund so that all
the spending cuts and taxes have to be protected
for that; $250 billion of spending cuts. The taxes
have to fall primarily on those best able to pay
them. Right now, over two-thirds of the taxes
fall on people with incomes above $200,000,


75 percent on people with incomes above
$100,000. I want the energy tax to be pro-conservation and as broad-based as possible. And
I want the initiatives for growth and jobs in
there, the earned-income tax credit to encourage
the working poor to move out of poverty, the
empowerment zones for investment in our cities,
the incentives to create jobs. Those are the principles that I want.
I want to remind you all, too, that the Senate
and House will naturally have some disagreements. But when we wind up in conference,
we can perhaps get the best bill of all. The
main thing, until the Senate acts, we can't go
to conference and get a final bill to continue


832




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / June 10


this progress.
What the final shape of the energy portion
of this will be no one can now say because
that will have to await the conference. But I
am very encouraged that progress is being made,
and I do appreciate the fact that the Senate
began consultations with the House yesterday,
which is consistent with the commitments that
were made on that.
Q. Where is the progress?
Q. Well, what do you say to Democrats in
the House who feel like they walked the plank
on the budget for nothing at this point?
The President. They didn't walk the plank on
the budget for nothing. Their budget is going
to be part of the conference. And they are being
consulted now, and no decision has been made
by the Senate yet.
You know, Chairman Moynihan and Senator
Mitchell started with the Senators who are most
hostile to the Btu tax. But they have 11 Senators
on a committee they have to satisfy. And then
they have to get a majority in the body of the
Senate. So no decisions have been made yet.
And most of those House Members with whom
I talked in the process of passing the bill
through the House only wanted to make sure
that the House would also be consulted before
the Senate committee finally voted. And we took
steps to ensure that, and they began the consultative process yesterday.
Q. You've got the Black Caucus apparently
so upset that they're not coming to a meeting
here. What do you tell those people?
The President. That is not why there's not
going to be a meeting here. But the Black Caucus, if they want to advocate for the Btu tax,
you know, I like it. I think it's the best and
fairest tax. And I think the Secretary of the


Treasury made a very good proposal for a modification of it. But neither they nor I have a
vote on the Senate Finance Committee. The
Btu levy will be in the conference, and no decision has been made. I have not signed off on
any energy proposal in the Senate yet. I believe
that the proposal we made is the best one we
have. But neither they nor I have a vote on
the Senate Finance Committee.
Let me say, in the end, the most important
thing is that we bring the deficit down, that
we cut spending, that we raise taxes on the
wealthy, and that we invest money to grow this
economy. That's the most important thing.
We've got to find a way to do that consistent
with what has happened already. And I'm very
encouraged. I don't think-the American people
shouldn't be upset by what's going on. They
should go talk to their Senators if they have
a different view and they want them to take
a different view toward these particular taxes.
That's what I'm trying to do, is to get the House
and the Senate to work together before the Senate Finance Committee even votes.
Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
Q. Why are there troops on the ground in
Macedonia, Mr. President?
The President. To limit the conflict. As we
said all along, we would support the United
Nations in limiting the conflict. It's a very limited thing. No combat but an attempt to limit
the conflict.
NOTE: The President spoke at 10:07 a.m. in the
Cabinet Room at the White House. A tape was
not available for verification of the content of
these remarks.


Remarks on Signing the National Cooperative Production Amendments of
1993
June 10, 1993
I want to thank Senator Leahy, Senator     that the Justice Department did on this bill,
Biden, Congressman Brooks, and Congressman   H.R. 1313, called the National Cooperative ProFish for being here today and for their leader-  duction Amendments of 1993.
ship in helping to enact into law the bill I am  This bill was the embodiment of the concept
about to sign. I want to thank the Attorney  that the Vice President, who has just come inGeneral for her presence here and for the work  come on up. Good to see you. He's magical.


833




June 10 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


I uttered his name, and he appeared. [Laughter]
This bill is the embodiment of the concept that
the Vice President and I strongly espoused during our campaign last year. It will allow American companies, large and small, to pool their
resources to compete and win in the international marketplace.
Our Nation leads the world in basic research.
We also have to be second to none in moving
new technologies from the laboratory to the
marketplace.  We    have  to   unleash  the
creativeness and the inventive prowess of both
corporate giants and start-up enterprises in
order to spur economic growth and new jobs.
The cooperative arrangements envisioned by
this legislation will become increasingly necessary as the costs and skills required to develop
and manufacture new products exceed the resources of any single company. These alliances
will also help our businesses reduce the time
required to bring new products to market, which
frequently determines who wins and who loses
in today's competitive marketplace. Successful
companies, in turn, will create high-wage, highskill jobs that will help to revitalize our economy.
By clarifying and eliminating misapprehensions about antitrust risk, this legislation will
allow joint ventures that can increase efficiency,
facilitate entry into markets, and create new productive capacity that otherwise would simply not
be achieved.
I'm confident this legislation will benefit both
the consumers and the workers in the United
States by strengthening our industrial base while
maintaining a sound antitrust oversight to pre

vent improper collusion. Now is the time to
strip away outdated impediments to economic
growth and to our potential and to begin real
movement in this last decade of the 20th century.
I'm pleased that the committee report stresses
that this legislation is consistent with our international obligations. Our administration will implement this legislation in a way that honors
the commitments as set forth in our treaties
of friendship, commerce, and navigation, bilateral investment treaties, and free trade agreements, and various organizations for economic
cooperation and development.
Again, I want to commend Chairman Brooks,
Senator Leahy, Senator Biden, Congressman
Fish, and all the other Members of the Congress
who worked so hard to make this bill a reality
and the leadership of both the House and the
Senate. This is an example of how you can have
a real bipartisan coalition to make America work
again, to help our business and our working
people to move forward in the global economy.
And I am very excited about it.
And I know that the Vice President joins me
in thanking the congressional sponsors for their
strong leadership. And I want to thank all the
people here around me who helped to make
the bill a reality, members of the congressional
staffs and of the high-tech community.
NOTE: The President spoke at 5:15 p.m. in the
Oval Office at the White House. H.R. 1313, approved June 10, was assigned Public Law No.
103-42. A tape was not available for verification
of the content of these remarks.


Remarks on Signing the National Institutes of Health Revitalization Act of
1993
June 10, 1993


The President. Ladies and gentlemen, I want
to welcome all those of you who are here today
for the signing of S. 1, the National Institutes
of Health Revitalization Act of 1993, and to
especially recognize the bipartisan coalition
which made this bill possible, led by the Senators and the Members of the House of Representatives who are here. I also want to thank
the representatives of the groups who are here,


including the Women's Health Network, the Juvenile Diabetes Foundation, the American Association of Medical Colleges, the Allen
Guttmacher Institute, the Alzheimer's Association, the Human Rights Campaign Fund, the
Breast Cancer Coalition, and the National
Health Council, and perhaps others. If I've left
anyone out, forgive me.
This legislation highlights the importance of


834




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / June 10


programs administered by the National Institutes of Health, programs vital to our science
and biomedical research base. The research carried out at NIH has already led to a healthier
and far more productive America. However,
there are many challenges still ahead. And this
legislation provides the hope that someday we
can prevent or cure diseases such as diabetes,
cancer, coronary heart disease, AIDS, and Alzheimer's.
I'm particularly supportive of those provisions
of S. 1 aimed at improving the health of women
and minorities. It's important that we ensure
that resources are devoted to increasing our
knowledge about conditions which uniquely affect these populations. It's equally important
that we expand opportunities and support for
the inclusion of women and minorities in research activities.
In the 12 years since AIDS was first reported
in the United States, much progress has been
made through NIH-supported research. Gains
have been made in making available treatment
for AIDS and AIDS-related conditions. And
clinical trials are underway to test possible vaccines for prevention or treatment of HIV infection.
Someday we're going to have a treatment for
all those beepers that go off. [Laughter] They
have to go to a vote. That's why we're hurrying
this up.
We still face, however, an immense undertaking to address the needs of the nearly 300 of
our fellow citizens who become infected with
HIV each and every day. We must improve the
effectiveness of our prevention activity, increase
access to early treatment for already infected
individuals, and strengthen our research programs. I am pleased to say that S. 1 provides
a framework for the increased coordination and
direction of AIDS research.
Finally, S. 1 reinforces my action of January
22d to lift the moratorium on Federal funding
of transplantation research involving human subjects using fetal tissue from induced abortions.
This research has promising application for the
treatment of life-threatening conditions including Parkinson's disease, spinal cord injuries,
Huntington's, and diabetes. At the same time,
S. 1 puts in place important safeguards to ensure
against possible abuses by providing a clear separation between research and abortion.


In signing the legislation, I underscore our
commitment to address the immeasurable cost
to our society and the suffering of our citizens
from illness and disability. By strengthening and
enhancing biomedical and behavioral research,
this National Institutes of Health Revitalization
Act is an important step in fulfilling our commitment to promote the health and well-being of
all Americans.
And again, let me say a profound thanks on
behalf of our Nation to the Senators and Members of Congress who are here and to those
not here who provided important leadership in
this effort.
[At this point, the President signed the bill.]
Q. Mr. President, what about the provision
barring immigration by HIV-positive individuals
in this bill?
The President. That's the will of the Congress.
That's part of the law. I don't think in any
way it undermines the overall importance of this
law. We have to learn to deal with AIDS better
for all of our people and for those who are
here within our borders who are not citizens,
we've got all we can do to do that. And I think
we could benefit people all around if we can
make progress in dealing with AIDS.
I think everybody who played a part in the
developing of this legislation thinks that it's on
balance still a dramatic step forward.
Let me just say on the fetal tissue issue alone,
I can't tell you how many people I met all
over this country in 1992 from both political
parties who came to my campaign and supported me simply because I wanted to put a
scientific basis back in our decisions on fetal
tissue, I mean, people with parents with Parkinson's, with children with diabetes. One person
who became a very close friend of mine and
is now in our administration as the Director
of the Small Business Administration in part
came to my campaign because he had a child
with diabetes.
This is a very, very important bill. And I thank
all of you for what you did.
NOTE: The President spoke at 5:37 p.m. in the
Roosevelt Room at the White House. S. 1, approved June 10, was assigned Public Law No.
103-43.


835




June 10 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


Letter to Congressional Leaders on the Situation in Somalia
June 10, 1993


Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)
On December 10, 1992, President Bush reported to the Congress that U.S. Armed Forces
had been deployed to Somalia to assist the United Nations effort to deal with the human catastrophe in that country, to avert related threats
to international peace and security, and to protect the safety of Americans and others engaged
in relief operations. This action was part of a
multilateral response to U.N. Security Council
Resolution 794, which authorized Member
States, under Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter,
to use all necessary means to establish a secure
environment for humanitarian relief operations
in Somalia. Since that time, my Administration
and its predecessor have endeavored, through
briefings and other means, to keep you informed
about the progress of U.S. efforts in Somalia.
I am providing this further report, consistent
with the War Powers Resolution, in light of the
passage of 6 months since President Bush's initial report on the deployment of U.S. Armed
Forces to Somalia.
As you are aware, the U.S.-led operation,
known as Operation Restore Hope, was responsible for stemming the tragic situation and saving many lives by ensuring that desperately
needed relief efforts in behalf of the civilian
population could proceed. Owing in large measure to the success of the U.S.-led Unified Task
Force in Somalia (UNITAF), the responsibility
for the continuing operation was transferred in
an orderly fashion to the operational control of
the U.N. Operation in Somalia (UNOSOM II)
on May 4, 1993, pursuant to U.N. Security
Council Resolution 814. This Resolution similarly invoked Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter
and endowed UNOSOM II with the right to
use force to ensure that the mandate is implemented.
The United States continues to support U.N.
efforts in Somalia by providing approximately
3,000 U.S. logistics and other support personnel
under the operational control of UNOSOM II.
In addition, approximately 1,100 U.S. troops remain in the area as a Quick Reaction Force
(QRF), under the operational control of the
Commander in Chief, U.S. Central Command,


for use in emergency situations. The UNOSOM
II deputy commander, a U.S. Army general who
is the U.S. contingent commander, is authorized
to send the QRF into action as may be necessary.
On June 5, 1993, UNOSOM II forces operating in Mogadishu encountered attacks instigated
by one of Somalia's factional leaders, resulting
in the deaths of 23 Pakistani military personnel.
Three U.S. military personnel assigned to
UNOSOM II sustained minor injuries. As envisioned in response to such situations, the QRF
was called upon to assist in quelling the violence
against the lawful activities of UNOSOM II in
implementing the U.N. mandate. On June 6,
1993, the U.N. Security Council adopted Resolution 837, reaffirming the authority of
UNOSOM II to take all necessary measures
against those responsible for these armed attacks.
Our forces will remain equipped and prepared
to accomplish their humanitarian mission and
defend themselves, if necessary; they also will
be provided such additional U.S. support as may
be necessary to ensure their safety and the accomplishment of their mission.
I have continued the deployment of U.S.
Armed Forces to Somalia pursuant to my constitutional authority to conduct U.S. foreign relations and as Commander in Chief and Chief
Executive and in accordance with applicable
treaties and laws. This deployment is consistent
with S.J. Res. 45, as adopted by the Senate
on February 4, 1993, and as modified and
adopted by the House on May 25, 1993.
Effective U.S. foreign policy requires close
cooperation between the President and the Congress, and this imperative is particularly important regarding issues surrounding the use of our
Nation's Armed Forces. I remain committed to
ensuring that the Congress is kept fully informed on these matters and that the public
good is served through constructive discussions
and cooperation between our two branches.
Sincerely,
BILL CLINTON


836




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / June 11


NOTE: Identical letters were sent to Thomas S. and Robert C. Byrd, President pro tempore of
Foley, Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Senate.
Remarks Announcing the Nomination of Walter Mondale To Be
Ambassador to Japan and an Exchange With Reporters
June 11, 1993


The President. Good morning. Please be seated. I want to thank all of you for coming here
today for the announcement of my nomination
of Walter Mondale to be our next Ambassador
to Japan. Former Vice President Mondale will
succeed Ambassador Michael Armacost, whose
service was very valuable. And I want to thank
him for it and acknowledge that here today.
This nomination has produced a lot of happiness, not only for me and for our administration
but for the people of the State of Minnesota
and the people of the United States who have
admired Walter Mondale for a very long time.
Fritz Mondale is not only someone I consider
a friend but also someone that I and millions
of Americans consider a leader of enormous wisdom, courage, compassion, and stature. Like his
mentor, Hubert Humphrey, Fritz Mondale is
a hero to the people of Minnesota, because he
embodies the virtues of the Midwest, because
he fought so boldly for those things in the United States Senate, and because he never lost
the basic values of his childhood and his adulthood after he became a leader on the national
and world stage.
We have a lot in common. We both began
our careers as State attorneys general in our
home States at a relatively young age. And just
as I am the first President from Hope, I am
reliably informed that I can assert today that
Fritz Mondale is our Nation's first Ambassador
to Japan from Elmore.
Fritz Mondale has devoted his entire life to
serving our Nation and to building bonds of
understanding around the world. He has served
our country in the military, as a State attorney
general, as an outstanding Senator, and, of
course, as Vice President and our party's nominee for President. In all these public roles, as
well as in the experience he has gained in the
private sector since, he has earned the right
to be considered extraordinarily well qualified
to assume the task of enhancing our relationship
with Japan and projecting American leadership


in Asia and the Pacific region.
I also want to say a special word of acknowledgment and appreciation to Joan Mondale, who
is here with us today and who I believe will
also be an outstanding ambassador for the United States in Japan. [Applause] Thank you very
much.
Fritz Mondale is no stranger to Japan and
her people. He has traveled there often, both
in public and private roles. It is moving to recall
that as Vice President, Fritz Mondale swore in
another Ambassador to Japan who came from
the United States Senate and who also served
with tremendous distinction, Ambassador Mike
Mansfield, and who is here today and who, I
might add, at his young age, is probably one
of the few people in this audience today who
has already walked 5 or 6 miles. [Laughter]
Senator Mike Mansfield. Six.
The President. I chose someone of-[laughter]-what did he say? Six, he said. [Laughter]
We never were able to short him.
I chose someone of Fritz Mondale's stature
to be my Ambassador to Japan because there
is no more important bilateral relationship in
the world than that which exists between the
United States and Japan. This alliance has supported 50 years of peace and stability in Asia
and the Pacific. And the course of economic,
political, and security dynamics in the Pacific
and throughout Asia will be determined by how
well our relationship functions. The challenges
and changes facing both Japan and the United
States as we move toward the 21st century require us to take a fresh look at our relationships
and to take new actions to strengthen the foundations of our alliance.
When Prime Minister Miyazawa and I met
here at the White House in April, we agreed
to forge a new partnership between our nations
aimed at restoring world economic growth, advancing democratic values, and creating the
basis for regional peace which can endure well
into the next century. To fulfill our shared vision


837




June 11 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


of a new Japan-U.S. partnership, we must sustain our security commitment, work on global
problems, and address forthrightly and urgently
our often troubled economic relationship. The
economic pillar of our relationship needs some
repair, and I think we all know that. And Prime
Minister Miyazawa and I agreed to give it our
personal attention.
It is particularly appropriate that this announcement occurs today, for today we are beginning negotiations with the Japanese to craft
the details of an economic framework intended
to spur global growth, open markets, and deal
with trade and investment issues affecting America's economy and America's workers. This
framework, which the Prime Minister and I
hope to unveil at our meeting in Tokyo, will
get our economic problems out of the headlines
and onto the negotiating table where we can
best resolve them.
I will look to Fritz Mondale, statesman, negotiator, counselor, and representative of our people, to make the bonds that already exist between our two nations even stronger. Fritz Mondale's skills give me great hope and confidence
that my goals with Japan can be achieved in
a way that benefits both of our nations and
the prospects for worldwide democracy, peace,
and global growth.
I don't think our Nation could ask for a more
capable representative abroad, and I appreciate
the willingness of Fritz Mondale and Joan to
accept this challenging assignment. I wish them
well, and I know that the people of America,
and I believe the people of Japan, are very
happy today about this development. Mr. Mondale.
[At this point, Mr. Mondale expressed his gratitude to the President, stated briefly the importance of the relationship with Japan, and answered several questions from reporters.]
Economic Framework
Q. Mr. President, what are the prospects for
having this framework ready in time for your
meeting in Tokyo next month?
The President. Well, we're working hard. We
started the formal negotiations today, and I'm


hopeful. If you noticed, I used the word hope.
I hope it will be ready to announce in Tokyo.
And we've done a lot of preliminary work on
it, and I'm encouraged. But I can't say for sure
it will be done, because I can't prejudge the
outcome of the negotiations. I hope it will be,
and a lot of work has been done.
Q. Do you have a Supreme Court Justice
today?
Q. Is that possible, sir?
The President. Good morning. [Laughter]
Q. It's a daily question.
The President. I don't have anything else to
say about it.
Q. [Inaudible]-framework?
The President. We want to make some real
progress on these very thorny trade difficulties
that have proved to be so resistant to change.
And you know that the framework of our debate
has been pretty well explored in the press. But
I think we've got a real shot to reach an agreement here, and we're going to keep working
on it.
I think the Japanese are very sensitive about
the kinds of economic pressures that are now
on them that are somewhat new and different
in the last couple of years. And I think both
of us recognize that there will have to be an
evolution in not only our relationship but in
the whole balance of global trade if we're going
to have sustained global growth, which is what
is in the interest of Japan and the United States.
We can't really hope to maintain high levels
of growth and high levels of incomes in our
jobs unless we get a much more brisk rate of
growth throughout the world. And if you look
at the whole history of the post-World War II
era, it indicates that. If you look at where our
jobs have come from in the United States just
in the last 5 or 6 years, that's indicated about
two-thirds of our new jobs being tied to trade.
So it's obvious that we have to have a much
higher rate of global growth.
Thank you very much.
NOTE: The President spoke at 10:15 a.m. in the
Rose Garden at the White House.


838




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / June 12


Statement on Nuclear Nonproliferation Talks With North Korea
June 11, 1993


I welcome the successful outcome of talks
between the United States and North Korea
today in New York, which have led to the agreement of North Korea to suspend its withdrawal
from the Non-Proliferation Treaty. This agreement is a first but vital step towards ensuring
North Korean participation in a strong international nonproliferation regime, a goal that will
benefit all nations.
Preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons is one of the highest priorities of my administration, and we will continue to press the


North Koreans strongly to comply fully with
international standards and to move towards the
goal of a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula.
The American negotiating team, under the direction of Assistant Secretary Robert Gallucci,
achieved this important step not only on behalf
of the people of the United States but on behalf
of the entire international community.
NOTE: The statement referred to Robert Gallucci,
Assistant Secretary of State for Politico-Military
Affairs.


Nomination for Five Ambassadorial Posts
June 11, 1993


The President today announced his intention
to nominate five career Foreign Service officers
to ambassadorial posts. The five are:
William D. Montgomery, Bulgaria
Richard Boucher, Cyprus
Mark Hambley, Lebanon
Roger Gamble, Suriname
Jeffrey Davidow, Venezuela
The President's Radio Address
June 12, 1993
Good morning. Last night the United Nations,
acting with American and other coalition forces,
successfully attacked the military positions in Somalia of the warlord Mohamed Farah Aideed.
Our forces, thankfully, have sustained no casualties.
The U.N.'s action was a response to a savage
attack this past week by Aideed's forces carried
out on U.N. peacekeepers. Aideed's attack killed
23 Pakistanis and injured 3 Americans serving
in the U.N.'s force. It was a cold-blooded ambush on U.N. forces who were delivering food
and building peace for the people of Somalia.
The United Nations and the United States


"Each of these five men has demonstrated
the high levels of talent and character required
for a sensitive ambassadorial post," said the
President. "I salute them for their continuing
service to the United States and thank them
for taking on these important assignments."
NOTE: Biographies of the nominees were made
available by the Office of the Press Secretary.


refuse to tolerate this ruthless disregard for the
will of the international community. Therefore,
following a request from the U.N. and pursuant
to a U.N. Security Council resolution, I ordered
the participation of our troops in this action.
I commend the decisive leadership of the U.N.
Secretary-General Boutros-Ghali, the commander of the U.N. force, Turkish General Bir,
and United States Major General Thomas Montgomery.
With this action, the world community moves
to restore order in Somalia's capital and to underscore its commitment to preserve the security
of U.N. forces. For if U.N. peacekeepers are


839




June 12 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


to be effective agents for peace and stability
in Somalia and elsewhere, they must be capable
of using force when necessary to defend themselves and accomplish their goals.
We need to recall why U.S. forces were in
Somalia to begin with and how much has been
accomplished since they first arrived. Last December the United States first sent troops to
Somalia to help the United Nations answer a
desperate call for help. By the time we arrived
over 350,000 Somalis already had died in a
bloody civil war, shrouding the nation in famine
and disease. Over 30,000 American men and
women, both military and civilian, joined with
troops and relief workers from all over the world
in an effort to end the starvation and the hopelessness. They worked with courage and dedication to quell the violence, rein in the warlords,
and deliver tons of urgently needed food and
medicine. That humanitarian effort restored
hope, advanced our interests, and represented
the very best of America's ideals.
Today in Somalia, crops are growing, starvation has ended, refugees are beginning to return, schools and hospitals are reopening, a civil
police force has been recreated, and Somalia
has begun a process of national reconciliation
with the goal of creating the institutions of democracy. As a result, over recent months, we
have been able to reduce our troop presence
in Somalia down to fewer than 4,000, a small
fraction of the total U.N. force.
While American and U.N. efforts in Somalia
have been successful, there remains a small but
dangerous minority of Somalis who are deter

mined to provoke terror and chaos. Last night's
action was essential to send a clear message
to the armed gangs, to protect the vast majority
of Somalis who long for peace, to enhance the
security of our forces still in Somalia, to hasten
the day when they can safely return home, and
to strengthen the effectiveness and the credibility of U.N. peacekeeping in Somalia and around
the world.
The U.N.'s action holds an important lesson
about how our Nation can accomplish our own
security goals in this new era. Although the cold
war is over, the world remains a dangerous
place. The United States cannot be the world's
policeman, but we also cannot turn a blind eye
to the world's problems, for they affect our own
security, our own interests, and our own ideals.
The U.S. must continue to play its unique role
of leadership in the world. But now we can
increasingly express that leadership through multilateral means such as the United Nations,
which spread the costs and expressed the unified
will of the international community. That was
one of the lessons of Desert Storm. And clearly,
that was one of the lessons last night in Somalia.
On behalf of all Americans, I am proud of
the American forces, who once again have demonstrated extraordinary courage and skill. The
world thanks them and all of the U.N. forces
in Somalia for their service, for striking a blow
against lawlessness and killing, and for advancing
the world's commitment to justice and security.
NOTE: The President spoke at 10:06 a.m. from
the Oval Office at the White House.


Remarks to Volunteers for Presidential Correspondence
June 12, 1993


Thank you. Good morning. I want to thank
you all for coming here and for being willing
to help us with what is really a great problem
for democracy. But as all of you know, we get
a lot of mail at the White House. What a lot
of people don't know is we're getting a lot more
than anyone ever has. And by the time we had
been here 3/2 months, more letters had come
to the White House than came to the White
House in all of 1992.
We're getting about 40,000 letters a day. We


are desperately working to try to answer those
letters with very limited staff. We've had already
about 450 young people from the area agree
to come in and help us in the past. But today
I'm proud to say that there are over 800 young
people who will be working today to help open
and staple the mail that comes in here, so that
then it can be read and sorted and answered.
We have gotten over 3 million pieces of mail,
with more coming. And that's good. But we
have to answer all those letters. We have to


840




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / June 14


let the American people know that they are  come here and help us open and staple the
being heard, and we're working very hard on  mail so it can all be processed more quickly.
it. And I might say, that's after we opened an  I am personally very, very grateful to you
E-mail channel, so we've got a lot of people  for doing this. You've made a real contribution
coming in through E-mail. We've got extra  to helping the White House work for America
phone lines on for people to call in, and we're  better. I hope it's also a great fun day for you.
still getting this much mail.              And I'm delighted to see all of you here.
So you are really going to help make democ-  Thank you very much. Have a good day.
racy work today. And all over America, people  Thank you very much.
will have their letters read and their letters an-  NOTE: The President spoke at 11:42 a.m. on West
swered more quickly because you've agreed to  Executive Drive at the White House.
Remarks on Signing the Flag Day Proclamation
June 14, 1993


Good morning. Welcome to the Rose Garden,
and thank you for joining us for this observance
of Flag Day. As we begin, I want to introduce
three children, to my left, to lead us in the
Pledge of Allegiance: Christopher Williams, an
8-year-old from Ketcham Elementary School;
Delilah Johnson, who is also 8, from Ketcham
Elementary School; and Sean Mizzer, 10 years
old, from Watkins Elementary School. They are
now going to lead us in the pledge.
[At this point, the students recited the Pledge
of Allegiance. ]
Good job. Let's give them a hand. I thought
they did well. Thank you. [Applause]
Thank you. Please be seated. I want to acknowledge the presence of a few of our guests
in the audience today, including Mr. James
Kenney, the national commander of AMVETS;
Mr. Louis Koerber, the president of National
Flag Day Foundation; Mr. George Cahill, the
president of the National Flag Foundation; and
Mrs. Romaine Thomas, who is the principal of
Ketcham Elementary School, where two of these
children attend school. Thank you all.
On this day in 1777, the Continental Congress
adopted the Stars and Stripes as the official flag
of our Nation. Throughout our history, this flag
has been a potent symbol of America and what
it means to be an American. You can hear
America's reverence for the flag in our music
from our national anthem, "The Star-Spangled
Banner," written by Francis Scott Key in 1814,
to George M. Cohan's "You're a Grand Old
Flag," to John Philip Sousa's magnificent march


"The Stars and Stripes Forever," performed best
by his very own United States Marine Band.
We owe a great debt to the members of our
armed services, who have defended this flag
through two centuries now. The United States
Army, coincidentally, also celebrates its birthday
today. As we honor the Army's 218 years of
history, let us also remember the brave Americans who today are defending the United Nations relief operations in Somalia. Their efforts
are a reminder to all of us that we are blessed
with enormous freedoms in America.
Think of the pledge we have just made, words
we have known since childhood, words that
come easily to us, so we often recite them without even stopping to think about their true
memory. A "republic" is a government of, by,
and for the people. "One Nation": From our
myriad diversity, from all of our differences, we
still have a deeper measure of unity. "Under
God": the reminder that self-government is a
sacred trust. "Indivisible": Through a tragic civil
war we learned the wisdom of President Lincoln's lesson that "a house divided against itself
cannot stand." It is not enough for our house
to stand, however. We must remember that a
house stands strongest when it stands together.
'With liberty and justice for all" is a promise
that we must strive to make real, not just in
our words but in what we do.
These ideas have brought new Americans to
our shores from the beginning of our existence.
They make our flag a symbol of hope to people
all around the world. To those of you here who


841




June 14 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


are recently naturalized citizens, I say, welcome.
A few of you even work here, and we're proud
to have you. I'm proud to have you on our
staff and more proud to be your fellow citizen
and to know that all of you feel as deeply about
this country as I do.
Since President Truman's time it has been
customary for the President to sign a proclamation designating June 14th as Flag Day in the
United States. I want to do that now, and then
make a presentation.
[At this point, the President signed the proclamation. ]
Since we teach citizenship at an early age,
I want to ask Christopher Williams to come
up here and to accept on behalf of his school,
Ketcham Elementary, this flag which flew above
the United States Capitol this morning. Christopher, I want you to take this flag, along with
your schoolmates, back to your school and honor
it. It symbolizes both your rights and your responsibilities as an American. You should be
Remarks Announcing the Nomination
Supreme Court Associate Justice
June 14, 1993
The President. Please be seated. I wish you
all a good afternoon, and I thank the Members
of the Congress and other interested Americans
who are here.
In just a few days when the Supreme Court
concludes its term, Justice Byron White will
begin a new chapter in his long and productive
life. He has served the Court as he has lived,
with distinction, intelligence, and honor. And he
retires from public service with the deep gratitude of all the American people.
Article II, section 2 of the United States Constitution empowers the President to select a
nominee to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court
of the United States. This responsibility is one
of the most significant duties assigned to the
President by the Constitution. A Supreme Court
Justice has life tenure, unlike the President, and
along with his or her colleagues decides the
most significant questions of our time and
shapes the continuing contours of our liberty.
I care a lot about this responsibility, not only


very proud of this.
I'd also like any newly naturalized Americans
to stand up. Do we have any new citizens here?
Let's give them a hand. Look at them. [Applause] Thank you.
Last night when we had the press party here
at the White House, perhaps the most moving
encounter I had was a couple came through
the line; both of them were born in South
America. But they had their little child with
them who had just been born in the United
States, and the child's T-shirt said "Future President" on it. [Laughter] There you are. Look,
there he is right there. Give him a hand, the
father of the child. [Applause]
This is a special day. The children remind
us of it, and so do our new citizens. Thank
you all for coming.
NOTE: The President spoke at 10:36 a.m. in the
Rose Garden at the White House. The proclamation is listed in Appendix D at the end of this
volume.
of Ruth Bader Ginsburg To Be a
because I am a lawyer but because I used to
teach constitutional law and I served my State
as attorney general. I know well how the Supreme Court affects the lives of all Americans
personally and deeply. I know clearly that a
Supreme Court Justice should have the heart
and spirit, the talent and discipline, the knowledge, common sense, and wisdom to translate
the hopes of the American people, as presented
in the cases before it, into an enduring body
of constitutional law, constitutional law that will
preserve our most cherished values that are enshrined in that Constitution and, at the same
time, enable the American people to move forward.
That is what I promised the American people
in a Justice when I ran for President, and I
believe it is a promise that I am delivering on
today. After careful reflection, I am proud to
nominate for Associate Justice of the Supreme
Court Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg of the United
States Court of Appeals for the District of Co

842




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / June 14


lumbia. I will send her name to the Senate
to fill the vacancy created by Justice White's
retirement.
As I told Judge Ginsburg last night when I
called to ask her to accept the nomination, I
decided on her for three reasons. First, in her
years on the bench she has genuinely distinguished herself as one of our Nation's best
judges, progressive in outlook, wise in judgment,
balanced and fair in her opinions. Second, over
the course of a lifetime, in her pioneering work
in behalf of the women of this country, she
has compiled a truly historic record of achievement in the finest traditions of American law
and citizenship. And finally, I believe that in
the years ahead she will be able to be a force
for consensus-building on the Supreme Court,
just as she has been on the Court of Appeals,
so that our judges can become an instrument
of our common unity in the expression of their
fidelity to the Constitution.
Judge Ginsburg received her undergraduate
degree from Cornell. She attended both Harvard and Columbia Law Schools and served on
the law reviews of both institutions, the first
woman to have earned this distinction. She was
a law clerk to a Federal judge, a law professor
at Rutgers and Columbia Law Schools. She argued six landmark cases on behalf of women
before the United States Supreme Court and,
happily, won five out of six. For the past 13
years she has served on the United States Court
of Appeals for the District of Columbia, the
second highest court in our country, where her
work has brought her national acclaim and on
which she was able to amass a record that
caused a national legal journal in 1991 to name
her as one of the Nation's leading centrist
judges.
In the months and years ahead, the country
will have the opportunity to get to know much
more about Ruth Ginsburg's achievements, decency, humanity, and fairness. People will find,
as I have, that this nominee is a person of
immense character. Quite simply, what's in her
record speaks volumes about what is in her
heart. Throughout her life she has repeatedly
stood for the individual, the person less welloff, the outsider in society, and has given those
people greater hope by telling them that they
have a place in our legal system, by giving them
a sense that the Constitution and the laws protect all the American people, not simply the
powerful. Judge Ginsburg has also proven her

self to be a healer, what attorneys call a moderate. Time and again, her moral imagination
has cooled the fires of her colleagues' discord,
ensuring that the right of jurists to dissent ennobles the law without entangling the court.
The announcement of this vacancy brought
forth a unique outpouring of support for distinguished Americans on Judge Ginsburg's behalf.
What caused that outpouring is the essential
quality of the judge herself: her deep respect
for others and her willingness to subvert selfinterest to the interest of our people and their
institutions.
In one of her own writings about what it
is like to be a Justice, Judge Ginsburg quotes
Justice Louis Brandeis, who once said, "The Supreme Court is not a place for solo performers."
If this is a time for consensus-building on the
Court, and I believe it is, Judge Ginsburg will
be an able and effective architect of that effort.
It is important to me that Judge Ginsburg
came to her views and attitudes by doing, not
merely by reading and studying. Despite her
enormous ability and academic achievements,
she could not get a job with a law firm in
the early 1960's because she was a woman and
the mother of a small child. Having experienced
discrimination, she devoted the next 20 years
of her career to fighting it and making this
country a better place for our wives, our mothers, our sisters, and our daughters. She herself
argued and won many of the women's rights
cases before the Supreme Court in the 1970's.
Many admirers of her work say that she is to
the women's movement what former Supreme
Court Justice Thurgood Marshall was to the
movement for the rights of African-Americans.
I can think of no greater compliment to bestow
on an American lawyer. And she has done all
of this and a lot of other things as well by
raising a family with her husband, Marty, whom
she married 39 years ago as a very young
woman. Together they had two children, Jane
and James, and they now have two grandchildren. Hers is a remarkable record of distinction and achievement, both professional and personal.
During the selection process, we reviewed the
qualifications of more than 40 potential nominees. It was a long, exhaustive search. And during that time we identified several wonderful
Americans whom I think could be outstanding
nominees to the Supreme Court in the future.
Among the best were the Secretary of the Inte

843




June 14 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


rior, Bruce Babbitt, whose strong legal background as Arizona's attorney general and recent
work balancing the competing interests of environmentalists and others in the very difficult
issues affecting the American West made him
a highly qualified candidate for the Court. And
I had the unusual experience, something unique
to me, of being flooded with calls all across
America from Babbitt admirers who pleaded
with me not to put him on the Court and take
him away from the Interior Department. I also
carefully considered the chief judge of the first
circuit, Judge Stephen Breyer of Boston, a man
whose character, confidence, and legal scholarship impressed me very greatly. I believe he
has a very major role to play in public life.
I believe he is superbly qualified to be on the
Court. And I think either one of these candidates, as well as the handful of others whom
I closely considered, may well find themselves
in that position someday in the future.
Let me say in closing that Ruth Bader Ginsburg cannot be called a liberal or a conservative;
she has proved herself too thoughtful for such
labels. As she herself put it in one of her articles, and I quote, "The greatest figures of the
American judiciary have been independent
thinking individuals with open but not empty
minds; individuals willing to listen and to learn.
They have exhibited a readiness to reexamine
their own premises, liberal or conservative, as
thoroughly as those of others." That, I believe,


describes Judge Ginsburg. And those, I too believe, are the qualities of a great Justice.
If, as I believe, the measure of a person's
values can best be measured by examining the
life the person lives, then Judge Ginsburg's values are the very ones that represent the best
in America. I am proud to nominate this pathbreaking attorney, advocate, and judge to be
the 107th Justice to the United States Supreme
Court.
[At this point, Judge Ginsburg expressed her
appreciation to the President and discussed her
background and her view of the position. ]
Q. The withdrawal of the Guinier nomination,
sir, and your apparent focus on Judge Breyer
and your turn, late, it seems, to Judge Ginsburg
may have created an impression, perhaps unfair,
of a certain zig-zag quality in the decision-making process here. I wonder, sir, if you could
kind of walk us through it and perhaps disabuse
us of any notion we might have along those
lines. Thank you.
The President. I have long since given up
the thought that I could disabuse some of you
of turning any substantive decision into anything
but political process. How you could ask a question like that after the statement she just made
is beyond me.
Goodbye. Thank you.
NOTE: The President spoke at 2:07 p.m. in the
Rose Garden at the White House.


Remarks on the President's Council on Sustainable Development
June 14, 1993


Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you
very much for being here. It has been a year
since the Earth summit in Rio. I think you
might be interested to know that a year ago
at the Earth summit in Rio I placed a call
to Senator Al Gore of Tennessee to get a report
on the goings-on there from him and from Senator Wirth of Colorado and to begin the process
by which we came together as a team. Not
very long after that I asked Al Gore to join
the Democratic ticket, and the rest was history.
I don't want to make any bones about it.
When we had our first very long meeting, one


thing that then-Senator Gore said was that he
wanted to be part of a ticket that, if elected,
could put the environment back on the front
burner in American public life and do it in
a way that would be good for the economy,
not bad for the economy, do it in a way that
would bring the American people together, not
divide them. All the policy positions that the
Vice President just announced that we have
taken to change the direction of the previous
administrations and, more importantly, to go beyond politics to embrace a new philosophy of
uniting our goals of preserving the environment


844




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / June 14


and promoting economic growth would have
been very difficult to achieve had it not been
for his leadership and constant involvement and
faithfulness to this cause. And the American
people owe him a great debt of gratitude.
I would also like to acknowledge the presence
of one other person in this audience who has
not been introduced and is not up here, but
it will become obvious when I say what I want
to say. The Deputy Secretary of Education,
Madeleine Kunin is here. She is formerly the
Governor of Vermont. And as far as I know,
she was the only Governor in the country that
actually had a sustainable development commission actively operating on the problems of the
people of Vermont when she was the Governor.
And she in many ways blazed a trail for what
we are attempting to do today. And I thank
you for that.
A year ago the United States was in Rio fighting the Global Warming Treaty and the
Biodiversity Treaty. Our leading economic competitors were at the Earth summit signing off
on the Global Warming Treaty, signing off on
the Biodiversity Treaty. And while the United
States was fighting to water it down, change
it, or thwart it, they spent all their time selling
environmental technology to other nations in the
world, making money while we made hot air.
What a difference a year can make. This
morning the Vice President made us all proud
in his opening address before the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development.
America is now doing what we ought to do.
We're leading again, leading the nations of the
world in the pursuit of a great purpose.
This afternoon I am announcing the creation
of the President's Council on Sustainable Development to help set policies to grow the economy
and preserve the environment for our children
and our children's children, bringing together
some of the most innovative people from business, from government, from the environmental
movement, the civil rights movement, and the
labor movement, people who bring a wealth of
experience and accomplishment to this mission,
people who have developed environmentally
sound products, found ways to protect our air
and water, and defended communities all across
the country against pollution and health hazards.
In the past, many might not have ever had
the chance to sit down at the table and work
together. But now they are working together.
These men and women have real experience


in the real world, and I am counting on them
to achieve real results. I am asking them to
find new ways to combine economic growth and
environmental protection, to promote our best
interests in the world community, to bring our
people together to meet the needs of the
present without jeopardizing the future. I am
asking the Council to be guided by three principles that form our environmental policies.
First, we believe a healthy economy and a
healthy environment go hand-in-hand. Environmental problems result not from robust growth
but from reckless growth. And we can grow
the economy by making our people healthier,
our communities more attractive, and our products and our services more environmentally conscious.
Second, America must lead the way in promoting economic growth and environmental
preservation at home and abroad. We live in
an   era   of   global  economics,  global
environmentalism, global epidemics. Our lives
and our livelihoods depend upon people
throughout the world being healthy and prosperous and respectful of the planet we all share.
What is good for the world in this sense is
very good for America.
And third, we must move beyond the false
choices and unnecessary antagonisms of the
past. From American business and American
labor to the world's wealthiest nations and the
world's poorest, we all share a common interest
in economic growth that preserves rather than
pollutes our environment. America can set an
example by achieving economic growth that can
continue through the lifetimes of our children
and grandchildren because it respects the resources that make that growth possible.
That is what we mean by sustainable development. That is why I'm asking this Council to
promote healthy communities and environmentally sound products and services that will
do the best in the world to make our marketplace the best in the world now and well into
the 21st century.
When we talk about environmental justice,
we mean calling a halt to the poisoning and
the pollution of our poorest communities, from
our rural areas to our inner cities. We don't
have a person to waste, and pollution clearly
wastes human lives and natural resources. When
our children's lives are no longer cut short by
toxic dumps, when their minds are no longer
damaged by lead paint poisoning, we will stop


845




June 14 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


wasting the energy and the intelligence that
could build a stronger and a more prosperous
America.
When we talk about environmentally sound
products and services, we mean light bulbs and
computers and refrigerators that use less energy
and automobiles that produce less pollution.
People all across the world want to buy these
goods and services, and when we make them
in America, that means better paying and more
secure jobs and higher living standards for all
of our people.


Americans take pride in our know-how, our
can-do spirit, and our love of this remarkable
land that God has given us. With leaders like
the men and women here today, we can put
what is best about America to work building
a stronger economy and preserving this planet
for our children and all generations to come.
Thank you very much.
NOTE: The President spoke at 4:35 p.m. in the
Rose Garden at the White House. The Executive
order of June 29 which established the Council
is listed in Appendix D at the end of this volume.


Exchange With Reporters
June 14, 1993


Senator Arlen Specter's Illness
The President. [Inaudible]-and obviously I
was very concerned-need for the operation,
but our prayers are with him. And we're pulling
for him.
Q. Have you spoken to his family at all today?
The President. No, I wanted to wait until,
frankly, until I had all this out of the way and
until there was time to, you know, get through
the operation. Then I thought I'd call themlater. We have a time scheduled to call, but
I haven't talked to them yet.
Q. Were you shocked and surprised?
The President. Yes. He was just here last
week, and he was-you know, he brought in
the family from the Make-A-Wish Foundation.
We've had a great visit, and we were talking
about a number of different things.
Q. Are you hopeful he'll come back?
The President. Oh, absolutely. And I think
he will. We're certainly hopeful.
Supreme Court Nomination
Q. Mr. President, on your nomination, was
it tough for you to pass over Judge Breyer and
Secretary Babbitt? Was it a hard decision?
The President. Well, it was hard in the sense


that they were all qualified. And there were
two or three others I thought were exceptionally
well qualified. But once I talked to her, I felt
very strongly about her. This is not a negative
thing on them. And as I said, out there in the
crowd I had a half a dozen people come up
to me and thank me for leaving Secretary Babbitt at the Interior Department. They say he's
the best Interior Secretary they'd ever seen. So
that was a real problem, but I like them all.
I thought they were all superbly well qualified.
And I think that they will be in the future.
There was no negative-it was a positive position being able to pick the person I thought
would be best at this time, a purely positive
choice. In that sense it was a joy to make, but
not easy. You can see today from-she's an extraordinary woman. She has incredible inner
strength and character. And I think it will communicate itself and really help to create a good
atmosphere at the Court.
NOTE: The exchange began at 4:55 p.m. in the
Rose Garden at the White House. A tape was not
available for verification of the content of this exchange.


846




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / June 15


Statement on the Death of Donald Slayton
June 14, 1993


I was deeply saddened to hear last night of
the death of astronaut Deke Slayton, a pioneer
in space exploration who helped chart the
course for America's pursuit of the New Frontier.
Throughout his career, Deke met adversity
with determination, and discouragement with a
dedication to never yield his dreams. His comThe President's News Conference
June 15, 1993
Supreme Court Nominee
The President. Thanks for the introduction,
Wolf [Wolf Blitzer, Cable News Network]. Good
morning, ladies and gentlemen. I'd like to make
a couple of opening remarks. First, let me say
that this morning I had a good talk with Judge
Ginsburg, complimenting her on her very moving statement yesterday. And I assured her that
we were moving ahead with this confirmation
process. I spoke with Senators Biden and Thurmond and Hatch and asked them to work with
me to assure the speediest possible confirmation
consistent with the Senate doing its duty. At
any rate, I am confident that she will be ready
to assume her position on the Supreme Court
when the fall term begins in October.
Economic Program
With regard to the economy, we've had, since
last Friday, very good reports on low inflation
in terms of both producer prices and consumer
prices. And in a larger sense, over the last few
months, we've seen a continuing reduction in
long-term interest rates, which have given us
a 20-year low in mortgage rates, a 7-year high
in housing sales, and have mightily contributed
to the introduction into this economy of 755,000
new jobs, well over 90 percent of them in the
private sector.
I am confident that the continuation of this
trend depends on our ability to pass a strong
economic program through the Congress which
reduces the deficit, increases investment in our
future, and is fair in terms of requiring a fair


mitment to space exploration helped pull the
world into an era of new possibilities that grows
and expands to this day.
Both Hillary and I extend our heartfelt sympathies to Deke Slayton's family and former colleagues. We mourn his passing, but we celebrate
what he stood for and what he accomplished
for America.


apportionment of the burden. The plan that the
House passed, that the Senate Finance Committee is now dealing with, for every $10 that the
deficit is reduced, $5 comes from spending cuts,
$3.75 from upper income people, $1.25 from
the middle class, and families with incomes
under $30,000 are held harmless.
I hope that the principles I have outlined
will be honored as this program moves through
the Congress. The Senate Finance Committee
has some tough decisions to make. I don't expect to agree with all of them, but I think they
will produce a bill. I think the Senate will
produce a bill. And then we can go on to conference and see what the final shape of the
economic plan that the whole Congress will vote
on will be. I'm encouraged, quite upbeat, by
the reports I've received from Senator Moynihan, Senator Mitchell, and others about the
progress being made there, and I just want to
encourage the Senate to move forward.
Campaign Finance Reform
Finally, let me say that the Senate is dealing
with another very difficult and very important
issue now, and that's campaign finance reform.
I have believed for a long time that we can't
get thoroughgoing economic reform in our country until we have political reform. That requires
the lobby reform legislation that is moving its
way through Congress but, very importantly,
campaign finance reform to lower the cost of
campaigns, reduce the influence of special interests and PAC's, and open the airwaves to more


847




June 15 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


honest debate.
The troubling thing, obviously, is that the Republican Senators have announced that they may
yet again filibuster a bill. And the thing that
particularly troubles me about this one is that
several Republicans voted for a bill not unlike
this last year, which contained public financing.
If in fact this filibuster occurs, it will be the
second time that Republican Senators who voted
for a piece of progressive legislation when there
was a Republican in the White House have now
voted against it and have filibustered it. The
first was on the motor voter bill where eventually we were able to work out the problems
and get a bill passed. But I think this is very,
very important. And I very much hope that the
Senators will reconsider and let this bill go forward. We need to pass a strong campaign finance reform bill this year. Political reform and
economic reform, in my judgment, over the long
run must go hand-in-hand, and time is long
since past when we should have campaign finance reform.
Now having said that, I think I ought to give
Brit [Brit Hume, ABC News] his followup.
[Laughter]
Q. I hope you don't mind if I follow up
on another subject, sir. In the HouseThe President. You know what I'm really
upset about? You got a honeymoon, and I didn't.
[Laughter]
Q. Yes, sir, but you got to end it. [Laughter]
The President. Well, let's extend it then. Go
ahead.
Economic Program
Q. The House liberals in particular, Black
Caucus in particular, seem in a somewhat mutinous mood as they watch the deliberations in
the Senate on your economic program. And I'm
wondering, sir, what do you say to them to
assure them that the tough vote they felt they
cast for your program was not in vain and that
you haven't really cut the rug out from under
them?
The President. Well, I've not cut the rug out
from under them at all. I have not agreed to
any provision that the Senate Finance Committee is deliberating. There's been no agreement
on any issue. I have set out principles: $500
billion in deficit reduction; a deficit reduction
trust fund for all the tax increases and spending
cuts, at least $250 billion in spending cuts, although I would like some more cuts and some


less taxes. Seventy-five percent of the burden
has to fall on upper income people, and we
ought to keep the incentives for growth and
for empowerment of the working poor and the
incentives to move people from welfare to work.
Those are the things that I want to see in
the final bill. And what I have assured the Black
Caucus-and let me say, I have talked to, oh,
probably 15 of the members in the last week
or so just in that caucus and many other Members of the House-is that the principles that
I outlined are still there and that we'll do our
best to articulate those as the Senate deals with
this bill.
But the real test will be what happens in
the conference and what the final bill looks like
that the House and the Senate will vote on.
And again, I'm quite encouraged that we'll get
a bill out that they'll feel good about. They
made it clear to me what they felt most strongly
about. And the two things above all were the
earned-income tax credit for the working poor,
which is an important part of our welfare reform
incentive, and the empowerment zones for the
depressed urban and rural areas.
And there are all kinds of parliamentary issues
that, as you know, the Senate has to consider
in all this, but I'm confident that in the end
the bill that they vote on in the House to send
to me for signature will have those things in
it.
Domestic and Foreign Policy Decisions
Q. Mr. President, do you perceive a loss of
public confidence in your Presidency because
of wavering domestically and in foreign policy?
And what do you plan to do about it ifThe President. No.
Q.     there is such a thing? You don'tThe President. Well, there is no wavering. If
somebody had told you at Christmastime, Helen
[Helen Thomas, United Press International],
that by June 1st we'd have unemployment under
7 percent for the first time in a year and a
half, 755,000 new jobs, a 20-year low in interest
rates, a 7-year high in housing sales, that the
United States would have led a global effort
to support Boris Yeltsin, sign the global warming
treaty, I mean, the Biodiversity Treaty-that actually happened on June 4th-pass family leave
and pass the motor voter legislation, repeal the
gag rule and the ban on fetal tissue research
to allow more science and less politics in medical research, I'd say most people would think


848




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / June 15


that was a pretty decisive record; that we would
have moved this budget through the House of
Representatives, sent it to the Senate-much
tougher decisions than were required in the
Reagan budget in 1981, on a faster track, on
a faster track, I think people would have said
at Christmastime, that's a pretty good and decisive record.
We haven't solved the problem in Bosnia that
has plagued everybody. I concede that. The Europeans wouldn't go along with my proposed
resolution. I still think they may be compelled
to do that or something very near like it if
they want to get anything done over there. And
I think we're going forward. I like the Supreme
Court judge that I picked. I don't think it shows
any wavering at all on that.
Q. You don't think there is a public feeling
that you're indecisive? I mean, on the
The President. Well, all I'm telling you is
Q.      highly touted issues, the budget,
Bosnia.
The President. Let me tell you something
about Bosnia. On Bosnia, I made a decision.
The United Nations controls what happens in
Bosnia. I cannot unilaterally lift the arms embargo. I didn't change my mind. Our allies decided
that they weren't prepared to go that far at
this time. They asked me to wait, and they said
they would not support it. I didn't change my
mind.
And as far as the budget, I don't-how can
you say that? No President's budget has been
taken seriously in this town for a dozen years.
Three-quarters of the Republicans in the House
of Representatives voted against President
Bush's last budget. I sent a budget up there
that passed. A budget resolution passed on time
for the first time in 17 years. And we're out
here fighting for these tough decisions. How
could anybody say-this is the most decisive
Presidency you've had in a very long time on
all the big issues that matter.
And I might say, all the heat we're getting
from people is because of the decisions that
have been made, not because of those that
haven't.
Somalia
Q. Mr. President, since the United States
began bombing in Somalia, the Pakistani peacekeepers on the ground opened fire on civilians.
There have been reports that civilians have died
as a result of our action. We haven't heard from


you since Saturday on this subject. What is your
assessment of the U.N. action there? And how
much longer is the U.S. bombing going to go
on?
The President. Well, the action that we took
was, I think, appropriate in response to what
happened, which is that Pakistani peacekeepers
were ambushed and murdered. There's no question about that. The action that we took was
designed to minimize as much as we possibly
could any damage or any injury or any death
to civilians.
What happened with the Pakistanis is in some
doubt in the sense that they're saying the first
time they were ambushed, they were ambushed
by people who stood behind women and children and used them as a defense. And as I
understand it, the U.N. is trying to get to the
bottom of that. I expect them to do it and
to take appropriate action and to take every
appropriate step to make sure that U.N. peacekeepers do not, do not cause injury or death
to innocent people in Somalia. That is the United Nations job, and the United States expects
them to do it.
Q. We've also gone from being the heroes
in Somalia now to apparently a feeling in the
towns themselves of "Yankee, go home." I
mean, are you concerned that this action is sort
of becoming counterproductive?
The President. I think that on balance, I still
believe that most people in the country think
that we came in there, we ended starvation,
we ended brutalization, we ended violence, we
opened up the country again to the beginnings
of civilization. I am very sorry about what happened this last week. But we cannot have a
situation where one of these warlords, while everybody else is cooperating, decides that he can
go out and slaughter 20 peacekeepers. And so,
yes, there have been some tensions as a result
of that. But we had to take appropriate action.
And I hope very much that we can get back
to the peacekeeping function as soon as possible.
Q. Mr. President, the attack against the
peacekeepers in Somalia raises questions about
the safety of U.N. forces everywhere. As you
send American troops into Macedonia, how
much risk are you exposing them to, and will
the United States take action when U.N. peacekeepers are attacked?
The President. The United States has made
it clear that we would take action if U.N. peacekeepers were attacked in Bosnia. And obviously,


849




June 15 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


we're going to protect our own soldiers. I believe that the Macedonian deployment carries
minimal risk and carries maximum gain in terms
of the statement that we don't intend to see
this conflict widen. But I think that all Americans know and have to know that whenever
we send people around the world, even if
they're on peacekeeping missions, there is some
risk to them.
Supreme Court Nominee
Q. Mr. President, getting back to Judge Ginsburg for a moment, I know that you're familiar
with her Madison lecture and her rather provocative statements about the judicial reach of Roe
versus Wade. Can you tell me how comfortable
you are with her challenge to the whole theoretical construct to that landmark ruling and
whether you feel confident that she will, once
on the Court, meet what you had said during
the campaign was your concerns about
continuing
The President. I think if you read the lecture,
she is clearly pro-choice in the sense that she
believes the Government should not make that
decision for the women of America. She disagrees with the rationale of the decision. I'm
not sure I agree with her, as a matter of fact,
on that issue, but I thought it was a very provocative and impressive argument. As a matter of
fact, I have always thought that Roe v. Wade
was the most difficult case decided in the last
25 years because it was such a difficult issue
and that the Court did the best it could under
the circumstances. She made a very interesting
alternative suggestion, but there is no suggestion
in any of her writings that she's not pro-choice.
And that was to me the important thing.
Q. Can I follow? How much did you actually
discuss legal theory with her? Can you give us
some sense of
The President. I didn't discuss that with her.
I'd read the writings, and they'd been widely
discussed. When we talked for about an hour
and a half, I talked to her a little bit and asked
her about a couple of cases that she had been
associated with in the business law area and
a couple of the cases she fought for women's
rights on, just to sort of talk about them, to
get a feel for it. And we talked a little bit
about one of the religious liberty cases she dealt
with involving the right of a soldier to wear
a yarmulke. Again, I just wanted to hear her
talk about that. That whole issue of religious


freedom is a very big issue in my judgment,
and I wanted to hear her discuss it.
Q. Did you discuss homosexual rights with
her?
The President. Not at all. It never came up.
Q. And are you at all concerned about some
of her rulings in that area?
The President. No.
Space Station and Super Collider
Q. Mr. President, we understand you're about
to make a decision on the future of the space
station, one way you could quickly cut some
Government spending. Could you let us in on
your thoughts? We know there are various proposals, big, medium, little, none at all. And also
the super collider, since there's a considerable
amount of opposition to that as well.
The President. Well, I'll have statements on
them in the very near future; if not today, in
the next few days. Let me just make one comment about the space station generally. As you
know, I have supported both projects in the
past. The thing about the space station, first
of all, that I want to say is a word of compliment
to the Vest Commission that just completed its
review, and not only of the space station but
of the management structure of NASA and how
they interrelate. And they make some very provocative and thought-provoking and, I thought,
very important recommendations and suggestions about how not only this project should
be dealt with but about how NASA should operate the project and should proceed. So I have
them under review.
I do think it's important to recognize that
the space station offers us the potential of working with other nations and continuing our lead
in a very important area and having a significant
technological impact, and that in the aftermath
of all the cutbacks in defense and what they
mean for science and technology, it is something
that we should, in my judgment, consider very
carefully. Keep in mind, a lot of the people
who say, "Well, I don't like the space station,"
or "I don't really think the super collider is
the best use of our investments in physics," they
may be arguing about other investments that
they think ought to be made. We're talking here
about reducing America's investment in space
and science and technology, and that's something I think we need to think about a long
time before we do.
Q. It sounds like you're going to continue


850




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / June 15


The President. Well, wait and see what I say.
I'm going to issue a very careful statement to
the Congress in the next few days which will
outline my position.
Supreme Court Nomination
Q. In regard to Judge Ginsburg, do you have
any regrets about the process that led to her
nomination
The President. I have one big regretQ. [Inaudible]-Mr. Babbitt and Mr. Breyer's
names as frontrunners
The President. First of all, I strongly dispute
that I hung them out. I regret the leaks. But
it's not fair to say I hung them out. Any Senator
I talked to will tell you, when I called to discuss
Judge Breyer, I also said, "I've got someone
else I'm looking at." Anybody will tell you that.
I told Bruce Babbitt the first day I called him,
"I want to know if you agree to be considered,
I don't know if the country can afford to lose
you as Interior Secretary." The truth is-and
I said this yesterday; I will say it again-I've
never seen such an outpouring of support for
any public official in my adult lifetime as we
got for Bruce Babbitt to continue as Interior
Secretary while we work through the issues in
the Northwest and deal with a lot of these other
issues.
I will say again, I think Steven Breyer is superbly qualified to be on the Supreme Court.
I think both of them would have been confirmed by very large margins. I have no doubt
in my mind of that. I really believe that she
was the best candidate at this time. I was immensely impressed with the kind of inner
strength and character that she demonstrated
out there in the Rose Garden yesterday, and
that's why I picked her. But do I regret the
fact that there were leaks and that that may
have exposed them more than they would otherwise have been? I certainly do. And I'd be
happy to-you know, we ought to do better
with that. And if somebody's got any suggestions
about how I can, I'd like to have them.
Major General Harold N. Campbell
Q. Sir, we have not had the opportunity to
ask you your reaction to the derogatory remarks
about you that were reportedly made by the
Air Force general in Europe. How did you feel
when you heard about that? And why have you
tolerated it the way you have?
The President. First of all, I have not tolerated


it. I have simply permitted the Air Force to
handle this in the ordinary course of business,
as I thought was appropriate. The Air Force
is dealing with this issue. I have been fully
briefed on it. I had two feelings about it, frankly.
For me personally, I didn't care. People say
whatever they want to say about me personally.
It had no impact on me. And I thought, well,
here's a guy who's served this country, and you
know, so what if he doesn't like me. And he
doesn't know me from Adam's off ox, so you
know, he's just repeating something he's heard.
But for a general officer to say that about
the Commander in Chief is a-if that happened-is a very bad thing. And so we arethe Air Force is investigating it. They're going
to make a report once they have all the facts,
and then there will be some action taken. But
I don't think that I should personally intervene
as long as the Air Force is doing what is appropriate.
Q. You say you've been briefed on the situation, and we've been told by your folks that
this would be resolved by the middle of June.
We're at that point now. What have they told
you so far?
The President. Just what I told you, that the
Air Force felt very strongly that someone should
go to Europe, find out exactly what happened,
get all the facts, and take appropriate action.
Q. Have they confirmed, though, to you that
he said it?
The President. I don't know if the factfinder
has come back from Europe. And I have not
gotten the final report yet. All I've gotten so
far is secondhand stuff.
Bosnia
Q. Mr. President, on Bosnia, could we take
your earlier remarks here today to mean that
you are now revisiting a tougher policy on
Bosnia and that you might go back to the Europeans to try to sell them once again on bombing
the Serbs?
The President. I wouldn't characterize it quite
that way, but let me restate what I said before.
I just want to make it clear that I don't think
an unwillingness to move alone in Bosnia on
arms embargo issues-and we supported bombing to support, if you will, if you rememberthe position we had was that we would support
the use of air power to back up a freeze of
heavy artillery in place while the arms embargo
was equalizing the opportunity that the sides


851




June 15 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


had to work out their business. We thought that
would lead, frankly, to a cease-fire and ultimately to a peace agreement.
From the beginning, even after the British
and French said, "We don't want to do this
right now, and we will not vote for it or support
it in the United Nations," and the Russians said
the same thing, they all agreed to leave the
option on the table if their other efforts failed.
What I want to reaffirm to you is that that
is still my position. I still think that may be
the only way we can get them to have a real
meaningful cease-fire and a real meaningful
peace agreement. And that option was never
taken off the table. The British and French and
the Russians never said to me flat out they
would never go along. They said they thought
they could do better. It seems to me that the
political situation has deteriorated since then.
And my position has not changed. But I am
willing to work with them to do what we can
do.
NAFTA
Q. Sir, the NAFTA, the agreement with Mexico, you're going to take jobs down there and
plants down-they'll leave the jobs vacant here
and take the plants down there. How do you
figure that they can make enough goods in Mexico at those low rates and the U.S. brought
in plants-how do you figure that they can buy
goods up here? We won't have anybody up here
to sell-we won't have anybody up here to make
goods in our plants, our plants-been gone to
Mexico. We won't have anything to sell —
The President. Well, that's the argument
against NAFTA, but I don't believe that will
happen, and I'll tell you why.
Q. -   you see it?
The President. Yes, I can see it. Look what's
happened in the last 5 years. There have been
any number of plants that have moved into Mexico. They can continue to do that now under
the present law. The maquilladora line has been
extended well beyond the Rio Grande River.
There are lots of plants down there. But just
a few years ago we had a $5 billion trade deficit
with Mexico. Now we have a $6 billion trade
surplus. Last month, they replaced Japan as the
second biggest purchaser of our manufacturing
products. There are over 80 million Mexicans.
As their incomes go up, they will buy more
from us. If we can work out an agreement with
them, we will then be able to move to similar


agreements with countries even farther from us
but in our region in Latin America, like Argentina and Venezuela and other countries, and I
believe that that will create far more jobs than
it will cost. There will be some changes, but
I believe that NAFTA will help us to create
jobs.
Now, I promised to hear from you, and then
I've got to go. Go ahead.
Economic Program
Q. On the budget, although you are committed, as you say, to a $500 billion deficit reduction package, it appears that you seem to be
giving an indirect endorsement to continuing the
space station and the superconductor collider.
If that be the case, then in a final budget bill
are you willing to accept a final reconciliation
package that includes a scaled-down energy tax
and some elimination of certain corporate tax
incentives, such as suggested by Senator Bradley, specifically a minimum tax, elimination of
VAT tax, elimination of expensing provisions in
a final bill, particularly if interest rates remain
low?
The President. The most important thing is
to get the deficit reduction, have the tax burden
be very progressive, fall 75 percent on the
wealthy, and have at least as many spending
cuts as you do tax increases.
Let me answer very specifically your questions. And let me just tell you that in general,
first of all, I have an enormous respect for Senator Bradley, and I think the '86 tax reform
act did an awful lot of good in eliminating a
lot of loopholes, deductions, and things that it's
very difficult to argue for and in trying to get
rates down.
Now having said that, I still believe that there
is a distinction to be made between investment
and consumption by businesses and individuals
and that the tax system of this country should
at the very least not penalize investment. I have
favored some changes in the alternative minimum tax because I believe the way it operates
now you put people in a very difficult position
when they want to go invest in plant and equipment if it triggers the alternative minimum tax
burden, even when they're just investing. So,
I would like to see some modification in that.
He may have some ideas about how we can
have a better modification, or maybe he says
we don't need as much money, but I think
conceptually it's important. The second thing,


852




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / June 15


the small business community is the major generator of jobs in America, has been for the last
12 years. Their job-generating capacity has
slowed recently because it costs a lot of extra
money to hire an employee and because of uncertainties in the economy. I believe if we increase the small business expensing provision
from $10,000 to $25,000 that for millions of
small business people out there who are the
backbone of this economy, they will then see
the wisdom in continuing to invest, continuing
to expand, and a lot of people might hire one
more person, two more people, three more peo

ple, in ways that will create jobs for the economy.
In the end this is a jobs package. So, there
is an expensing provision in the Tax Code right
now for small business. I just think it ought
to be bigger, and I think it's a job generator.
I'll see you in a couple of days. I'm sorry.
Thanks.
Q. In a couple of days?
The President. A couple of months. [Laughter]
NOTE: The President's 16th news conference
began at noon in the Briefing Room at the White
House.


Exchange With Reporters Prior to Discussions With Prime Minister
Edouard Balladur of France
June 15, 1993
Cuba                                         agreement.
Q. Mr. President, are you willing to talk to  [At this point, one group of reporters left the
the Cubans about improving relations?        room, and another group entered.]
The President. I'm here with the Prime Min-  President's Schedule
ister of France. [Laughter]                  P   d     S
Q. [Inaudible]-French about the Blair House  Q. Mr. President, are you going to France
agreement, Mr. President?                    anytime in the near future?
Q. [Inaudible]-Cubans' announcement today    The President. I wish I could go in the very
that they'd like to talk about reparations?  near future, but I suppose that depends on
The President. I don't have any reaction at  when I can travel again. Of course, I have to
this time.                                   go to the C-7 meeting in Tokyo, and that will
be my first trip out of the country except for
Trade Negotiations                          the brief visit to Vancouver with President
Q. Do you think you can find common        Yeltsin. I'd very much like to go back. I haven't
ground with the French about Blair House, sir?  been in a long time.
About the Blair House agreement?
The President. Well, I was very pleased to  NOTE: The exchange began at 3:35 p.m. in the
see that the oilseeds portion will go forward.  Oval Office at the White House. A tape was not
But I think the rest of it we need to talk about.  available for verification of the content of this exThe United States supports the Blair House   change.
Remarks to the College Democrats of America
June 15, 1993


I want to thank Adam Kreisel and Jamie Harmon and Jenny Ritter for this gift and for their
leadership in the College Democrats, and I want
to welcome all of you here. I know I'm not


the first person to speak to you. I've been over
lobbying Members of Congress and being lobbied by them about various issues today, and
I'm awfully glad to see all of you here.


853




June 15 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


The first time I came to these grounds was
in the summer of 1963, 30 years ago next
month, before virtually everybody on these steps
was born, long before most of you were born.
That visit made a lasting impression on me, and
I hope this visit makes a lasting impression on
you. I was raised at a time when mothers wanted their children to grow up to be President,
and I hope there will be another time when
people want their children to grow up to be
President. Now there can be daughters as well
as sons who can really make a difference in
our future.
There is around here a wonderful old photograph of three great Democrats standing on the
steps of this building together: President Franklin Roosevelt, who was then a young Assistant
Secretary of the Navy, standing next to his President, Woodrow Wilson, and alongside them was
William Jennings Bryan, who was then the Secretary of State in the Wilson administration during World War I. Between those 3 men, they
represented 9 Democratic Presidential candidacies in 13 consecutive elections. Maybe
there's magic on the steps that will rub off on
some of you someday. I hope so. I hope some
of you will be here.
But I also want to remind you that even
though I am profoundly grateful about the help
you have given to me and to the Vice President
in the past election-and without the young
people of this country voting in record numbers,
we might not have been able to come here
I remind you that the reason for your party
identification and the reason for your work in
elections is to change people's lives for the better. That change is, under the best of circumstances, never easy. And after 12 years in
which people have been given siren song after
siren song after siren song about how evil Government is and all we have to do is just get
it out of your lives and everything will go away,
all the problems will go away, and every year
the problems get worse and worse and worse,
still people get used to being told what they
want to hear. And now the President is not
telling people what they want to hear.
The President is saying we have to bring
down the deficit, find some money to invest
in jobs and education and our future. We have
to be competitive with other nations. We've got
to do some tough things. We have to cut spending and raise taxes. But I have given the Congress a proposal that essentially, for every dollar


of deficit reduction, takes 50 cents in spending
cuts, 37 or 38 cents in taxes on people with
incomes above $100,000, and 12 cents in taxes
on the middle class, and holds people with incomes of under $30,000 harmless. It's a proposal
that puts all the money into a deficit reduction
trust fund. It has led to -lower interest rates
already. The head of the Federal Reserve was
in to see me last week saying if we could just
keep going and pass an economic program that
will keep interest rates down, he believes there
will be a significant continuation of our economic recovery.
If someone had told you in December, as
you looked forward to the Inauguration of the
new President and Vice President, that by June
1st, after 3 years of recession, we would be
on our way to passing a budget in record timethe first budget to be seriously considered by
the Congress since 1981, presented by a President-if someone had told you that by June
1st, as a result of the serious efforts of this
administration to get the economy going and
bring the deficit down and to do it in a fair
way so that those who benefited most in the
1980's would pay most in our efforts to do this,
that we would have a 20-year low in home mortgages, a 7-year high in housing sales, unemployment under 7 percent for the first time in a
year and a half, and 755,000 new jobs in the
private sector, I think you would think that's
a pretty good record.
And let me remind you of what else has already happened. We have passed the family
leave bill so people don't lose their jobs when
they have to go home for a baby or a sick
parent. We overcame a filibuster in the Senate
to pass the motor voter bill to open the franchise to more people. After thwarting the attempts to build a responsible global environmental policy for years, on June 4th the United
States signed the Biodiversity Treaty and once
again resumed its leadership in the effort to
promote responsible environmental policies.
And we have introduced into the Congress
a vigorous campaign finance reform bill. And
I pleaded again today with the Republican Senators who voted for the same sort of bill last
year not to filibuster and kill that bill this year.
We need to lower the cost of political campaigns, limit the influence of PAC's, open the
airwaves to honest debate, and give the American people their political system back. If you
want economic reform, we need political reform;


854




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / June 15


the bill is in the Congress.
And finally, the issue which attracted so many
college students to this campaign: The idea that
we ought to open the doors of college education
to all is making its way through the Congress
in two bills. One is the national service bill,
which will be marked up tomorrow in both the
Senate and the House, with broad bipartisan
support, to give more and more young people,
tens of thousands of them, the chance to earn
credit against college, to work in college, or
to work off some of their college loans by giving
service to their country here at home to rebuild
America. And let me remind you what the other
part of that pledge was, because it is also in
the administration's economic program. It will
save $4 billion over the next 5 years in excessive
costs to the present student loan program and
make a deal with the students of America. It
will say anybody, without regard to income, can
borrow the money they need to go to college
and pay it back, not based on how much they
borrow alone but on what they earn after they
go to work. You don't have to pay it back until
you go to work, and it's based on your earnings
after you go to work. [Applause] Yes. Thank
you. I think that's a pretty good record for 5
months, don't you?
Yesterday I had an opportunity to do something no Democrat since Lyndon Johnson has
done, and that is to nominate someone to serve
on the Supreme Court of the United States.
I nominated Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a judge on
the Court of Appeals here, whose pioneering
work for women in the 1970's, taking six cases
to the United States Supreme Court and winning five of them, has a lot to do with the
fact that all of you will be able to grow up
and compete with one another and cooperate
with one another on more equal terms in so
many ways. She symbolizes, in my judgment,
the kind of achievement that we ought to have
in this country. When somebody works hard,
when they play by the rules, when they are
performing at a level of excellence that deserves
to be recognized, they ought to be recognized.
That should be the rule for everybody in this
country.
All of these things that we're talking about
today in the end will produce more jobs and
higher incomes, will offer more opportunity and
demand more responsibility of people, and rebuild the seeds of the American community.


I am tired of our people being divided by race,
by region, by income, by party, and every other
way. We've got to pull this country together
again. But it can only be done when people
have a sense that if they work hard and play
by the rules, they'll be treated fairly.
I hope that the people who have followed
the work of the First Lady and all the health
care task force also believe that that is going
to be an effort to treat all the American people
fairly. She went to the American Medical Association and reached out to the doctors. We've
reached out to the hospitals. We've reached out
to the people who consume health care, the
people who provide it, and all the people in
the middle. Let me remind you: If you really
want to be able to raise your children in an
environment that is free of this awful deficit,
where there is still enough money left to invest
in our future, we have got to bring health care
costs under control, and we have got to restore
to the American people a sense of family security. You cannot have millions of people waking
up every morning terrified that they're going
to lose their health care if somebody in their
family gets sick or if they lose their jobs. We've
got to do something about that if we really want
to build America.
When you leave here I want to ask you to
go back home and gin up some support among
your people for this economic program. Call
the Members of the Senate, without regard to
party, and ask them to do it. Tell them we
cannot afford to turn away from our obligations
to bring the deficit down, increase investment
in our future, keep interest rates down, and
rebuild the economy.
This administration came to Washington to
restore hope and jobs, to demand more responsibility but to reward people if they do it. We
have got to do it. And when they ask you what
we've done, give them the list I gave you. It's
a pretty good list, it's a good beginning, and
it justifies the faith you put in Bill Clinton and
Al Gore last year. Let's keep working, and we
can make the kind of a country we ought to.
Goodbye. Thank you.
NOTE: The President spoke at 5:47 p.m. on the
steps of the Old Executive Office Building. In his
remarks, he referred to organization officers
Adam Kreisel, president; Jamie Harmon, former
president; and Jenny Ritter, vice president.


855




June 15 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


Remarks at a Reception for Members
June 15, 1993
Thank you very much. I want to welcome
all of you again to the White House, thank the
Marine orchestra for providing the wonderful
music, and tell you how very glad that Hillary
and I are that you could all join us this evening
to renew old friendships, begin new ones, and
celebrate a new and challenging era in world
affairs. I'm especially glad that we could be
joined this evening by the Vice President and
Mrs. Gore and by Secretary of State and Mrs.
Christopher and by the dean of our diplomatic
corps, Ambassador and Mrs. Pondi. The gathering of the Washington Diplomatic Corps offers
us a good opportunity to become better acquainted and an opportunity to reflect on the
state of the world we share.
Standing here, we are within sight, just behind us, of the magnificent memorial to our
third President and our first Secretary of State,
Thomas Jefferson. He acutely understood the
value of diplomacy to the United States. He
also is the embodiment of our eternal quest
for democracy. His words extolling democracy
and human dignity still resonate in the hearts
of all Americans and of people around the
world.
None of us here this evening can say we
represent a nation that has arrived at a perfect
solution for the problems of human governance.
There will never be a perfect solution for the
problems of people who themselves are not perfect. But among the many clear facts of the
era we all share is the remarkable worldwide
movement toward democracy, from Russia to
southern Africa, from Eastern Europe to Central
and South America. There is great hope today
that governments all around the world, beginning with our own, are becoming increasingly
Statement on the Death of John Connm
June 15, 1993
I was saddened to hear of the death today
of former Governor and Treasury Secretary John
Connally, whose life was one of service to his
country and of dedication to the principles in
which he so passionately believed. He will be


of the Diplomatic Corps
democratic and responsive to those whom they
govern. And that is a hope I share. This time
of hope is also clearly a time of urgency for
the work we will do and must do in the months
and years ahead.
Today, billions of people look to us, indeed
challenge us, to make progress against one of
mankind's oldest enemies: poverty, disease, ignorance, bigotry, or armed strife, and perhaps all
of them at once. And they look to us as well
to make progress against our new challenges,
such as the spread of weapons of mass destruction and the degradation of the global environment. The urgency of these problems is evident,
and the complexity and difficulty of them is
truly daunting. While none of us has absolute
power to make these problems disappear, each
of us has far too much power to pretend that
we can do nothing or that the problems do
not exist. And while each of us here may hold
only a piece or two of these troubling puzzles,
surely we must remember that together we and
the nations we represent hold all the pieces
of the puzzles. So this evening, let us talk. And
then tomorrow and the months ahead, let us
try, for ultimately that is why our nations have
sent us here.
I look forward to working with you and the
great nations you represent. I thank you again
for joining us tonight. And I trust that all of
us will always remember that we have been
given great obligations and great opportunities
and that together we can make a difference
for the better.
Thank you very much.
NOTE: The President spoke at 8:01 p.m. on the
South Lawn at the White House.


remembered fondly by his State and his country
for the work that he did and the person that


856




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / June 15


Statement on International Broadcasting Programs
June 15, 1993


Today I am pleased to take an important step
in the promotion of democracy by putting in
place my proposal for strengthening one of the
most effective foreign policy tools we have, our
international broadcasting programs, for the
spread of our values, our ideas, and our democratic way of life can help strengthen our security and support others around the world in their
struggle for freedom.
I am pleased to be joined in this effort by
the Director of the U.S. Information Agency,
Dr. Joseph Duffey, and the Chair of the Board
of International Broadcasting, Congressman Dan
Mica. These programs have been and will be
an essential part of our efforts to promote democracy and advance America's interests abroad.
Our plan proposes a proud rebirth of America's broadcasting programs to reflect this postcold-war era. Our proposal preserves Radio Free
Europe and Radio Liberty, which played such
an important role in bringing freedom to Central
and Eastern Europe and to the states of the
former Soviet Union. It retains our other important broadcasting services, such as Voice of
America, Radio Marti, and TV Marti, which
have played such an important role in bringing
truth and hope abroad. And our plan reorganizes
our foreign broadcasting services to make them
stronger, more efficient, and more capable of
meeting this era's new challenges of fostering
democracy and civic reconstruction.
Our victory in the cold war was due not only
to the strength of our forces but also to the
power of our ideas. While we acted to contain
Soviet expansionism, we also sought to inspire
freedom's spirit where repression reigned. Voice
of America long played an important role in
that effort. And to advance that same cause,
40 years ago we began a radio service, Radio
Liberty, which aimed to join freedom's advocates behind the Iron Curtain with freedomloving Americans. The founders of this and the
other American radio services understood that
truth is one of our most potent weapons in
the fight against communism and totalitarianism.
The heroes of the cold war's end, such as
Polish President Lech Walesa and Czech President Vaclav Havel, have often noted the importance they attach to Radio Free Europe and


Radio Liberty to their own historic work on
behalf of liberty and democracy. Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty, together with our other
broadcasting services, have persistently challenged the ability of repressive leaders to deny
history, disfigure truth, and manipulate minds.
From Havana to Ho Chi Minh City, from Pretoria to Prague, our foreign broadcast services
helped prove a lesson that Americans must
never forget: An informed and enlightened populace is the mightiest adversary tyranny can ever
face.
Today, the challenges have changed for the
states that were once held captive behind the
Iron Curtain. Freedom's work is not completed.
Most of these states are undergoing a difficult
process of consolidating democracy's gains and
building prosperity's foundations. The resulting
economic and political tensions in many of these
nations have bred demagogs and warlords who
threaten to reverse democracy's recent progress.
These states and many others still need a source
of news that is reliably free from the manipulation of their own governments. No nation has
more credibility to provide such news than the
United States. That is why our radio and other
international broadcasting services will continue
to be vital as we seek to help strengthen new
democracies and bolster the development of
democratic institutions where they do not yet
exist.
The plan we are announcing today will make
those services stronger and better suited to this
era:
We will continue the operation of Radio Free
Europe and Radio Liberty. Many of our broadcasting services, including both of these radios
and Voice of America, will undergo some
changes in structure and budget.
We will create a new and independent Board
of Governors that will oversee not only Radio
Free Europe and Radio Liberty but the Voice
of America and other foreign broadcasting services as well. Located within the United States
Information Agency, it will replace and perform
similar tasks to the Board of International
Broadcasting. The new board, which the President shall appoint with the advice and consent
of the Senate, will ensure independence, coher

857




June 15 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


ence, quality, and journalistic integrity in our
surrogate and other broadcast services.
This new board will play an important role
in determining the best mix of broadcasting
functions: telling America's story to the rest of
the world, reporting objective international
news, providing accurate in-country news where
a free press is not yet developed, and from
time to time helping to transmit our Government's official views abroad.
This new board will also take a leadership
role in helping to create a new Asian Democracy
Radio to provide accurate local and international
information for the people of Asia whose governments still suppress the truth.
In addition, we will continue the good work
of our important broadcasting services aimed at
speeding the arrival of freedom in Cuba, Radio
Marti and TV Marti. The current structure of
these entities and their boards will remain.
We will encourage the establishment of independent news-gathering and broadcast operations in the countries of Eastern Europe and
the new independent states themselves, where
they can be rewoven into the fabric of democratic life.
By bringing our broadcasting resources together under one roof, we can achieve substan

tial savings while at the same time providing
for greater flexibility to target and shape our
broadcasts as may be warranted by changing
international circumstances and audience interests. We can also take better advantage of the
remarkable  technological  developments  in
worldwide broadcasting that are imminent.
The plan we are announcing today was developed through the hard work and cooperation
of many individuals, but I particularly want to
acknowledge the leadership of Congressman
Dan Mica and Dr. Duffey. I also want to acknowledge the high degree of professionalism
and dedication among those individuals who
have done so much to create the excellence
of the Voice of America, Radio Free Europe,
and Radio Liberty and our other broadcasting
services. They spent years of their lives, and
often risked their own lives, to bring accurate
news and the message of democracy to people
who have been denied both, and we will continue to rely on their excellent service.
I have said that my foreign policy is premised
on promoting democracy, improving our security, and revitalizing our economy. The plan we
are announcing today assists us in doing all
three.


Nomination for an Under Secretary of Commerce
June 15, 1993


The President announced today that he intends to nominate Jeff Garten to be Under Secretary of Commerce for International Trade.
"As we seek to expand free and fair trade
with all of our partners around the world, I
am very pleased to be naming Jeff Garten to
this important post," said the President. "His


combination of hands-on business experience,
sterling academic credentials, and previous Government service in three administrations amply
equips him to tackle the challenges that lie
ahead."
NOTE: A biography of the nominee was made
available by the Office of the Press Secretary.


Nomination for Ambassador to Italy
June 15, 1993
The President today announced his intention
to nominate Reginald Bartholomew, a senior
Foreign Service officer with the rank of Career


Minister, to the post of Ambassador to Italy.
"Reg Bartholomew has served our country
ably in several ambassadorial positions and many


858




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / June 16


other challenging assignments," said the President. "I have full confidence in his ability to
maintain our strong relationship with Italy, an
important ally whose friendship America highly


NOTE: A biography of the nominee was made
available by the Office of the Press Secretary.


Exchange With Reporters Prior to Discussions With President Sam
Nujoma of Namibia
June 16, 1993


Economic Program
Q. Mr. President, there are indications that
the Senate Finance Committee may not hit your
$500 billion target. They may fall short because
of this problem on the gasoline tax. Would you
accept less than $500 billion, which is one of
your main principles?
President Clinton. Well, let's see what they
do. I think the-and I think ultimately the conference report will-I think the bill that the
Congress ultimately votes on will hit the $500
billion.
Q. If they come out under $500 billionusually in conference they cut things in halfit would mean that you would get less than
$500 billion out of the final product.
President Clinton. I'm  not-let's see what
they do.
Space Station and Super Collider
Q. Are you going to have a space station
decision today-super collider?
President Clinton. There is a deadline sometime in the next 3 days. I don't know exactly
when it is, but there's a congressional deadline,
and we're working on a statement right now.
Namibia
Q. Do you think Namibia can be a model
for South Africa, Mr. President?
President Clinton. I absolutely do. I think it's
a model for all of Africa. The reason I asked
President Nujoma to come here and be the
first African leader at the White House is because of the remarkable success that he and
his country have made in promoting democracy
and market economies, and they've done it in
a multiethnic society with great complications.
But they've managed to do it. And I think
they're a real shining example for emerging democracies in Africa and on other continents as


well. I'm very excited to have him here today.
Somalia
Q. President Nujoma, are you concerned
about the American role in Somalia, Mr. President?
President Nujoma. We are grateful. In fact,
I have come to express our gratitude to President Clinton, although the original initial sendup of U.S. troops to Somalia was under the
Bush    administration-Americans-American
President who did that-and when he won in
the elections, continued supporting the U.N. action in Somalia, while we were sitting there,
while thousands of Somalis were dying every
day. And I'm glad that U.S. Government and
the President Bush saw the need to quickly
move the U.S. troops there to stop the starvation
of thousands of Somalis and-the distribution
of food to the people who were in need. And
that today the Somalis seem like anybody else.
And we all see how to us, before the U.S. troops
in Somalia, it was terrible. So we certainly hope
that other situations, President Clinton and the
people of the United States were not to be
tired of not making the great efforts either directly or through the auspices of the United
Nations to ensure that this-instability throughout the world.
Q. Do you think Aideed, the warlord, should
be arrested?
President Nujoma. If he is, he has a hand
in committing a crime to ambush and to kill
the United Nations peacekeepers, certainly he
should be punished for that.
NOTE: The President spoke at 8:40 a.m. in the
Oval Office at the White House. A tape was not
available for verification of the content of this exchange.


859




June 16 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


Remarks Following Discussions With President Sam Nujoma of Namibia
and an Exchange With Reporters
June 16, 1993


President Clinton. Good morning. Today I am
delighted to welcome President Sam Nujoma
of Namibia to the White House. Here in this
city named after George Washington it is indeed
an honor to welcome a person who is known
as the George Washington of his country. Three
years ago, the world rejoiced at the birth of
a new democracy on the African continent. Millions of Americans of all ethnic backgrounds
celebrated Namibia's independence as a moment of great joy and real progress. Since that
moment, President Nujoma has led his country
through one of the most successful political transitions in recent times. I'm particularly pleased
to have the President here as the first African
head of state received by my administration. It
underscores my admiration for what Namibia
has accomplished and my commitment to democracy in Africa and elsewhere. Namibia's
President and her people clearly share that commitment. Their example inspires the cause of
democracy and human rights throughout the
continent.
Our meeting today coincides with UNICEF's
annual Day of the African Child. A brighter
future for those children is a goal we both share.
In that regard, I commend the President for
his concern for the future of Angola's people
as well and particularly her children who have
long suffered from that country's civil war. President Nujoma's efforts to bring an end to this
conflict have made an important contribution
to the cause of peace.
Our meeting today also comes at a time of
great promise and challenge for another of Namibia's neighbors, South Africa. I know that I
join President Nujoma in hoping that the transition to a nonracial democracy in South Africa
can not only come soon but can be as peaceful
and successful as the birth of Namibia's own
democracy a short while ago. South Africa has
seen far too much tragedy and despair for too
long. The day is overdue when it would be
a welcome time of renewal, of prosperity and
hope and peace. With its exemplary experience
in recent years, Namibia is truly in a unique
position to further the entire region's efforts toward democratization, market economies, con

flict resolution, and political stability. Namibia's
successful transition to a stable, multiparty, multiracial, multiethnic democracy offers hope and
optimism for other nations in the region,
throughout the continent, and around the world.
I also want to say a special word of appreciation for the work that the President and Namibia have done in promoting their new system
of government, promoting education among
their people. He has just given me a gift of
two games that a young Namibian citizen has
developed for the children there, board games
on the government and Constitution of Namibia
and on the governments of the African continent. And I might point out that Namibia's
Constitution also has in it a commitment to preserve the precious ecosystem of that country,
a real ground-breaking statement of environmental commitment that I, again, believe will
be honored by people throughout the continent
and throughout the world.
Again, Mr. President, I'm delighted to have
this opportunity to welcome you, a genuine hero
of the world's movement toward democracy, and
I look forward to working with you on the issues
we have discussed and the issues we're about
to discuss. The microphone is yours.
President Nujoma. Thank you, Mr. President
Clinton. I am particularly grateful that you have
extended an invitation to me, and through me
to my people, to come and pay an official visit
to your great country.
I'm grateful that your Government and your
people have decided when the people of Somalia were faced with the tragedy of starvation
and death, it was during the Bush administration
when President Bush decided to send U.S.
troops, before U.N. troops went, to put an end
to the civil war and starvation of the people
of Somalia. And later on, the U.N. sent its own
forces which are still there.
Our continent is faced with turmoils. We have
a civil war in Liberia, in Angola, in Somalia,
and elsewhere. And I'm appealing to you, Mr.
President, and to the people of the United
States not to be discouraged but to continue
to support the efforts of the United Nations
in assisting those who are in need and particu

860




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / June 16


larly in preventing further bloodshed and loss
of lives and destruction to property in areas
such as Angola, Liberia, and others.
Mr. President, after a long bloody struggle
for independence, during which there was massive abuse of human rights, Namibia has joined
the ranks of free and democratic nations in
which the right and dignity of human beings
are enshrined in the Constitution of the Republic of Namibia and protected as a matter of
policy practiced by my government. Over the
last 3 years of its existence as a sovereign state,
Namibia has scrupulously observed and upheld
political  pluralism    which-[inaudible]multipartisan. There are seven political parties
represented in our Parliament. All these parties
are quite vocal in their criticism of my government. But there has not been a single incident
of harassment or intimidation of any one of
these parties by my government. Tolerance and
accommodation are our guiding principles in this
regard.
We are committed to the rule of law, so much
so that not a single one of the inhuman apartheid laws, rules, and the regulation has been
replaced with undemocratic issues. Our Parliament remains the only legal institution that
has the power to repeal, amend, or pass laws
to regulate the political and other activities of
our society. The separation of powers is the
other central principle of our democracy. As
such, there has been no interference by the
executive branch of the government in the affairs of the judiciary. The judiciary acted independently. Although there were the draconian
laws used by the colonial regime to suppress
freedom of the press, there is today in Namibia
no single law that puts restrictions on that important freedom of the press. Namibia has,
therefore, one of the most active and critical
press towards the government.
The government of Namibia is committed to
a market-oriented economy. As such, there has
been no interference by the government in the
activities of private sector. Instead, my government is actively creating infrastructures on the
joint venture basis, and we intend to leave those
infrastructures to the private sector. This is one
way we think we can develop our country.
The government is committed to transference
in governance. In this regard, there are regular
consultations between the government, the private sector, and the civil organizations on issues
of national concern. We intend to uphold all


these democratic principles because we are convinced that they are essential for the maintenance of peace and stability in our country, as
well as for the social economic development of
Namibia.
Mr. President, in order to strengthen democracy in Namibia, there is an imperative and urgent need for my government to produce tangible economic results by encouraging private
sector investment in the country. Without such
a result we cannot say that the future of our
democracy is secure. In this connection, my government has just passed incentives which aim
at promoting foreign investment. We give a
guarantee of repatriation for their dividends and
profit. And I hope the U.S. business community
members will use the opportunity of coming
into Namibia and join us, either on a joint venture basis or just purely direct investment, and
make a profit and meanwhile assisting us to
develop our country.
I thank you.
President Clinton. Thank you.
Economic Program
Q. [Inaudible]-about whispers that the economic plan will not hit the $500 billion target
in the Senate Finance Committee. Despite repeated suggestions by you and your administration and your spokespeople that one of your
principles was $500 billion, you didn't seem to
clearly rule out taking anything less than $500
billion. Can you rule that out?
President Clinton. No, no. What I meanlet me make it clear. The actual plan I believe
the House passed was $496 billion. If it were
497, 498, 495, something in that range, that's
not-but if it's considerably below that, I think
that would be a mistake. But I have no reason
to believe the Senate is going well below that,
and I certainly have no reason to believe that
the conference report, that is, the final bill in
the economic plan, would go well below it.
That's the only point I was trying to make.
Foreign Assistance
Q. On a foreign aid question, international
aid, some Members of Congress are now saying
that because of domestic cutbacks, they may
have difficulty in supporting foreign aid. And
the question arises, is your Russian aid package
in trouble on the Hill?
President Clinton. Well, I would hope not.
The United States has some very direct interests


861




June 16 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


in foreign aid. We have shown some real restraint in many of our foreign operations. Yesterday I announced, for example, the reorganization of our broadcasting operations. Even
though we want an Asian democracy network
along with Radio Free Europe and Radio and
TV Marti and our other broadcasting efforts,
we're going to reorganize and save some money
there. And there are some other cutbacks in
our foreign operations. But the United States
still needs an aggressive program.
And I would remind you what I have said
before about Russia. That is a good investment
for America. We're going to make a lot of
money out of that over the long run because
we'll be able to do joint ventures, because
American companies will be able to more securely invest there. Just since we've been working, I can see the obstacles clearing for more
investments by American companies there in
ways that will benefit Americans. We will see
a continued effort to denuclearize the Russian
nuclear force which will enable us to continue
to do the same thing. So it's a very good investment for the United States. And if democracy
were reversed, that would be a bad thing for
the United States. So I hope it will pass, and
I think it will.
Major General Harold N. Campbell
Q. Mr. President, there is a long tradition
of Commanders in Chief, Presidents, firing general officers for gross insubordination. Now that
the Air Force has apparently confirmed General
Campbell's remarks-I know you told us yesterday you didn't take personal offense. I'd like
to know why you don't feel as Commander in
Chief you need to take strong action at this
time.
President Clinton. Well, what I feel I need
to do, sir, is to get a report from General
McPeak first. And until I do that, I don't think
I should say any more. This thing has proceeded
in a very orderly fashion. And I was assured
by the Secretary of Defense and by General
McPeak that I would get a prompt and timely
report, and when I do, then we'll decide what
the appropriate thing to do is.
Somalia
Q. Can you clarify for us and maybe for the
public what you see as the ultimate goal of
the U.S.-led U.N. operation in Somalia? Is it
to topple General Aideed? Is it to eliminate


all his firepower, to bring him back to talks?
What is it that we're doing?
President Clinton. The ultimate goal is to restore the conditions of peace which existed before the Pakistanis were murdered. The ultimate
goal is to make sure that the United Nations
can fulfill its mission there and continue to work
with the Somalis toward nation building and to
achieve the objectives that President Nujoma
spoke so eloquently about in the Oval Office
just a moment ago, to make sure that the human
needs of the people can be met and that we
can continue to make progress there.
Q. [Inaudible]-by his ability to turn this into
something of a public relations disaster for the
United States?
President Clinton. Well, I don't know that
it is that. It may be-the issue is whether the
Pakistani soldiers erred, and that's for the United Nations to resolve. And I'm sure that it will.
But you can't have these kinds of conflicts and
expect them to be brutal and illegal on one
side and then have a response and expect that
there will be nothing controversial about it. That
is not to exonerate or to condemn. The United
Nations is looking into the Pakistani conduct.
There are, I must tell you, conflicting allegations
about what occurred and who was actually responsible for the deaths of all the civilians there,
and we need to get to the bottom of it. And
if procedures need to be changed, if training
needs to be tightened, if discipline needs to
be imposed, then I think that can be done.
But the fundamental mission of the United Nations in Somalia has not changed. And I still
believe it's a very important one.
Congressional Black Caucus
Q. Mr. President, in view of the talks that
you had with members of the Congressional
Black Caucus, is it still necessary for you to
meet with the caucus before your plan goes
to the House for a vote?
President Clinton. I honestly don't know. I
think I've now talked to probably 15 of them
in the last several days. I think that depends,
in part, on what the Senate does with the economic plan and what the understandings are
about what's going to come out of the conference. So I think we'll have to wait and see
what the Senate Committee does and then what
the Senate actually adopts on the floor, and
then we'll make a decision at that time. And
of course, anytime they want to see me they


862




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / June 16


know that there's an open door. But whether Nujoma.
a meeting is necessary will depend in large
measure, I think, on what the Senate does.  NOTE: The President spoke at 9:10 a.m. in the
Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr.       Rose Garden at the White House.
Exchange With Reporters on Campaign Finance Reform
June 16, 1993


Q. Mr. President, those Senate Republicans,
sir, who are now blocking campaign finance reform even though they voted for it before, what
do you say to them? I mean, this thing could
go down today and be dead.
The President. The real question is what can
they say to the American people. What possible
reasons can they give other than pure politics
for filibustering a bill which they voted for last
year? And as I said, this isn't the first time
it's happened. It happened on motor voter, but
we were able to work that out.
But these are good people, and I think they
must be searching their hearts about it and
about wondering if they can even begin to defend it on anything other than raw politics. And
I'm hoping that there will be some change and
some breakthrough. I got some information this
morning that it's at least somewhat encouraging,
and we'll just keep working on it and hope we
can prevail.
Q. Would you agree to give up any public
funding? Would that be one way?


The President. Well, the only problem with
that is, if you give it all up you have no control
on the amount of money being spent. And the
argument for the public funding is simply that
the Supreme Court has-that unless you give
candidates something, you can't condition how
much they spend. So if the object is to control
the cost of campaigns, as well as to limit the
influence of PAC's, and to open the airwaves,
it is difficult to meet all those objectives if you
don't have some public funding. They're talking
about the various compromises. I don't know
whether they can reach one, but that's why I
hope that Republicans who voted for the bill
last year will think about it. It is essential to
limit the overall costs of campaigns, and somehow there's got to be a public funding element
to it. Thank you.
NOTE: The exchange began at 10:15 a.m. at the
North Portico of the White House. A tape was
not available for verification of the content of this
exchange.


Remarks and an Exchange With Reporters During a Luncheon With
Business Leaders
June 16, 1993


Economic Program
The President. I'd just like to make one comment to reinforce the importance of passing this
economic plan. We've got interest rates now
down to a 20-year low and home mortgage rates.
And this new headline, "Inflation Slows, Rates
Holding," that's the direction we want. We want
a steady recovery. And we have got to pass
this economic plan and do it in the near future
to ensure that that goes on.
Let me just mention one statistic. In the first


4 months of this administration, we had 130,000
new construction jobs in this country because
of low interest rates. That is the largest increase
in 9 years in a 4-month period. We can bring
this economy back if we pass the plan, get the
deficit down, keep the interest rates down, and
keep the investment flowing to create jobs in
the country. And I think it is terribly important.
And I just wanted to emphasize that, to impress
upon the country the importance of what the
United States Senate is grappling with now.


863




June 16 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


They simply have to pass this plan and go forward.
Q. Do you think that there will be a deal?
And will it have a significant enoughThe President. I'm encouraged.
Q.   energy tax to make it worthwhile?
The President. Well, it depends on what thelet's look at the final plan. You know, the Senate
is going to change the energy tax, but if they
have enough deficit reduction and they go to
the conference committee, I think that they will
come out ultimately with a bill that I'll feel
good about.
Supreme Court Nominee
Q. Mr. President, on another subject, were
you influenced by the letter writing campaign
on behalf of Judge Ginsburg? Did that help
persuade you to take another look at her?
The President. No.
Q. Did you read any of the letters?
The President. I read some of the letters that
came in on behalf of many candidates. But I
was unaware of any big letter writing campaign.
I saw seven or eight letters for her.
Q. [Inaudible]-influence your decision at all?
The President. No, only that a lot of people
thought a lot of her. There were also good letters for, I would say, 10 candidates that I read.
I read a lot of letters that came inQ. The Marines that are now heading
Campaign Finance Reform
Q. [Inaudible]-campaign financing-the vote
on the Hill?


The President. Excuse me?
Q. On the campaign financing, have you
heard any more about a possible compromise?
The President. Just what you have, that they're
working on it and that they may adopt one
which we would find acceptable. But I want
to see what they doQ. [Inaudible]-been in communication
with
The President. A little bit. We know they're
trying to work it out. And I'm encouraged. What
I said in response, I think, to Andrea's [Andrea
Mitchell, NBC News] question this morning, is
that I think those five Republican Senators who
voted for campaign finance reform last year
must surely want to do it again. They know
that special interests, financing, and excessive
spending have really undermined the public's
faith in the political process. So I think we've
got a chance to get one.
Q. Mr. President, 2,200 Marines en route to
the Somali coast. Can you shed any light on
that?
Q. Thank you.
Q. Enjoy your lunch.
The President. Lunchtime.
Q. We don't get any.
The President. You know, I don't believe that.
[Laughter]
NOTE: The President spoke at 12:40 p.m. in the
Old Family Dining Room at the White House.
A tape was not available for verification of the
content of these remarks.


Letter to Representative William H. Natcher on the Superconducting
Super Collider
June 16, 1993


Dear Mr. Chairman:
As your Committee considers the Energy and
Water Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1994,
I want you to know of my continuing support
for the Superconducting Super Collider (SSC).
The most important benefits of the increased
understanding gained from the SSC may not
be known for a generation. We can, however,
be certain that important benefits will result
simply from making the effort. The SSC project
will stimulate technologies in many areas critical


for the health of the U.S. economy. The
superconductor technologies developed for the
project's magnets will stimulate production of
a material that will be critical for ensuring the
competitiveness of U.S. manufacturers, for improving medical care, and a variety of other
purposes. The SSC will also produce critical employment and educational opportunities for
thousands of young engineers and scientists
around the country.
Abandoning the SSC at this point would sig

864




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / June 16


nal that the United States is compromising its
position of leadership in basic science-a position unquestioned for generations. These are
tough economic times, yet our Administration
supports this project as a part of its broad investment package in science and technology.
Our support requires making sure that the
project is well managed and that the Congress
is informed of the full costs and anticipated benefits of the program. The SSC previously had
an unstable funding profile. The stretched-out
funding proposed by our Administration of $640
million in FY 94 will allow better control of


project costs. The full cost and scheduling implications of this stretch-out will be complete in
the early fall, and will be examined carefully
by the Administration at that time.
I ask you to support this important and challenging effort.
Sincerely,
BILL CLINTON
NOTE: This letter was made available by the Office of the Press Secretary but was not issued as
a White House press release.


Statement on National Service Legislation
June 16, 1993


I've always said that national service would
be America at its best. In reporting out the
national service legislation, today two key committees were Congress at its best as well.
National service is not about political partisanship. It is about America and the values that
all of us share. National service will do so much
that must be done: meeting our country's needs,
paying for our children's education, and bringing
all of us together in the common work of citi

zenship.
Democrats and Republicans joined together
today in a spirit of service to support this initiative. Senator Ted Kennedy and Representative
Bill Ford continued to provide exemplary leadership in moving this legislation forward on a
bipartisan basis.
We've known for a long time that national
service will bring Americans together. It's good
to see that it brings Congress together as well.


Statement on Campaign Finance Reform Legislation
June 16, 1993


I congratulate the Senators from both parties
who voted to break the filibuster of campaign
finance reform. Today the Senate showed it has
heard the American people's demand for
change. I have long believed that we will not
give the middle class the economic growth and
health care reform it needs unless we also reform our political system. Today's vote is a
breakthrough in the fight to give the Government back to the American people.
The stage is now set for passage of campaign
finance reform legislation that limits spending,
curbs the special interests, and opens up the


airwaves to greater competition. Make no mistake: This legislation, while it necessarily contains compromises, will change Washington for
the better.
This must be only the first step in our effort
to ensure that Washington works for the national
interest and not narrow interests. I urge the
Senate to pass this legislation tomorrow. I urge
the House to act quickly on its own campaign
finance reform bill. And I urge the Congress
to move forward on lobby disclosure legislation
that brings the activities of lobbyists into the
sunlight of public scrutiny.


865




June 17 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


Remarks to Representatives From the Central Arkansas Radiation Therapy
Institute and an Exchange With Reporters
June 17, 1993


The President. Hi, kids. Please sit down. I
want to welcome you all to the Rose Garden
and the White House and thank you for coming.
Let me say a special word of thanks to Congressman Thornton for being here with his constituents. Senator Bradford, it's good to see you.
Ladies and gentlemen, it seems like just a
couple of days ago when Hillary and I were
sitting at Trio's Restaurant in Little Rock, talking
with Robin Armstrong about how exciting it
would be to have the CARTI kids come to the
White House. Well, I think maybe they thought
we were kidding, but here we all are.
CARTI is the Central Arkansas Radiation
Therapy Institute. It's a not-for-profit, freestanding radiation therapy center which in my home
State is synonymous with treatment of people
with cancer. In its 17 years of service, more
than 33,000 people have received treatment
there. Today I wanted to especially highlight
these young people who are standing behind
me. All of them have been fighting difficult battles with great courage and good humor.
I'm proud that my wife and I have long been
supporters of CARTI, and our administration
was when I was a Governor. In 1977, I addressed the CARTI auxiliary for the first time.
And in 1979, in my first term as Governor,
our State for the first time supported with State
funds radiation therapy, something we continued
to do throughout the course of my term as Governor. In 1991, Hillary and I hosted a Celebration of Life picnic at the Arkansas Governor's
mansion for more than 1,000 cancer survivors
and their families. I'm also proud to say that
my mother has received treatment at CARTI
and, based on the results, I'd say it's been very
good treatment indeed, and I'm very grateful
to them.
I'd like now to ask Robin Armstrong to come
up here, she's the director of volunteers at
CARTI, to introduce you to her kids.
[At this point, Ms. Armstrong introduced the
children, who presented the President with several gifts.]
Campaign Finance Reform
Q. Mr. President, is the Senate version of


campaign finance reform tough enough?
The President. Well, I haven't had a chance
to review it entirely, but I think it is a great
advance, and I'm elated that the bill is going
on to the House. It reduces the influence of
special interests; it lowers the costs of campaigns; it at least provides for some public funding to open the airwaves if one side in an election violates the campaign spending limits.
So I think there's some good things about
it. And I'm hopeful that the House will take
favorable action, and then we can come back
with one common bill that will pass both
Houses. Yesterday was a great day for the American people in the Congress, and I was encouraged by that.
Space Station
Q. Mr. President, on the space station, sir,
if it came to it, would you be prepared to fight
for it and even seek cuts in some of your investment programs to save it?
The President. Well, I have a budget program
that includes the space station. We've already
cut $4 billion out of it, and I intend to support
it. I think it's a very important part of our overall science and technology mission. And if my
budget passes, the other investments will be
there, too. And if they'll pass all the budget
cuts that I've put out there, I think we'll be
all right. After all, we've presented 100 budget
cuts of more than $100 billion. That's a pretty
good clip.
Campaign Finance Reform
Q. The House Speaker is already speaking
against your PAC provision in campaign finance.
How strong will you fight for that?
The President. I'm going to fight for it hard;
I believe in it.
NOTE: The President spoke at 4:05 p.m. in the
Rose Garden at the White House. In his remarks,
he referred to Arkansas State senator Jay Bradford. The exchange portion of this item could not
be verified because the tape was incomplete.


866




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / June 17


Exchange With Reporters on Somalia
June 17, 1993
Q. Mr. President, are you satisfied with the
level of military activity in Somalia, or do we
need to add the Marines that are heading that
way?
The President. Well, let me just say that for
now I think I should say that I've been fully
briefed on what has happened to date. I'm en

couraged, and I may have more to say about
it this evening.
NOTE: The exchange began at 4:40 p.m. in the
Oval Office at the White House, prior to a meeting with White House fellows. A tape was not
available for verification of the content of this exchange.


The President's News Conference
June 17, 1993
Somalia
The President. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. First I want to speak with you about
a situation that all of us have followed very
closely in the last week, and that is the United
Nations action in Somalia.
General Powell reported to me this afternoon
that this operation is over and that it was a
success. The United Nations, acting with the
United States and other nations, has crippled
the forces in Mogadishu of warlord Aideed and
remains on guard against further provocation.
Aideed's forces were responsible for the worst
attack on U.N. peacekeepers in three decades.
We could not let it go unpunished.
Our objectives were clear: The U.N. sought
to preserve the credibility of peacekeeping in
Somalia and around the world, to get the food
moving again, and to restore security. I want
to congratulate the American and the United
Nations forces who took part in this operation.
In this battle, heroism knew no flag. And in
this era, our Nation must and will continue to
exert global leadership as we have done this
week in Somalia.
Economic Program
Here at home, America is on the move. These
past few days have been an impressive and important series of victories for the American people. Congress has taken major steps to limit
the influence of special interests and their
money in our lawmaking and in our campaigns.
Congressional committees have also approved


my plan for more college loans for the American
people and to enable tens of thousands of them
to pay their loans off by community service to
their States and Nation. But the most important
thing I want to discuss is the progress that is
being made, the remarkable progress, on the
economic plan.
Last month the House of Representatives
passed the plan to reduce the deficit, the first
step toward creating jobs and increasing incomes. Yesterday the Senate Finance Committee cleared the way for action by the full Senate.
Make no mistake about it, this means that we
are putting our economic house in order. Getting the economy back on track depends upon
Congress passing this economic plan. It's necessary, it's fair, and it will work.
I propose, indeed I have insisted upon, $500
billion in deficit reduction to be locked away
in a deficit reduction trust fund. We will be
making historic cuts in the deficit by making
historic cuts first in Government spending, then
by making high-income Americans pay their fair
share so middle class Americans will be treated
fairly in the tax burden for a change. Seventyfive percent of the new taxes proposed fall on
the top 6 percent of the American people, those
with incomes above $100,000. Now, some of
the critics of this plan in Congress prefer instead
to cut Social Security or health care or tax benefits for elderly people just above the poverty
line or working people just above the poverty
line so that the wealthy won't pay so much.
I'm here tonight to say to you and to the Amer

867




June 17 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


ican people that I will draw the line here. We
have to reduce the deficit by reducing the unfairness of the tax patterns of the 1980's and,
once again, asking all Americans to do what
is right and fair. We can't simply balance the
budget on the backs of the old, the sick, the
veterans, and those who work hard but are just
barely making ends meet. It's not right.
Let's look at what's at stake here. First of
all, this chart shows that if we do nothing, the
inherited deficit, what we found when I came
into office, will go up by 1998 to about $400
billion a year. If this deficit reduction plan is
passed, we will cut $500 billion out of the deficit. That's the difference in this line and that.
As all of you know and as you've pointed out
in various ways in the last few weeks, I just
got here. And I may have a lot to learn, but
I didn't create the red line. What I'm trying
to do is to change the red line and bring the
yellow line in. And let me say, to get the yellow
line down here, we have to bring about an affordable health care plan for every American.
And that's the next big step.
But look what this deficit reduction plan alone
will do. I want to emphasize once again, because
there's been so much talk about taxes, that this
is the most progressive tax plan this country
has seen in decades. Two-thirds of the money
will be paid by people with incomes above
$200,000. Seventy percent of the economic gains
of the last decade went to the top 1 percent
of the American people. They are in a position
now to pay more to help make this economy
move again, and they will.
This is the monthly payment, if my full economic plan is passed, by people with incomes
above $200,000. And you can see what happens
here to the plan with an actual modest break
for people at the bottom end of the income
scale. This is a very progressive and fair plan.
Now, finally, let me say there's been a lot
of talk about spending cuts here. If you look
at this plan, for every $10 in deficit reduction,
$5, half of it, comes in spending cuts; $3.75
of the $10 comes in tax increases on the highest
income Americans, the upper 6 percent; and
$1.25 comes in taxes from the middle class, people with incomes below $100,000 but roughly
above $30,000. Families with incomes below
$30,000 are held harmless in this program. Now,
that's the way this program works. Five dollars
in spending cuts, $3.75 in taxes from the
wealthiest Americans, $1.25 in taxes from the


middle class. It's fair, and it's balanced. And
I hope that the Congress will adopt it.
Let me say that, as I open the floor to questions, the real issue here is whether we will
reverse the pattern of the last 12 years where
Presidents send budgets to Congress that are
never seriously considered and everybody is
afraid to talk about taxes because they're afraid,
no matter what happens, that will dominate the
agenda; nobody will know about spending cuts,
nobody will know about deficit reduction, nobody will know about fairness.
I've tried to tell the truth to the American
people. And if this plan passes, you will see
a continuation of what's happened already in
the last 5 months: low interest rates, increased
housing sales, more jobs coming into the economy. In the first 4 months of this economy
alone we had a bigger growth in construction
employment, 130,000 people, than we have had
in 9 years. Why? Because we're serious about
bringing the deficit down. That's what this last
week means. It means continued victory for the
American people if we can stay on this road.
Bosnia and NATO
Q. Since Vance-Owen is dead, will the United
States approve of a partition of Bosnia if the
three factions meeting in Geneva actually approve it? And also, isn't NATO really obsolescent now? I mean, hasn't it outlived-it can't
stop the slaughter in Europe, it won't be the
policeman in Europe?
The President. There's two separate questions.
First of all, as you know, my preference was
for a multiethnic state in Bosnia. But if the
parties themselves, including the Bosnian Government, agree, genuinely and honestly agree
to a different solution, then the United States
would have to look at it very seriously.
Secondly, I do not agree that NATO is dead.
NATO was limited in what it could do in this
instance because there was no agreement among
the NATO partners, first of all, and because
any organization of states was limited by the
rules that the United Nations imposed in the
former Yugoslavia, on the arms embargo, for
example. The clearest example I know to give
you that NATO is not dead was provided by
the leaders of all the Eastern European countries that used to be Communist that aren't anymore. When they came here a few weeks ago
for the Holocaust dedication, every one of those
Presidents said that their number one priority


868




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / June 17


was to get into NATO. They know it will provide a security umbrella for the people who
are members. And I think we need to continue
to be involved in it.
Q. Who's the enemy?
The President. Well, there will be different
enemies. The enemy will be anybody that
threatens the security and the peace of the
member nations, the values that we hold important. There are all kinds of possible problems
in the years ahead, from terrorism, from the
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction,
from yet unforeseen developments in countries
around NATO. So I don't think it's time to
dismantle NATO. I think it's very, very important.
Q. Mr. President, doesn't this plan for carving
up Bosnia send a dangerous message to separatists around the world, particularly in the former
Soviet Union, that military aggression pays?
The President. I think that this plan shows
that a civil war which has roots going back centuries, literally centuries, based on ethnic and
religious differences, has not been resolved in
the way that I certainly would have hoped. I
think Serbian aggression has been rewarded to
the extent that the United Nations resolution
permitted the Serbs to send arms to the Bosnian
Serbs and permitted the Croats that were next
door to Croatia to have access to more weapons
than the Bosnian Government, predominantly
Muslim, had. And I think that was a mistake.
But I don't think that anybody should overlearn
that lesson. Everyone who looks at this concedes
that this is perhaps our most difficult foreign
policy problem.
Tax Package
Q. Mr. President, getting back to your pie
chart, you said that $1.25 from the tax increase
will hurt the middle class. During the
campaignThe President. I don't think it will hurt the
middle class. I think that it will help the middle
class because it will be a way of bringing the
deficit down.
Q. A dollar and a quarter out of that tax
bite will hit the middle class. In the PBS debate
during the campaign, you said, "The only thing
Paul Tsongas has recommended that I haven't
is a 3- to 5-cent-a-year gas tax increase, and
I'll be darned if I understand why we should
do that without giving some offsetting tax relief."
Then in "Putting People First," which was your


campaign manifesto, you said you opposed a
Federal excise gas tax. I quote: "Instead of a
back-breaking Federal gas tax, we should try
conservation." Why are you now willing to go
along with the Senate plan to keep it moving
through the Senate for a gasoline tax? Do you
think you can defeat it in conference, and if
you do, will you try to restore the Btu tax,
as your Budget Director suggested today? And
if so, won't you then lose Senators Boren and
Breaux and all the other opponents when it gets
back to the Senate? Isn't it a no-win situation?
The President. First of all, I think it is a
win-win situation if the Senate passes a budget
that has $500 billion in deficit reduction, locks
the spending cuts away in a trust fund, and
asks the highest income Americans to pay their
fair share. I think that's a win-win situation because I think we'll go to conference and we'll
get a plan that will meet those criteria and will
also be fairer to middle class people and to
the working poor. There's also a lot of important
provisions in there that I care about that will
help to encourage people to move from welfare
to work.
The Senate bill is very different. It does have
a 4.3-percent fuel tax in it. That is very different
from 3 cents a year, which is 15 cents over
5 years, or 5 cents a year, which is 25 cents
over 5 years. A 4.3 percent tax, flat, is not nearly
as onerous as that.
I wish we didn't have to do that. But I would
remind you that after the election and before
I took office, the aggregate deficit over the next
5 years was written up by $165 billion. I'm
doing the best I can to use very conservative,
hard-headed revenue estimates to get the deficit
down, keep interest rates down so that people
in the middle class can save more money than
they'll pay if they refinance a car loan or a
home loan or take out a business loan with
lower interest rates. And tonight there will be
millions of people who will either watch us or
hear about this tomorrow who have refinanced
their homes just since November. With interest
rates dropping, they'll save more money in 1
year than they'll pay in 5 years under this program. So I still think, on balance, it is the right
thing to do.
Somalia
Q. You say this Somalia operation has been
a success. Does that mean that the United
States and U.N. forces have captured the Somali


869




June 17 I Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


warlord, General Mohamed Farah Aideed, and
his associates, including Colonel Omar Jess? And
if you haven't captured them, what are you planning on doing with them if you do capture
them? Are they going to be put on war crimes
tribunal or anything like that?
The President. No, they have not been arrested. The purpose of the operation was to
undermine the capacity of Aideed to wreak military havoc in Mogadishu. He murdered 23 U.N.
peacekeepers. And I would remind you that before the United States and the United Nations
showed up, he was responsible for the deaths
of countless Somalis from starvation, from disease, and from killing.
The military back of Aideed has been broken.
A warrant has been issued for his arrest. If
he is, in fact, arrested, then the United Nations
will have to determine what appropriate action
to take. That is the decision the United States
is leaving to the United Nations, and one I
believe we should.
Health Care Reform
Q. Mr. President, the original deadline for
the unveiling of your —
The President. I'm sorry, that's a great tie.
I just lost it for a moment there. I wish the
American people could see this tie. [Laughter]
Go ahead. I'm sorry.
Q. Some people believe that that's what the
White House press corps is all about-[inaudible]-Mickey Mouse. [Laughter]
The original deadline for the unveiling of your
health care reform plan has come and gone.
When will the plan be unveiled? What are the
prospects for congressional passage this year?
And if you don't get it done this year, won't
it be very difficult to do so next year because
of the congressional elections?
The President. Let me answer the first question. The task force has made its report to me.
They have given me a number of options from
which I must choose before I can finalize a
bill. The White House is continuing to consult
with people who know a lot about this issue.
My wife, as you know, went to speak to the
American Medical Association just a few days
ago.
Is he trying to give me some water? [Laughter] Let me answer the question first. Thank
you, John. He always wanted to be on television.
I hope his mother-[laughter].
My wife talked to the American Medical Asso

ciation recently. We are consulting regularly
with both the Democratic and Republican Members of Congress. She also had a long meeting
with several Republican House Members just
a couple of days ago.
We have determined that, first-and I, personally, am getting quite close to making the
final choices from among the options there. I
do not believe we can make any serious attempt
to go forward with this until the economic plan
and the budget is in place; then we will go
forward with it. I think because of all the consultation which has been done and all the work
that's been done, there's a real shot we can
act on it this year. I do not share the view
that there's no chance Congress will act next
year, although I believe we can do it this year,
because I expect a lot of Republican as well
as Democratic support for this.
And I think that this issue affects the American people so deeply. There are millions of
families out there who are terrified they're going
to lose their health insurance; who are terrified
they can't afford it; who are terrified because
somebody's been sick in their family, if they
have to change jobs, they'll be without it; as
well as all those who are working for a living
without health insurance; as well as all the businesses that are afraid they're going to go broke,
that the impetus behind doing something will
be very great. I think it will be good, not bad,
for the American political system to act on this.
So I think whenever the debate really begins
in earnest, you will see the prospects of passage
intensify, not diminish.
Q. If that does go over until next year, sir,
will that become the issue in congressional elections?
The President. I think that and the condition
of the economy will be the big issues, and
whether we are actually facing up to our responsibilities in this new global economy. But that
wouldn't be the worst thing in the world, except
I hope and believe that the plan will pass before
all that political season starts.
Welfare Reform
Q. Mr. President, Mrs. Clinton recently said
that she hopes to tackle welfare reform as her
next priority. Will she head the administration's
welfare reform effort? And do you expect to
get that done this year, too, or is that something
that will have to wait until 1994?
The President. Well, that, again, is a subject


870




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / June 17


that I expect we'll have broad bipartisan support
on. And I would expect that all of us will be
involved in it. My wife is very interested in
this because it affects children.
But let me say that the first big block of
the welfare reform package is now being considered by Congress, and that is the earned-income
tax credit. Most Americans don't know what that
is, but basically it is a change in the Tax Code
that will permit us to say to working families,
if you work 40 hours a week and have a child
in your house, you can be lifted out of poverty.
That will remove all the financial incentive to
prefer welfare to work, if we can then pass,
in the health care reform, health coverage for
all children, like every other country does, so
we remove that incentive.
But we expect to have a welfare reform package that will literally end welfare as we know
it, that will put a time limit on welfare, and
after that, people who have been through the
education and training programs will have to
work. And I, again, would like that if it could
be done this year. That will depend on how
warmly embraced it is by Congress.
Let me just make one other point. The national service bill, which will provide more college loans and the opportunity to work them
off with service, is moving through Congress
more quickly than most people thought because
we were able to get good bipartisan support
and work out a lot of the details. If we can
do that on welfare reform, I think we can do
it this year.
Economic Program
Q. Mr. President, going back to the budget
for a moment, if you manage to get the budget
passed, as it seems to be heading, you will have
achieved two major objectives: deficit reduction
and getting the wealthy to pay a larger share
of the cost of Government. But there was a
third major objective that you talked about in
the campaign and early on in your administration as crucial for the health of the economy,
which was your investment package, your new
spending that you proposed, which does not
seem to be faring well in Congress at all. So
you seem to be in a position where you've managed to overturn Reaganomics, but not enact
Clintonomics.
So let me ask you two things about that. One
is why? What's your analysis of why your spending programs have not been successful? And


second, what do you propose to do about it?
The President. If you look at the budgets,
if you look at where we're going with the budgets, we had to cut back all spending in the
first 2 years of this 5-year budget period to
deal with the fact that the deficit was higher
than we thought it would be. And I had to
do that as well. But this is a 5-year budget
for long-term growth of the American economy.
Over the long run, we do have to increase investment. Let me also say that just because we
are freezing all domestic discretionary spending
for 5 years doesn't mean there aren't changes
within those categories. We're cutting a lot of
stuff so that we can increase investment in
things like Head Start for children and job training for workers and new technologies to help
convert from a defense to a domestic economy.
A lot of that new investment is in there.
Secondly, I expect this bill to treat the other
part of my investment budget, that is, the private sector part, quite well. I think there will
be an increase in the expensing allowance for
small business, which will really help small business people to hire more workers. I think there
will be an empowerment zone proposal in the
final bill which will finally test whether free
enterprise can go into depressed cities and rural
areas and put people to work and invest and
start businesses. I believe it can.
I think those are the kinds of things that
you will see there. I think the earned-income
tax credit again will pass so that we can lift
the working poor out of poverty. So I expect
a big portion of the investment program to pass,
and I'll be surprised if it doesn't.
Q. Mr. President, I'm surprised that for the
first 4 months you came into office you were
saying how bad the economy was and how important it was for your program to be enacted
to grow the economy. Now, we hear you in
the last week or so talking up the economy,
saying how well things are going, and yet, your
program hasn't passed. What are we to make
of this? Why have you changed your mind about
the economy?
The President. First of all, I think the economy is still bad for most Americans. But the
trends are good, and the trends are plainly tied
to the determination of this administration to
bring the deficit down. We began to see a substantial drop in long-term interest rates after
the election when Secretary of the Treasury
Bentsen announced that we were going to have


871




June 17 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


a serious deficit reduction plan that would include entitlement cuts, other budget cuts, tax
increases on the wealthy, and an energy tax.
We saw that. And every student of this, starting
with the Chairman of the Federal Reserve,
who's testified before Congress to this effect,
has said that if we continue and pass this, we
will get interest rates down. So those things
have been coming down. That's why the Home
Builders Association of America-not a Democratic group, presumably largely a Republican
group-came from all over the country to Maryland a few days ago to endorse the economic
program, because it is already beginning to bring
interest rates down.
So are most people affected by the economic
recovery? No. But is it a good thing that you
have 755,000 private sector jobs in the first 5
months, that you have 130,000 jobs in the construction industry, the biggest gain in a 4-month
period in 9 years? Yes, it is. So the point I'm
trying to make is we're taking the right direction, but we've still got a lot of changes to
make.
Somalia
Q. Mr. President, you said a few minutes
ago that you've broken the back of the Somali
warlords in Somalia. However, Mohamed
Aideed is still at large. This brings to mind the
same problem that happened with the previous
administration with Saddam Hussein. How can
you assure the American people that you're not
going to get sucked into an ever-growing vortex
of war in Somalia?
The President. Well, there's a big difference
there. Aideed is not in control of the government of Somalia. The United Nations force is
there; they're still promoting peace. They're now
going to be able to deliver food, medicine, do
their work, and try to help engage in the longterm process of nation building. And we never,
ever, the United Nations and the United States
never listed getting rid of Aideed as one of
our objectives. In fact, as long as he was willing
to cooperate with the United Nations, he was
able to live and work in peace right there in
Mogadishu.
So what happens, from now on in, will be
a function of, number one, what the United
Nations thinks is appropriate for his conduct
to date and, number two, what he does in the
future.


New Zealand
Q. Mr. President, I have an easy problem
for you, and it's domestic, too.
The President. There are none. [Laughter]
Q. This one's very easy. A lot of Americans
are not wildly pronuclear and thought the U.S.
may have overreacted in past years in its very
heavyhanded treatment of New Zealand. Would
you consider meeting now with a New Zealand
leader and discussing the situation? Isn't there
some way that a compromise can be reached
so you can agree to disagree but still restore
the political and security relationship?
The President. I've given absolutely no
thought to that question. And I'm afraid if I
give an answer to it, I'll be in more trouble
tomorrow than I can figure out. [Laughter]
Economic Program
Q. Mr. President, as you point out, your economic plan would reduce the budget deficit by
$500 billion over 5 years, which is a significant
improvement over what we've seen in the past.
But your critics would point out that the budget
deficit would continue to mount by hundreds
of billions of dollars a year; and that your attack
on the deficit is limited to lowering projected
spending increases, rather than taking the much
harder tack of making real cutbacks in the budget. Can't you do more to deal with the problem
of this deficit and runaway spending?
The President. Let me have the chart again.
The answer to that question-first of all, let
me answer it. You asked two questions, not one.
It is absolutely true that if this whole thing
is adopted or any other deficit reduction plan
that has been presented to date is adopted, by
the fifth year the deficit starts to inch up again,
and you don't get down to zero.
Now, that is true, but why is that? That is
because primarily of the projected exploding
costs in medical care through Medicare and
Medicaid and because we have programs like
Social Security and other retirement programs
where people are given cost-of-living increases
year-in and year-out, something that most Americans support. But the prime culprit here is Social Security-I mean, is medical costs, not Social Security. The prime culprit is medical costs.
They've been going up way faster than inflation.
Now, I want to make two points. Why do
we reduce the deficit only $500 billion over
5 years, even though that's a huge amount? Because it was the considered judgment of the


872




-


Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / June 17


economic team, Secretary Bentsen, Mr. Panetta,
Mr. Rubin, that in a recession there was a limit
to how fast you could contract the deficit, and
that this would be a very rapid reduction of
the deficit in a time where there's very slow
economic growth around the globe. We think
it will actually lead to some expansion of the
economic activity. Why? Because there's so
much debt built into our system at high interest
rates that if people just go refinance all their
homes and their business loans, it will give them
a lot of cash in their pocket, and that will stimulate the economy to grow.
Secondly, it is our considered judgment that
we cannot get the deficit down to zero, which
is where it ought to be, until we do something
about health care costs, which is why the next
big piece of this administration's work is to provide a comprehensive health care plan that will
bring health costs in line with inflation. If you
do that, then this yellow line here, instead of
going up, will keep going down. And since there
is no historic precedent in America, let me ask
you to go back and look what happened in Japan
in the mid-seventies to mid-eighties. They had
about the same size deficit we do in the midseventies. They decided they were going to wipe
it out. They took 10 years to wipe it out, not
5. But they did it. And today, in spite of all
their economic problems, they are the only
major nation in a surplus position.
We can do it, too, if we do this, then tackle
the deficit. And let me remind you of one other
thing, in September, the Vice President's task
force will make its report on reinventing Government and reorganizing the whole way the
Government operates. That will give us another
whole shot to deal with this issue.
Media Coverage
Q. Mr. President, John F. Kennedy once said
that with the coverage he'd been getting as
President, that he'd been reading it more and
enjoying it less. And many other Presidents have
expressed similar sentiments. Lately, sir, there
have been some indications, at least, that you
may be experiencing those feelings as well. Can
you give us your analysis of that?
The President. I don't think I could say it
any better than President Kennedy did. But let
me say this: You have to do your job as you
see it. And I'm going to do mine the best I
can. Everybody in America knows, as I said,
that I did not live and work in this city until


I became President. I knew when I came here
that there would be things that I would need
to learn about the processes and the way things
worked. I believed then and I believe now that
if I do the big things right and deal with the
big issues, that eventually the other things will
also work themselves out.
In the meantime, I think the most important
thing is that we attempt, you and I, to create
an atmosphere of trust and respect and that
you at least know that I'm going to do my best
to be honest with you. And I think you're going
to be honest with me, and I expect you to
criticize me when you think I'm wrong. The
only thing I ever ask is, if I have a response
and I have a side, let that get out, and we'll
watch this conflict unfold. I mean, this is nothing new. President Jefferson got a rough press,
too.
Haiti
Q. Sir, on Haiti, the Security Council of the
U.N. has stated that they're giving Haiti until
the 23d of this month before they put real tough
petroleum and economic sanctions. Do you
think that will solve the problem, or will we
see a multinational force in Haiti as we did
in Somalia?
The President. As you know, since you asked
the question about Haiti, the United States is
pushing for the U.N. resolution to strengthen
the sanctions to include not simply a freeze on
assets and lifting visas but also to include oil.
I think it will make a difference. And the Members of Congress who are expert in Haitian affairs and who talk to people in Haiti believe
that it will make a difference.
Secondly, I have always assumed that to really
facilitate the restoration of democracy in Haiti,
there would have to be some sort of multinational force there. But I would remind you
that recently when that was proposed with the
support of the United States, both sides rejected
it. President Aristide rejected it and the de facto
government rejected it, which was a disappointment to us. So we decided to go back to the
drawing board, look for tougher sanctions.
In the end, since both sides distrust each
other to treat each other civilly, even to keep
from shooting each other, there in my judgment
will never be a resolution of that as long as
the main players are who they are, unless we
have a multinational peacekeeping force.


873




June 17 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


Former President George Bush
Q. Mr. President, what have you been told
about the plot to assassinate George Bush in
Kuwait? How definitive is the chain of evidence
against Iraq, and what do you plan to do about
it?
The President. I have not received the final
report from the FBI, and until I do I don't
think I should say what I will or won't do.
U.S. Leadership Role
Q. Mr. President, in Bosnia the Europeans
did not want to take action because the United
States did not have troops on the ground. In
Somalia, although we turned over operations to
U.N. peacekeepers about a month ago and it
was Pakistani soldiers who were attacked, the
forces that went into action were largely American; most of the firepower was American. You
were just talking about a multinational peacekeeping force in Haiti. Is the United States now
being put in the role of enforcer for the United
Nations? And what principles or thoughts do
you bring to the table when you consider committing U.S. troops to enforce not something
that may be strictly a U.S. interest but something that is the will of the international community?
The President. I think we have to ask ourselves, first of all: What are the interests of
the American people? Secondly: What are the
values and humanitarian concerns at stake? And
thirdly: What is the price of doing what we
might be asked to do?
Let me just say on Bosnia, it's not so simple
as that. We didn't have an agreement, ever,
about what troops would do. I pledged to the
American people in the campaign last year, and
I reaffirmed repeatedly, that I did not think
we had any business sending troops into combat
in Bosnia. I also said if there were a ceasefire and a genuine peace agreement and the
United Nations had to guarantee the peace
agreement, that the United States would participate. I don't think we should minimize the importance of leading the way but also setting
an example.
Let me tell you, a lot of other countriesthe President of Namibia was here, a very small
country; they sent people to Somalia. There are
people from all over the world who sent people
to Cambodia in very dangerous circumstances.
The Pakistanis are the people who were mur

dered in Somalia. So I think this is a very good
thing. Yes, America can lead the way. But it
is very moving to me to see all these other
countries-Ireland sending people, putting
themselves on the line, not just government employees but people working through other organizations to try to help solve these problems.
There is a remarkable confluence of people trying to promote democracy and human rights
and freedom and market economics. And I think
that if we can leave that an acceptable price,
that is in our narrow interest and it is certainly
in our broader human interest.
Space Station
Q. Mr. President, now that you've made your
decision about the space station, are you going
to appoint a new NASA Administrator? And if
you are, when?
The President. I don't have any plans at this
time to do that. Let me just make a point about
the space station, if I might. As you know, I
have always supported the space station; I realize that some people don't. The United States
indisputably leads the world in space. It is an
important area of science and technology. I
think it would be a mistake, after all the work
we've done, to scrap the space station.
There is a $4 billion budget cut in my budget
for the space station because we're going to
redesign it and redesign the management system
of NASA. We've brought in all of these scientists
to look at it, to tell us exactly what ought to
be done and exactly how this thing ought to
be run, and we're going to have to make some
changes. But I want to tell the American people:
We need to stay first in science and technology;
we need to stay first in space. We're going to
be able to get more people to come in and
invest with us, and we're going to have to make
some very tough management decisions at
NASA to get that done.
Congressional Black Caucus
Q. Mr. President, many African-American
leaders have expressed their anger or extreme
disappointment with the way you handled the
Lani Guinier nomination and with the way you
handled the Haiti situation. In addition, the
Congressional Black Caucus has said it is very
angry with the fact that they voted for your
budget package and cast some very politically
difficult votes, only to have you negotiate a watered-down package in the Senate. How would


874




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / June 17


you assess your relationship right now with
blacks? And what are you doing to mend fences
with the Congressional Black Caucus so that
they will not vote against the conference report
on the budget package?
The President. Well, first of all, I did not
negotiate that bill that the Senate passed. That
is just inaccurate. I did not do that. And I think
you know what I liked about the House bill,
and you know where I have been on the issues,
and you know what the principles are I've enunciated.
I think Senator Moynihan did a remarkable
job to get a bill out that does have $500 billion
in deficit reduction, more spending cuts and
tax increases, and taxes falling primarily on
upper income people. I think to that extent we
ought to give him credit. But there has been
no negotiations.
Secondly, and quite to the contrary, when
members of the Black Caucus came to see me
and asked me to pursue sanctions in the United
Nations against Haiti that included oil, I examined it, and I agreed to do it. They were the
first people who asked me to do it. And very
shortly after the meeting I agreed to go forward.
But they know, the ones who follow the Haitian
developments, that even before that I offered
to have the United States participate in a multinational peacekeeping force to restore democracy and to restore President Aristide, and that
he rejected that. They know that's a fact.
Thirdly, I don't think my commitment to civil
rights is very much open to question. And I
think my actions as President and the appointments I've made and the things I've stood for
document that. And I believe that over the long
run the Black Caucus and the Clinton administration will continue to be very close. And I've
talked to any number of them personally, recently.
Campaign Finance Reform
Q. On campaign finance reform, now that
most of the public financing provisions have
been removed from the Senate bill, how do
you convince people that this is truly meaningful
campaign finance reform? And also, will you
seek at some point in the future perhaps to
put that public financing back into another


measure?
The President., First let's see what the House
does. Again, this is a bill you're going to have
to watch come out of conference. The House
will probably adopt a somewhat different bill.
But let's talk about what the Senate bill does
do. The Senate bill reduces the influence of
PAC's and special interests; it limits the cost
of campaigns; it spends public funds, if necessary. If one party violates the spending limits,
then the other party can get public funds in
the form of communications vouchers so that
the airwaves will be open to both parties and
people can hear both sides.
So this is a vast advance over the present
law in breaking the back of special interest
domination of politics and elections. So I like
it in that regard. Let's see what the House does.
I think we can get a good bill out, and I hope
both sides will vote for it.
Tax Package
Q. Mr. President, will you support the Senate's 10 percent increase in the capital gains
tax?
The President. They imposed a 10 percent
surcharge because there's now a difference between the capital gains rate and the income
rate. And as you know, the theory of the Tax
Reform Act of '86 was to level them. Let's see
what comes out of the conference report. What
I want is a tax system where 75 percent of
the burden falls on the top 6 percent of the
American people, at least that progressive. And
if it is that progressive, then I'm open on the
details. But I want to see what the final bill
is. That's the key thing: Will the wealthy pay
their fair share? Will it all be in a trust fund
to reduce the deficit? And will the ratio be
at least as good as the one I showed-$5 of
every $10 in spending cuts; $3.75 in tax increases on upper income people, $1.25 on the
middle class.
Thank you very much.
NOTE: The President's 17th news conference
began at 8:02 p.m. in the East Room at the White
House. Paul Tsongas was a candidate for the
Democratic nomination in the 1992 Presidential
campaign.


875




June 17 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993
Statement on the Space Station Program
June 17, 1993


At a time when our long-term economic
strength depends on our technological leadership and our ability to reduce the deficit, we
must invest in technology but invest wisely, making the best possible use of every dollar. That's
why I asked for a review of NASA's space station program. Concerns over rising costs and
mismanagement raised serious questions about
a program vital to our technological leadership.
I instructed NASA to redesign the space station
program in a way that would preserve its critical
science and space research and ensure international cooperation, but significantly reduce
costs and improve management.
NASA has met that challenge, offering a plan
that will substantially reduce costs to taxpayers,
improve management, preserve research, and
allow the United States to continue to work
with its international partners and keep its international commitments. That was the conclusion
of an outstanding panel of independent experts
who carefully reviewed NASA's proposals. And
that is my conclusion as well, after thoroughly
considering their report and recommendations.
It will take not just a redesign of the space
station but a redesign of NASA itself.
I am calling for the U.S. to work with our
international partners to develop a reduced-cost,
scaled-down version of the original Space Station
Freedom. At the same time, I will also seek
to enhance and expand the opportunities for
international participation in the space station
project so that the space station can serve as
a model of nations coming together in peaceful
cooperation. Finally, I will be directing NASA
to implement personnel reductions and major
management changes to cut costs, reduce bureaucracy, and improve efficiency. The national
performance review team, led by Vice President
Gore, has been essential in working with NASA
to develop these management proposals. We are
going to redesign NASA at the same time that
we redesign the space station.
To make maximum use of our investments
and meet the scientific goals we have set, the


specific design we will pursue will be a simplified version of Space Station Freedom recommended by the review panel. We will work
with Congress, NASA, and our international
partners during the next 90 days to make the
very best use of this design. The details of this
proposal will be delivered to Congress within
the next few days. I have asked Dr. John Gibbons, my Science and Technology Adviser, to
transmit a letter to NASA with more detailed
instructions for implementing this decision.
The redesigned program will capitalize on the
investments we have already made. However,
with its deep cuts in future development and
operations costs, this redesigned program will
save more than $4 billion over the next 5 years,
compared with our assessments of what the real
costs of funding the planned Space Station Freedom would have been. Over the 2-decade life
of the program, these savings will grow to more
than $18 billion.
There is no doubt that we are facing difficult
budget decisions. However, we cannot retreat
from our obligation to invest in our future.
Budget cuts alone will not restore our vitality.
I believe strongly that NASA and the space station program represent important investments
in that future and that these investments will
yield benefits in medical research, aerospace,
and other critical technology areas. As well, the
space station is a model of peaceful international
cooperation, offering a vision of the new world
in which confrontation has been replaced with
cooperation.
In making this announcement today, I want
to recognize the extraordinary efforts of all those
involved. Vice President Gore and Dr. Gibbons
assembled an outstanding team of experts, led
by Dr. Charles Vest, president of MIT, who
assessed several cost-saving options prepared by
NASA. This review included not only the design
of the space station but also the structure and
management of NASA itself. Their work and
the work of all those at NASA involved in this
project has been invaluable.


876




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / June 17


Statement on Senate Action on Campaign Finance Reform Legislation
June 17, 1993


Today's vote is a victory for the American
people and a setback for the special interests.
Government will only serve the middle class if
Washington works for the national interest and
not narrow interests. By breaking the filibuster
and overwhelmingly passing campaign finance
reform legislation, the Senate has answered the
call for change. This legislation's sponsors and
supporters deserve our gratitude.
This bill will end the days when candidates
could crush their opponents with unanswered
spending by setting voluntary spending limits for
Statement on the Voting Rights Act of
June 17, 1993
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 has been a
topic of substantial discussion in recent days.
I want to make absolutely clear my full support
for the act.
The Voting Rights Act is central to our Nation's efforts to eradicate racial discrimination
and secure equal opportunity for all Americans.
As I said last month upon signing the motor
voter bill, the Voting Rights Act is part of a
great tradition of laws that have widened the
circle of liberty to encompass more and more
of our citizens. This administration remains unwavering in its commitment to effective enforcement of the act and the Nation's other civil
rights laws.
The Voting Rights Act was adopted to give
reality to the 15th amendment's guarantee of
the right to vote, the most basic right of a democracy. When first adopted in 1965, the act
responded to long-entrenched barriers that systematically denied voting rights to African-Americans. As more subtle forms of disenfranchisement came to be employed, the Congress, with
bipartisan agreement, strengthened and extended the Voting Rights Act in 1982. The Voting Rights Act offers two major protections: It
imposes a nationwide prohibition of any electoral process that results in discrimination, and
requires that certain specially covered jurisdic

candidates. It severely limits PAC's and bans
contributions from lobbyists to the lawmakers
they contact. It ends the abuses of the "soft
money" system. I continue to believe that we
should do more to open up the airwaves to
candidates. But all in all, this legislation is comprehensive, real reform.
The process of political reform should now
move forward quickly. I urge the House of Representatives to enact the strongest possible legislation. Previous Presidents have blocked and
even vetoed political reform. I look forward to
signing it.


tions  obtain   administrative  or  judicial
preclearance  before  implementing   voting
changes.
I fully and enthusiastically support Attorney
General Janet Reno, and the attorneys of the
Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice, in their efforts to enforce vigorously the
Voting Rights Act. Where the Voting Rights Act
is violated, this administration will continue, as
it has in pending Supreme Court litigation in
which the Department of Justice has filed briefs,
to seek effective relief by applying the full range
of remedies available under law, including remedies that have previously been employed by
the Department of Justice or approved by the
courts. I also look forward to working with Attorney General Reno and Members of Congress
to enact legislation, as needed, to clarify and
reinforce the protections of the Voting Rights
Act.
In 1965, President Johnson hailed the Voting
Rights Act as "a triumph for freedom as huge
as any victory that has ever been won on any
battlefield." Effective enforcement of the Voting
Rights Act will allow us to continue that triumph. Inclusion of all Americans in the political
process is necessary if we are to work together
as communities, States, and a nation to address
the difficult challenges that confront us all.


877




June 17 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


Message to the Congress Transmitting the Latvia-United States Fishery
Agreement
June 17, 1993


To the Congress of the United States:
In accordance with the Magnuson Fishery
Conservation and Management Act of 1976
(Public Law 94-265; 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.),
I transmit herewith an Agreement between the
Government of the United States of America
and the Government of the Republic of Latvia
Concerning Fisheries off the Coasts of the United States, with annex, signed at Washington on
April 8, 1993. The agreement constitutes a governing international fishery agreement within the


requirements of Section 201(c) of the Act.
United States fishing industry interests have
urged prompt consideration of this agreement
to take advantage of opportunities for seasonal
cooperative fishing ventures. I recommend that
the Congress give favorable consideration to this
agreement at an early date.
WILLIAM J. CLINTON
The White House,
June 17, 1993.


Remarks on the Nomination of Doris Meissner To Be Immigration and
Naturalization Service Commissioner and an Exchange With Reporters
June 18, 1993


The President. Thank you all very much for
coming. I want to say a special word of thanks
to the Members of Congress who are here from
both parties, demonstrating a strong bipartisan
interest in the subject of immigration. I also
want to recognize Admiral John Kime, the Commandant of the Coast Guard, and Admiral Robert Nelson, the Vice Commandant, thank them
for coming. And in a moment I'll recognize a
couple of other people.
The immigration issue poses real problems
and challenges and, as always, provides great
opportunities for the American people. It is a
commonplace of American life that immigrants
have made our country great and continue to
make a very important contribution to the fabric
of American life. In one of our counties, Los
Angeles County, there are today people from
150 different national and ethnic groups. But
we also know that under the pressures that we
face today, we can't afford to lose control of
our own borders or to take on new financial
burdens at a time when we are not adequately
providing for the jobs, the health care, and the
education of our own people. Therefore, immigration must be a priority for this administration.
I am pleased to announce today my intention
to nominate Doris Meissner for the position of
Commissioner of the United States Immigration


and Naturalization Service. I want to say that
this nomination has the full support of Attorney
General Janet Reno, who could not be here
today because of a previous commitment to be
at the FBI Training Academy at Quantico. But
she has very strongly endorsed and supported
Ms. Meissner's nomination.
She has an extensive background in immigration affairs, bringing a unique combination of
management and policy experience. She served
as Acting Commissioner and in other senior positions in the Immigration and Naturalization
Service between 1981 and 1985. She served at
the Department of Justice as Deputy Associate
Attorney General from 1977 to 1980, and in
a variety of other policy positions at the Justice
Department where she began as a White House
fellow in 1973. Since 1986, Doris Meissner has
been senior associate and director of immigration policy project of the Carnegie Endowment
for International Peace. She's authored numerous articles on a wide variety of immigration
issues and has testified before Congress on many
legislative proposals. First and foremost, she is
committed to the effective management of the
INS and the vigorous and fair enforcement of
our country's immigration laws. Her nomination
signals my efforts to ensure that we meet the
immigration challenges facing our Nation and


878




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / June 18


the world.
Before I call Doris up here, I also want to
announce that I have today approved a plan
of action to combat the problem of organized
crime syndicates trafficking in alien smuggling.
The plan involves the coordinated efforts of 12
departments and agencies of the United States
Government working in coordination with the
White House Domestic Policy Council and the
National Security Council. It responds to a
major crime problem which has existed for almost 2 years but to date has been dealt with
only on an ad hoc basis.
Alien smuggling is a shameful practice of unspeakable degradation and unspeakable exploitation. Migrants and their families must pledge
up to $30,000 to come to the United States.
Criminal syndicates load these immigrants on
ships under conditions that run the gamut from
deplorable to life-threatening. The gangs then
place arriving immigrants in slave-like conditions
of indentured servitude to pay off their debts.
Deterring this transport in human cargo and
traffic in human misery is a priority for our
administration.
The plan I have approved addresses this
smuggling in multiple ways. We will strengthen
law enforcement efforts in the United States
by expanding our investigative efforts and broadening prosecution strategies. We will go after
smugglers and their operations at the source.
We will take measures to interdict and redirect
smuggling ships when they are in transit. We
will expedite procedures for processing entry
claims and for returning economic migrants
smuggled into the United States. And we will
ask Congress to pass legislation to expedite this
process further. We will also ask the Congress
to increase penalties for alien smuggling to allow
us to use the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act to go after these smugglers
and to permit us expanded authority to seize
their assets.
With this plan, the United States signals its
abhorrence of the trafficking in human beings
for profit and its determination to combat this
illegal activity. At the same time, we reaffirm
our commitment to protect bona fide refugees
under our law. This is a good beginning, but
there is much more to do.
I'd like now to invite Doris Meissner to say
a few words. But before I do, I'd like to ask
her husband, Charles, and her daughter, Christine, to stand and be recognized. It's nice to


have you with us today.
Chairman Brooks, I want to thank you and
all the Members of Congress who are here. And
I'd like to now introduce our designate to run
the Immigration and Naturalization Service, Ms.
Doris Meissner.
[At this point, Ms. Meissner made brief remarks. ]
The President. If you have any questions of
Ms. Meissner or me, we'll take a couple.
Alien Smuggling
Q. Mr. President, you mentioned that this
problem began or has been going on for 2 years.
Was there some event that precipitated it?
The President. I just wanted to make it clear
that we were aware of this problem before the
ship came. And I don't know what event
precipitated it. There have been a lot of speculation about the Chinese immigrants themselves
and the irony that-it may be that the increasing
prosperity in China may have something to do
with this because more people at least have
the ability to move into the coastal cities and
to have a little bit of money to make that first
step. No one knows exactly why this happened.
We've heard that it may be because certain
ships have been diverted from other things, because they couldn't do what they were doing
before and now are more available to bring immigrants here. There are all kinds of speculations about what caused it, but that's not important. What's important is that we try to do something about it and bring it to an end.
Q. Mr. President, the Chinese problem is
a
The President. The House Members have to
have a vote.
Q.     Mexican border. What are you going
to do about that?
The President. The House Members have to
be excused to go to vote.
Go   ahead,  Sarah  [Sarah   McClendon,
McClendon News], I'm sorry. You're next.
Mexico
Q. Sir, I want to point out to you that for
generation after generation, Democrats and Republicans have refused to face the problems of
immigration on the Mexican border. And that's
where people come through, not only from Mexico. A thousand a night at least get by at one
place south of San Diego alone. And that's got


879




June 18 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


to be faced up to. But people come from all
over the world to Mexico to come in here. And
they don't have to pay $30,000, they just pay
the-[inaudible]-about $500.
Ms. Meissner. Well, obviously we have abetween the United States and Mexico is a border between countries with the largest income
differential of any countries that have a single
border. So there's going to be an effort for
people to come to the United States. We obviously need to do border control, but we also
need to be thinking about development to our
south. And the NAFTA that is going to be debated in the next couple of months is a very,
very important step in that direction, and I hope
that we can support it.
The President. We did not rehearse this, but
let me, if I might reinforce that. We have asked
for more border guards. I asked for several hundred more in the jobs package that I asked
the Congress to pass earlier. And we can do
a better job. I think that's clear. We can do
a better job if we have more people. But in
the end, I think what Ms. Meissner said has
to be looked at, the pure economic realities.
One of the arguments for having the right
kind of trade agreement with Mexico is to raise
incomes in Mexico and create more jobs there.
They'll not only buy more of our products, but
the incentive to leave home to make a decent
living for one's family will go down dramatically.
So that's another one of the very important benefits of NAFTA. And I swear we did not coordinate our responses. I didn't know she was going
to say that.
Enforcement
Q. Do you think that employer sanctions
should be made in order to control better this


kind of problem in the United States?
Ms. Meissner. I believe that employer sanctions is an important enforcement tool. I think
when the Congress passed employer sanctions
in 1986, it realized, and everybody else who
was involved in the debate realized, that it was
simply a first step at the kind of workplace enforcement that we would need. We may need
to look at ways to perfect the law. We certainly
need to look at whether we're enforcing it as
effectively as we can.
Q. Mr. President, a couple of questions. How
much is this going to cost, if you know? And
on your list of priorities, and I know you have
a lot, where do you place this? Is this close
to the top or in the middle or someplace else?
The President. Keep in mind we have a large
budget already, and we have a wonderful resource in the United States Coast Guard and
a lot of other people who are working in the
Immigration and Naturalization Service. So I
don't have a price tag for what else it might
cost. But let me say that this basically relates
to everything else we're working on. What our
immigration policy is will affect our ability to
create jobs for our people, will affect our ability
to provide health care to our people, may affect
our ability even to pass a health care program
in the United States Congress. This issue will
be a priority because it is so integrally a part
of so many of the other things that we're dealing
with in our effort to revive the American economy and strengthen the lives and the security
of the people who live here.
Thank you.
NOTE: The President spoke at 10:49 a.m. on the
South Lawn at the White House.


Exchange With Reporters Prior to Discussions With King Hussein of
Jordan
June 18, 1993


Middle East Peace Process
Q. Your Highness, what do you think are the
prospects for peace soon? Does it look any better to you now?
King Hussein. I believe that some possible
ground has been covered. We are still a long


way from getting there, but there is no other
alternative. I believe that we must do everything
we can not to let the moment pass withoutQ. What's the main stumbling block?
King Hussein. It would complicate, possibly,
to attempt to try to explain what the main stum

880




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / June 18


bling block is. I believe that it's one of, hopefully, the Palestinians being able to feel that
they are able to speak for themselves and contribute their share in shaping the peace that
is comprehensive, that is so very, very important
to all of us.
Q. Do you think Israel will be amenable now
to recognizing a Palestinian state?
King Hussein. I don't know what Israel would
accept or otherwise, but I believe that there
is one important element, and that is that people
on either side of the divide feel that this is
the moment and are determined to continue
to move ahead until a comprehensive just peace
is-that future generations can enjoy.
Q. That's a pretty subdued tie you have on,
Mr. President.
The President. Well, it's not Mickey Mouse.
[Laughter]
[At this point, one group of reporters left the
room, and another group entered.]
Q. Mr. President, how do you feel about to

day's visit and relations with Jordan?
The President. I'm very pleased that the King
is here. I have looked forward to this visit for
a long time. And I am very, very impressed
by the progress which has been made in Jordan
moving toward economic reforms, moving toward democracy. And also I am very grateful
for the support of the peace process that the
King has demonstrated so consistently. I have
the feeling that maybe all the parties have now
concluded not that they have no difference but
that there is no alternative to peace. And if
we do see this thing through and find some
resolution, that will be in no small measure because King Hussein for so many years has persistently pushed us toward peace. And the United States will do what it can to help achieve
that.
NOTE: The exchange began at 11:56 a.m. in the
Oval Office at the White House. A tape was not
available for verification of the content of this exchange.


Exchange With Reporters Following Discussions With King Hussein of
Jordan
June 18, 1993


Budget Proposal
Q. Do you like the budget?
The President. I think in the end, I like it
a lot. It's not done yet. We're not even through
the Senate yet. We've got a lot of work to do.
Q. Mr. President, what's your reaction to the
reprimand accepted by General Campbell?
Q. What do you think about-for Campbell?
[At this point, one group of reporters left the
room, and another group entered.]
Discussions With King Hussein
Q. What did you accomplish today in the
meeting, sir?
The President. Talked a lot about the peace


process. I learned about the King's position; he
learned about the United States position. We
talked a little about Iraq and the imperative
nature of continuing to enforce those sanctions
and being very tough on them. We talked about
his efforts to democratize the country and to
modernize the economy and deal with all the
things he's dealt with over the last 40 years
and especially the last 3. It was a very, very
good meeting.
NOTE: The exchange began at 1:50 p.m. at the
Diplomatic Entrance at the White House. A tape
was not available for verification of the content
of this exchange.


881




June 18 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


Statement by the Press Secretary on the President's Meeting With King
Hussein of Jordan
June 18, 1993


President Clinton and King Hussein of Jordan
held a productive meeting which lasted for 2
hours. The two leaders discussed a wide range
of issues, including their shared commitment to
achieving tangible progress in the Middle East
peace process this year.
President Clinton reaffirmed that the United
States is committed to serving as a full partner
and honest broker in these historic negotiations.
He stressed that negotiations are the only viable
path to achieve a comprehensive, just, and lasting peace between Israel, the Arab states, and
Message to the Congress Transmitting
Endowment For the Humanities
June 18, 1993
To the Congress of the United States:
In accordance with the provisions of the National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities
Act of 1965, as amended (20 U.S.C. 959(d)),
I transmit herewith the 27th Annual Report of
the National Endowment for the Humanities
(NEH) for fiscal year 1992. This report was
prepared by, and covers activities occurring exclusively during, the previous Administration. It


the Palestinians.
The two leaders discussed the importance of
strong enforcement of United Nations sanctions
on Iraq. The two countries will continue to work
closely in pursuit of that goal.
The President and King Hussein also discussed Jordan's progress toward democratization
and respect for human rights. President Clinton
expressed his support for the courageous efforts
of King Hussein in this regard, and noted that
this work will encourage long-term stability and
prosperity in Jordan.
the Report of the National


does not necessarily reflect the policies or priorities of my Administration. The Annual Report
for 1993, which I will submit next April, will
reflect the goals and vision of my Administration
for the NEH.
WILLIAM J. CLINTON
The White House,
June 18, 1993.


Nomination for Ambassadors to Iceland and Uruguay
June 18, 1993


The President today announced his intention
to nominate Foreign Service officer Parker Borg
to be the U.S. Ambassador to Iceland and historian Thomas Dodd to be Ambassador to Uruguay.
'These two outstanding individuals will make


fine representatives of our Nation," said the
President. "I am very glad to be making these
announcements today."
NOTE: Biographies of the nominees were made
available by the Office of the Press Secretary.


882




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / June 18


Nomination for Posts at the Department of State
June 18, 1993


The President announced his intention today
to nominate Ed Djerejian, a senior member of
the Foreign Service, to be Ambassador to Israel.
In addition, Secretary of State Christopher has
asked Dennis Ross to be his Special Middle
East Coordinator.
"This is a crucial time for the Middle East


peace process," said the President. "It is imperative that the United States have talented diplomats working to ensure that the process continues to move forward. Ed Djerejian and Dennis Ross have my complete confidence."
NOTE: Biographies of the nominees were made
available by the Office of the Press Secretary.


Remarks on the 40th Anniversary of the Newport Jazz Festival
June 18, 1993


Thank you very much. I can say this, that
when she's listening to my jazz she wishes I
would practice more. [Laughter] I am delighted
to have all of you here at this, our first televised
concert from the White House. Both Hillary
and I are very excited and pleased to welcome
you here. It's especially appropriate that we
should be together here at America's house to
celebrate that most American of all forms of
musical expression, jazz.
One of the greatest things that ever happened
to jazz was a simple 2-day event that took place
in Newport, Rhode Island, way back in 1954.
The Newport Jazz Festival was an immediate
hit, and it grew and grew. It captured the imagination of young musicians all across the country
and eventually across the world. No event has
done more to nurture the careers of jazz artists;
none has done more to thrill and delight jazz
fans. The festival's influence has been truly profound, inspiring more than 2,000 other jazz festivals every year all around the world. Indeed,
the French Government recently recognized
that impact when it awarded the festival's producer the Legion of Honor.
Tonight we're having our own White House
jazz festival as a special tribute to the 40th year
of Newport Jazz and, of course, to its founder
and its fine producer, George Wein. George,
stand up. Where are you? There he is.
You know, jazz is really America's classical
music. Like our country itself and especially like
the people who created it, jazz is a music born
of struggle but played in celebration. This


unique musical and cultural art form is now
more than a century old. It's paused periodically
in its evolution to give us ragtime and boogiewoogie and swing and bebop and cool and free
jazz and fusion, only then to continue its restless
rebirth into forms that have yet to be named
or even imagined. Original and enduring, adapting and growing, jazz is simply one of our Nation's greatest creations.
Many good people swing to the sound of jazz
and rally to its cause, and one of them is our
host tonight, the son of a jazz legend. In his
father's name, he's established an institute which
introduces young people to the beauty of jazz
and encourages up-and-coming jazz musicians.
And he is a brilliant musician in his own right
and a good friend of the President and the
First Lady. Ladies and gentlemen, please welcome Thelonious Monk, Jr.
[At this point, Mr. Monk hosted the musical
program. ]
We want to say a wonderful, heartfelt, happy
thank-you to all the performers; thank you to
Thelonious Monk, Jr., the Thelonious Monk Institute of Jazz, and its executive director, Tom
Carter; and a very, very special thank-you to
George Wein, the producer of the Newport Jazz
Festival. Thank you for the wonderful tradition
that you have created.
You know, if you look at the different ages
and backgrounds of all the gifted performers
assembled on this stage, we're reminded once
again that jazz is a true reflection of the Amer

883




June 18 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


ican people, a music of inclusion, a music of
democracy, a music that embraces tradition and
the freedom to innovate. That's a good thought
to end on.
Thank you all for coming, and good night;
The President's Radio Address
June 19, 1993
Good morning. For 5 months I've been fighting hard for a national economic strategy to
build prosperity for all our people. And now
America's on the move.
Just this week we scored several significant
victories for the American people in the Congress. The Senate passed a campaign finance
reform bill that limits the influence of special
interests and their money in our lawmaking, and
in our campaigns. Congressional committees
have adopted my plan to make college loans
available to all students at lower interest rates
and better repayment terms and to make it possible for tens of thousands of them to pay off
those loans through national service to their
communities. Most important is the remarkable
progress being made on the economic plan to
increase growth, jobs, and incomes through bold
deficit reduction. Last month the House of Representatives acted courageously to pass this plan,
and now the path has been cleared for action
by the Senate because the plan has passed out
of the Senate Finance Committee.
Make no mistake about it, Washington is finally moving to put our economic house in
order. If we want to get the economy back
on track, Congress must pass this plan. It's necessary, fair, and it'll work.
When I first presented this growth plan back
in February, the financial markets took it seriously, and we saw real improvements in economic fundamentals, like interest rates. We now
have the lowest long-term interest rates in 20
years. Mortgage rates are at a 20-year low, and
now middle class homeowners are refinancing
their mortgages, and some are receiving more
than $2,000 in annual savings when they do.
Housing sales are at a 7-year high, and employment in the construction industry is up 130,000
people in just the last 4 months. That's the
largest increase in 9 years. Inflation is stable,


bless you.
NOTE: The President spoke at 7:45 p.m. on the
South Lawn at the White House. He was introduced by Hillary Clinton.


and more than three-quarters of a million new
jobs have been added to the economy in the
first 4 months of our administration. Ninety percent of them are in the private sector. And
unemployment is finally below 7 percent for
the first time in a year and a half.
What explains these optimistic signs? For the
first time in many years, we're making tough
choices. Our plan makes historic cuts in Federal
spending, $250 billion in spending cuts in more
than 200 specific programs. We cut virtually
every part of the domestic, defense, and foreign
aid budgets, including agriculture, veterans,
Federal retirement and compensation plans,
Medicare, not because we want to but because
we have to and because it's the right thing to
do.
Because our program is balanced and fair,
it also raises taxes to avoid unfair cuts that will
damage the elderly, the working poor, and other
vulnerable people in our country. But unlike
the 1980's, when the rich paid less and the
middle class paid more, we're asking the wealthy
to pay their fair share to give the middle class
a fair shake. Seventy-five percent of the taxes
are paid by those in the upper 6 percent of
income brackets, those who exceed $100,000 in
annual income. Two-thirds of these taxes are
paid by individuals whose incomes exceed
$200,000. Under this plan, the very wealthiest
Americans will pay an additional $1,900 a
month, while middle income families will pay
only $17 more a month by 1998 and much,
much less between now and then.
If you're keeping score, this is how the program works: For every $10 in deficit reduction,
we cut $5 in spending, raise $3.75 in taxes from
the wealthiest Americans, and ask the middle
class for $1.25. Let me say that again: For every
$10 in savings, we cut $5 of spending, ask the
wealthiest Americans for $3.75, and the middle


884




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / June 19


class for $1.25. This cuts the deficit by $500
billion with all the savings locked up in a trust
fund. And unlike some plans, we don't cut the
cost-of-living adjustment for Social Security recipients.
Most importantly, if we pass this plan, there
will be a big payoff down the road for Americans who work hard and play by the rules. A
lower deficit and a healthier economy means
more jobs, lower interest rates, more opportunity, and more rewards for your hard work.
That's why I'm fighting for this change.
But let's face it, change is hard, and some
people do fine with gridlock instead of growth.
And nobody likes to make the tough decisions.
There are thousands of lobbyists here in Washington who oppose the plan, hoping to force
hard-pressed Americans to pay more or give up
more so their powerful clients can pay less.
Some of the Senate opponents fight the plan
because it really raises taxes more on wealthy
Americans than they think we should. And some
of our adversaries, they don't even have an alternative. They're just playing politics with your
economic future, screaming old slogans like "tax
and spend" even though they helped to run
our debt from $1 trillion to $4 trillion over
the last 12 years and helped to bring about
a $300 billion annual deficit that I found when
I moved to Washington to go to work for the
first time back in January. The stakes are just
too big to play political games. If our growth
plan gets caught in a web spun of gridlock and
greed, this historic moment for America to get
its fiscal house in order could slip away. You
and I can't let that happen.
If Senators are going to oppose my growth
plan, they ought to answer these questions:


What programs would you cut more deeply?
We've already cut more than 100 programs
more than $100 million each. Where are your
tough choices? Will you ask the wealthy to pay
their fair share, or will you put a higher burden
on the middle class? Do you have a real, comprehensive plan to reduce the deficit by $500
billion? Maybe our opponents should listen to
Ted Turner's advice: Lead, follow, or get out
of the way.
It's time to get America moving again. People
don't want 4 more years or 4 more months
or 4 more days of politicians telling them what
they want to hear while all our problems get
worse. It's time instead to make a permanent
commitment to a growing economy that produces jobs and a higher standard of living for
our people. That's what we're doing.
Where once there was too much spending,
there's now a plan with real and deep spending
cuts. Where once there were no investments
in our people, there's now a plan for college
loans, job training and national service, Head
Start, and new technologies for those who are
losing their jobs due to defense cutbacks. Where
once there were tax breaks for the wealthy and
tax hikes for the middle class, now there's a
plan for tax fairness for all Americans.
Working together, we're making America
work again and helping this economy to create
jobs again. And soon, if we stay together, we'll
make it more prosperous for ourselves and for
our children.
Thanks for listening.
NOTE: This address was recorded at 6:45 p.m. on
June 18 in the Roosevelt Room at the White
House for broadcast at 10:06 a.m. on June 19.


Remarks at the Northeastern University Commencement Ceremony in
Boston, Massachusetts
June 19, 1993


Thank you very much. I must tell you, I have
marched in many of these processions over the
years. I don't think I ever marched in one that
made me any happier than when we were coming down this line and all of you were giving
me the "high five." And when we arrived here
on the podium, I turned to Senator Kennedy,


and I said, "Those are the people I ran for
President to help. I'm glad to see them here
today."
I want to say a special word of thanks to
President Curry, to the faculty and staff for the
honorary degree and the invitation to come. To
Senator Kennedy and Senator Kerry, Congress

885




June 19 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


man Frank and Congressman Meehan, to Mayor
Flynn, and to my good friend Governor
Dukakis, and all others who are here, but especially to the graduates and their families, I am
so pleased to be here in the Boston Garden
with you here today. I'm also glad to be here
with someone who's spent a lot of time thinking
about the graduates' future, the Secretary of
Labor, Bob Reich, whose wife, Clare Dalton,
is on the faculty here at Northeastern. Glad
to be here.
I know it's warm, and I don't want to prolong
the introductory remarks, or any of them, for
that matter. But since President Curry mentioned Senator Kennedy's role in student financial aid, I can't help but note that in the last
few months, of all the Members in the United
States Congress, one stands out at having
achieved a phenomenal amount of support from
Republicans and Democrats for initiatives to
make this country a better place. For out of
Senator Kennedy's committee, with big votes
from Republicans and Democrats, have come
the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, to
give people the right to have a little time off
when a baby is born or a parent is sick; a
bill that will require the National Institute of
Health to give far greater attention than ever
before to issues affecting women's health and
their children's; a bill that will enable us to
immunize all the children of this country against
serious childhood diseases; a bill that will set
national academic standards for our public
schools, to deal with what the former speaker
said we needed to do before you get to college;
and finally, the national service and student loan
bills, which will open college education to all
Americans by providing loans on more generous
terms and allowing them to be repaid as a percentage of your earnings, no matter how much
you borrow, so you'll never go broke repaying
your loans, and allowing more young people to
pay them back with service to their communities. All of that came through Senator Kennedy's committee.
I want to congratulate all of you who've survived this 5-year program, and also I want to
congratulate you on surviving the Boston traffic
jams. That's the second greatest example of
gridlock in the United States. [Laughter]
I want to say, too, that I treasure a degree
from an institution that really exalts public service, not only by elected officials but by private
citizens as well. This year I received more than


200 invitations to address graduating classes. But
Northeastern stood out to me because I believe
you are a symbol of the American dream, built
on education and work and community service,
blending work and learning, having partnerships
with the private sector in this wonderful community of yours to build people, which is, after
all, the only real product America has ever been
able to depend upon.
When I was working so hard to put together
this provision of student aid to make college
loans available to all on lower interest rates and
better repayment terms and to let more people
repay their loans through community service either before or during or after college, it was
students like you that I had in mind: hard-working, good people from either middle class families that could otherwise not afford a college
education or from poorer families who want to
work their way into a better life. You symbolize
the very thing that America has always been
about and that we must today get back to if
we're going to revitalize this great Nation. And
I'm very proud to be here with you today.
I can also tell you that I was deeply impressed
by Doug Luffborough, and if I could sing like
him I wouldn't be up here today as President.
I read an article about Doug and his mother
and his family and his trials in working his way
through college before I came here. In the article he said he planned to invite himself and
his mother to the White House. [Laughter]
Well, I'm going to beat him to the punch. I'd
like for Doug and his mother to come to the
White House.
If any man in America knows what having
a good, hard-working, strong, loving, and disciplining mother can mean, I certainly do. I
know it can make all the difference in the world,
as it did for Doug and as it has for me. I
think it would be appropriate just sort of as
a symbol of all the parents who are here if
Doug's mother, Mrs. Elsa Luffborough Mensah,
would stand up. I think she's over there. Stand
up! Give her a hand. See her up there in the
white dress? [Applause]
I must tell you, ma'am, there are a lot of
people of great and famous achievement who
will never know the pride you must have felt
when your son stood up here earlier today. I
thought it was unbelievable, and I appreciate
what you did.
To all of you graduates here at Northeastern,
because this is the largest co-op school in the


886




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / June 19


Nation, you are a breed apart. By having the
chance to work for 2 years in your field as
you have earned your degree, you have experienced a world that many others of your counterparts all across America only anticipate when
they walk up and get their degree. You embody
the growing unity in this country between work
and learning, based on the clear understanding
that the average American must now change
work eight times in a lifetime and what you
earn depends upon what you can learn. Still,
even with the jump your co-op education in
this fine place has given you, some of you must
be wondering whether you'll be able to find
the right job or any job.
I came here to tell you something very simple
and straightforward: You have done your part,
and you deserve the opportunity to have that
job and to make a better life for yourself.
For years and years, the challenges of the
global economy and our inadequate responses
to them have put unbelievable pressure on middle class families and middle class values. Most
people have worked harder for less and paid
more for education, for health care, for housing.
For most of the 1980's, those with less than
2 years of post-high school education actually
saw their incomes drop as they worked longer
and longer work weeks. And in the last couple
of years, even college graduates have begun to
have a difficult time finding good jobs with
growing incomes.
Still, we know what works. We know that
in this global economy, a good education works.
We know that investment in new technology
works. We know that when business and workers
and Government are cooperating for high productivity, that works. We know that grassroots
efforts to build strong and safe communities and
to give every person a chance work.
A lot of Americans have worked on that, but
we have not done it as a nation. For more
than a dozen years we have spent too much
time from the top down having our leaders just
tell us what we want to hear, that taxes are
bad and somebody else's spending is bad, but
spending on you is good. And so we've seen
the debt go from $1 trillion to $4 trillion, our
deficit go from $74 billion to $300 billion a
year. And unbelievably, our investment at the
national level in the things that make us a rich
country has not even kept up with inflation:
investment in education, in environmental cleanup, in the new technologies that will permit


us to convert from a defense-based to a domestic high-tech economy. We have not done what
we ought to have done there. We have
underinvested and still seen much of our future
eroded by a massive debt.
We have come to a time, my fellow Americans, when we have to bring to our public life
as a nation the same brutal honesty that Doug's
mother brought to him when she refused to
let his difficult circumstances be an excuse not
to succeed. We have to take as a people the
same kind of advice your student speaker gave
to you. Let's don't say, "I could have. I should
have. I would have." Let's say, "We can. We
will." And let's get about doing it.
We are beginning to move this country, taking
down the obstacles to progress and prosperity,
putting our economic house in order, moving
toward providing a national plan to provide affordable, quality health care to all of America's
families and children, preparing ourselves to
compete in the global economy. We have a long
road to travel, but we see some hopeful signs.
Because of the progress of the economic plan
that I have presented to the Congress to bring
down our deficit and increase investment in our
people, interest rates have dropped to a 20 -year low. That means that when you bring down
the deficit and bring down interest rates, you
free up money to be invested in productive
things. What do lower interest rates mean? They
mean lower home mortgages. They mean lower
business loans. They mean lower consumer loans
and car loans. They mean money that can grow
the economy and create jobs. And it also means
the Government doesn't have to spend so much
of your tax money paying interest on the debt
and can pay more financing college loans and
an economic future that is worthy of the effort
you have made to get here to this place today.
In the first 4 months of this administration,
over three-quarters of a million jobs were added
to this economy. But we have to finish the job.
The United States Senate is now coming to grips
with the economic plan. It brings down our
national deficit $500 billion over 5 years. And
for every $10 we cut that deficit, $5 comes
from spending cuts, $3.75 comes from the
wealthiest Americans whose taxes were reduced
in the 1980's, and $1.25 comes from the middle
class. Two-thirds of the tax burden comes from
people with incomes above $200,000 because
they can best afford to pay.
Now, there are some lobbyists and some legis

887




June 19 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


lators who don't like the plan, and they say  will be. But at each critical juncture in our Nathings that are popular, not the kind of things  tion's history, whether we go forward will dethat your parents told you when you had to  pend upon whether a new generation of Amerikind of take a deep breath and go on but popu-  cans are willing to take up that challenge laid
lar. They say, "More cuts, less taxes," but no  down 33 years ago by President Kennedy.
details. No details. Then when you look at the  One of the most distinguished citizens Massadetails, you find that the details hurt the middle  chusetts ever produced was Oliver Wendell
class, the working poor, the vulnerable elderly,  Holmes. He joined the Massachusetts infantry
do less to create jobs and ensure our world  during the Civil War, and he lived to have a
economic leadership.                        conversation with President Franklin Roosevelt
So I say to you, we ought to ask of every  60 years later. Holmes said that a person must
American, what is your real alternative, not rhet-  be involved in the action and passion of his
oric, not chants that sound good, but give the  time for fear of being judged not to have lived.
American people as a whole the same sort of Well, my fellow Americans, the action and pastruth that every one of your families gave you  sion ofeyou tmericst     the a   en ca
or you wouldn't be here today. That's what  dream and to make it real for everyone who
you're entitled to, and that's what I'm deter-  is w ng to dokwhat you ha verdone n com
mined to give you as President of the United  here today.
States.heetdy
My job is to make your future worthy of     When I was in college-and I just celebrated
the efforts that brought you here today, to try  my 25th reunion-I had a remarkable teacher
to help to create a national interest that tri-  who said that the most im1ortant idea in our
umphs over anybody's special interests. You have  culture was the idea that the future could be
done your part. It is now time for the leadership  better than the present and that each of us
of this country to do ours.                 has a personal moral responsibility to make it
I ask you only to remember here the lessons  so.
you have learned here and the lessons which   And I tell you, when I walked down that
have already been repeated. Nobody can create  aisle today and I saw your enthusiasm, your
for you an opportunity you are not capable of  energy, your intelligence, your love for life, your
seizing. If you don't continue to learn through-  excitement today, I thought to myself, you deout a lifetime, you can still be left behind. And  serve that. You deserve that. But only you can
nobody in this country can fully succeed until  provide it. And so I say to you today, let us
more of this country succeeds. We do not walk  all, from the President to the students, to the
alone. We walk as families, as communities, as  parents, to every person who works in this great
neighborhoods, and as a nation, and we had  land, resolve to do our part to make sure that
better start acting like it. We are going up or  we have exercised our personal moral respondown together, and we need to go forward.   sibility to make your future better than the
In 1960, in November, President Kennedy de-  present.
livered the last speech of his Presidential cam-  God bless you, and good luck.
paign here in the Boston Garden. He talked
of, I quote, "the contest between the com-  NOTE: The President spoke at 10:55 a.m. in the
fortable and the concerned, between those who  Boston Garden. In his remarks, he referred to
believe we should rest and lie at anchor and  John A. Curry, president of the university, and
drift and those who want to move this country  Douglas Luffborough III, student commenceforward." That contest is not over, and it never  ment speaker.
Remarks to the Community in Portland, Maine
June 19, 1993
Thank you very much. Thank you, Senator Thank you, Mayor Pringle. Thank you, ladies
Mitchell. Thank you, Congressman Andrews.   and gentlemen, for coming out today in such


888






Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / June 19


large numbers. It's good to be back in Maine,
and I want you to know I walked down this
park in a pair of Dexter shoes made in Maine.
I enjoyed it. I also want you to know that Senator Mitchell caught me playing golf in a pair
of shoes not made in Maine, and now I have
Dexter golf shoes that I wear every time I play
golf.
I want to thank the convention and visitors
bureau. I want to thank the parks department
for hanging the American flag so high today.
I want to thank the fire department, and I want
to thank all the people who performed before
I got here. I'm sorry I didn't hear the Maine
humor. I'm sorry I missed the country music.
I'm sorry I missed the jazz music. I'm glad
I didn't miss you.
I also want to say that behind us there are
students from the Reiche School, who won one
of our blue ribbon excellence awards. Hear
them cheering? Their representatives were in
the Rose Garden a few days ago with me and
representatives of other distinguished schools all
across America. But I know you're proud of
your schools and your students, and I did want
to say a special word of hello to them because
they were with me not very long ago down
in Washington.
It is wonderful to be back in Maine. I've
been here when it's hot; I've been here when
it's cold. This is just about perfect today, and
I'm glad to be back.
I want to say a special word of thanks to
your Senator, the Senate majority leader and
a genuine national treasure, George Mitchell.
You know, he said all that about the election
being about change and the fact that you gave
me your votes in the last election. I'm very
grateful for that. But it is hard for a President
to make change alone. Some things have to
come with the support of Congress. And thanks
to the leadership of George Mitchell, just this
week the American people had a good week.
First, the Senate passed a campaign finance
reform bill that lowers the cost of campaigns,
reduces the influence of special interests, and
when the campaign limits are broken, helps people who are outspent to get their access to the
airwaves, too. It is a good bill, and it's a real
advance. And not very long before that, the Senate passed a bill, finally, to require all the lobbyists in Washington to register and say who they
are, what they're lobbying for, and to report


any money they spend lobbying the rest of us,
which I think is a very good thing to do. That's
a message you sent in November. But I can't
wave a magic wand and do that. The Congress
has to go along. And the Senate has, thanks
to Senator Mitchell.
The second thing that happened this week
was that the Senate and the House, by significant bipartisan margins, voted out of committee
the bills that I have been proposing to open
the doors of college education to all Americans.
And I want you to know how that will work.
We're going to be able to save money by changing the way college loans are given out and
provide them to students, without regard to income, at lower interest rates and then give students the chance to pay it back as a percentage
of their income, so nobody will ever be discouraged from borrowing money for fear that they'll
go broke when they get out of college. And
as George Mitchell said, tens of thousands of
them will be able to pay it back with service
to their communities, whether in big cities or
small towns or rural areas, through national service, rebuilding America from the grassroots here
at home, a domestic peace corps. That's going
to be the best money we ever spent to educate
America to compete in the 21st century.
The third thing that happened is that the
Senate Finance Committee took action on the
economic program that succeeded in passing
through the House, thanks to the leadership of
the chairman, Senator Moynihan from New
York, and Senator Mitchell, who besides being
the majority leader is also on the Finance Committee. And next week the Senate will have a
chance to vote on this economic program, send
it to the House so they can agree on a bill
that I think is critical to this country's future.
Now, there's been a lot of talk about this
in the last few weeks, and our opponents have
said a lot of things about my plan that aren't
true. So I want to say to you who gave me
a chance to be President, here's my report on
what's really in that plan.
First of all, let me tell you, I didn't live in
Washington before January, and I didn't take
the debt from $1 trillion to $4 trillion or the
annual deficit from $74 billion to $300 billion.
I was a Governor in a State not very different
from Maine, working hard within a balanced
budget to provide good educations to our people
and good jobs to our people. And I never had


889




June 19 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


to raise any money to pay down a deficit. But
the plain fact is that this country is awash in
debt. And one of the reasons it is, is that no
President's budget has been taken seriously in
more than a decade. It's all been political rhetoric.
Last year, my predecessor's budget was voted
against by 75 percent of the members of his
own party in the House of Representatives. Our
party passed the budget in the House, and we're
going to do it in the Senate. And we're going
to have a comprehensive economic plan to get
this country moving again, thanks in no small
measure to George Mitchell. And I want you
to know what is in it.
First, this plan reduces our deficit by $500
billion over the next 5 years. It begins with
$250 billion in spending cuts in everything, in
defense, in foreign aid, in veterans benefits, in
Medicare. In everything you can conceive of,
we have cut across the board, and it is not
very easy. But the Democrats have taken the
lead in cutting spending. Ask Senator Mitchell
how many Republican amendments there were
to cut spending in the Senate Finance Committee last week. I'll tell you how many: zero. We
cut the spending-we did it-$250 billion.
Do we raise taxes? Yes, we do. But how is
it raised? I'll tell you how. Seventy-five percent
of the tax money we propose to raise comes
from the upper 6 percent of income earners
in this country. Over two-thirds of the money
comes from people with incomes above
$200,000 a year, because their taxes went down
and their incomes went up in the 1980's when
we gave 70 percent of the gains to the top
1 percent of the population. They can pay now,
and they should.
Now, does this plan ask anything of the middle class? Yes, it does. If your income is above
$30,000 but below $100,000, we ask for a contribution. Why? Because after the election, lo
and behold, the Government says the deficit's
going to be $165 billion bigger in the next 5
years than it was going to be before the election,
and because if we don't gain our economic destiny back, if we don't get control of our future,
if we don't do something about this debt, we're
not going to be able to go on to the other
challenges facing us. But you have to decide
if it's a good deal.
Working families with incomes of under
$30,000 are held harmless in this program. And
I'll tell you something else that's awfully good


about it. For the first time in history, if this
program passes, we'll be able to say that people
who work for a living and still live in povertyand there are millions of them in Americawill be lifted out of poverty by the tax system.
If you work 40 hours a week and you've got
a child in the house, you can get out of poverty
if this economic program passes because of the
changes in the tax system.
Let me put it to you another way. For every
$10 in deficit reduction in this plan, $5 comes
from spending cuts, $3.75 comes from the upper
6 percent, $1.25 comes from the middle class
with family incomes above $30,000. I think that
is fair. I think that is balanced. It will work.
And let me tell you why it's important. Why
is it important? It's important because when we
start to bring down the deficit-and we've been
working on this since right after the electioninterest rates come down. And when interest
rates come down, it puts money back in your
pocket, and it puts money back into the economy.
Look what's happened now. We have a 20 -year low in mortgage rates, a 7-year high in
housing sales, 755,000 new jobs in the economy
just since January 20th, 130,000 new construction jobs. That is a 9-year high in construction
job growth because of these low-interest rates.
And eventually, that's going to help the people
making a living out of the wood in Maine and
in Arkansas, because they depend upon people
building things to make a living. That's why
this is important.
Now, do we spend some money in this budget? Yes, we do. You can decide whether you
think it's worth doing. This budget increases,
for example, the amount of money a small business man or woman can expense every year
on the tax return from $10,000 to $25,000. I
think it's a great idea. Why? Because small business is the backbone of this economy. Because
small business is providing most of the jobs.
Because small business stopped providing new
jobs to this economy a couple of years ago,
and if you take that right off from 10 to 25
grand, a lot of those small business people are
going to be able to hire one more person. And
if millions and millions of them do it, it will
be an awful boon for this economy, and we
can get going again. I think it's worth spending
that money.
It costs some money to change the Tax Code
so that people who work for a living and are


890




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / June 19


still in poverty are lifted above poverty. But
I think it is worth it to say it is never a good
thing to be on welfare. If you can work, here's
an incentive to move from welfare to work and
to reward the dignity of work. We're not going
to have a tax program grind you into poverty;
we're going to have it lift you out of poverty
if you're working for a living. It costs some
money, but I think it's worth doing.
Maine and Arkansas have some of the poorest
rural areas and small towns in the country. I'll
tell you something else in this program that
costs money. We have some enterprise or
empowerment zones in this program that will
give real incentives in big cities and in small
rural areas for private sector people to come
in and invest money to start businesses and put
people to work. I've heard Republicans and
Democrats talk for 10 years about why we
shouldn't give people extra incentives to put private funds into depressed areas, both rural and
urban. But nobody's ever tried it. So we're going
to try it. There's not enough Government money
to rescue the poor and depressed areas in this
country. Let's see if we can get the private sector to do it. We've got to give them some incentives. It costs some money, but I think it's worth
it. And I think we ought to try it.
And let me say this: Even though overall
there's a 5-year freeze on what's called discretionary spending at home, we do spend some
more money on Head Start, on education and
training, on dealing with the people who have
lost their jobs because of defense cutbacks, on
trying to develop new technologies so that we
can compete and win in this global economy
and so that people who lose manufacturing jobs
can get them back in a different way, by getting
ahead of the curve instead of being behind like
we have for the last 12 years. It costs some
money. Our competitors are doing it. I think
it is worth the money. We can't walk away from
what is plainly needed to move this economy
forward. We're not in the business of liquidating
America; we're in the business of growing America. And we better get about it.
Let me just give you one example that Congressman Andrews has talked to me about. In
the last 10 years more than 120,000 American
shipbuilders and shipyard suppliers have lost
their jobs to foreign competition and cuts in
defense spending. And believe me, our competitors subsidize their businesses. Now, our Government didn't do much to help our folks com

pete in that global economy. And we started
cutting defense spending way back in '86 and
went for years and never did anything to help
the workers and the communities adjust or the
businesses get into new lines of production. And
we want to change all that. Your Congressman,
Tom Andrews, got a bill passed last year-I
want to get the formal title here-called the
Shipbuilding Promotion Act of 1992, ordering
the Federal Government to establish a group
to look at threats to shipbuilding jobs. Well,
we're doing that. And we're going to do that.
And we're going to come back and report and
see what we can do about it.
Last year when I was running for President,
the Congress passed a bill to appropriate $500
billion to communities that were hurt by defense
cutbacks to help the businesses learn to produce
new things, to help the workers be trained to
do new work, to help the communities redevelop themselves. And when I became President, not one red cent of that money had been
released, because they did not believe, the people who were there before, in investing to help
people to deal with defense cutbacks. So you
had whole areas of State after State after State
in terrible economic trouble. Well, we're moving
that money.
The Secretary of Labor, Bob Reich, another
New Englander, I might add, has approved $3
million for two defense conversion grants just
to the State of Maine, $2 million to assist workers at the Loring Air Force Base and $900,000
to assist those being laid off from the Bath Iron
Works. And that is a good beginning. But believe me, folks, it is just the beginning of what
we have to do.
Now, our opponents chant like a mantra; they
say, "Less tax, more cuts; less tax, more cuts."
How in the world could anybody be against
that? It sounds great, except guess what? There's
only been two versions put forward. In the
House of Representatives-unlike the Senate, at
least the House put a plan out there. And guess
what? The House Republican plan, because it
was more unfair to the middle class, to the
elderly, to the working poor, and to the economic climate of the country, lost more Republican votes than my plan lost Democratic votes.
So it sounds great, but when the Republicans
looked at it, they didn't like it very well either.
And then there was this plan floated in the
Senate a few days ago which lowered taxes on
upper income people and cut more out of Medi

891




June 19 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


care and did other things that would weaken
our economy and be unfair to the elderly and
to working people just above the poverty line.
So I say to people: Where is your idea? Senator Mitchell will tell you, this week when the
Senate Finance Committee voted that economic
plan out, our opponents on the other side, many
of whom ought to be helping us, had all kinds
of amendments saying let's cut this tax, let's
cut this tax, let's cut this tax. Guess what? How
many amendments did they offer to cut spending? Zero. And when they were asked, where
are your amendments to cut spending, you know
what they said? "'We don't want to take any
politically unpopular votes on spending cuts."
Folks, we are telling you the truth for a change.
We are telling you the truth. We had 12 years
where people said, "We're going to cut your
taxes, and we're going to cut somebody else's
spending." And what they did was to increase
spending, cut taxes on the wealthiest Americans,
have back-door tax increases on the middle class,
and let the economy go down the tubes. We
can do better. And I need your help and support, and so does George Mitchell, in making
sure we do better.
And let me tell you, there is more to do.
I want to reemphasize, we are not trying to
deal with these tough issues just to reduce the
debt. When you reduce the debt, you free up
money to invest, to create jobs. You think about
it. There are people in this audience today who
have refinanced their homes since interest rates
started dropping so much last November. That's
happening to millions of people all across America, and that frees up money. People are getting
lower business loans. People are getting lower
consumer loans and lower car loans. And over
the next year and a half, it will help this economy. It helps the economy if you invest in giving
kids a head start, if you retrain workers, if you


invest in helping companies produce things for
the civilian market if they don't have a defense
contract anymore. It helps the economy if you
do what it takes to compete with our foreign
competitors everywhere. That's what helps the
economy. And that's what we are committed
to doing.
And let me say this: After this budget fight
is over, as Senator Mitchell just said, I want
us to begin in earnest, and we can do it this
year if we'll get after it, to provide the security
that will come to millions of Americans if we
provide affordable, quality health care to every
American family. And we can do that, too.
We can pass the national service bill and open
the doors of college education to all. We can
pass a welfare reform bill that puts people to
work instead of maintains them in dependency.
We can change the nature of politics. But you
have to stay with us. You have to say: We want
the House of Representatives to pass campaign
finance reform. We want the House of Representatives to tell us where all the lobbyists
are and who they're giving money to. We want
the whole Congress to pass an economic plan,
and we don't want you to stop.
Change is hard and difficult. And it's not easy
to get 218 votes in the House and 51 Senators
to agree on anything. They all come from different places with different interests. And my
job as President is to try to make sure that
the national interest overrides the particular interest of anybody and any group in any State,
including yours and mine. We have got to pull
this country together again and be a family again
so we can move forward again.
Thank you very much, and God bless you
all.
NOTE: The President spoke at 6 p.m. at Deering
Oaks Park.


Remarks at the National Sports Awards Reception
June 20, 1993


Good evening and welcome to the White
House, and where appropriate, happy Father's
Day. I'm glad all of you could be here with
us tonight to celebrate the tradition of sport
in American life. Hillary and I are delighted


to be the honorary cochairs of the first annual
National Sports Awards and to pay tribute to
those outstanding Americans rightly called "the
great ones."
Frankly, I'm thrilled to meet these heroes of


892


A.




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / June 20


sport. And I have to say that of all the perks
that have come along with being President of
the United States, the best one was being able
to play 18 holes of golf with Arnold Palmer
this morning. Even if it turned out to be all
downhill from here, I could still be on a high.
I might say, I'm glad I didn't have to play one
on one with Kareem or go 15 rounds with Muhammad Ali to justify the round of golf. [Laughter]
It's been said that the athlete does not embark upon a sport but upon a way of life. Tonight we honor five individuals not simply for
their athletic superiority but for the special
qualities of character and leadership that have
earned them the respect and the admiration of
our Nation.
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar led every team he ever
played for to championships. From Power Memorial High School to UCLA, to the Milwaukee
Bucks, to the LA Lakers, he dominated the
court for the entire 20 years in the NBA that
he played. And he's hailed by many fans and
players alike as the greatest center ever to play
the game. He led the Los Angeles Lakers to
five championships. And his teammates used to
call him E.F. Hutton. When Kareem talked,
they listened.
When he retired in 1989, he had been a first
team all-star 10 times, college player of the year
twice, earned 6 world championship rings, 6
MVP trophies, and played more seasons, more
games, and more minutes, blocked more shots,
and with his elegant trademark "skyhook" scored
more points than anybody else who ever played
this game. But for all of us who watched him,
we know he did something more: He brought
a tremendous pride and dignity to a game that
will be forever in his debt. And tonight we offer
him our highest praise. Congratulations.
Muhammad Ali may be the most widely recognized athlete in the world. He captured the
imagination of the world with his distinctive
fighting style and with the exhilarating fights
he took to places all over the globe. He was
the first fighter in history to win the heavyweight title three times. He was a loud, proud
poet who told the world he was the greatest
and was poetry in motion when he floated
around the ring. Sometimes when his opponents
couldn't hit him, it was hard to tell whether
he was boxing or doing ballet.
He was just as courageous and dignified and
mesmerizing a challenger as he was a champion.


And he's a man who has unfailing stood by
his principles and his beliefs. It was written of
him that he spoke of God before his fights;
he spoke of man; he spoke of hungry children.
He cared about the sick and the old. He raised
the game to drama. And because he stood for
something greater, the people who climbed
upon their chairs for him felt that they stood,
too, for something greater. Congratulations, Muhammad Ali.
Arnold Palmer revolutionized his sport. It's
been said that when television discovered golf,
the world discovered Arnold Palmer. Fans all
over the world grew to love his unique style,
his boldness, and his daring. To many he is
the American ideal: the perpetual underdog falling behind and then charging down the stretch
and tearing up the golf course. I can identify
with that. [Laughter]
Who could forget the 1960 U.S. Open tournament, where before the final round he trailed
in 15th place, and a reporter said he was no
more in contention than the man operating the
hot dog concession. In one of the most memorable examples of grace under pressure, he
birdied the first 6 out of 7 holes and then went
on to win the tournament. During the campaign,
some people used to call me the Comeback
Kid, but I think he deserves that title much
more than I ever will. He won the U.S. Amateur, the U.S. Open, the Masters 4 times, the
British Open twice, was named Athlete of the
Decade in 1970. He is a remarkably gifted man.
And we are all in his debt.
I must say, I saw today on the golf course
that even today when he tees it up, Arnie's
Army is as faithful and enthusiastic as when
he marched through Augusta to win his first
Masters. We thank him tonight for all he has
given us, for all the thrills. And I can tell you
that on the basis of a wonderful few hours
today, he's just as much of a gentleman and
a competitor in private as he always seemed
to the public. Congratulations, Mr. Palmer.
Wilma Rudolph had to relearn to walk before
she could learn to run. The 20th of 22 children,
she suffered a childhood bout with polio, double
pneumonia, and scarlet fever, which left her legs
paralyzed. But with resilient spirit and undaunted determination, she defied all the expectations and beat the odds to become a great
athlete. She was a remarkable star at a fairly
early age, although she did not take up track
until the ripe old age of 13. Two years later,


893




June 20 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


she won a bronze medal at the 1956 Olympics.
She had an extraordinary career at Tennessee
State College. She went back to Rome in 1960
and became the first American woman to win
three track and field gold medals at one Olympic games. Her trademark composure became
familiar to people all over the world. And she
became literally an international heroine.
After retiring from track, she continued to
dedicate much of her time to working with
young athletes. She did more than break world
records. She broke barriers for thousands of
women competitors and paved the way for those
who have followed in her footsteps. Wilma Rudolph, you are a great one.
Our next honoree is not here, but I want
you to know a little bit about him. There was
a young pitcher new to the major leagues. He
was facing a batter by the name of Ted Williams. "Ball three," said the umpire; and the
pitcher walked halfway to the plate and
screamed, "What was wrong with that pitch?"
The umpire dusted off the plate; the young,
frustrated pitcher wound up and threw; and
once again Ted Williams hit it over the Fenway
Park fence. The umpire walked toward the man
and said to the rookie, "You see, son, when
you throw a strike, you don't have to look to
me; Mr. Williams will let you know."
During his 19 seasons with the Boston Red
Sox, the Splendid Splinter earned 6 major
league batting titles, 2 at the ages of 39 and
40; maintained a batting average of.344, with
2,654 hits, including 521 home runs. These statistics are awesome, all right, but they're even
more incredible when you consider that Ted
Williams lost most of 5 seasons and hundreds
of hits and home runs because he wanted to
serve his country. He left baseball twice, first
to serve as a fighter pilot in World War II
and then to serve again in the Korean war.
In 1941, he defied all the laws of baseball when
he batted.406. No one has batted.400 since.
And talk about grace under pressure, at his very
last time at bat in 1960, he hit a farewell home
run.
Ted Williams is a great athlete and a great
patriot, and I'm proud to honor him tonight,
as I know all of you are, for what he's done
for his sport and for his country.
Each of you has honored your sport and your
Nation and left a legacy of greatness. I hope
these National Sports Awards become an American tradition that will honor the legacy of all


those who participate. Today we must look to
the future, the idea of service performed by
young people all across America.
The funds raised by these awards and this
weekend will enable young people dedicated to
service to expand their own efforts in rebuilding
our more troubled communities, in caring for
those unable to care for themselves and transforming the lives of people and cities in need,
and in the process, in transforming and improving their own lives.
Some of these young leaders and those who
have mentored them into a life of service are
here with us. And I urge all of you on the
eve of our Nation's summer of service to go
forward knowing that you are shining examples
of what it means to be a real citizen in our
country. You are welcome here, too, tonight.
Perhaps there is no way better to honor the
athletes tonight than by supporting young people
who themselves are dedicated to helping their
peers most in need. They are also great ones.
Although we are blessed with the presence
of these athletes tonight, we are all, I'm sure,
saddened by the absence of another champion,
Arthur Ashe, an extraordinary man who lived
by the words "thou shalt not close a door behind
you." There will be more said about Arthur
Ashe tonight at Constitution Hall, but I'm proud
that his wife, Jeanne, is here with us tonight.
And thank you so much for your presence.
In closing let me just say that I have some
people to thank tonight: those who have agreed
to serve on the President's Council on Physical
Fitness and Sports, including the two cochairs,
Florence Griffith Joyner and Tom McMillen,
who is standing here and looking short with
his friend Bill Bradley as Kareem is up on the
platform. They will advise me and the Secretary
of Health and Human Services, Donna Shalala,
on ways to enhance opportunities for all Americans, not just the young, to participate in physical fitness and sports activities.
Finally, let me say to Kareem Abdul-Jabbar,
to Muhammad Ali, to Arnold Palmer, to Wilma
Rudolph, to Ted Williams, and to all of you
who are here tonight, I thank you for lending
your dignity to this occasion and for your service
to this country and for your embodiment of
the best values of America.
Thank you very much.
NOTE: The President spoke at 6:12 p.m. in the
East Room at the White House. In his remarks,


894




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / June 21


he referred to tennis champion Arthur Ashe, who Griffith Joyner; and former professional basketball
died of AIDS; Olympic track champion Florence players Tom McMillen and Senator Bill Bradley.
Interview With Michael Jackson of KABC Radio, Los Angeles, California
June 21, 1993


Mr. Jackson. Good morning, President Clinton.
The President. Good morning, Michael. It's
nice to hear your voice again. And I enjoyed
listening to your callers call in.
Economic Program
Mr. Jackson. Oh, I'm so glad you heard them,
sir. I know the budget is the burning issue of
the moment. You may have seen a Conrad cartoon; it showed you in caricature, and the caption was "Or maybe you'd like Bush back and
another $2 trillion debt." How could we avoid
that and make the whole economic climate
healthier?
The President. Well, the first thing we have
to do is to gain control over our economic destiny again. The deficit is spinning out of control.
It was about $74 billion a year in 1980; it's
over $300 billion this year. The debt, as you
know, has gone from $1 trillion to $4 trillion.
And because of that, the money we ought to
be investing hasn't been there. You can see that
very clearly in Los Angeles and southern California when you had all these defense cutbacks.
We should have been reinvesting all that money
in domestic technologies to put the people back
to work here at home in high-speed rail, environmental cleanup, all kinds of other things. But
the debt was so big that the money went to
pay interest on the debt and into exploding
health care costs.
So our economic plan is terribly important
to the people of the United States and the people of southern California because it begins to
give us some control back. Already, the fact
that the plan is making progress has brought
down long-term interest rates. I know one lady
who called you said her husband was in construction. Because we are at 20-year mortgage
rates lows, there have been 130,000 new jobs
come into this economy in construction in the
last 4 months. That's the biggest increase in
9 years. Now, it's going to take a while to reach
southern California, because that's one of the


most distressed areas of our national economy.
But it is beginning to turn around.
So you've got to bring the deficit down.
You've got to do it in a way that is fair to
the middle class, by making upper income people pay the lion's share of the burden. There
have to be some incentives in this plan to grow
new jobs in the private sector through
empowerment zones in our cities and poor rural
areas, through new incentives to small business.
And there also have to be some targeted investments. Over the next 5 years, we still need
to spend some money to try to redevelop the
businesses, the communities, and retrain the
workers that have been hurt so badly by defense
cutbacks.
So this is a good plan, and it's still the only
real plan on the table. A lot of people have
criticized it, but it's hard to quarrel with the
results of it. Just the progress of the plan is
bringing down long-term interest rates. We've
got three-quarters of a million new jobs in the
economy since January 20th, and I am encouraged. We've got a long, long way to go, and
we're dealing with some economic trends that
have been in place for 20 years in the world
economy. But we can turn it around if we will
do so with discipline and if we'll stop the delay,
if we'll go forward now and pass the plan.
Mr. Jackson. Mr. President, you mentioned
critics. Congressman Henry Hyde, speaking for
the Republicans, claimed over the weekend that
the Senate Democrats are going to agree to
a tax-and-spend, tax-and-spend program this
summer that will result in another version of
the biggest tax hike in history. In a nutshell,
by year's end, will the rich be taxed considerably
more, heavily taxed? Will the middle class be
further hit?
The President. By year's end, if the plan
passes, upper income taxes will go up, taxes
on the upper 6 percent of the American people;
two-thirds of the tax burden would be paid for
by people with incomes above $200,000. The


895




June 21 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


tax on the middle class, in the form of an energy
tax, would be phased in over a 3-year period
and would amount to no more than $17 a month
for a family of four with an income of $50,000
to $60,000, by the third year of the plan.
By contrast, families with incomes of under
$30,000 would be held harmless, and there
would be an incentive in this tax program, for
the first time, for people who work 40 hours
a week but have children in the home and are
still in poverty. The tax system would actually
lift them out of poverty.
So it's a very fair tax plan. But the most
important thing from my point of view is that
there can't be taxes without an equal amount
of spending cuts. And there are substantial
spending cuts in this program in everything from
Medicare to veterans benefits, to agriculture, to
all the specific programs, just about, in the Federal Government. People who say there aren't
spending cuts just haven't said it right.
And for Mr. Hyde, whom I like a lot, to
just get on there and chant their old "tax-andspend" line, I mean, you know, that's the same
crowd that presided over the last 12 years where
we went from a $1 trillion to a $4 trillion debt,
increased the national deficit every year, and
reduced our investment in the future. I mean,
they actually set in motion the policies which
you see manifest all around you today in southern California. And I don't see how they have
any credibility on this.
Last week in the Senate Finance Committee,
there were all kinds of amendments by the Senate Republicans. They were all designed to increase the deficit by moderating tax increases
with no offsetting cuts. So there just isn't another plan out there. We're either going to have
to make up our mind whether to do the tough
stuff necessary in terms of budget cuts and fair
revenue increases to bring this deficit down and
get control of our economic future and keep
these interest rates down, or we're not.
And let me just make one other point. For
anybody who has refinanced a home loan or
refinanced a business loan or gotten a car loan,
a consumer loan, a college loan at lower interest
rates, a lot of people are going to in the middle
class and even some upper income people are
going to save more money on lower interest
rates than they're going to pay in higher taxes.
That's the key thing. We've got to get the
interest rates down. We've got to start investment in this economy again. And if we don't,


we're going to be in real trouble. You had someone call from Orange County; I see what's happened to real estate in Orange County. Our
proposal contains significant incentives to get the
real estate business in California up and going
again and throughout the country.
There are all kinds of things in this plan
which are very, very good for business, that the
business community has been asking for for
years. But we do ask people who are earning
income, who have it and whose taxes went down
in the eighties while the deficit went through
the roof, to pay a fairer share of the tax burden
so we can bring the deficit down.
NAFTA
Mr. Jackson. Relating to the calls we received
earlier, Mr. President, a blunt question: Does
Ross Perot concern you? And I pose it that
way because of his stand on NAFTA, the North
American Free Trade Agreement. He really is
claiming that this country and particularly this
State of California is going to lose hundreds
of thousands of jobs that would go to Mexico
if the agreement should be ratified.
The President. Well, I disagree with him on
that issue. There are other issues on which I
think we are agreed. We've got a version of
the line-item veto in the United States Senate.
I very much hope it will pass; I strongly support
that. I'm pushing for campaign finance reform
to reduce the influence of special interests in
campaigns, something that he and I both talked
about in the last campaign. We've got that out
of the Senate; we need to pass it in the House.
We're pushing for lobbying reform, something
we both talked about last time. We passed a
dramatic increase in the requirements for reporting of lobbyists in the Senate. I hope we
can pass it in the House.
But on NAFTA we just disagree. I believe
that a country like ours, if we want to generate
more jobs, we're going to have to increase the
volume of trade. I understand what the concern
is with Mexico, but I would say to everyone
in California today two things: Number one,
something you know perhaps better than other
Americans, anyone who wants to shut a plant
down and go to Mexico today for low wages
can do it. And they'll be able to do it just
as well today or tomorrow as they could after
NAFTA is ratified. Number two, as you have
seen in California, as long as incomes are very
depressed in Mexico, you're going to have a


896




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / June 21


bigger and bigger problem with immigration that
goes beyond the legal limits of the law. And
what I see happening with NAFTA is a Mexico
that can buy more American products, where
more Mexicans will want to stay home and be
near their families because they'll be able to
make a living. And Mexico will be the leader
of a whole new wave of trading partners for
the United States, going down past Mexico into
Central America, into Chile, into Venezuela, into
Argentina, into other countries. I believe it will
create jobs for America. I wouldn't do it if I
didn't think so.
And let me also tell you that there's beginning
to be a little bit of a chill in the wind of people
who think that they ought to just automatically
move their plants to Mexico to save money.
There's a big story just in the last day or so
about General Motors moving 1,000 jobs back
from Mexico to the United States to Michigan,
a high-cost State with very productive labor, to
produce some of their small cars. So I'm very
hopeful about this.
And let me make one last point. About 4
years ago we had a $5 billion trade deficit with
Mexico. Today, because of the trade barriers
that Mexico has lowered, we have a $6 billion
trade surplus, which means we've created more
jobs because of trade with Mexico than we've
lost because of jobs moving down there. So my
view is that we can make it a winner.
Now, we don't want to just have a trade
agreement with no standards. The Mexican people are going to have to be willing to work
with us on environmental standards and on labor
standards so we don't just open the floodgates
to move jobs to Mexico in ways that won't even
raise incomes in Mexico. That would be a terrible thing to do. But if we do it right, it will
create jobs for both countries.
International Economy
Mr. Jackson. Mr. President, things are pretty
awful all over. I mean, Europe is in the worst
recession since the 1930's; Japan has been hit,
too. By contrast, aren't things beginning to get
better here?
The President. Well, they are beginning to
get better here, and they're beginning to get
better here basically for two reasons. First off,
American industry was really battered here during the entire 1980's and in fact starting back
in the mid-seventies. And there has been a determined effort by people running our firms in


the private sector to become more competitive,
so a lot of them are. And that increased productivity, increasing output per worker, the increasing ability to compete with countries around
the world, that is helping things to get better.
The second thing that's making things better
is that this administration's serious effort to
bring the deficit down has helped long-term interest rates to get down to their lowest rate
in 20 years, and that's leading people to refinance, freeing up some money, and we're getting some more investment.
But I don't want to mislead anybody. This
is still going to be a very tough road back.
If you look at southern California, if you look
at Connecticut, if you look at some of the States
that have been hit especially hard by defense
cutbacks of all kinds and other economic problems, we're still going to have to have a very
disciplined plan to invest and grow our way out
of the problems of the last few years.
But yes, we're in better shape now than Europe and Japan. In fact, if we could get some
more growth in those countries, we'd be in better shape because we're not selling as much
to them as we would be because of their economic problems. They don't have the money
to buy American products. And when I go to
Japan in a couple of weeks to talk to the leaders
of Europe and Japan, one of the things we're
going to be talking about is that America is
doing what they asked us to do; we're bringing
our deficit down. And we want the Europeans
to bring their interest rates down and the Japanese to invest some more money in their economy so they can grow it, because they don't
have the deficit we do. And if we can work
together, we can grow the world economy and
that means jobs for America.
But you're quite right, we're actually in better
shape than Japan and Europe is right now, except for unemployment rates. Japan's still got
a lower unemployment rate than we do.
Mr. Jackson. Mr. President, thank you very,
very much indeed for this, sir.
The President. Thank you, and again, I want
to thank your callers for the thoughts they expressed. And I want to encourage them to continue to be active and to question and criticize
me when they think I'm wrong but also to support me. I really appreciate the woman who
said she didn't vote for me but she's got a
stake in the success of this Presidency. We're
doing what we can to move this country forward


897




June 21 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


without regard to party or region. And that's  much, sir.
the kind of support I need. I'm very grateful
for that.                                   NOTE: The interview began at 12:16 p.m. The
Mr. Jackson. Thank you, Mr. President, very  President spoke from the Roosevelt Room at the
White House.
Interview With J.P. McCarthy of WJR Radio, Detroit, Michigan
June 21, 1993


Mr. McCarthy. Good afternoon, Mr. President. How are you?
The President. I'm great. It's nice to talk to
you again.
Mr. McCarthy. I can't hear.
The President. Can you hear me now? I can
hear you. Can you hear me?
Mr. McCarthy. Mr. President, I can now.
How are you? We haven't talked since very late
in the campaign. You were in an automobile
someplace, and you were running out of voice.
But you were in high spirits, and now we know
why. Congratulations.
The President. Thank you very much. It's nice
to hear your voice again.
Mr. McCarthy. Nice to hear you.
The President. I got to hear a little bit of
your last conversation. That was fascinating.
Mr. McCarthy. With Bob Talbert?
The President. Yes.
Economic Program
Mr. McCarthy. Mr. President, are you going
to get your tax bill and your budget bill through
the Senate? Carl Levin is on this program a
little bit later. We've already taped that segment.
He says, "Yes, it will be done." What do you
think?
The President. I think it will be done. It's
not easy ever to make these kinds of tough
decisions. There are $250 billion in budget cuts
in that bill that affect everything from agriculture to veterans, to Medicare, to virtually all
the specific programs in the Government. And
there are some tax increases, as is well-known,
two-thirds of them on people with incomes
above $200,000, three-quarters of them on people with incomes above $100,000. I think it's
fair and balanced. And this will bring the deficit
down by $500 billion, and it will keep these
long-term interest rates coming down, which is
what is so necessary if we're going to have rein

vestment in our country and rebuild the manufacturing sector and get this economy going
again.
I think it will pass because, frankly, there
isn't another alternative. And those who have
tried to fashion other alternatives have come
up with programs that hurt the vulnerable in
our country and the middle class more and hurt
the business economy more. And I think that's
why we've had people from companies representing the automakers to high-tech companies in California supporting the program. It's
a little-known thing that over half the 100 biggest companies in the country have supported
the program, that the labor organizations have
supported it, that the home builders organization, a largely Republican group, have supported
it because it will bring interest rates down and
create jobs and incomes for the American people.
Mr. McCarthy. But if it does pass the Senate,
and apparently Senator Levin feels you have
enough votes, 50 or more votes, it has to go
back to the House. It's been changed significantly from the bill approved by the House.
We hear the Black Caucus may be falling out
of step. Can it pass the entire Congress?
The President. I think it can. I think what
you will see is, when the bill passes the Senate,
if we can pass it in the next few days, then
there will be a conference of the Senators and
the House Members. And they will try to take
the best parts of both bills and come up with
a bill which has more budget cuts than taxes,
fair taxes, but still has some of the incentives
we need for small business job creation, for
the high-tech job creation, for empowerment
zones to get private sector investment into the
urban areas and to the poor rural areas, and
also some of the money for Head Start education and training and for joint projects with


898




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / June 21


the private sector for new technologies to help
to deal with the defense cuts. I think you will
see that budget coming out of there. And I
expect it to pass both Houses.
Like I said, these are difficult times, because
for 12 years the American people have been
told one thing and had another thing happen
where the debt just kept getting bigger and bigger, and it's eating us alive. And interest rates
were high, and we couldn't get investment. We
couldn't get jobs. We're going to turn it around,
but it's not easy.
Mr. McCarthy. A couple of things started to
leak out this weekend on those weekend Washington shows. One item was that entertainers
and sports people, people who make big salaries
for usually a relatively short period of time,
would be exempt from the new higher rate of
income tax. Is that true?
The President. Not to my knowledge.
Mr. McCarthy. Apparently it was on "Face
the Nation" or one of those shows yesterday.
Not so?
The President. No. There aren't any exemptions. I think what you're going to find is that
people who make a lot of money for just a
couple of years may wind up doing something
that many of them already do, by the way, which
is structuring their contracts so they get paid
over a longer period of years than they play.
That's something that's happening now and that
may happen. But I know of no exemptions for
any high income people.
Mr. McCarthy. And the surtax on the capital
gains tax, everyone was figuring maybe there
will be a capital gains cut. Maybe that will be
a tradeoff, higher income tax rates, lower capital
gains. Will there be a surtax on capital gains?
The President. It's hard to say. That's in the
Senate bill. But I'm not sure how it will come
out in the end. I think one thing you can look
forward to is a so-called venture capital gains
on new business capital gains tax, where people
who put their money into new businesses will
be given big incentives to do so. That is, if
you take a risk on somebody and you start a
new venture and you hire some new people
to create new jobs in the economy and you
hold that investment for 5 years or more, you'll
be able to reduce your tax liability if, in fact,
it turns out to be successful. We have to have
more people trying to start new businesses. And
that's a more hazardous undertaking. So I think
you will see that.


Mr. McCarthy. Will there be some incentives
for new business? Because I heard from
The President. Absolutely.
Mr. McCarthy. I asked this morning in my
morning show-I mentioned, of course, that I
would be talking to you. And I said, "Give me
some questions that you'd like me to ask the
President." And I heard from several small business people. They said something like this:
"Look, I wanted to open two new businesses
this year"-this was a fellow who was in the
fast-food franchise business, but he said, "With
all that's going on relative to the proposed new
legislation on taxes, I'm afraid to build any more
restaurants." Small businesses are getting hurt.
I heard that over and over this morning.
The President. Let me just mention two or
three things that should be reassuring to small
businesses. If these provisions of my plan pass,
first of all, anybody who starts a new venture
will be able to get investment for that new venture. And if the investment is held for 5 years
or more, the tax rates will be much, much lower
than the ordinary income tax rates, if it passes.
Secondly, for ongoing small businesses, today
the writeoff for expensing on the tax form is
$10,000 per year. We propose to raise that to
$25,000. That will be a substantial reduction
in the tax burden of most small businesses and
will be an encouragement, I think, for them
to hire more people.
Thirdly, if someone has a chain of restaurants,
for example, like the person who called in, in
the plan that I presented to the Congress that
the House of Representatives adopted, we have
some changes in the alternative minimum tax
provisions which operate as real incentives for
people to continue to invest their profits in the
expansion of their businesses without running
up bigger tax bills.
So I would urge the small business people
who are listening to us to really look at what
is in that House bill. There are a lot of very
strong pro-business and pro-small business provisions in the bill that have not gotten a lot
of attention. That's why, let me just mention,
the National Realtors Association and the National Home Builders Association, two groups
not normally associated with the Democratic
Party, have already strongly endorsed this economic program because of the incentives for
economic growth and because it's bringing down
long-term interest rates. That's the last thing
I will say. Any business person who has to bor

899




June 21 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


row money in all probability is going to save
more money in lower-interest rates than they'll
pay in higher taxes.
Mr. McCarthy. Mr. President, one of the
thrusts of your campaign was jobs. There would
be more jobs. Jobs, jobs, jobs would be created.
If the business climate isn't good, if there isn't
an opportunity for businesses to do well, to be
successful, there will be fewer jobs. I mean,
that's just simple economics, isn't it?
The President. That's right, but simple economics dictate that the President of the United
States stop telling everybody what they want
to hear and start telling the truth. That's what
simple economics dictate. I mean, in 1981 we
cut taxes and increased spending and nearly
bankrupted this country over the next 12 years,
and we've been paying for it ever since, so that
we had very high long-term interest rates, and
credit was expensive, and job generation was
weak. That's a problem, by the way, for wealthy
countries throughout the world. Even Japan's
having trouble creating jobs now. But look
what's happened since I announced my plan
and it started to pass its way through Congress,
just in the last 4 or 5 months. First, we've had
755,000 new jobs in this economy, over 90 percent of them in the private sector, in the first
4 months of this administration. In the previous
4 years, we only had a million jobs. Second,
in construction, part of the economy very affected by interest rates, in the first 4 months
we had 130,000 new jobs, that's the biggest increase in 9 years. Has that affected every State
and every community yet? No, but it shows that
we are really moving in the right direction. If
we can get everybody in this country to refinance their home loans, their business loans,
to take available credit because interest rates


are lower, that will put tens of billions of dollars
back into this economy to create jobs.
Mr. McCarthy. What inflation rate, sir-I
don't mean to interrupt you, but we're short
on time-what inflation rate would you be
happy with one year from now?
The President. The lowest possible one. But
if we got unemployment down to a very low
level and every American had a job, it might
be a tad higher than it is now, but right now
we think we're in good shape on inflation. What
we need in America are more jobs and higher
incomes, and that's what we're working on. So,
this is a job-creating strategy we're following,
and I believe it will work.
Counselor to the President
Mr. McCarthy. How is David Gergen doing
in his new job?
The President. He's doing very well. He's a
good man. We've been friends a long time
and
Mr. McCarthy. Is the Washington press corps
still braying at the moon, sir? [Laughter]
The President. I don't even know how to answer that. The moon still comes out here,
though, at night, and the sun comes up in the
morning.
Mr. McCarthy. President Clinton, a pleasure
to talk to you today. Thank you very much for
spending the time. I hope you get a chance
to visit us.
The President. Me too. See you.
NOTE: The interview began at 12:30 p.m. The
President spoke from the Roosevelt Room at the
White House. In the interview, he referred to
journalist Bob Talbert of the Detroit Free Press.


Interview With Phil Adler of KRLD Radio, Dallas, Texas
June 21, 1993


Mr. Adler. Mr. President, are you there?
The President. I am, Phil.
Economic Program
Mr. Adler. Good morning to you. We think
that a lot of people responded to a theme, or
at least I think so, in the Presidential campaign
of sacrifice to cut the deficit as long as that


sacrifice is equal. The Btu tax was designed
originally on the concept of equal sacrifice. But
then all of these exceptions were added, and
it really makes it appear that it's one of the
most complicated proposals ever. Did you make
a mistake allowing all the special exceptions to
be included in the Btu tax?


900






Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / June 21


The President. Well, I didn't allow them all
to be included. Some of them were included
in the House of Representatives bill, and I
didn't agree with all of them. But let me say
what I think was a good criticism of the tax
and that is that we wanted the tax to restrain
energy consumption in ways that promoted energy conservation  and also supported fuel
switching to more environmentally beneficial
and more available natural gas. That bill, as
drawn, would be a big boon to the natural gas
industry in Texas and Oklahoma and throughout
the United States. And that's one of the things
we were trying to do. Now, some of the oil
companies didn't like it, but the people that
were in the gas business liked it. We had a
big Texas gas company, headed by a person
who strongly supported President Bush in the
last election, endorsed the economic program.
ARCO and Sun Oil both endorsed the economic
program, including the Btu tax.
So Secretary Bentsen, who, as you know, has
represented you in the Senate for a long time,
offered the Senate a modified Btu tax which,
instead of having all those particular exemptions,
would basically have alleviated the burden of
the Btu tax on industry and agriculture on the
production sector but still given them an incentive to move toward natural gas wherever possible and would also have cut the Btu rate and
would have replaced that with more spending
cuts.
From my point of view, unfortunately, we
couldn't pass that through the committee because Senator Boren had said he wouldn't vote
for any tax based on the heat content of fuel.
But I still think it was a good concept, and
it will be interesting to see what happens if
the Senate's version of the economic plan
passes, to see what happens in the conference
and what we come up with.
Mr. Adler. What we have now is a gasoline
tax that's been passed by the Senate committee,
and you've called that regressive in the past.
How can you sell that, if you have to, to House
Members who did risk some political capital by
supporting you on the Btu tax?
The President. I think anything that comes
out has to be a combination of agreement between the House and the Senate. It's hard to
get 218 House Members and 51 Senators to
agree on anything that's tough. I mean, everybody can talk about cutting the deficit, but it's
one thing to talk about it and quite another


to do. But I think they'll be able to do it. No
one was particularly happy with the form of
the Btu tax, or very few people were, that
passed the House, but everybody thought that
Secretary Bentsen could come up with a plan
that would make it good for the economy and
could achieve what we were trying to do in
terms of promoting domestic energy, and I think
he did. The Senate preferred a tax that was
a gas tax and a tax on some other fuels. It,
at least, is small enough so that it is not particularly unfair to people in rural areas. It's not
as big as what some had wanted, and certainly
I did not want just a big old gas tax. I thought
that was unfair.
I also think it's important to point out in
Texas, in light of the rhetoric in the recent
political campaign, that it is simply not true that
there is no spending cuts in this plan. There's
$250 billion in spending cuts, and they affect
everything. They affect agriculture and veterans
and Medicare and the whole range of discretionary spending of the Government. They affect
foreign aid; they affect defense. There are
sweeping, broad-based spending cuts in this program. And the tax increases, two-thirds of them,
fall on people with incomes above $200,000,
three-quarters on people with incomes above
$100,000. Families of four with incomes below
$30,000 are held harmless, and people who work
for a living 40 hours a week and have kids
in the house who are now in poverty would
actually be lifted above poverty by these tax
changes in ways that promote the movement
from welfare to work. So this is a fair and balanced plan.
It was developed, and in a very aggressive
way, by Lloyd Bentsen and by Leon Panetta,
who used to be chairman of the House Budget
Committee, to be fair, to have equal spending
cuts in taxes, and to drive the deficit down so
we could bring interest rates down. That's good
for Texas, and that's good for everybody in
America. And also, it leaves some room for investments that are critical to our future. And
as you know, I support-you were implying this
before I got on-I support the space station
and the super collider projects because I think
they're good for America's future. And if you're
going to spend money on those things, you have
to spend money on them. You can't play games;
they do cost some money.


901




June 21 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


Space Station and Super Collider
Mr. Adler. Mr. President, how long can you
guarantee that support for the super collider
and the space station? Will they fall if that's
the only way to meet your overall deficit reduction goal?
The President. Well, my overall deficit reduction goals can be met in my plan with the space
station and the super collider. I do want to
emphasize that we've already shaved $4 billion
off the 5-year budget for the space station and
some money off the 5-year budget for the super
collider by redesigning the space station, based
on a team of exceptional national experts who
analyzed the project and recommended that it
be redesigned and also that NASA's management be changed rather dramatically. And we
just delayed the implementation schedule on the
super collider some, so that none of the opponents of the space station and the super collider
could claim that there had been no spending
cut there.
So we have done that. But I strongly feel
it would be a mistake to abandon those. Now,
I would be less than candid if I didn't tell you
Interview With Tim     Scheld of WCBS
June 21, 1993
Mr. Scheld. Good afternoon. President Bill
Clinton, joining us from the Roosevelt Room
of the White House this afternoon. A good decision, Mr. President, since it is as hot and muggy
as you're going to get in New York City today.
Be happy you're inside and in Washington, DC.
The President. It's pretty hot and muggy here,
too, Tim.
Mr. Scheld. I heard you were jogging this
morning in a lot of fog. No fog anywhere in
New York City. We're looking for some, so bring
some up here, please, next time you come.
The President. I had a great time today, for
all the joggers listening to you. I got to run
with John Fixx, who is the son of the famous
runner Jim Fixx, who died about 9 years ago
but made a real contribution to what all of us
who love jogging know as the sport.
Mr. Scheld. Yes, but the question now is do
you run with Michael Jordan tomorrow?


that there are a lot of people in other parts
of the country who want to cut those projects.
There was always a lot of opposition to them,
and because of the last election and all of the
rhetoric and all the claims in Texas that there
were no spending cuts in this budget, that has
given real energy to the opponents of the space
station and the super collider. It wasn't true
that there were no spending cuts, but there
are a lot of people up there who have been
wanting to kill these projects for years who are
just gleeful at the way the rhetoric in the last
election played out in Texas. They think that
they have been given a license by the people
of Texas to kill the space station and the super
collider. And it's going to be very much harder
for me to keep them alive. But I'm doing the
best I can.
Mr. Adler. Mr. President, I'm informed that
our time has run out, by one of your aides,
I believe. Good to talk with you this morning.
The President. Thank you. I enjoyed it.
NOTE: The interview began at 12:42 p.m. The
President spoke from the Roosevelt Room at the
White House.
Radio, New York City


The President. I'd love to do
willing.


it if he were


Economic Program
Mr. Scheld. I appreciate you taking the time
with us here on WCBS this afternoon. The Senate begins debate on the all-important economic
package, but its ultimate shape, as you know,
will be determined by the Joint House-Senate
Committee probably beginning the 1st of July.
Will we see the Btu energy tax proposal be
reborn out of that committee, Mr. President?
What kind of specific new energy taxes should
the American people expect?
The President. Well, first let me say that before we can start that conference, Senator Moynihan has got to shepherd this bill through the
Senate, and that's not going to be all that easy.
I think we can do it. But there's been so much
rhetoric around this economic program and so


902




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / June 21


much inaccurate information put out there that
it's not going to be easy to get the Senators
to make the tough choices to pass the bill. I
think they will do that, and I think in no small
measure they will do it because of the leadership of your Senator in leading the Senate Finance Committee.
But after that, the House and the Senate will
get together. And I think they'll try to agree
on a provision with regard to energy which will
do what all of us agreed to do, which is to
reduce the energy tax somewhat below where
it was in the House version, have some more
spending cuts, make it clear to the American
people there are more spending cuts than tax
increases in this program and that they are fair
and balanced.
The Secretary of the Treasury, Lloyd Bentsen,
had a good suggestion, I thought, for reducing
the Btu tax, reducing its impact on jobs through
lowering the industry and agricultural provisions
and cutting the rates across the board on middle
class Americans but still leaving it in there so
there would always be an incentive for energy
conservation,  environmental  cleanup,  and
switching to American natural gas.
But one of the Senators on the Senate Finance Committee had said he would never vote
for a bill based on the heat content of energy,
which meant that they had to change the form
of the energy levy. And we'll just have to see
what comes out of the conference. I don't know
what will happen.
Mr. Scheld. This is pretty complicated, but
the American people were so well-informed a
couple of months ago exactly how much it was
going to cost. I think people were-at least in
this area, I think we got the impression that
people were willing to bite their bottom lip and
to pay for deficit reduction. Are you taking that
attitude back to the Senate and saying, listen
to the American people?
The President. I'm really trying to. And I
think what happened was that from the time
I gave my speech outlining the plan in February
to the American people directly, including telling everybody exactly what we were going to
cut and exactly what it would cost, after that
the details got lost in all the word games going
back and forth and the shouting. And what I
tried to do last week by giving a prime-time
news conference and doing a number of other
things was to let the American people know
exactly what was in this bill. Maybe it's worth


restating.
There are $250 billion of spending cuts and
$250 billion of revenue increases and $500 billion of deficit reduction in this package. Of
every $10 in cutting the debt, $5 comes in
spending cuts; $3.75 comes from people with
incomes above $100,000; $1.25 comes from people with incomes below $100,000 but above
$30,000. People below that are held harmless.
That's about how it works.
Mr. Scheld. One Member of Congress over
the weekend, I think, was quoted as saying that's
engaging in politics of envy, pitting the higher
income brackets against those that can't afford
it.
The President. No.
Mr. Scheld. Well, what do you say to that?
The President. I have a clear answer to that.
I don't seek to punish anybody for their success.
But if you look at what happened in the 1980's,
we had the reverse of the politics of envy. In
the 1980's taxes went up on the middle class
while their incomes went down. Taxes went
down on upper income people while their incomes went up. This has nothing to do with
the politics of envy.
I want it to be possible for people to have
more successes. If you look at this bill that is
moving its way through Congress, there are big
incentives for people to start new businesses,
for small businesses to hire extra people, for
bigger industries to invest in new plant and
equipment, for all private sector people to actually make money by reinvesting in our inner
cities and our rural areas again. This is not about
the politics of envy. This is about who can afford
to pay the freight.
In the last 12 years, we had tax decreases
on upper income people and tax increases on
the middle class, even though their income
trends were just the reverse. So this is nothing
but fairness. This is not about class war. This
is about fairness.
Health Care Reform
Mr. Scheld. Mr. President, on health care reform, our own Senator Moynihan, you brought
up his name, expressed some doubt over the
weekend that health care reform would make
it to Congress this year. Any update on that?
The President. I still think we can do it this
year if we pass the budget in an expeditious
way and if the health care reform proposal is
perceived as fair by the vast majority of the


903




June 21 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


American people and if it deals with the problems of the country. That is, can we bring the
cost of health care in line with inflation? That's
good for business. Can we remove the insecurity
that millions of Americans have that they're
going to lose their health insurance because of
the cost or because somebody in their family's
been sick or because they're going to change
jobs? Can we provide a way to bring coverage
to people who don't have it? Seventy percent
of them work for a living. Can we do it in
ways that are affordable and balanced, and can
we do it in ways that don't in any way affect
the right of Americans to choose their doctors
or to keep very high quality health care?
If we can do that, then I think you will see
a willingness on the part of Congress to take
this up, knowing that the whole job can't be
done overnight. That is, we could adopt an omnibus bill and still have to phase in the actual
practical implementation of it so that if there
are problems along the way, they can be corrected.
Senator Moynihan has a lot of experience
about how slowly Congress acts, but I think
the American people are so hungry and so hurting for something to be done on health care
that they'd like to see it dealt with this year,
and they'd like to see us at least make a good
beginning. I believe with a little luck we can
get it done this year.
Henry Leon Ritzenthaler
Mr. Scheld. Mr. President, reading the Washington Post this morning, seeing quotes from
a colleague or a friend of yours and someone
who I know, Betsy Wright, I'm wondering
whether this claim from the Paradise, California,
man merits any reaction from you.
The President. I'll be glad to give you a reaction, but let me say I have tried to call him
today and have not talked to him yet. And I
think I ought to talk to him before I make
any public statement. But I'll put out a statement about it later on today.
Former President George Bush
Mr. Scheld. Fair enough, Mr. President. Have
you heard from the FBI, by the way, on the
inquiry into the alleged plot against former
President Bush in Kuwait a couple of months
ago?
The President. I have not received a final
report from the FBI, and I don't think I should


say anything about what I will or won't do until
I do get that report.
Mr. Scheld. So it's either all the wrong questions or all the right questions I get to ask
you. [Laughter]
The President. No, they're both good questions, and I'm sorry, but it's not in the national
interest for me to discuss that until I actually
know what I can say about it when I get the
report.
President's Visits to New York
Mr. Scheld. Absolutely. One other final question for you here. It concerns when you come
to New York, and I'm sure you will be in this
area for Governor Florio and for Mayor Dinkins,
campaigning; that's my guess, at least. What do
you tell the people who are sitting in traffic
sometimes because of a Presidential visit? It's
a loaded question, sir.
The President. It really bothers me when I
come there. I told Mayor Dinkins the last time
I was there, I was so concerned that it required
so many police officers and firemen. And it
seems that the President interrupts the flow of
events more coming to New York than any other
place because of the density of the population
and the traffic. It really concerns me.
One of the things that I can do and one
of the things I did do the last time I came
was to land at the airport and then take a helicopter in as close as I can to where I'm driving
so that really minimizes the disruption to the
other people and traffic. You know, I love to
come to New York, and I think it's a good
thing for the President to be in New York and
to be on the streets and to be with the people,
and it's such an important part of our national
life. There are so many people there I need
to talk to and see and listen to. But it bothers
me when I inconvenience a lot of people.
Mr. Scheld. Well, we leave you the invitation
to always come back here and talk to people,
but this is a way to get through to them without
causing some traffic problems. But come here
anyway. We'd love to see you.
The President. I'd love to do it. Maybe we
can do it. Maybe radio can be the best alternative.
Mr. Scheld. Absolutely, sir. Thank you for taking the time this afternoon.
The President. Thanks.


904




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / June 21


NOTE: The interview began at 12:49 p.m. The
President spoke from the Roosevelt Room at the
Interview With Larry King
June 21, 1993
Mr. King. Welcome back to another hour of
"The Larry King Show." Great pleasure to have
with us-the last time we had him on a radio
show he was in a car in Detroit during the
campaign, getting to the airport. In fact, he gave
us a visual description of the highway. Do you
remember that?
The President. I do remember it.
Economic Program
Mr. King. President Clinton, a couple of
things. First, Senator Phil Gramm last week on
my television show said-the Republican from
Texas-anytime, anywhere, anyplace he'll come
to the White House, he'll meet with you, he'll
sit down to work out a deal on the economy
from the Republican Party standpoint. He said,
you invite him, he's there. What about it?
The President. I'm always happy to talk to
Senator Gramm, but the issue is, what are they
for? I mean, there at least was a Republican
budget offered in the House of Representatives,
and more Republicans voted against it than
Democrats voted against my budget. There was
a bipartisan budget offered in the Senate Finance Committee which by common consent
probably couldn't get 20 votes on the floor of
the Senate. So what I want to know is, what
are they for? I have met with the Republican
Senators completely. I meet with the leadership
of the Republicans along with the Democrats
all the time. I am always anxious to discuss
this. But we need to know what the specifics
are. I mean, I put out a plan that has $250
billion in tax cuts in it that affects agriculture,
veterans, defense, foreign aid, the Federal employee pay, Federal employee retirement, cuts
huge amounts out of all these things. They've
been trying to convince the American people
that there are no spending cuts. Senator Gramm
tried to do it in his own State of Texas in
the recent election season.
So, if we're going to have anything to talk
about, we've all got to at least say what the


White House. A question referred to newspaper
reports that Henry Leon Ritzenthaler might be
the President's half-brother.


facts are. All I'm saying is I'd be happy to have
any suggestions he has, but we've got to know
where we're going on this.
Mr. King. You're saying it would be pointless
to sit down unless they come in with a
preagenda?
The President. The Senate Finance Committee met last week on the economic plan and
dealt with a lot of Republican amendments after
they went all over the country saying the issue
was spending. The Republicans tried to lower
taxes in a lot of different ways, mostly on upper
income folks. And everything they offered would
have increased the deficit because they did not
introduce one single spending cut amendment,
because those are the tough and controversial
things, because they know how much we've already cut spending in this budget.
So, all I'm saying is, you know, I'll talk to
Phil Gramm; I'll talk to anybody. He may want
to talk to me this week because I'm trying to
save the space station and the super collider
in his State, two things I believe in. After having
shaved down the space station by $4 billion and
shaved the cost of the super collider some, I
believe they're important for America as investments in science and technology. But there are
a lot of people who are against these projects
who are going to try to take his rhetoric and
the rhetoric of the recent Texas election and
use it against him because of the things they
said. So, Senator Gramm may need me this
week because I agree with him on this issue,
and I hope we can save them for America's
sake. But the political rhetoric of some of the
Republicans in pretending that there are no
spending cuts has made it tougher.
Mr. King. So in other words, what everybody
wants is, they don't want to pay new taxes; they
don't want to cut any services. We just want
a free ride.
The President. Yes, and we want to do it
in a way that looks politically palatable. So they


905




June 21 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


talk about, well, let's put a cap on all this spending or limits on all that and not come up with
the specifics. My budget has 200 specific spending cuts over the previous Bush budget. A hundred of them are more than $100 million a
piece. And I really have tried to take this thing
on. For years we listened to all this rhetoric
about how we could cut taxes and increase
spending and somehow everything would be all
right. And we took the debt from $1 trillion
to $4 trillion. We had astronomical long-term
interest rates. Ever since we've been trying to
bring the interest rates down by bringing the
deficit down, you see mortgage rates at a 20 -year low, housing starts at a 7-year high; construction employment is increased at the highest
rate in 9 years. We've got 755,000 new jobs
coming into the economy. Most of them are
coming in because people are refinancing their
debt and freeing up money to invest in the
economy. So we're moving this in the right direction. But of course, it's not popular to do
these difficult things.
International Economy
Mr. King. You're going to have to go to Japan
in a couple weeks. That's a major economic
conference. Let's assume the Senate passes this;
then they go to House committee, and that of
course won't be settled by the time you go
there. And you go to a country where their
leadership is going to change. How much of
a ball of wax is that?
The President. Well, it's going to be a challenge to get a lot done at this summit. But
I'm convinced we can. We have two or three
issues that we really need to deal with. We're
trying to come to grips with the need for a
new trade agreement for the world, which I
think is very important, will create more jobs
in America. We'd have more jobs today if Europe and Japan weren't in the bad economics
conditions they're in. Their growth rates are substantially lower than ours. If they were in better
shape, they'd be buying more of our products
and we'd have more jobs.
The second thing we're going to try to deal
with is what we can do, each in our own countries, to promote global economic growth. The
Europeans and Japanese have been telling
America for years, "Get your deficit down." So
we're doing that. Now they've got to lower their
interest rates in Europe so they can grow, and
they've got to invest some more money in Japan


so they can grow and buy more of our products.
And if we do it together, we can bring this
world out of the recession it's in, and that means
more jobs for America.
Mr. King. But what part does Japan play if
they're lame duck?
The President. Well, I think that depends
upon what all the political sides in the country
will say about the negotiations that we're on.
I mean, it's pretty clear to me that no matter
who winds up being Prime Minister of Japan
and what faction that person comes out of, that
they're going to have to continue to open their
economy to our products. And they're going to
have to continue to stimulate their economy,
because they don't have a budget deficit, they've
got a surplus.
What's happening in Japan now I think has
more than anything else to do with the legacy
of the various political scandals and the political
corruption. I think their economic policy is
going to have to take the direction that we support almost no matter who gets elected Prime
Minister. They can't withdraw from the world
or shut us out now. They've got too much at
stake in expanding into China and other countries and doing business in a very complicated
world that simply won't allow Japan to be the
only rich country in the world with $110 billion
a year trade surplus.
Mr. King. So you're hopeful, no matter who
it is?
The President. Yes, I am. It presents a challenge to get done the things I wanted to get
done in Japan at the conference. It will be more
challenging, but I still think that we may be
able to do that simply because of the limits
on their economic options.
NAFTA
Mr. King. During the campaign you told me,
in fact, almost the day it happened, when President Bush signed it in San Antonio, you said
to me the next day that you supported this fair
trade concept with Mexico and Canada on balance. You had some questions. Do you still have
some questions?
The President. Yes, but I'm still for it. As
a matter of fact, I feel more strongly today,
if possible, that it is the right direction for us
to take. The trade agreement, I thought, had
some weaknesses. It was negotiated with a greater concern for our financial institutions and our
intellectual property concerns, that is, patent


906




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / June 21


and copyright concerns, than for new jobs and
environmental cleanup, things that I thought
were real important.
So we're trying to fix that. We're trying to
make sure that this trade agreement with Mexico and Canada has very strong provisions to
guarantee appropriate investments in environmental cleanups, so we don't have more pollution in America or we don't have people going
down to Mexico just so they won't have to have
any antipollution expenses, and so we have some
labor protections.
But I think we're getting there. And I believe
that the right kind of trade agreement can create
jobs in America. I don't agree that it'll cost
jobs. If you look just in the last couple of days,
there was a notice from General Motors that
they're closing an operation in Mexico, bringing
it back to the United States, going to create
1,000 jobs in Michigan and higher labor costs
because of the productivity and the nearness
to the labor parts market, to the auto parts
market. And I think you're going to see a lot
of that. If anybody wants to shut a plant down
and go to Mexico just because they have cheap
wages, they can do that today. Nothing is going
to change in the NAFTA agreement. But if you
have more growth on both sides, then you'll
have less illegal immigration from Mexico, more
people will be able to get jobs at home and
stay with their families, their incomes will rise,
and they'll buy more American products. Last
month, Mexico replaced Japan as the second
biggest purchaser of American manufacturing
products. We have a $6 billion trade surplus
with them. That means we create jobs out of
our trade with them. So I think it's a good
deal for America, and I hope we can pass it.
Media Coverage
Mr. King. One other quick thing. L.A. Times
Mirror poll out today says 51 percent of the
public thinks the press has been unfair to you,
more unfair to you than your predecessors. Any
comment?
The President. You know, I always trust the
people in the end. They pretty well get it right.


Mr. King. You think that's right, about right?
The President. I think the most important
thing now is what I said at my press conference
last week. The American people know if there's
something going on and some tension that is
not-doesn't have much to do with their interests. And I think that's what they have perceived
here. And so what I have done, clearly, in the
last couple of weeks, is to reach out a hand
of understanding to the capital press corps here
and to ask them not to stop criticizing me, because that's their job when they think I'm wrong
or they think there's a story to be pursued,
but to approach this whole work that we have
to do together with an atmosphere of respect
and greater trust. And I pledge to try to do
the same thing.
I think the American people want to see the
flaws in my proposal, want to see the contradictions if they are there, want to see me subject
to honest scrutiny. But they don't like the feeling of feeding frenzy. They don't want that. And
so, you know, I've done what I could, and I
hope we'll have the kind of response that the
American people plainly want.
Chelsea Clinton
Mr. King. Chelsea going to Japan?
The President. Well, I hope so. I think it
would be educational for her, although some
people have said that, you know, we ought to
consider what kind of Asian press coverage she'll
get and whether that would prohibit her from
learning anything or doing anything there. But
there is a lot of precedent for previous Presidents' families going on trade missions. And I'd
like to see her do it. I think she'd learn a lot
from it if in fact she'll be able to function when
she's there. So we're going to try to figure that
out in the next few days.
Mr. King. Thanks, Mr. President.
The President. Thanks, Larry.
NOTE: The interview began at 1 p.m. The President spoke from the Roosevelt Room at the White
House.


907




June 21 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


Interview With Bob Levey of WMAL Radio, Washington, DC
June 21, 1993


Mr. Levey. I'm pleased to welcome you to
Newstalk 630, WMAL. Thanks so much for joining us.
The President. Glad to do it, Bob.
Economic Program
Mr. Levey. Let's begin with a question about
the deficit reduction bill. It passed the Senate
Finance Committee last week. Does this now
put you on the high road to passage of this
bill, or are we still trundling along somewhere
below the high road?
The President. Well, I think it is a high road
in the sense that that probably was the most
difficult committee in the Senate to get such
a bill out of. And the fact that they did it and
they did it in a timely fashion is encouraging.
And I think what we just have to do now is
to try to see that the bill-let the bill pass
the Senate and send it over to conference,
where the Senators and the House Members
can discuss what each of them can live with
as well as the principles that I have laid down.
And I think we can come out of this with a
bill which brings the deficit down, requires
upper income people, who are in the best position to do so, to pay the lion's share of the
taxes, has more cuts than taxes in it, protects
the middle class and particularly gives an incentive to the working poor to work their way out
of poverty, and has a lot of economic incentives
to grow the economy, the kinds of things that
have led so many big companies, labor unions,
the homebuilders, the realtors, and others to
endorse this plan. I think that it is a very good
and balanced plan, and I think you'll see that
coming out of the session between the Senate
and the House, if the bill will be passed in
the Senate this week, and of course I'm hoping
it will be.
Mr. Levey. Sir, so you know, of course, that
the Republicans, cheered up by the results in
Texas, are now going around the country saying
that you, President Clinton, are doing more for
them than they can do for themselves. What's
your reaction to that?
The President. Well, my reaction is that it
is unfortunate that our side was not, in effect,
defended in Texas. Neither of the candidates
in the Texas Senate race had voted for or sup

ported my economic program. So the voters of
Texas, unfortunately, were permitted to cast
their ballots in an atmosphere of unreality, I
mean, where one candidate is running saying
the issue is spending stupid, and we'd cut $250
billion in spending programs. We'd cut veterans,
Medicare, agriculture, foreign aid, defense, just
about everything you can see. And it's going
to be very interesting now, in light of what happened there, to see the debates that are coming
up.
I have been a strong supporter, because I
believe in it, of the space station and the super
collider. We had a qualified panel of experts.
Both those projects are in Texas, you know,
super collider entirely in Texas, space station
largely in Texas. I had a qualified panel of experts look at the space station. They recommended ways to redesign the project that
would save $4 billion and to change the management of NASA in a way that would make the
whole space program work better. And we also
reduced some spending in the super collider.
And I'm hoping I can save those projects now.
But there are strong opponents of those
projects in the Congress, and they're saying,
"Well, the voters of Texas voted to kill them,"
because of the unrealistic atmosphere in which
that whole election unfolded. And I wish that
Lloyd Bentsen, who was Senator from there,
had been able to spend full time down there
telling the people of Texas he put the program
together, and he would not have put a program
together which was unfair to Texas, unfair to
the middle class, and which didn't have spending cuts.
When you take tough stands and you want
to make tough decisions, you have to expect
to suffer some unpopularity in the short run
as the rhetoric overtakes the reality. But every
evidence we have is when the voters know the
specifics of the program, that we prevail. In
the race in California for Leon Panetta's House
seat, where this whole program became the
issue, the person who was elected to Congress
defended the program, advertised it. Leon got
on television and gave the specifics of the program. Our opponent attacked us and said how
terrible it was. The voters gave the guy who


908




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / June 21


took my position a 10-point margin. And I
thought that in view of all the other problems
out there, that was pretty impressive.
Mr. Levey. Mr. President, I thought you got
off a good line last week. You said that Washington has become the home of gridlock and greed.
Are we really that bad, or is this just political
language?
The President. No, I think we're breaking
that. I think if this economic program passes,
it is fair, it is balanced, and it will bring an
end to gridlock. But what I'm saying is it's been
more than a decade since a President's budget
was even taken seriously by Congress. Nobody
ever wanted to talk truth about economics to
the American people because the truth is that
back in 1981 we cut taxes a bunch, and we
increased spending a lot, and we went from
a $1 trillion to a $4 trillion debt, and we permitted health care costs to soar out of control.
We haven't done anything long-term about our
economic health, and now we don't have the
money we actually need to be spending on defense conversion, on education and training, on
Head Start, on giving people incentives to revitalize our cities.
But if you want to change, it's tough because
it means we all have to give up a little something now to get something tomorrow. What
we're getting is lower interest rates, more investment, and an economy that will really produce
jobs. But to do it we've got to break a mentality
of "what's in it for me today." But I think we're
on the way to doing that. I think the era of
gridlock and greed is fading into the distance,
and I'll be surprised if we don't adopt the economic program and a lot of other things that
need to be done around this town like political
reform, lobbying reform, campaign finance reform, national service. I think we'll get health
care reform. I'm hopeful. I'm very optimistic.
But I want the people to understand clearly
that these things don't happen overnight.
District of Columbia Statehood
Mr. Levey. Sir, speaking of things that need
to get done, let's talk for a minute about statehood in the District of Columbia, which you
greatly favored and strongly swore that you
would lobby for once you got into office. And
I have not heard word one from you or from
your office about that since you took over. Is
this still on your list? And, if so, how high?
The President. Absolutely. I strongly favor it.


I think it ought to be done. Nothing is clearer
to me than when you see the Congress still
trying to make up their mind what the domestic
policy of the citizens of the District of Columbia
in non-Federal matters ought to be. I think that
the District of Columbia should chart its own
course. And I still believe all the concerns are
very compelling.
I have to tell you that there has always been
substantial opposition in the Congress. And a
lot of Members who might ordinarily be strongly
for statehood are nervous about whether their
own citizens are going to be taxed by the District of Columbia if it becomes a State. I think
the question now is, since this is going to be
a major debate that will require an awful lot
of concentration on the part of the Senators
and a lot of focus to work through the issues,
when is the appropriate time for it to be
brought up to guarantee that it will be seriously
considered? Because unless you get serious consideration, it won't pass. That is, the easy thing
for a lot of the Members of Congress will be
is just to vote no. The only way it can win
is if we can bring it up in a relatively calm
atmosphere where people can really focus on
the practical problems the people living in the
District of Columbia face and on the contribution the District of Columbia makes to the country in terms of taxes, people in military service,
and in many other ways.
So I still very much believe that this ought
to be done. But we have to bring it up at
a time when we've got a fair shot to prevail.
I mean, I could bring it up and make a speech
for it and let it go down. If we want it to
pass, we have to bring it up at the right time
where people can really focus on it.
President's Priorities
Mr. Levey. Sir, you said the night before you
took over, that you did not want to be allowed
to become a captive of the White House. You
wanted to be the kind of President who got
out. Do you think you've succeeded in that?
The President. To some extent. You know,
early on here, I have to stay here a lot and
just do the work. There's just so much work
to be done.
Mr. Levey. I guess so.
The President. If you're trying to change
things as much as we are, if you want to put
on the Nation's agenda a new economic plan
and a new health care plan and then follow


909




June 21 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


that with a plan to open the doors of college
education to all, the plan to reform campaign
finance and lobbying, a plan for moving people
from welfare to work, that requires an immense
amount of effort. And then, of course, every
President has to spend a significant amount of
time on national security and foreign policy issues.
But I have traveled some. I expect to do
it more, and I also try to get out and around
in DC a lot. You know, one of the reasons
I try to jog downtown is just so I can stop
and talk to citizens and let them visit with me
and kind of make sure I don't lose touch with
the real world. I wish I could goRemarks to the United States-Mexico
Exchange With Reporters
June 21, 1993
The President. Please sit down, ladies and
gentlemen. I want to welcome all of you here
to the Roosevelt Room at the White House and
say a special word of welcome to our distinguished guests from Mexico.
Today the U.S.-Mexico Binational Commission is holding its 10th meeting at the State
Department. I want to say how very proud I
am as President to welcome all the participants
here. There is no closer partnership between
two nations than that which we have with our
neighbor Mexico. We share strong ties of history. Our cultures are richly interwoven. Our
people are strong in their bonds of kinship and
friendship. And the peaceful cooperation of the
communities along our 2,000-mile border is not
only important but is a real tribute to both our
peoples.
An important sign of this close relationship
is the Binational Commission itself, which provides a forum for our Cabinets to meet annually
to work on issues ranging from the environment
to education to telecommunications. Another
sign of that partnership is our increasingly close
cooperation in world affairs and our commitment to support democracy here in this hemisphere. We worked together to help end the
war in El Salvador. Mexico has contributed to
the International Civilian Mission of Human
Rights Observers in Haiti. Mexico's leadership


Mr. Levey. Well, don't jog when it gets humid
out there.
The President. It's pretty hot out there.
Mr. Levey. Yes, it is.
The President. But I'm straight. I expect it
to be a never-ending struggle, but I hope it's
one I can prevail in.
Mr. Levey. Mr. President, we thank you so
much for joining us on Newstalk 630 WMAL.
The President. Thank you. I enjoyed it.
NOTE: The interview began at 1:12 p.m. The
President spoke from the Roosevelt Room at the
White House.
Binational Commission and an
in the OAS was critical to the successful collective defense of democracy in Guatemala. And
President Salinas speaks with a special authority
as one of the world's leading economic reformers when he calls for progress in the Uruguay
round to expand world trade.
Mexico and the United States agree that the
movement toward open markets and free trade
in Latin America is vital for the long term success and strengthening of democracy and human
rights in this hemisphere. The countries of Latin
American have already made tremendous
strides. The emergence of democratically elected
governments in this region has permitted Latin
America to modernize and to develop. The Latin
countries have made enormous progress restructuring and opening their economics, controlling
inflation, and increasing the competitiveness of
their own productive sectors. In the last 2 years,
for the first time in a decade, Latin America
has had real growth in per capita income.
Democratic  governments   have  achieved
peace, strengthened freedoms, and accelerated
the pace of economic integration. With the support of the OAS and the United Nations, internal conflicts in Nicaragua and El Salvador have
ended and hopefully will soon end in Guatemala. The OAS routinely observes the freedom
of elections across the region. Subregional free
trade agreements have emerged throughout the


910




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / June 21


hemisphere. These are points that were recently
very well articulated by Foreign Minister Solana
at the OAS and those which we in the United
States enthusiastically embrace.
Increasingly today, the line has blurred between domestic and foreign policies. What we
do abroad directly affects us here at home. And
our success at home directly impacts what we
are able to do abroad. No relationship illustrates
better the strong linkage between foreign and
domestic policies than the relationship between
the United States and Mexico. The interdependence of our societies and our people are stronger than ever, and they will continue to grow.
Domestic policies affect the lives and prosperity
of Mexicans, even if they are American domestic
policies, in the same way that the domestic policies of Mexico profoundly affect us.
You need only look at the scope and complexity of today's agenda in this meeting to understand how important Mexico and the United
States are to each other. We will work to deepen and expand that partnership. One of the most
productive areas in which we must work is on
trade between our two nations. That has doubled in the last 5 years. This trade is vital to
our economic future, to Mexico's economic future, and to our cooperation in every other area
of endeavor. It is making both of our economies
grow. It is making both of us more efficient
and more competitive in global markets. And
it adds to the resources we can use to address
our common concerns such as the environment.
That is why I am firmly committed to the
North American Free Trade Agreement and
why the American people and Congress will,
I hope and believe, support the NAFTA this
year. We are the world's number one exporter.
Exports are creating more jobs for us in the
last few years than any other source of economic
activity. American workers and companies want
to be able to compete fully and fairly in global
markets. They seek no special advantage, only
a level playing field. Mexico has already made
important strides in labor rights and in protecting the environment. And when we conclude
the side agreements which are now the subject
of negotiations, we will have an even broader
basis for cooperation and progress and a warmer
embrace of the NAFTA here in the United
States.
By approving NAFTA, we can cement in
place a new source of jobs and economic growth
for workers in Canada, Mexico, and our own


country. And we'll do more than that. We can
send a signal to the nations of the Americas
that are on their way to rebuilding their economies, that we are on our way to work with
them to build a hemisphere of freer trade, more
jobs, and higher growth.
Once again, let me say how very grateful I
am to see all of you here. And I know my
administration is proud to be a part of these
negotiations. I look forward to our continued
successes, including the success of NAFTA. I
believe that the future belongs to countries committed to democracy, to free markets, and to
closer integration of their economies and more
trade. That's where the jobs and the incomes
are; that's where the hope of a better life lies.
Thank you very much.
[At this point, Foreign Minister Fernando Solana
Morales of Mexico made a statement.]
Haitian Refugees
Q. Mr. President, what is your reaction to
the Supreme Court ruling on Haitian refugees?
The President. I haven't had a chance to review it. I'm sorry, I haven't had a chance to
review it.
NAFTA
Q. Are you frustrated by the fact that these
negotiations, the bilateral negotiations, are taking
so long and they don't seem to get anywhere
yet?
The President. No. I think that everything
takes a little longer around here than I think
it should. But I think we are getting somewhere,
and I think that you will see these negotiations
produce successful agreements. And I think we
will go forward with the free trade agreement
this year. I'm very hopeful.
Q. Can I follow up on that, Mr. President?
Don't you think with the full domestic agenda
you have and the opposition to NAFTA in the
United States, it's more likely to get a ratification, if at all, next year and not this year?
The President. No. Because I think the issue
has been, in effect, fully aired and debated before it comes up for ratification. And I think
a lot of the questions that have been raised
about it in the Congress are the very questions
that are being debated and dealt with in the
negotiations now going on between the countries. So I would expect that we can get successful consideration of it this year.
And also, you know, I think this is another


911




June 21 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


one of those battles of ideas in which we're
engaged. But I believe very strongly that this
will create jobs and increase incomes for people
on both sides of the border. And I think if
that argument is accepted, it's just as likely to
be accepted this year as next year.
Henry Leon Ritzenthaler
Q. [Inaudible]-about the half-brother, is this
gentleman your half-brother, do you know?
The President. What did you say, Helen
[Helen Thomas, United Press International]?
Q. [Inaudible]-California. Same question, basically.
The President. I placed a call today, but there
was nobody home. I don't think I should say
anything until after the call takes place.
NAFTA
Q. You do not have the votes in the House
right now. Are you planning on launching a
campaign in order to push forward for ratification of NAFTA?
The President. I try to win the things that


I support. When we can bring it up, we'll bring
it up and try to win it. And I have been discussing this quite a bit, actually, in personal conversations with various Members of the House
and Senate and getting advice, beginning to plot
strategy. But of course, we'll have a campaign
to do it. We can't prevail without a campaign;
we have to try to win it.
Thank you very much. One person from the
Mexican press, we'll take one question. That's
only fair.
Drug Policy
Q. Mr. President, do you have a new policy
to fight drugs here, or do you have a new policy
towards immigration?
The President. We will, but I believe that
the announcement of that should involve the
drug czar, Mr. Brown, and others. And we will
have something to say about that in the future.
Thank you.
NOTE: The President spoke at 2:10 p.m. in the
Roosevelt Room at the White House.


Statement on the Meeting of the United States-Mexico Binational
Commission
June 21, 1993


Today the U.S.-Mexico Binational Commission is holding its 10th meeting at the State
Department. I want to extend a very warm welcome to the members of the Cabinet of President Salinas and to say a few words about our
warm friendship with Mexico.
There is no closer partnership between two
nations than that which we have with our neighbor Mexico. We share strong ties of history.
Our cultures are richly interwoven. Our people
share strong bonds of kinship and fellowship.
And the peaceful cooperation of the communities along our 2,000-mile border is important
to both of our peoples.
An important sign of our close relations is
the Binational Commission itself, which provides
a forum for our Cabinets to meet annually to
work on issues ranging from the environment
to education to telecommunications.
Another sign of our partnership is our increasingly close cooperation in world affairs and our


commitment to the success of democracy in this
hemisphere. We worked together to help end
the war in El Salvador. Mexico has contributed
to the International Civilian Mission of Human
Rights Observers in Haiti. Mexico's leadership
in the OAS was critical to the successful collective defense of democracy in Guatemala. And
President Salinas speaks with a special authority
as one of the world's leading economic reformers when he calls for progress in the Uruguay
round to expand world trade.
Mexico and we agree that the movement toward open markets and free trade in Latin
America is vital and for the long-term success
and strengthening of democracy and human
rights in this hemisphere. The countries of Latin
America have already made great strides. The
emergence of democratically elected governments in the region has permitted Latin America to modernize and develop. The Latin countries have made enormous progress restructuring


912




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / June 22


and opening their economies, controlling inflation, and increasing the competitiveness of their
productive sectors. In the last 2 years, for the
first time in a decade, Latin America has had
real growth in per capita income.
Free trade agreements have contributed to
the progress in regional integration. Democratic
governments have achieved peace, strengthened
freedoms, and accelerated the pace of integration. With the support of the OAS and the U.N.,
internal conflicts in Nicaragua and El Salvador
have ended and hopefully will soon end in Guatemala. The OAS routinely observes the freedom
of elections across the region. Subregional free
trade agreements have emerged throughout the
hemisphere. These are points that were recently
well articulated by Foreign Minister Solana at
the OAS and that we enthusiastically embrace.
Increasingly today, the line has blurred between domestic and foreign policies. What we
seek to do abroad directly affects us at home.
No relationship illustrates better the strong linkage between foreign and domestic policies than
our relationship with Mexico. The interdependence of our societies and people are stronger
than ever and continues to grow. Our domestic
policies affect the lives and prosperity of Mexicans in the same way that the domestic policies
of Mexico profoundly affect us. You need only
to look at the scope and complexity of today's
BNC agenda to understand how important Mexico and the U.S. are to each other. We will
work to deepen and expand our partnership
even further.
One of the most productive areas in which
we must work closely together is on the trade


between our nations, which has doubled in the
past 5 years. That trade is vital to our economic
future, to Mexico's economic future, and to our
cooperation in every area. It is making both
our economies grow. It is making us both more
efficient and more competitive in the world
market. And it adds to the resources we can
use to address common concerns such as the
environment.
That is why I am firmly committed to the
NAFTA, and it's why I believe the American
people and Congress will support the NAFTA
this year. We are the world's number one exporter. Exports are creating more jobs than any
other source in our economy today. American
workers and companies want to compete fairly
in the international market. They seek no special
advantage, only a level playing field. Mexico has
already made important strides in labor rights
and in protecting the environment. When we
conclude the side agreements, we will have an
even broader basis for cooperation and progress.
By approving the NAFTA, we will cement
in place a new source of jobs and economic
growth for workers in Canada, Mexico, and the
United States. And we will do more than that.
We will send a signal that the nations of the
Americas are on their way to building a hemisphere of freer trade.
Once again, I wish to reiterate my deep personal commitment to continuing the positive,
friendly relations between the U.S. and Mexico.
I look forward to celebrating together with you
the happy occasion of congressional approval of
the NAFTA before the end of this year.


Teleconference Remarks With the U.S. Conference of Mayors
June 22, 1993


The President. I'm honored to address all the
United States mayors at your conference. I want
to thank you first for the strong support that
you've given the economic plan I presented to
the Congress and to the country. You supported
it not only because it's good for the cities but
because it's also good for America.
Your president, Mayor Bill Althaus, has certainly earned my respect and support because
he's looked beyond party labels to support this


plan because it's good for the people of his
community. I look forward to having just that
good of a relationship with your incoming president, my longtime friend Mayor Jerry
Abramson. And I want to say a special word
about your host, Mayor Dinkins, a great Mayor
of a very great city.
As mayors, more than any other public officials in this country, you have been on the
frontlines of public service. Every day you hear


913




June 22 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


from people who have lost their jobs, who live
in fear of crime, who desperately want to improve their children's schools and their own way
of life. Many of you are trying to reknit a social
fabric that has been unraveling for a long time
now. From schools with metal detectors to hospital emergency rooms crowded with gunshot
victims, to children bearing children, you know
what the real problems of America are. I often
think that being a mayor today is an act of
faith that somehow our cities' problems will not
overwhelm their promise. And our cities must
always be the centers of commerce and culture,
magnets for talent and ambition, places of hope
and opportunity. We can't let the problems
overcome the promise.
I wish I could be with you today in person,
and I will look forward to doing that as you
meet in the future. But my first obligation to
you and to America is to keep fighting here
in Washington for my economic plan. It will
create jobs, increase incomes, offer hope and
opportunity, and give us the freedom we need
to invest in America, in the future.
For 12 years we have seen, all of us, you
as mayors and me as a Governor, we saw what
happened as we wrestled with many of the problems that grip America everywhere and got a
message from Washington, "You're on your
own." Washington ran up the national debt from
$1 trillion to $4 trillion and still reduced investments in the things that make us stronger and
wealthier and more secure as a people. We got
make-believe budgets from Presidents and mandates without money from Congress. And Washington never was willing to take responsibility
for the future of this country, leaving it to the
mayors and the Governors to make all the tough
choices.
Well, I don't expect anyone in that room
today with you agrees with everything that I'm
trying to do as President. But I think all of
you understand that because of the massive debt
we inherited, I can't do everything that I want
to do. But I'll tell you this: I am determined
to establish a new relationship, a new partnership with our Nation's cities based on respect
and responsibility and an understanding that you
ought to have more flexibility to do your work
without so much micromanagement and regulation from the National Government. I also want
to put the Nation's money where our values
are. I want us to invest in rewarding work,
strengthening families, and restoring our com

munities. And I want to set an example of responsibility by making the tough choices that
have been avoided and evaded for too long here.
My economic plan is necessary and fair, and
it will work. It brings down the national deficit
by $500 billion over the next 5 years. For every
$10 we cut the deficit, $5 comes from spending
cuts; $3.75 from the highest income Americans,
those in the upper 6 percent of income brackets;
and $1.25 comes from the middle class. Twothirds of this tax burden comes from people
with incomes above $200,000 because they can
best afford to pay. And over 100 specific spending cuts are over $100 million each.
Now, it's easy to criticize this plan, maybe
just because I've put forward a plan. Most of
my critics don't have a plan of their own. Some
say they're willing to cut Social Security and
Medicare benefits for people just above the poverty line or cut more in veterans benefits than
have been cut already or cut tax credits for
the working poor just to reduce the tax burden
on the wealthy. Well, I draw the line there.
I don't think that's fair. I think that we need
a fair tax system, not because we want to punish
success but because in the 1980's we ran up
the deficit while raising taxes on the middle
class and lowering them on upper income people.
Now I ask my critics in Congress, where are
your tough choices? What are you going to do?
If you want to reduce the tax burden on the
wealthy, where will you make up the money?
What will you do to reduce this deficit? Are
you willing to make the same kinds of decisions
that I have? I wonder what the middle class,
the working poor, the old, the sick, and the
veterans will do if the failed policies of the
past are not abandoned. I also wonder what
they'll do if we don't ask all the rest of us
to pay our fair share so that we can still continue
to take care of them.
Make no mistake about it, I want to change
the way Washington works with people all across
this country. I want to move beyond the politics
of both parties in Washington, beyond the politics of abandonment, of the politics of entitlement. We've got to have a sense that we're
doing this together. We can't do everything for
the cities or the people of America, but we
can't turn our backs on you either. And frankly,
that's what you've had for the last 12 years.
I want a new spirit of empowerment that
offers you a hand up, not a handout, that works


914




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / June 22


with you instead of working you over. I want
to offer more opportunity and demand more
responsibility. And I know the mayors of this
country are ready for that kind of arrangement.
Just as we need to stop spending on things
that don't work, we need to invest more in
things that do work.
My plan does cut the deficit, but it finds
the money to invest in empowering people to
build better lives. I want to empower families
to build better lives for their children and am
fighting to expand the women, infants, and children's nutrition program so that every expectant
mother who needs help can get it. I'm fighting
for full funding for Head Start so that every
child can start school ready to learn. I want
to empower people through education. I'm
fighting for tough standards for our students
and our schools. I want to give them the resources they need to meet those standards. To
offer young people new hope and teach work
habits, I'm fighting for summer jobs. Congress
has approved 580,000 publicly funded jobs, and
we're asking for another 215,000 and challenging
the business community to match our commitment. The Labor Secretary, Bob Reich, has
been there talking to you about that.
I want to make it possible for tens of thousands of young people to pay off their college
loans by serving the communities in which they
live. That's the thing your previous speaker was
talking about. The National Government can
offer you our greatest resource, our people, to
work in the streets, in the neighborhoods, in
the communities, to work on programs that really change people's lives for the better, programs
that you couldn't afford to have as mayors were
it not for national service. And I'm proud to
say that the national service bill has passed both
committees in the House and the Senate just
in the last few days with real bipartisan majorities.
To provide new opportunities for young people who aren't going to college, my plan contains
the boldest national apprenticeship program our
country has ever known, more funds for training
in your communities. I want to empower low
income people by making work pay. By expanding the earned-income tax credit, we can establish a principle that will be important in every
city in this country. If you work 40 hours a
week and you have a child at home, you'll no
longer live in poverty. We need to encourage
full-time work, not lifetime welfare.


I want to empower communities to protect
themselves, and I'm fighting for $200 million
to help you hire back police officers you've had
to lay off. I want to put 100,000 more police
officers on our streets and promote community
policing programs. That's the best anticrime program we can have.
I want to empower our communities to create
new jobs, and I've proposed an empowerment
zone program in excess of $5 billion, so that
communities can work with the private sector,
and we can finally see whether these incentives
can attract businesses and create new jobs for
people in our distressed inner cities and small
towns. I believe they will. We're offering bold,
new tax incentives for businesses to create jobs
and asking each of you to create a strategy to
rebuild your own community. We've learned
that Washington can't solve problems from the
top down, but that we have to help you. We
also know you can't have capitalism without capital. That's why I have proposed a $382 million
funding for a network of community development banks all across this country to provide
the credit and the banking services that are the
lifeblood of local economies and that don't really
exist in too many of our communities.
Almost a year ago, I left another convention
in New York on a bus tour through America's
heartland, to Mayor Althaus's hometown of
York, Pennsylvania, to Mayor Abramson's hometown of Louisville, and to many of your own
cities and towns. Every day I go to work in
the White House, I think about how to create
jobs and hope and opportunities for the people
I visited on those bus tours. I can't do it alone.
I need your support in the tough choices that
are coming up in Congress. If you'll stay involved and vigilant and vocal, we can create
a vibrant economic growth for every community
in this country. We can do it. We can cut the
deficit. We can build on the successes we've
had.
Just in the last 5 months you see interest
rates down, homebuilding up, 130,000 new construction jobs-that's the biggest increase in 9
years-755,000 new jobs in the economy in only
5 months, 90 percent of them in the private
sector. This program to bring the interest rates
down through deficit reduction is working. And
when we do it, we will then have the funds
we need to invest in the kind of partnerships
that will help us to deal with the problems that
all of you face.


915




June 22 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


So that's what I offer you: a partnership, an
economic program that works, and finally, over
the long run, the way to deal with a lot of
these underlying, deeply seated cultural and social problems that I know have bothered all
of you. We have to find new and different ways,
one on one, to help to deal with the scourges
of drug abuse, of crime, of unsafe streets, and
of all these children who are out there having
children themselves. But I am very, very hopeful, because I still believe the most creative and
innovative leaders in America are those at the
grassroots. I'll work with you, and I'll try to
be the best partner you ever had in the White
House.
Thank you very much.
[At this point, Mayor Althaus thanked the President and introduced Mayor David Dinkins of
New York City, who asked the President to implement a more efficient system for distributing
Federal funds to cities.]
The President. Mayor, first of all, let me say
a word of greeting to Secretary Brown; I see
him sitting next to you. I understand five of
my Cabinet Secretaries have been there, and
I can't find anybody on the phone here in Washington. I hope nothing bad happens while the
mayors conference is going on.
I wanted to say just a word about that. As
you know, that's a matter that's been debated
for years among the mayors, the Governors, and
the Congress. We are in the process right now,
through the Vice President's task force on
reinventing government, of reexamining the way
the Federal Government relates to the cities
and the States. And if I might make a specific
suggestion, I think it would be very helpful if
you, or Mayor Abramson, if that's the appropriate person to do it, would designate a group
of mayors to make a very specific proposal to
our task force because-and obviously, we'll
have to invite people who might disagree to
do the same thing-but I think it's very important that we examine this because one of the
things that I'm concerned about is the colossal
amount of money we waste every year trying
to micromanage these grants, trying to have
extra layers of regulation. And I think that a
lot of these things need to be reexamined.
So I think the proper forum for us to do
that in is this one. And it's on a very fast track
because the report is due in September, so it's
not anything we're going to dillydally around


about. And I would like you to make a proposal
to our commission.
[Mayor Paul Helmke of Fort Wayne, IN, requested the President's support for legislation
to prevent unfunded Federal mandates.]
The President. Well, I haven't reviewed the
bill, Paul, but I certainly think that we shouldn't
have unfunded mandates. I spoke out against
them as a Governor. I told the mayors that
I would be opposed to adding to your burdens.
I don't believe in that. And I'll review the bill
and see whether or not we should support the
bill, too. But I have told our administration
clearly that I don't want us up there on the
Hill supporting bills to load up a bunch of new
burdens on the mayors and the Governors when
they're broke, when we're not increasing funding
to the States and the cities as we should. And
I've sent a very clear signal on it. And I will
review the legislation.
I also want to thank you and Bill Althaus
and many other Republican mayors for supporting the jobs stimulus program. And let me say
that I think after we pass this budget we'll be
able, together, in a very bipartisan fashion, to
try to make the argument that was made there
again, which is that there is a difference between investment and consumption spending,
and that while the Federal Government may
be spending too much on regulation, on the
programs of the past, and on uncontrolled health
care costs, we are actually not anywhere nearly
where we need to be in targeted investments
that create jobs and opportunities not only in
the public sector but in the private sector. And
the mayors were very, very helpful in that regard. I'll never forget what you did. And I don't
want you to think that the battle that you waged
more ferociously than any other single group
in the United States-you did more to try to
help that package-and I don't want you to
think that the battle you waged was for nothing,
because the battle you waged was about an idea
that we're still going to have to fight to get
back into our national consciousness. Not all
Federal spending is the same. Not all taxes are
the same. We have to learn to make very rigorous distinctions if we want to grow this economy. And so I do want to thank you for that.
And I will review the Kempthorne legislation.
Thank you.
Mayor Althaus. Mr. President, I don't know
that we've ever been called ferocious before,


916




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / June 22


but we appreciate it. [Laughter]
The President. I can't believe you were never
called ferocious.
[Mayor Abramson asked the President to explain
his defense conversion plan.]
The President. Secretary Brown can discuss
this in greater detail, but let me say that we
have spent a lot of time through the National
Economic Council, with all the Departments
that you mentioned, trying to make sure that
we have a coordinated conversion plan. Some
of the work has to be done in the Defense
Department. We are shifting more research and
development into other areas. We are doing
what we can to make sure that the work that
is done in Commerce and Energy-Energy has
the national labs, as you know-and the Labor
Department, that all these things are coordinated and that you will be able to work with
the National Economic Council or with any
Cabinet Secretary and still have the benefits of
all of us working together. We really tried to
minimize the turf battles here.
I also asked for quite a large increase in defense conversion funds over the next 5 years,
although I don't think it's as much as we need,
and I think we'll be asking for more as we
go along. And I want to emphasize basically
three things because this is not an easy issue.
I've done a lot of work on this myself as a
Governor. We have to be prepared to retrain
workers who can't keep the jobs they have. We
have to be prepared to invest in companies to
help them find dual-use technologies in the
hope that those companies can keep as many
workers as possible and can find new products
and services they can provide. We also have
to be prepared to invest directly in communities
that will have to develop all new economic strategies. There are communities which basically
don't have a diverse economic base today, where
if they lose a base, for example, instead of a
plant, that may have great difficulty in redesigning an economic strategy even though they may
have the resource of the base right there that
they can use. So my view is that there is no
silver bullet here. You have to work on the
workers, the companies, and the communities.
And we've got to keep working on this.


I will say this: I think there is a lot of sympathy and understanding of these problems in
the Congress. And I think that the mayors will
be able to have some significant successes in
the years ahead. If we can go on and pass this
economic program, lock down our determination
to bring the deficit down, and keep these interest rates down, then I think we'll be able to
come back to the Congress on conversion issues
and do quite well.
[Mayor Juanita Crabb of Binghamton, NY, asked
the President to meet with mayors and police
chiefs to discuss community policing programs.]
The President. I think that's a good idea,
Mayor Crabb. I think the goal can be achieved,
but it's important that we achieve it in a way
that you feel is maximizing your ability to do
a good job and that we do it in a way that
achieves the ultimate objective, which is safer
streets and more robust and hopeful communities. So I'd like to have the meeting with you
and, obviously, representatives of the police
chiefs.
There are three or four different avenues that
we can pursue to get to our ultimate goal of
having 100,000 more police officers. And we
really need to talk about what's best for you,
what works best, how you can get folks with
the maximum flexibility to pursue community
policing strategies. I'm very interested in this.
This is something that the Attorney General and
I have had several conversations about already,
and there are a lot of people in the White
House itself working hard on this. I think we
ought to get our group together and meet with
your group and just talk it out, and we can
develop a coordinated 4-year plan to get the
job done. I'm anxious to do it. It's one thing
we can do that will literally change the lives
of most Americans who live in the communities
affected by it. And we need to continue to work
on it until we get the job done.
[Mayor Althaus again thanked the President and
reaffirmed the mayors' support for him.]
The President. Thank you, Mayor. Goodbye.
NOTE: The President spoke at 10:50 a.m. from
Room 459 of the Old Executive Office Building.


917




June 22 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


Telephone Conversation With the Crew of the Space Shuttle Endeavour
and an Exchange With Reporters
June 22, 1993


The President. Can you hear me?
Mission Commander Ronald Grabe. Mr.
President, I believe we hear you loud, but slightly broken up.
The President. Well, we can hear you, and
we are looking at you. And you all look wonderful.
Commander Grabe. Well, you're loud and
clear now, Mr. President. That's much better.
The President. We want to congratulate you
on a spectacular launch and on looking so
happy. The American people are very reassured
watching you on television now.
Commander Grabe. Well, thank you sir. It's
early in the mission, but we're very excited
about the mission. It's certainly a multifaceted
one, and it really does show the versatility of
the space shuttle. We're doing a little bit of
everything on this flight.
The President. I know. I understand one of
the things you're doing is chasing down the
EURECA satellite that was put up by the shuttle last July. And I'm especially pleased about
that because it shows what we can do in the
way of international cooperation as well as
science. And I want to congratulate you on that
and wish you well.
Astronaut Janice Voss. Thank you very much,
Mr. President. We've been working very hard
for about a year training for this rendezvous
and retrieval. And we've had a lot of fantastic
support, both in our own country in our own
ground support team and the international team
all over in Europe, and we're looking forward
to bringing back great science in EURECA to
the Europeans.
The President. We're looking forward to that,
too. I also understand that David and Jeff will
be outside the shuttle practicing for the repair
of the Hubbell telescope and for the future assembly of the space station. And I thought that
maybe one of them or both would like to comment on it so people can get a good look at
you now, and when they see you outside in
your suits they'll know who they're seeing.
Astronaut Jeff Wisoff. Well, Mr. President,
we're looking very forward to the space walk.
We feel proud to be able to represent America.


And we're very happy of your support of the
space station. We think it represents the best
of America and their pioneering spirit. And the
NASA team has done a really great job of preparing us for our flight. And I think both Dave
and I just can't wait to get there.
The President. Well, we're excited about it.
And while you're up there, we're going to be
down here trying to support the space program
and the space station. As you know, we had
a very distinguished commission looking at the
whole space station project. They recommended
some redesign and some management changes
at NASA. But I think this should give us a
great deal of credibility. We've got some important votes coming up in the Congress in the
next 2 days. While you're up there, we're going
to be down here voting on this project. And
I very much hope that we can prevail, and I
think, frankly, your success and your work will
help us to prevail. You're doing as much up
there to help us win the votes down here as
anyone, and I thank you for that.
Commander Grabe. Well, Mr. President,
we're very gratified by your support of the space
station. We certainly all consider it to be an
immensely important project in continuing our
leadership in science and technology.
The President. Thank you. Let me just say
one last thing about something that's very important to me. I understand that later in the
mission Janice and Brian are going to be talking
with schoolchildren around the world. And you
may know that my daughter is a big fan of
the space program. She's off at summer language camp now. But I want to just tell you
how much I appreciate the fact that you're making an international education project out of this
mission. That's very important to me.
Astronaut Brian Duffy. Mr. President, we find
that using amateur radio is an excellent way
of communicating with children all around the
world, and we're also able to excite them by
using space and science. In letting them see
space and science in action, we're able to excite
them and hope they'll study harder.
The President. You have no idea. You may
be on this mission creating thousands of sci

918




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / June 22


entists for the future just by the power of your
example and by this direct communication. I
think sometimes we underestimate the impact
that human contact in an enormously impressive
setting like this can have on children all across
the world, not only those with whom you'll talk
but millions of others who will just see it and
know that it happened.
I want to thank all of you for the wonderful
job you've done. We're very proud of you, and
we're very proud of all the NASA folks down
here who are supporting you. I want to encourage you and say again that I'm behind you,
this administration is behind you, and I think
the American people are behind you.
Astronaut David Low. Mr. President, once
again, we thank you very much for your support.
It's a real pleasure to be up here at your service.
The President. Thank you. Let's hear from
the last astronaut there.
Astronaut Nancy Sherlock. I just wanted to
add my thanks for your support. We all feel
that the space program has done a tremendous
amount for this country, both in promoting inside the country science education and also with
the international partners. And it means a lot
to us to know that that support still is around
and that we're going to have a strong space
program in the future.
The President. I'm committed to that. The
American people, in watching you today, can
see one area of human endeavor in which we
are indisputably continuing to lead the world
and bringing other countries into partnership.
And both leadership in technology and science
and partnership with other countries, those are
the keys to our future as a people, to our standard of living, to our quality of life, as well as
to our ability to continue the American tradition
of exploring frontiers. And I'm very proud of
you, and I wish you well. And we can't wait
until you get home safe and sound. But have
a great time up there, and learn a lot, and
we'll all learn from you.
Good luck, and God bless you all.
[At this point, the telephone conversation ended,
and the President took questions from reporters.]
Homosexuals in the Military
Q. Mr. President, there's apparently a memo
circulating over at the Pentagon suggesting that
gays should be allowed to serve in the military
if they simply don't advertise their status. Is


that what you're likely to recommend?
The President. I think I should wait until I
get the report from the Pentagon. I have not
received the report. I talked to Secretary Aspin
very briefly just a couple of days ago and asked
him to proceed with this and let me know as
soon as possible. I think the American people
in the military are certainly ready for a resolution. But I can't comment on the specifics until
I see it.
Q. Does that sound like a good solution to
you?
The President. I want to see what the details
are. There's been a lot of very helpful comment
I think on this whole issue, finally, in the last
few weeks. Senator Dole was very helpful in
what he said. I thought some of the people
who testified, interestingly enough, on both sides
of the issue in the last set of hearings really
tried to shed more light than heat, tried to bring
down the emotionalism in the debate and get
people to look at the facts. So I think we're
ready to resolve this and get it behind us. And
I hope that it will happen soon. But I don't
want to comment specifically until I get a specific recommendation.
Q. But you haven't changed your mind, have
you?
The President. Absolutely not. And I don't
see this as a liberal-conservative issue. I mean,
you've got a core who was in the Reagan administration supporting the idea that there has to
be some provisions for people who don't do
anything wrong but who are homosexuals serving
in the service. You've got Barry Goldwater,
you've got a lot of people who served with great
distinction in the military who are now in the
Congress taking the same position. So I think
we're coming toward agreement on it, and I'm
hopeful. But I'd like to see it resolved soon.
Henry Leon Ritzenthaler
Q. Sir, have you spoken to this fellow who
claims to be your brother-half-brother?
The President. No. I left word on his answering service in California yesterday. I didn't know
he was in the air. And I also left word in New
York. And I'd like to talk to him, and then
I'll have a brief statement about it. But I think
I should-I'd like to try one more day to talk
to him.
Q. I think he's afraid to call you.
The President. Well, I hope not; I mean, we
left word that it would be fine for him to call.


919




June 22 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


Q. He's showed some reticence.
The President. He's been, I think, very appealing and humble the way he's handled this whole
thing. I've been impressed.
Pat Nixon
Q. Any thoughts on the death of Pat Nixon?
The President. Well, I'm very sad, and I intend to try to speak with President Nixon today.
I talked with him a couple of times in the last
month, once when he was at the hospital and
once when he had just come from the hospital
in the last month or so, to ask his advice about
various things. You know, they had a very long
and very close marriage. And this must be a
Statement on the Death of Pat Nixon
June 22., 1993
The Nation is deeply saddened today by the
loss of former First Lady Pat Nixon.
Patricia Ryan Nixon was a quiet pioneer
whose concern for family and country will leave
a lasting mark on history. Mrs. Nixon personified
a deep reverence for the cherished American
traditions of community service, voluntarism,
and personal responsibility to one another.
As First Lady, she was indeed a lady of
"firsts." She was the first First Lady to represent
the President of the United States on an official
overseas visit. She was the first incumbent First
Lady to publicly support the equal rights
amendment. And she was an early advocate of
promoting a woman to the U.S. Supreme Court.
While always dignified and gracious, Mrs.
Nixon was also a passionate believer in volunteer
service and the importance of Americans helping
one another. The appearance of the White
House today and its accessibility to visitors at
special times each year owe themselves in large


very difficult time for him. I think the American
people really appreciate the dignity with which
she served as First Lady. And I hope and believe that the Nixon family has the thoughts
and prayers of all the American people today.
Q. Is Panetta going to tell us anything we
don't know? [Laughter]
The President. Well, that's not so much a condemnation of me as a compliment to you. You
know everything already. [Laughter]
NOTE: The President spoke at 12:45 p.m. in the
Oval Office at the White House. The exchange
portion of this item could not be verified because
the tape was incomplete.


degree to her generous and creative efforts.
During her first Thanksgiving as First Lady she
invited 225 senior citizens from area nursing
homes to the White House for a special meal.
She invited hundreds of families to nondenominational Sunday services in the East
Room. And she offered the White House as
a meeting place for volunteer organizations dedicated to solving community problems.
Mrs. Nixon, a mother of two, was also a loyal
and steadfast believer in family. She traveled
extensively with her husband across the Nation
and abroad and was widely praised for her diplomatic gestures overseas. As she said in 1971,
"We've always been a team." We are heartened
that former President Nixon and Mrs. Nixon
were able to celebrate their 53d wedding anniversary yesterday. Our thoughts are with Mrs.
Nixon's family today as we remember her many
accomplishments and contributions to the Nation.


Statement by the Press Secretary on the President's Task Force on
National Health Care Reform
June 22, 1993


The United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia ruled today that the Presi

dent's Task Force on Health Care Reform,
chaired by First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton,


920




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / June 23


was not subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The Court of Appeals decision confirms that the task force operated in full compliance with the law.
In reversing the United States district court
on this issue, the court of appeals held that
Mrs. Clinton is a "full-time officer or employee
of the Government" for purposes of the advisory
committee act. The court of appeals decision
means that the advisory committee act's requirements for open meetings and production of doc

uments did not apply to the task force.
The President announced the creation of the
health care task force, as well as interdepartmental working groups, on January 25, 1993.
The task force held over 20 meetings in April
and May and has presented health care reform
proposals and options to the President. The
President is now in the process of reviewing
those proposals and options and will be preparing a final proposal for delivery to Congress.
The task force terminated on May 30, 1993.
There are no plans to reconvene the task force.


White House Statement on the Posthumous Award of the Presidential
Medal of Freedom to Arthur Ashe
June 22, 1993


The President awarded a posthumous Presidential Medal of Freedom, the Nation's highest
civilian honor, to tennis great Arthur Ashe at
the National Sports Awards ceremony at Constitution Hall Sunday night.


Presenting the medal to Ashe's widow,
Jeanne, the President noted that Ashe "battled
his way to the top rung of international tennis,
and he did it with an inner strength and outward
dignity that marked his game every bit as much
as that dazzling crosscourt backhand."


Appointment for the President's Council on Physical Fitness and Sports
June 22, 1993


The President has appointed Olympic gold
medalist Florence Griffith Joyner and former
NBA star and Congressman Tom McMillen to
be the Cochairs of the President's Council on
Physical Fitness.
"It is very gratifying that two such distinguished individuals as Florence Griffith Joyner
and Tom McMillen have agreed to join my team
as Cochairs of the President's Council on Phys

ical Fitness," said the President. "They are heroes to millions of Americans and deservedly
so. I look forward to the advice that they will
provide Secretary Shalala and myself on how
we can enhance opportunities for all of our people to participate in physical fitness and sports
activities."
NOTE: Biographies of the appointees were made
available by the Office of the Press Secretary.


Exchange With Reporters on the Economic Program
June 23, 1993


Q. Mr. President, is there any way the Republicans can put a plan together that meets your
criteria without taxes?


The President. Well, I don't see how. You
know, we've already cut $250 billion in spending. We've cut Medicare, Medicaid, veterans,


921




June 23 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


farmers, defense, foreign aid, every part of the
Federal Government. The Republican leader
said a couple of days ago he was willing to
raise taxes on the wealthy, but apparently the
people in his caucus who want to protect high
income people and the tax cuts they got in the
eighties, while the middle class got a tax increase, are going to win once again. So what
he'll have to do is come up with some version
of the same plan they have in the House. The
Republican plan in the House, I will remind
you, lost more Republican votes than the Democratic plan lost Democratic votes. And the reason is it was unfair to the middle class, the
working people, the elderly, and to others because it protected upper income people. And
I think you're going to see the same thing. We'll
see what they have to say, but I can't imagine
what else they can do.
We've got a 5-year freeze on domestic discretionary spending. We're cutting defense all we
should, in my opinion, and then some. The only
thing that's going up in this budget is health
care next year. The only thing that's going up
is health care. So it's going to be very interesting
to see when they have to face the music what


they'll say. But we're all eagerly waiting.
Q. When do you think you can get this reconciliation through a conference committee, assuming the Senate passes it?
The President. Well, one step at a time. We
have to get it through the Senate first. We have
to get the Senate Finance Committee bill on
the floor, watch the amendments come forward,
see what happens, and try to pass a bill in
the Senate to go on to Congress. And then
once we do that, we'll talk about the conference
committee.
9. Leon Panetta said yesterday that one of
the goals was going to be to restore veterans.
How are you going to do that, go more toward
the House plan of raising taxes or the Senate
plan, which is more cutting entitlements?
The President. We're going to do a good job
of that. Just watch.
NOTE: The President spoke at 9:45 a.m. in the
Cabinet Room at the White House, prior to a
meeting with congressional leaders. A tape was
not available for verification of the content of this
exchange.


Remarks on the Economic Program and an Exchange With Reporters
June 23, 1993


The President. I just want to make a couple
of remarks about where we are in the Congress
today. We're at the eleventh hour of this budget
debate. It's been going on for months now. And
the Republican Senators say finally they're going
to offer a plan. The plan clearly, if you look
at all the options, will be to protect the privileged and to punish the middle class and the
most vulnerable.
The Senate Finance Committee bill which
was reported out last week now has 78.5 percent
of the burden of new taxes falling on people
with incomes above $200,000. All the analysts
say that my plan is an honest budget plan, that
it will reduce the deficit at least as much, if
not more, than we're saying, and it is fair. And
we're working hard to pass it in the Senate.
But we ought to have some bipartisan support. We ought to have some Republican support for this. And the fact that the Republican


Senators are thinking about coming out with
a plan now, calling it a no-tax plan, which is
really nothing but a shield to keep the wealthiest
Americans from paying their fair share, even
though their taxes went down for the last 12
years while the deficit exploded, is a real disservice to this country.
Economic Program
Q. Why, Mr. President, do you think the Republicans want to protect the privileged?
The President. Well, that's what they did.
That's what their 12-year economic policy was
all about. That's what trickle-down economics
was based on, that if you just lower taxes on
the wealthy enough and when you have to increase them, increase them on the middle class,
and that upper income people, when they get
all the economic gains, will then reinvest it, create jobs, and raise incomes. It didn't work. It
has never worked in the history of the country.


922




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / June 23


I want to emphasize, I do not want to punish
success. This is not what this is about. I want
to reward success. My plan has real incentives
for small business, for new business, for new
technology. I want to reward success, and I want
people to make a lot of money. But we have
to have a fair tax system, and this plan should
require the vast majority of the new revenues
to come from people with incomes above
$200,000 because they're the ones that got the
benefits of the 1980's.
Q. Do you think their plan will get anywhere?
And do you have any Republican support?
The President. No-well, I mean, look at what
happened in the House when they had the same
sort of thing. The Republican plan in the House
lost more Republican votes than the Democratic
plan lost Democratic votes.
Q. Are you looking for some kind of middle
ground compromise where you might be able
to bring on some Republicans?
The President. Well, I'm going to try to passwhat I think we have to do is to get this bill


into conference, come out with a bill that meets
our objectives: $500 billion in deficit reduction;
more cuts than tax increases; progressive tax increases; and then real incentives to reward work,
to reward families, to reward investments in this
economy. That's what we're trying to do. And
I think we're getting close.
Interest Rates
Q. Are you willing to, sir, accept a mild increase in interest rates?
The President. For what?
Q. From the Fed.
The President. Well, whatever they do, I
think, long-term interest rates will stay down.
That's the key to the economy. But there's no
inflation in this economy now that we can see.
Q. So they should not raise rates?
The President. That's a decision they have to
make.
NOTE: The President spoke at 12:44 p.m. in the
Rose Garden at the White House.


Remarks at the Presidential Scholars Awards Presentation Ceremony
June 23, 1993


I want to thank you all for being here and
welcome the Members of Congress who are
here and those who were here who had to leave
for a vote. I want to say a special word ofit's a good vote-[laughter]-I want to say a
special word of thanks to the Marine Band for
being here to play for us today. Thank you.
Since my office is just over there, when they
come out here to play for you, they also keep
me in a far better frame of mind as I work
through the day.
I thank the Commission on Presidential
Scholars for all the work that they have put
into selecting this year's recipients. I especially
want to thank my good friend Governor Florio
of New Jersey for his work as Chairman. I asked
him to serve as Chairman because I admire
the courage and conviction with which he has
conducted himself as Governor of New Jersey
and particularly the bravery that he showed in
dealing with the educational needs of the people
of his State.
The Secretary of Education, Dick Riley, for

merly was Governor of South Carolina, and in
that connection he labored mightily for years
to improve the education of the children of his
State and served as a mentor of mine. And
I thank him for his leadership.
As I look out at this group today of proud
parents and family members and friends and
educators, I'm reminded once again of the curious mix of things that produces the sort of
achievement that we see embodied in the young
people on this stage today. There are, unfortunately, still a lot of people in the United States
who believe that how much you learn and how
well you do in life depends primarily on your
IQ. And yet we know that if you strung all
the people on the globe together from first to
last by IQ, you couldn't stick a straw between
any of the two. A remarkable combination of
ability and intangible things like encouragement
and love and support as well as personal effort
and drive and commitment go into making up
really gifted learners who are committed to
doing it for a lifetime.


923




June 23 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


All the young people who have been acknowledged today have great natural talents, and they
should be grateful for what God has given them.
But every person on this stage today, not only
them but me, we're all here because of the
people who helped us along the way.
There's a young man who was supposed to
be here today named Justin Konrad, from the
State of Maine, who on June the 5th was in
an automobile accident that claimed the life of
one of his friends and claimed part of one of
his legs. Today he's in a hospital in Maine recovering from his injuries. I talked to him this
weekend when I was up in Maine, and he's
already talking about going to Harvard and majoring in government and playing sports. When
he gave his-let me see if I can pronounce
this-salutatorian's address at his high school
graduation, he gave a speech about optimism.
And he still has it, and I hope all of you will
be able to keep it as you go through college
and you pursue your careers. Keeping a positive
frame of mind may sound like an obvious and
easy thing. It becomes increasingly difficult with
a difficulty of circumstances, but more important
with every passing day.
Last Saturday, just before I spoke with Justin
by phone, I was speaking at the commencement
of Northeastern University in Boston, and I met
another young student there graduating from
college named Doug Luffborough. He was the
person who was designated by his fellow students at Northeastern to speak on their behalf.
Doug's mother is a cleaning woman who earns
$7,000 a year and who, in addition to her regular job, cleans a private school part-time to pay
tuition for another of her sons. For a while,
the mother and all of her children were actually
homeless.
It's remarkable that this young man ever got
to go to college at all. The advice he got from
one of his counselors was to give it up and
start looking for a job. But his mother believed
in him and refused to let him aim low. When
she couldn't get a babysitter, she took him along
to work. And he watched her day-in and dayout never give up hope, and by her example
he learned a powerful lesson. When he came
to Northeastern University, the school made it
possible for him to work part-time while going
to school, and his on-the-job experience helped
him to get a very good job when he graduated.
He's shown an amazing amount of responsibility,
but his mother stood by him, his school stood


by him, and he had an employer who stood
by him.
So no matter how heroic individuals are, they
still need help to make it, and support. Chances
of success increase dramatically when other people believe in you, give you opportunities, and
ask you to take the responsibility to make the
most of them. And I want to thank every person
here today who made it possible for these young
people to be up on this stage and to have the
kind of life they're going to have.
I also want to say that this administration
is working hard to open the doors of college
education to all young people, to make it possible for them to get loans to go to college
and to pay them back on much more favorable
terms than has been the case in the past. And
we are trying to pass, with strong bipartisan
support, a national service program which will
make it possible for tens of thousands of young
people to earn credit against those loans before,
during, or after their college years by giving
something back to their communities where they
live. Vice President Gore has just returned from
California where he kicked off our Summer of
Service program, which is the beginning of this
national service effort.
I know that a lot of you have been involved
in service programs. I want to recognize one
of the scholars, MarLeice Hyde, from Valley
High School in Afton, Wyoming. Where are
you? I want to tell you about her. She organized
the junior volunteer program at her local hospital, which contributed over 1,000 hours of
community service at the hospital, while holding
two jobs, attending evening college courses, and
meeting the responsibilities that come from
being the oldest of six children. Let's give her
a hand. [Applause] Congratulations.
Finally, let me say a word about our educators. We often spend our time talking about
what's wrong with our educational system, but
we ought to also acknowledge that there is a
great deal that is right with it. And a lot of
these young people today might not be here
were it not for their teachers, their principals,
the people who worked with them and believed
in them. We think that the educators of America
who are trying to do a good job shouldn't have
to go it alone and should have some way of
knowing whether they're meeting the competition around the globe. That's why Secretary
Riley has worked so hard with his Goals 2000
program and with the legislation now moving


924




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / June 23


through Congress to embrace world-class learning standards that all American schools will be
given the opportunity to meet and that all American parents and students can judge their own
progress by. I am very encouraged by that work
and very grateful for the cooperative spirit that
we see now in Washington between everybody
involved in the educational endeavor. We think
that Goals 2000 will turn a nation at risk into
a nation on the move in education.
Let me say in closing that I've thought a
great deal about education this summer because
I just celebrated under this same tent a couple
of weeks ago my 25th college reunion. I saw
some of my classmates: One of them runs a
refugee center for Palestinians in Jordan; one
came all the way back from Cambodia where
he had his life at risk monitoring the elections
in that troubled country where once so many
people were killed by tyranny. Many of them
have made incredibly valuable contributions to
their lives. And all of us were sitting here 25


years later in this very spot remembering with
incredible vividness actual specific things our
teachers had said to us in class. We had a contest to remember how many verbatim sentences
we could remember from different professors
we had. And every one of us concluded at the
end that none of our lives would have been
possible if we hadn't had the benefit of a worldclass education.
I hope this Presidential scholarship brings to
all of you on this stage those kinds of memories
25 years from now. I hope you will do everything you can to make the most of the opportunities before you. And I hope you will take
some time along the way to enrich the communities from which you came and the people who
made it possible for you to be here today.
Thank you all. Congratulations, and God bless
you.
NOTE: The President spoke at 4:42 p.m. on the
South Lawn at the White House.


Announcement of Senior Executive Service Appointments
June 23, 1993


The President today announced the appointment of a total of 26 Senior Executive Service
officials at Departments and Agencies across the
Government.
"We are continuing to move forward with the
process of filling all of the positions in the Federal Government," said the President. "I continue to be pleased with the excellence of our
appointees, the work that is being done across
the Government, and the diversity of the administration we are putting together."
The appointees, who do not need to be confirmed by the Senate, are:
U.S. International Development Cooperation
Agency
Jill Buckley, Director, Office of External Affairs, Agency for International Development
Department of Commerce
Jill Schuker, Director, Office of Public Affairs
Ellis Mottur, Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Technology and Aerospace in Trade Development
Barry Carter, Deputy Under Secretary for Ex

port Administration
Rita Hayes, Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Textiles, Apparel and Consumer Goods
Paul London, Deputy Under Secretary for
Economics and Statistics
Meredith Jones, General Counsel, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Department of Defense
Molly Williamson, Deputy Assistant Secretary
for Near-East and South-East Asian Affairs
Pat Irvin, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Humanitarian Assistance and Refugee Affairs
Stanley Roth, Deputy Assistant Secretary for
East Asian and Pacific Affairs
Jane Mathias, Deputy Director, Office of Legislative Affairs
Gloria Duffy, Deputy Assistant Secretary and
Office of the Secretary of Defense Special
Coordinator for Cooperative Threat Reduction and Secretary of Defense Representative and Deputy Head to the Safety, Security and Dismantlement Talks
Sarah Sewall, Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Peacekeeping/Peacemaking Policy


925




June 23 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


Brian Sheridan, Deputy Assistant Secretary
for Drug Enforcement Policy and Support
Maj. Gen. James Klugh (Ret.), Deputy Under
Secretary for Logistics
Louis Finch, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Strategy, Requirements and Resources
Department of Energy
Jack Riggs, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy, Planning and Evaluation
Louis Gicale, Deputy General Counsel for
Programs
Department of Health and Human Services
John Monahan, Director of Intergovernmental
Affairs
Melissa Skofield, Deputy Assistant Secretary
for Public Affairs, Policy and Communications
Portia Mittleman, Deputy Assistant Secretary


for Aging
Department of the Interior
Debra Knopman, Deputy Assistant Secretary
for Water and Science
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Jeffrey Lawrence, Assistant Administrator for
Legislative Affairs
Department of Transportation
Mark Gerchick, Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration
Department of Veterans Affairs
Dale Renaud, Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Intergovernmental Affairs
Edward Chow, Deputy Assistant Secretary
NOTE: Biographies of the appointees were made
available by the Office of the Press Secretary.


Remarks to the National Association of Police Organizations and an
Exchange With Reporters
June 24, 1993


The President. First, let me welcome you
here. And this is our replay from the time we
got weathered out in March. And I'm glad you
could all come back. I want to thank you for
the work you do and for the support that you
gave to me last year when I was attempting
to become President and for the support you
have given so many of our initiatives in the
last 5 months.
I have been busily at work for the last several
days working with the United States Senate in
our attempt to pass our economic plan, which
will reduce the national deficit by $500 billion
and provide some significant incentives to turn
this economy around, including keeping interest
rates down, which is critical to our future. We've
had a dramatic increase in the number of ordinary Americans, I imagine including some people in this room, who have, for example, refinanced their homes in the last 5 or 6 months,
because we've got interest rates at a 20-year
low, 130,000 new construction jobs in the economy, 755,000 jobs overall. It is critical that we
pass this. And that's what we're primarily involved in today, as I'm sure you understand.


I also asked the Congress to adopt a modified
bill for making a down payment on our investment package, which they did, which included,
as I'm sure you know, some $200 million for
communities to hire police officers. That is a
down payment on the campaign commitment
I made to empower our communities to hire
another 100,000 police officers over the next
4 years, to go to more community policing, to
provide for safer streets, and to support you
in the work you're doing.
I also want to tell you that the Attorney General and I have been working hard for the last
several weeks with interested Members of Congress to bring up a crime bill this year. Sadly,
it did not pass last year, for all kinds of reasons.
That crime bill is still to be finally defined,
but I can assure you it will include the Brady
bill; it will include a provision for boot camps
as alternative punishment for first-time nonviolent offenders; it will include a continuing
effort to hire more police officers on our streets
and to expand community policing. I welcome
the ideas, the expertise, and the advice of all
of you in putting this bill together and in push

926




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / June 24


ing it through the Congress. It will be a high
priority for the administration, and I expect it
to begin soon.
We can't really revive the whole fabric of
our economy until we put the society back together in the places where it's broken. One of
the things that we're attempting to do in this
economic bill is to finally test the proposition
of whether the private sector can revitalize the
most distressed areas of our big cities or our
small towns   and   rural  areas  with  an
empowerment zone concept that would offer
real big incentives for people to go into a lot
of the meanest streets in this country and invest
their money to put people to work, to start
businesses, to try to make those places come
alive again in positive ways.
We also, as all of you know, are committed
to doing the things that we've been talking
about. I think it's worth just closing with the
thought that there are a lot of people in this
country who are genuinely insecure today. That
shooting at the swimming pool here in Washington, DC, that I'm sure all of you read about,
is a horrible example of the kind of mindless
behavior that is ripping at the fabric of society.
And now I think of how many children are
afraid to go back to the pool, a place where
wholesome recreation will occur, a place where
kids can stay out of trouble and in water in
the summertime; how many of their parents
might be afraid for them to go back.
That is the sort of thing that I hope we can
keep in the minds of our policymakers as we
deal with the crime bill and deal with these
other issues. And I assure you that I welcome
your input into all of them.
I think I'd like to close just by saying a special
word of appreciation to the Justice Department
and the FBI, to the United States Attorney,
and to the New York City Police Department
for the work that they have done in making
the arrests that broke up a terrorist gang in
New York. It was a very impressive piece of
work and a real tribute to the local folks and
to the cooperation that the Federal Government
and the local people had. And I thank them
for that, and thank you.
Now, the Attorney General and I are here.
We're going to answer your questions. But first
we're going to answer a few from the press.
Terrorism
Q. Mr. President, can I follow up

Q. To follow up on that, do you support a
Federal law for the death penalty for terrorists?
And can you tell us how and exactly when you
found out about this plot?
The President. First of all, I support the crime
bill. I supported the crime bill last year which
expanded the death penalty in many different
areas. And as you know, I have a longstanding
support for capital punishment.
But let me answer the specific thing. I was
briefed about this operation at about the time
it was occurring, a little before. I knew that
they had been working on it. But all the credit
for this goes to the FBI and the local people.
They did the work. They've been working on
this for some weeks now, and I don't think
I should say more about it. The Justice Department will have more to say at an appropriate
time.
Q. Can you say whether you believe that everyone has been arrested who was involved in
this? And have you had any communication, do
you plan to have any communication with President Mubarak or any of the other possible victims?
The President. I have not yet had any communications with any of the people that were on
the list. I think any questions about the nature
of the conspiracy and the group should be answered by the law enforcement officials, not by
me.
Economic Program
Q. Mr. President, do you have the votes yet
in the Senate for your budget to pass at this
time, now?
The President. I certainly hope so.
Q. Well, I ask the question because your
spokesman said earlier that you didn't have them
but that you expected to by the end of the
day. Do you have them now?
The President. Who did? Who said that earlier?
Q. Dee Dee said that-that you didn't have
them this morning, but you expected to have
them by the end of the day. Do you have them
now?
The President. Senator Mitchell is my ultimate
authority on that. We're working our way
through these amendments now, and we just
had, as I understand it, Senators Harkin,
Metzenbaum, and Wellstone just announced
their support for the package, pursuant to an
agreement to reduce the size of the Medicaid


927




June 24 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


cuts. There are still about $10 billion Medicaid
cuts over and above what the House put in,
which was about $50 billion.
So that will help, and that puts us three votes
closer. And I just don't-I can't say for sure.
We're going to have a whole series of amendments which go through today. And then at
the end of the day we may find ourselves in
a position where some Members want some
things which can only come out of the conference, and they may have to just decide
whether to let the bill go to conference or not.
The House Members had to make the same
sort of decision. But I'm hopeful. That's all I
can tell you. I'm hopeful. We're working hard,
and I'm hopeful.
Q. Does that bring it under $500 billion, sir?
The President. No. Not to my knowledge. The
last time I saw it, it didn't, Andrea [Andrea
Mitchell, NBC News]. Now, I haven't seen the
exact details of the last-the last time I heard
about it, about an hour and a half ago, it did
not.
Q. What kind of momentum do you want
from this vote, and do you see this as a real
turning point for your Presidency?
The President. There have been a lot of those
lately. [Laughter] The vote in the House was,
and this will be. We have to go on to conference. If it passes today, this will be a very
loud statement. It will say that both Houses


of the Congress are committed to the largest
deficit reduction program in history, to putting
the taxes and the spending cuts in a trust fund,
to spending cuts equal to and now greater than
the tax increases, and to an extremely progressive program where those who can, best able
to pay, are asked to pay. The Senate Finance
Committee bill, according to the Congressional
Budget Office, distributes 78 percent of the burden to people with incomes above $200,000
whose taxes were lowered in the 1980's while
their incomes went up.
So I think that this is a very, you know, it's
a very important vote, and I hope we can prevail. But I never count my chickens before
they're hatched.
Thank you.
Q. Are you counting any Republicans? Any
Republicans, Hatfield or Jeffords?
The President. I've asked; that's all I know.
Q. Did you ask in phone calls?
Q. Mr. President, is the final arrangement
on gays in the military going to require them
to stay in the closet, sir?
The President. 'Bye, everybody; no more questions. I have to answer their questions.
Thank you.
NOTE: The President spoke at 1:43 p.m. in the
Indian Treaty Room of the Old Executive Office
Building.


Exchange With Reporters Prior to a Meeting With the University of
Arkansas Rollin' Razorbacks Wheelchair Athletes
June 24, 1993


Economic Program
Q. Mr. President, surrounded by all these
winners, do you think you can be a winner tonight?
The President. Well, I hope so.
Q. What is your latest assessment?
The President. I feel just the way I did before
the House vote. I'm just working. I'm working.
We're picking up a few andQ. Have you called any Republicans?
The President. I think I should answer that
question after the vote tonight.
Q. We don't want to blow their cover.
The President. I think I should answer that


questionQ. Mr. President, in retrospect, do you wish
you had reached out more to Republicans early
on? Some moderates say they'd be on board
if you had.
The President. I don't know. I did call a number of them. And I tried to-after Senator
Boren and Senator Danforth announced their
little coalition-I don't mean little, I mean their
coalition-I also reached out to some Republicans then. And I continue to reach out to
some Republicans in the House. It's just rare
in these first tough budget votes to get any
votes from the other party. And I hope that


928




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / June 24


this will never happen again. I hope that it won't
ever happen again.
But you have to understand, we're also trying
to reverse 12 years of, basically, people being
told the easy thing and letting the country just
sort of slowly grind downhill. And we're trying
to change it. And these changes are never easy.
I never thought they'd be easy. I'm hopeful
for tonight.
Q. What would be-in the conference committee, sir?
The President. I'll be glad to answer that
question after we see if we're going to have


a conference. First, we have to prevail tonight.
Let's try to make sure we win tonight, and then
we'll be able toQ. Are you-[inaudible]
The President. I'm only concerned until
there's a vote. We're working hard. I think we'll
prevail, but let's wait and see what happens.
NOTE: The exchange began at 5:40 p.m. in the
Oval Office at the White House. A tape was not
available for verification of the content of this exchange.


Remarks to the United States Academic Decathlon Winners and an
Exchange With Reporters
June 24, 1993


The President. I hope you enjoyed your tour
of the White House. And I'm sorry we had
to start a little late, but as I'm sure you know,
a very important debate is now occurring in
the United States Senate on the administration's
economic plan, and I had to make a call or
two.
Congressman Beilenson, it's good to see you.
I bet you're glad you're not involved in that
this afternoon and glad to be here with your
folks.
It's a real honor for me to welcome to the
White House a group of true student athletes:
the gold, silver, and bronze medal-winning
teams in the 1992-93 United States Academic
Decathlon. The gold medalists are from Plano
East High School of Plano, Texas; the silver
medalists from Taft High of Los Angeles; the
bronze medal winners of Mountain View High
School of Mesa, Arizona.
These students have experienced the excitement of competition and the thrill of victory.
And they should be a source of pride for young
people all across our country. They've competed
for medals in 10 different events, from math
and science to language and literature, in an
innovative and inclusive program which fosters
competition, enhances self-image, and shows
how truly exciting the pursuit of knowledge can
be.
As I understand it, the team members also
are required to give speeches, both prepared


and impromptu-that's a good preparation for
being President-write essays and experience
interviews. These young people are equipped
not with javelins or shotputs but with intellect
and knowledge and the ability to think creatively
but with discipline.
The importance of this kind of pursuit of educational excellence cannot be overemphasized.
We're at a moment in our history when we
have to increase the educational ability of all
Americans and in which it is not simply important how much our people know but what they
are capable of learning and how quickly and
well they are capable of thinking through complex problems that may face them tomorrow
but are even unpredictable today. Because of
these kinds of challenges, we cannot meet our
educational excellence goals through Government mandates. We have to meet them through
incentives and through environments which promote excellence and leadership from teachers
and principals, the kind of group work that we
see in this academic decathlon.
I applaud the academic decathlon, its president, John Foley, and its executive director, Ann
Joynt. At this time, I want to say a special word
of congratulations to the national champions,
Plano Senior High School from Plano, TexasPlano East. They're right behind me, right? In
the center. When I was in high school, Plano
had a great high school band. Do you still have
a good band? It won a lot of national awards.


929




June 24 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


Of course, that was back in the dark ages, but
anyway. Under the coaching of Joyce Gillam
and Jack Worsham, Piano East amassed the
highest total score, capturing seven gold and
five silver medals. One particular youngster,
Sunny Chu, deserves special mention. Sunny's
father suffered a severe stroke just days before
the national competition. Nonetheless, Sunny
still managed to win the gold medal for highest
overall score in the Nation. And I'm pleased
to report that Sunny's dad is back home recovering. Congratulations to you. Let's give him a
hand. [Applause]
Now, the group from Taft High in Los Angeles. That's you, right? Coached by Michael Wilson, Taft High pulled in seven gold and six
silver medals. Mara Weiss achieved the second
highest total score in the Nation, earning a gold
medal in the essay event and a bronze in fine
arts. In fact, I understand Mara recently wrote
to my wife expressing her frustration that intellectual pursuits in high school are still seen as
the domain of the male student. Mara, where
are you? Did you really do that?
Ms. Weiss. Yes, I did.
The President. Good for you. I'll hear more
about that as time goes on. [Laughter] Let me
say that I think that is a real problem. And
there is actual documented evidence of that,
particularly in the math and sciences areas, as
young people move out of grade school into
junior high and high school. And you deserve
a lot of credit for pointing it out. Just a few
days ago in the Rose Garden, however, I appointed another distinguished student and scholar, Judge Ruth Ginsburg, to the Supreme Court.
I think those kinds of things should do something to shatter the myth that intellectual pursuits should remain the exclusive domain of
men. And I'm sure you'll have a lot to do with
that as you go through your life.
I want to congratulate, finally, the Mountain
View High School team from Mesa, Arizona.
They're here to my left. Under the watchful
eye of coach Mary McGovern, Mountain View
netted four gold and seven silver medals. Senior
Tagg Grant amassed the highest individual point
total for his team with the best event being


economics. Where are you, Tagg? I order you
to stay here for the next 2 or 3 months. [Laughter] This country needs your help.
I understand that the scholarships are awarded to the top three overall medal winners in
each of three divisions. It just so happens that
eight of those nine scholarship winners are on
these three teams. But we've indicted the ninth
scholarship winner to be with us today as well.
He's Dan Casey, from Lower Merion High
School in Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania. Where
are you, Dan? Welcome. I'm glad they took
you in over there. I looked up there and counted; I thought they had an unfair advantage.
[Laughter] Dan took the silver medal for the
second highest point total in the varsity division.
Each of these young people represents our
best future, our best hopes. They have proven
how much people can do when they put their
minds to it, and I am very proud of them.
I'd like now to invite John Foley to say a
few words, and then I'd like to have some pictures taken with the teams and say hello to
them. But first, Mr. Foley, thank you for your
work, and come up and have a platform.
[At this point, Mr. Foley thanked the President
and explained the history of the program.]
The President. Thank you.
Super Collider
Q. Mr. President, the House has voted to
kill the super collider program. Do you have
any reaction, sir?
The President. They did last year. Maybe the
Senate will save it, and we can save it in conference. I'm not surprised. You know, I'm grateful to them for saving the space station. That
was headed for defeat, and we did a lot of
work on it, and I'm glad we were able to save
it. I always anticipated that if we were going
to save the super collider, it would have to come
in a conference after the Senate did it. So it's
really up to the Senate now to decide on the
super collider.
NOTE: The President spoke at 5:33 p.m. in the
Rose Garden at the White House.


930




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / June 25


Statement on Credit Availability
June 24, 1993
Today's announcement by the FDIC is another tangible benefit brought on by the
progress of our deficit reduction plan and the
lower interest rates it has produced. Fewer bank
failures means more and cheaper bank loans
to America's businesses and communities. It


means billions of dollars more for new jobs,
new businesses, and helping families buy new
homes. It shows once again how critically important it is for Congress to lock in the benefits
of lower interest rates and deficit reduction by
approving the Clinton economic plan.


Nomination for Ambassador to Mongolia
June 24, 1993
The President today announced his intention  distinction for almost two decades in the Forto nominate Donald Johnson, a career member  eign Service," said the President. "I am pleased
of the Foreign Service, to be Ambassador to  that he will be taking this ambassadorial post."
Mongolia.
"Donald Johnson has served our country with  NOTE: A biography of the nominee was made
available by the Office of the Press Secretary.
Statement on Senate Action on the Economic Program
June 25, 1993


Tonight the Senate voted for growth over
gridlock by passing our plan to cut deficit spending by $500 billion and lock the savings in a
deficit reduction trust fund. By rejecting both
the trickle-down economics of the 1980's and
the tax-and-spend policies of the past, the Senate sent a strong signal to middle class Americans that Washington can work to create jobs,
increase incomes, and spur economic growth.
When this debate began, I challenged the
Senate to pass a plan that met these principles:
It had to reduce the deficit by $500 billion;
it had to be balanced between spending cuts
and taxes; 75 percent of those taxes had to be
paid by the wealthiest 6 percent of the American people; and it had to encourage the creation of jobs and the movement of people from


welfare to work. The Senate met these challenges, and that's why this vote is a victory for
the American people.
I want to congratulate Senators Mitchell, Sasser, and Moynihan for their leadership, their
colleagues for their courage, and the American
people for demanding that the deficit come
down through tough spending cuts and a Tax
Code that asks the most from the people who
have the most.
In a matter of days, I will be traveling to
Japan to represent the interests of the United
States in a summit with our economic competitors. Because we are acting to put our house
in order, America will go to that meeting for
the first time in years in a strong position to
lead the world toward growth.


931




June 25 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


Remarks on the Appointment of Kristine M. Gebbie as AIDS Policy
Coordinator and an Exchange With Reporters
June 25, 1993


The President. Good morning. Thank you very
much. First, let me welcome Speaker of the
House and other distinguished Members of the
House of Representatives here. I appreciate
their coming. I understand they were able to
get a little more sleep than the Senators were
last night. I also want to welcome all the rest
of you here.
Before I make the announcement that we're
all here to witness and to be a part of, I do
want to say a word about the vote that was
cast early this morning in the United States Senate to pass a version of the economic plan which
I presented to them, which, to be sure, was
changed to some extent from the House plan
but still reflected, I think, a remarkable degree
of courage: $500 billion in deficit reduction in
the Senate plan, over 78 percent of the new
revenues coming from people with incomes
above $200,000, real commitment to significant
budget cuts that were slightly greater than the
ones in the House plan, and now clearly more
budget cuts than tax increases.
The most important thing is that now both
Houses of Congress, under very difficult circumstances, with the same old rhetoric of the
last 12 years flying at them, had the courage
to try to change this country for the better.
What this means is incalculable. It means we
can now move on to a conference committee
with a clear signal to the financial markets that
its interest rates should stay down and people
should be able to continue to refinance their
homes and finance their businesses at lower interest rates and that for the first time in a very
long time an American President can go to a
meeting of the G-7 nations in a position of
economic strength, trying to lead a renewal of
growth and opportunity all over the world.
So I very much appreciate that. I want to
compliment Senator Mitchell, Senator Sasser,
Senator Moynihan, in particular, for their leadership and the courage of the Senators who voted
in the way they did, so that we can go forward.
One of the things that was in this budget
that has received almost no notice is a real commitment to intensifying our efforts to deal with
the AIDS crisis, even in the midst of all the


budget cutbacks. One of those important efforts
is the naming of a new AIDS coordinator with
a higher visibility, a more important policy role,
and more influence in the National Government
than has been the case in the past.
It is my distinct pleasure today to announce
the appointment of Kristine Gebbie as our Nation's first AIDS Policy Coordinator. This position has never existed before, but circumstances
now require us to look for unprecedented remedies to an unprecedented problem.
Today, as we toil against one of the most
dreaded and mysterious diseases humanity has
ever known, we must redouble our Government's efforts to promote research, funding, and
treatment for AIDS. The appointment of Kristine Gebbie is part of our pledge to do that.
She is a proven health care leader who will
bring to the administration years of experience
in the AIDS field. I'm confident she'll work
hard to ensure that our Nation no longer ignores
an epidemic that has already claimed too many
of our brothers and sisters, our parents and children, our friends and colleagues.
I'm particularly pleased that Kristine Gebbie
is so committed to helping our AIDS effort,
for she certainly is no stranger to the field.
To begin with, she hails from the Pacific Northwest, one of our country's most progressive regions when it comes to health care. A former
nurse, she became the administrator of the Oregon Health Division, a position she held for
11 years, and later served as the secretary of
the Washington State Department of Health.
Currently she serves as a special consultant to
the Department of Health and Human Services.
She's also spent a lot of her time and energy
on AIDS prevention. Since 1989, she's served
as Chair of the Centers for Disease Control
Advisory Committee on the Prevention of HIV
Infection. She served on the Presidential Commission on AIDS. She was for 3 years a member
of the National Academy of Sciences AIDS
oversight committee, and she was chair of an
HIV committee of State health officials around
the United States.
AIDS is terrifying. It inflicts tragedy on too
many families. But ultimately, it is a disease,


932




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / June 25


one we can defeat just as we have defeated
polio, many forms of cancer, and other scourges
in the history of our Nation. How can we do
it? With commitment and courage and constancy, and with vocal and responsible leadership from our Nation's Government. Already this
administration has requested a large increase in
funding for AIDS research and prevention, even
in the face of our severe budget cutbacks. We
are now moving toward full funding of the Ryan
White Comprehensive AIDS Resources Emergency Act. Our budget requested in fiscal 1994
a 78 percent increase in funding for Ryan
White, an 18 percent increase for AIDS research, and a 27 percent increase for prevention.
In addition, the upcoming health care reform
plan will make sure that AIDS sufferers are
not victimized by unfair insurance policies when
they seek treatment for their illnesses. AIDS
touches all of us, and no single group should
be discriminated against on the basis of this
disease.
To make Government's role in AIDS more
efficient, we're also taking steps to coordinate
AIDS policy. On June 10th, I signed into law
the National Institutes of Health Revitalization
Act that establishes an AIDS research office to
coordinate all the AIDS research at NIH. By
now appointing an AIDS Policy Coordinator, we
will ensure that one person in the White House
oversees and unifies Governmentwide AIDS efforts.
Kristine Gebbie will be a full member of the
Domestic Policy Council and will work closely
with the Department of Health and Human
Services-and I'm glad to see Secretary Shalala
here today. She has my full support in coordinating policy among all the various executive
branch departments.
With the dedication and leadership that she
has shown and that she will bring to this effort,
I believe we will be able to wage the battle
against AIDS with complete resolve. I look forward to working with her as we tackle the challenges that are posed to us. I assure you this
is another step in the beginning of our effort,
not the end of my personal commitment. This
will guarantee the kind of focus this effort has
long needed.
Ms. Cebbie.
[At this point, Ms. Gebbie thanked the President
and discussed a coordinated approach to AIDS.]
The President. Let me also say before we


take a question or two, to Mr. Speaker and
to Congressmen Studds and Frank and
McDermott and Pelosi and Morella and to all
the other Members of the Congress who have
been willing to support increased efforts for
AIDS in the face of these difficult budgetary
times, I'm grateful for them, too. Because without the congressional support, we would not be
able to make any progress, in my judgment,
even with this heightened administrative effort.
Homosexuals in the Military
Q. Mr. President, as you approach your decision on gays in the military, have you reached
a conclusion about the directive that says that
homosexuality is incompatible with military service? Have you decided —
The President. I have not received any such
directive. And until I receive a report from the
Pentagon, I have no further comment on this.
Q. Can I just ask you a broader question,
then, about this?
The President. I'm not going to discuss it until
I receive the report from the Pentagon. I have
nothing else to say now.
AIDS
Q. Mr. President, I have a question for Ms.
Gebbie, please. During the time that you served
in Washington and Oregon on dealing with the
AIDS epidemic, what will you bring to this job
that you learned there?
Ms. Gebbie. I think one of the biggest things
I learned is that people have to be able to
hear each other, not just talk to each other
but hear each other, and then put that listening
into effect, developing policies that work. That's
a bit of a global answer, but it really has to
be applied to each piece of this puzzle. And
it's putting a puzzle together that's developing
policy around this disease.
Terrorism
Q. Mr. President, yesterday when the news
broke of the terrorist attempts at bombing various points in New York City, a lot of Americans
felt an increased sense of vulnerability. I wonder
if you would share with us your thoughts when
you learned about it, and do you share that
increased sense of vulnerability to terrorism in
this country?
The President. Any free society has always
some exposure to terrorism. I think what the
American people should do, though, is to feel


933




June 25 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


an enormous sense of pride in the aggressive
work done by the New York Police Department
and all the Federal authorities involved in New
York. We are working aggressively on this issue.
We will continue to work on it in a very tough
way, and we will put whatever resources the
United States has to put in to combating it.
I think one of the problems that has plagued
much of the world in the 1980's is random acts
of terrorism. And there is always the possibility
with increasing political instability in various
places of increased terrorism. But I can tell you
that I view the action in New York as reassuring.
And all I can tell you is that we're going to
do our best to be as tough, as intolerant, as
effective in dealing with these kinds of problems
consistently as the local and the Federal authorities were in New York.
Economic Program
Q. Mr. President, now that the Senate has
voted, can you tell us where you come down
on the differences between the House and Senate bills in terms of the gasoline versus Btu
tax, in terms of the level of Medicare funding,
and the other differences in the bills? And can
you tell us, did you win a political victory at
the possible expense of your program, in making
so many deals that it's just complicated the process of getting things through conference?
The President. Actually, this administration
didn't make any deals. The Senate Finance
Committee put together a bill that it could get
out of the Senate Finance Committee. And then
the question was very much whether we would
go on to conference. I think there was a great
sense in the Senate that they had to go forward
with the bill. There were many Senators who
told me they liked the House bill better. I mean,
there were divisions even in the Senate. There
were a couple of Senators who indicated they
would have voted for the House bill who did
not vote for the Senate bill. There was all kinds
of difference of opinion.
I think what happened was there was an institutional feeling there yesterday, which crystallized in the late afternoon, that the worst
thing they could do is not to go forward, and
that the worst thing they could do is not to
break the gridlock, not to find a way to continue
to push for real economic reform. And all this
happened rather late last evening, and no decisions have been made. I haven't even had an
ample opportunity to analyze whatever amend

ments were made yesterday. But this administration was not nearly as involved in the details
of what came out of the Senate as was the
case in the House.
I am confident that the conferees will get
together, will produce a bill that in some ways
is superior to both bills and will have a broader
support. That's what I think will happen.
Q. Gas tax, sir?
Q. On the budget, assuming that you want
the final bill to resemble your own plan as much
as possible, what is your response to Senator
Moynihan's observation recently when he said
that he felt that directing one-third of all tax
increases and spending cuts to investment would
be perhaps too excessive?
The President. Well, we'll see. A lot of the
Senators who came on to the bill late yesterday
were holding out because the investment incentives have been cut back so much by the committee. One of the biggest hurdles was trying
to convince some of the Senators that we might
increase the investment incentives in the conference. So I can tell you that will be a point
of continuing tension. But I expect there will
be some real effort to try to get the investment
and growth options back in there.
Keep in mind, reducing the deficit helps you
by bringing down interest rates. But still in the
end if you want to grow the economy, somebody
has to invest money and create jobs and put
people to work. If the unemployment rate in
this country were 4 percent instead of 7 percent,
we'd have far fewer problems than we do. And
the stagnation worldwide of economic activity,
which has been going on for some time now,
is holding this country back and requires this
country to make extraordinary efforts if we're
going to swim against the tide and try to grow
more than other nations to increase incentives
to invest and create jobs and to grow this economy.
If you take investment out of part of the
country as, for example, you see in California
with the big cutbacks in defense, there needs
to be some offsetting investment. You can't create jobs out of thin air. So I think we want
to see in this economic plan two objectives: really tough deficit reduction, keeping the interest
rates down, freeing up money for private sector
investment, and increasing incentives by the National Government to get more investment in
the economy. And I hope we see it.


934




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / June 25


Iraq
Q. Mr. President, there seems to be another
standoff in Baghdad between U.N. weapons inspectors and the Iraqi Government. This is the
first time this has happened on your watch. How
serious is this standoff? And what, if anything,
do you plan on doing about it?
The President. It's quite serious. And the
United Nations-you've already heard the U.N.
speak to it, and I would expect that the matter
will have to be resolved one way or the other
in the fairly near future. I do think that-I
don't have much to add to the pronouncements
that have come out of the U.N. The United
States has to continue to support compliance
with the U.N. resolutions as they apply to Iraq.
Economic Summit
Q. Mr. President, you said that this is the
first time that we're going to the economic summit in a position of economic strength. Another
way to view that is that you had a tie vote
in the Senate; that you're caught going into conference between the demands for more social
spending, more investment, and those who want
more cuts; and that there's no margin for error,
which is not a very strong signal of the ability
to resolve this and to get anything that will
pass finally both HousesThe President. I don't think any of the people
who have looked at this really believe that we
won't get a bill out of the conference that will
be marginally changed in ways from both the
House and Senate bills that will make the bill


more passable in the Senate as well as the
House. For example, the House wanted basically
the incentive package that was there but some
less tax and some more spending cuts. That
came out of the Senate. The Senate obliged
the less tax and more spending cuts but did
it at the expense of cutting so much of the
investments out, because the energy tax had to
be reduced as much as it did, not for the floor
of the Senate but to get it out of the Senate
Finance Committee.
Now, what will happen now is you'll see a
negotiation, and they'll try to bridge those gaps.
I don't think they are particularly large. I think
it's quite encouraging. And if you look at the
level of aggression this country has displayed
in trying to do something about its economic
circumstances as compared with what is going
on in these other nations, the political and the
economic problems, I think the United States
should be very proud. It is not easy to change.
I mean, we've been on an incredible roller
coaster ride for 12 years now, just sort of spending more than we're taking in and living by
political rhetoric and hot air. And when you
try to change, it's not easy. You know, it's the
same-my daughter always says when she is gigging me a little that old line about denial being
more than a river in Egypt. I mean, you know,
it's not easy to change.
Thank you very much.
NOTE: The President spoke at 8:43 a.m. on the
South Lawn at the White House.


Letter to Congressional Leaders on Trade With Mauritania
June 25, 1993


Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)
I am writing concerning the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP). The GSP program
offers duty-free access to the U.S. market for
products that are imported from developing
countries. It is authorized by title V of the Trade
Act of 1974.
Pursuant to title V, I have determined that
Mauritania no longer meets the eligibility requirements set forth in the GSP law. In particular, I have determined that it has not taken
and is not taking steps to afford internationally


recognized worker rights. Accordingly, I intend
to suspend Mauritania indefinitely as a designated beneficiary developing country for purposes of the GSP.
This notice is submitted in accordance with
section 502(a)(2) of the Trade Act of 1974.
Sincerely,
WILLIAM J. CLINTON
NOTE: Identical letters were sent to Thomas S.
Foley, Speaker of the House of Representatives,
and Albert Gore, Jr., President of the Senate. An


935




June 25 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


original was not available for verification of the and memorandum are listed in Appendix D at the
content of this letter. The related proclamation end of this volume.
Nomination for Posts at the Department of Labor
June 25, 1993


The President announced today that he intends to nominate economists Bernard Anderson
and Katharine Abraham to positions at the Department of Labor. If confirmed, Anderson will
serve as Assistant Secretary for the Employment
Standards Administration, and Abraham will


serve as Commissioner of Labor Statistics.
"Applying adequate enforcement standards
and tracking the well-being of our Nation's work
force are two of the Labor Department's most
important responsibilities," said the President.
"Bernard Anderson and Katharine Abraham will
fulfill them with rigor and integrity."


The President's Radio Address
June 26, 1993
Good morning. I want to talk to you about
the battle that I've been waging to fulfill the
central commitment of my campaign for President: to make the economy grow, create jobs,
and make our Government in Washington work
again for all the American people.
But first, let me take just a moment to congratulate the FBI, the New York Police Department, and the United States attorney in New
York for breaking up the terrorist ring. The
American people need to be reassured by the
effectiveness and the determination of our Federal authorities at the national and at the local
level to combat terrorism. And the people who
would engage in these kinds of acts in this country need to know that we're going to be tough
on anyone, anywhere in the world, who threatens or carries out terrorist actions against any
American citizen.
Back to the economy. For years, your Government in Washington refused to make the hard
decisions necessary for America to compete and
win in a global economy. Very often, political
leaders told you exactly what you wanted to
hear, but they didn't hear your real problems
or honor your values. For more than a decade,
the National Government borrowed and spent,
raised taxes on the middle class, reduced the


burden on the privileged, ran up the huge national debt we now have, and discouraged the
creation of jobs by reducing our investment.
Meanwhile, we ignored problems like health
care and the cost and availability of that service
and many others.
Now, if we want to preserve the American
dream, opportunity for those who work hard
and play by the rules, we have to change. And
change is hard. For the last 5 months, I've been
fighting for a plan to create economic growth,
one that reduces the deficit and brings down
interest rates and increases investment in education, technology, and jobs. It requires deep
spending cuts and some tax increases, asking
by far the most from those who have the most
to pay.
Congress is rising to the occasion. Last month
the House voted for a new direction, and just
this week the Senate acted courageously in
doing the same. In the next few weeks, representatives from both the House and the Senate will be meeting to reconcile the differences
between the two bills. The negotiations will be
difficult, but I'm going to work hard to keep
the essential characteristics of the economic plan
that I believe so deeply in: at least $500 billion
of deficit reduction in a trust fund so that the


936




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / June 26


cuts and the taxes can't go to anything else,
cuts at least as big as tax increases, if not larger;
over three-quarters of the tax increases coming
from the top 6 percent of income earners; and
real incentives to create new jobs and to encourage the working poor, to move people from
welfare to work. We're finally getting our house
in order, delivering the changes that America
needs.
This program, as I said, reduces the deficit
by $500 billion, and you should know again that
there are $250 billion of spending cuts in the
program, over 100 cuts of over $100 million
or more. The revenues that are raised are raised
from those who can most afford to pay. This
program protects the middle class, something
that would not have happened in the 1980's
when Washington reduced taxes on the wealthiest Americans and raised them on the middle
class. For every $10 in deficit reduction in my
plan, $5 comes from spending cuts, $5 comes
from new revenues. Of those revenues, $3.75
comes from the wealthiest 6 percent of Americans, almost 80 percent from people with incomes above $200,000 in the Senate plan; and
$1.25 comes from the middle class.
All this money is locked up now in a deficit
reduction trust fund, which protects the money
for the next 5 years for bringing down our deficit. The plan is bold and fair; it'll work. It's
a sharp departure from the tax-and-spend policies of the seventies and the trickle-down economics of the eighties. It reduces the deficit;
it invests and grows the economy. It's a new
direction.
Still, there are some in Washington who use
the same old tired rhetoric they used in the
eighties to attack this kind of direction, while
they followed borrow-and-spend, trickle-down
policies. Last week, the only other plan offered
to the American people was offered by my Senate opponents. Well, the plan fell more than
$100 billion short of the $500 billion deficit
reduction bill. And most regrettably, it asks even
more of the middle class, of veterans, and millions of elderly people just above the poverty
line. It asks those people to do with less in
terms of benefits, especially in health care, so
that the top one percent of the American people
whose incomes went up and whose taxes went
down in the eighties could go scot-free in the
battle to reduce the deficit, bring down interest
rates, and get investment back in the American
economy. The plan was defeated and for good


reason. Instead of protecting one group at the
expense of others, it's time that everyone made
a contribution to help everyone by reducing
spending fairly and by investing in the future
wisely and by growing the economy.
When the Senate and the House meet to
write the final plan, we're all going to work
together to set a new course for economic
growth. When Congress finalizes the details, I'm
going to work as hard as I can to insist that
the principles I have talked about repeatedly
for 5 months, and indeed during all of 1992
as well, will be followed in shaping this law.
We need $500 billion in deficit reduction, in
spending cuts, and in taxes which fall almost
completely on the wealthiest Americans. We absolutely must put all the net savings from cuts
and taxes in a deficit trust fund so the Government can't touch it over the next 5 years. We
ought to keep the incentives in my plan for
business growth, especially small businesses
which create most of the new jobs in America.
And finally, we ought to keep our commitment
to the 18 percent of the American people who
work but are still below the poverty line. Under
our plan, if you work full-time and you're still
below the poverty line, we will lift you out of
poverty by not taxing you and keeping you in
poverty.
People who have the courage to change
should be rewarded. I know the economy is
still struggling, and most Americans are still
working too hard for too little. But at least there
are some very important economic trends that
have begun to move in the right direction. The
best news is, new jobs are finally coming back
into the American economy. In the last 5
months, as interest rates have dropped to 20 -year lows in response to our efforts to bring
the deficit down, more than 755,000 new jobs,
90 percent of them in the private sector, have
been created. In the first 4 months of this year,
more jobs in the construction industry were created than in any similar period in the last 9
years.
These are good and hopeful trends. Our plan
builds on this progress. I know we've got a long
way to go. But as always, if we'll just act in
a way that's consistent with our values and if
we'll all pull together, we can move our country
in the right direction, meet the challenges of
the global economy, and create jobs and opportunity for all Americans again.
Thanks for listening.


937




June 26 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


NOTE: This address was recorded at 3:50 p.m. on  House for broadcast at 10:06 a.m. on June 26.
June 25 in the Roosevelt Room at the White
Address to the Nation on the Strike on Iraqi Intelligence Headquarters
June 26, 1993


My fellow Americans, this evening I want to
speak with you about an attack by the Government of Iraq against the United States and the
actions we have just taken to respond.
This past April, the Kuwaiti Government uncovered what they suspected was a car bombing
plot to assassinate former President George
Bush while he was visiting Kuwait City. The
Kuwaiti authorities arrested 16 suspects, including 2 Iraqi nationals. Following those arrests,
I ordered our own intelligence and law enforcement agencies to conduct a thorough and independent investigation. Over the past several
weeks, officials from those agencies reviewed a
range of intelligence information, traveled to
Kuwait and elsewhere, extensively interviewed
the suspects, and thoroughly examined the forensic evidence.
This Thursday, Attorney General Reno and
Director of Central Intelligence Woolsey gave
me their findings. Based on their investigation
there is compelling evidence that there was, in
fact, a plot to assassinate former President Bush
and that this plot, which included the use of
a powerful bomb made in Iraq, was directed
and pursued by the Iraqi intelligence service.
We should not be surprised by such deeds,
coming as they do from a regime like Saddam
Hussein's, which is ruled by atrocity, slaughtered
its own people, invaded two neighbors, attacked
others, and engaged in chemical and environmental warfare. Saddam has repeatedly violated
the will and conscience of the international community. But this attempt at revenge by a tyrant
against the leader of the world coalition that
defeated him in war is particularly loathsome
and cowardly. We thank God it was unsuccessful. The authorities who foiled it have the appreciation of all Americans.
It is clear that this was no impulsive or random act. It was an elaborate plan devised by
the Iraqi Government and directed against a
former President of the United States because


of actions he took as President. As such, the
Iraqi attack against President Bush was an attack
against our country and against all Americans.
We could not and have not let such action
against our Nation go unanswered.
From the first days of our Revolution, America's security has depended on the clarity of this
message: Don't tread on us. A firm and commensurate response was essential to protect our
sovereignty, to send a message to those who
engage in state-sponsored terrorism, to deter
further violence against our people, and to affirm the expectation of civilized behavior among
nations.
Therefore, on Friday I ordered our forces to
launch a cruise missile attack on the Iraqi intelligence service's principal command-and-control
facility in Baghdad. Those missiles were
launched this afternoon at 4:22 eastern daylight
time. They landed approximately an hour ago.
I have discussed this action with the congressional leadership and with our allies and friends
in the region. And I have called for an emergency meeting of the United Nations Security
Council to expose Iraq's crime.
These actions were directed against the Iraqi
Government, which was responsible for the assassination plot. Saddam Hussein has demonstrated repeatedly that he will resort to terrorism or aggression if left unchecked. Our intent
was to target Iraq's capacity to support violence
against the United States and other nations and
to deter Saddam Hussein from supporting such
outlaw behavior in the future. Therefore, we
directed our action against the facility associated
with Iraq's support of terrorism, while making
every effort to minimize the loss of innocent
life.
There should be no mistake about the message we intend these actions to convey to Saddam Hussein, to the rest of the Iraqi leadership,
and to any nation, group, or person who would
harm our leaders or our citizens. We will com

938




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / June 28


bat terrorism. We will deter aggression. We will
protect our people.
The world has repeatedly made clear what
Iraq must do to return to the community of
nations. And Iraq has repeatedly refused. If Saddam and his regime contemplate further illegal
provocative actions, they can be certain of our
response.
Let me say to the men and women in our
Armed Forces and in our intelligence and law
enforcement agencies who carried out the investigation and our military response: You have my
gratitude and the gratitude of all Americans.
You have performed a difficult mission with


courage and professionalism.
Finally, I want to say this to all the American
people: While the cold war has ended, the world
is not free of danger. And I am determined
to take the steps necessary to keep our Nation
secure. We will keep our forces ready to fight.
We will work to head off emerging threats, and
we will take action when action is required. That
is precisely what we have done today.
Thank you, and God bless America.
NOTE: The President spoke at 7:40 p.m. from the
Oval Office at the White House.


Remarks and an Exchange With Reporters Prior to a Cabinet Meeting
June 28, 1993


The President. First, I want to say that this
morning I received a report from the National
Security Adviser about the action in Iraq over
the weekend, confirming that we did in fact
cripple the Iraqi intelligence capacity, which was
the intent of the action. Our allies have been
quite positive in their response. And I want to
say a special word of compliment to Ambassador
Albright for the work she did at the United
Nations yesterday. I thought it was an excellent
job.
I think it's very important today at this Cabinet meeting that we move on to other matters,
that we go back to the domestic agenda. We
have to prepare for the conference on the budget and the economic plan. We need to think
about and talk a little about the upcoming G7 summit in Tokyo and what that means for
our economic prospects here at home. And
there are a number of other issues that I want
to discuss today, including our efforts to seek
rapid passage of the national service act.
So I'm anxious to go forward. I do want to
acknowledge, the first time as a confirmed member of this Cabinet, Lee Brown. He was here
last time, but he's been confirmed since he was
here before. Tom Glynn, the Deputy Secretary
of Labor, is here, for those of you who don't
know him, because Mr. Reich is moving his
family to Washington today. I suppose that
means he's going to stay on for a while. [Laughter]


Strike on Iraqi Intelligence Headquarters
Q. Mr. President, what kind of message were
you sending, first of all, to other terrorist nations, given what we now know about the possibility of Iran and potentially Saddam? And what
message do you think this sends also to other
countries and to the military here about your
resolve in your capacity as Commander in
Chief?
The President. Well, the action I took I
thought was clearly warranted by the facts. And
I think other terrorists around the world need
to know that the United States will do what
we can to combat terrorism, as I said in my
statement on Saturday evening. It is plainly what
we ought to be doing.
Q. [Inaudible]-the events last week in New
York and the attack over the weekend in Baghdad, should the American people be concerned
about terrorism on American shores in the next
few weeks?
The President. I think the American people
should be reassured, in the New York instance,
that the Federal authorities and the New York
Police Department did a good job. I think the
American people know enough about terrorism
to know that it is always a potential problem,
but we are going to be very aggressive in dealing
with it, and we're going to do everything we
possibly can to deal with it.
Q. Mr. President, how does the decision to
have gone ahead and bombed Baghdad on Sat

939




June 28 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


urday, how will this impact your Presidency both
in terms of how you're seen domestically and
by foreign leaders?
The President. I have no idea. I did my job.
It was my job, and I did it the best I could.
Q. Don't you think it will have some political
effects
Q. Any political considerations, Mr. President,
at all?


The President. I have no idea. It's my job.
I did exactly what I said I'd do in the campaign
when confronted by circumstances like this. The
evidence was clear. And we took the appropriate
action. And it was the right thing to do for
the United States, and I feel quite comfortable
with it.
NOTE: The President spoke at 10:16 a.m. in the
Cabinet Room at the White House.


Letter to Congressional Leaders on the Strike on Iraqi Intelligence
Headquarters
June 28, 1993


Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)
Commencing at approximately 4:22 p.m.
(EST) on June 26, 1993, at my direction, U.S.
naval forces launched a Tomahawk cruise missile
strike on the Iraqi Intelligence Service's (u1S)
principal command and control complex in
Baghdad. This facility is the headquarters for
the IIS, which planned the failed attempt to
assassinate former President Bush during his
visit to Kuwait in April of this year. This U.S.
military action was completed upon impact of
the missiles on target at approximately 6 p.m.
(EST).
Operating under the United States Central
Command, two U.S. Navy surface ships
launched a total of 23 precision-guided Tomahawk missiles in this coordinated strike upon
the key facilities in the IIS compound. The USS
PETERSON (DD 969) launched 14 missiles
from its position in the Red Sea, while the USS
CHANCELLORSVILLE (CG 62) in the Arabian Gulf launched nine missiles. The timing
of this operation, with missiles striking at approximately 2:00 a.m. local Iraqi time, was chosen carefully so as to minimize risks to innocent
civilians. Initial reports indicate that heavy damage was inflicted on the complex. Regrettably,
there were some collateral civilian casualties.
I ordered this military response only after I
considered the results of a thorough and independent investigation by U.S. intelligence and
law enforcement agencies. The reports by Attorney General Reno and Director of Central Intelligence Woolsey provided compelling evidence
that the operation that threatened the life of


President Bush in Kuwait City in April was directed and pursued by the Iraqi Intelligence
Service and that the Government of Iraq bore
direct responsibility for this effort.
The Government of Iraq acted unlawfully in
attempting to carry out Saddam Hussein's
threats against former President Bush because
of actions he took as President. The evidence
of the Government of Iraq's violence and terrorism demonstrates that Iraq poses a continuing
threat to United States nationals and shows utter
disregard for the will of the international community as expressed in Security Council Resolutions and the United Nations Charter. Based
on the Government of Iraq's pattern of disregard for international law, I concluded that
there was no reasonable prospect that new diplomatic initiatives or economic measures could
influence the current Government of Iraq to
cease planning future attacks against the United
States.
Consequently, in the exercise of our inherent
right of self-defense as recognized in Article 51
of the United Nations Charter and pursuant to
my constitutional authority with respect to the
conduct of foreign relations and as Commander
in Chief, I ordered a military strike that directly
targeted a facility Iraqi intelligence implicated
in the plot against the former Chief Executive.
In accordance with Article 51 of the United
Nations Charter, this action was reported immediately to the Security Council on June 26. On
June 27, Ambassador Albright provided evidence
of Iraq's assassination attempts to the United
Nations Security Council, which had been con

940




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / June 28


vened in emergency session at our request.
I am certain that you share my sincere hope
that the limited and proportionate action taken
by the United States Government will frustrate
and help deter and preempt future unlawful actions on the part of the Government of Iraq.
Nonetheless, in the event that Iraqi violence,
aggression, or state-sponsored terrorism against
the United States continues, I will direct such
additional measures in our exercise of the right
of self-defense as may be necessary and appropriate to protect United States citizens.
I remain committed to ensuring that the Congress is kept fully informed regarding significant


employments of the U.S. Armed Forces. Accordingly, I am providing this report on the U.S.
military actions of June 26, consistent with the
War Powers Resolution. I appreciate your
thoughts and continued support as we address
these important concerns.
Sincerely,
WILLIAM J. CLINTON
NOTE: Identical letters were sent to Thomas S.
Foley, Speaker of the House of Representatives,
and Robert C. Byrd, President pro tempore of
the Senate.


Statement by the Press Secretary on the President's Telephone
Conversation With President Boris Yeltsin of Russia
June 28, 1993


Beginning at about 1:15 p.m. this afternoon,
President Clinton spoke with Russian President
Boris Yeltsin for 30 minutes. The two leaders
exchanged views on issues to be discussed at
the G-7 summit in Tokyo. President Clinton
described G-7 efforts to develop a program to
support the process of democratic reform and
development of free markets in Russia and said
the U.S. expects the G-7 to move forward with
a solid package of assistance.


President Clinton also reviewed progress
made in implementing the U.S. bilateral assistance package he announced in Vancouver, noting that the U.S. had already obligated more
than half of the $1.6 billion. President Clinton
said that the separate and additional $1.8 billion
assistance package for Russia has been approved
by the House of Representatives and was under
consideration by the Senate. He reiterated to
President Yeltsin his full support for this effort.


Nomination for the National Labor Relations Board
June 28, 1993


The President announced today that he intends to nominate law professor and arbitrator
William Gould to the National Labor Relations
Board.
"William Gould has a tremendous amount of
both practical and scholarly experience in labor
law," said the President, "and stands for the
principles I want the NLRB to uphold: the


rights of all workers to participate in labor organizations and the need for labor and management to work together to increase our Nation's
competitiveness in a global marketplace. I think
that he will be an excellent addition to the
Labor Relations Board."
NOTE: A biography of the nominee was made
available by the Office of the Press Secretary.


941




June 28 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


Nomination for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting
June 28, 1993


The President announced his intention today
to nominate University of Arkansas political scientist Diane Blair to be a member of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
"Diane Blair is one of the most capable and
committed people I know," said the President.
"She is one of the most respected people in
Remarks at the Democratic National
June 28., 1993
Thank you very much. Thank you so much.
First, let me say a special word of thanks to
Scott Pastrick for this wondefful dinner and all
those who worked on it, to Roy Furman for
agreeing to take on this enormous responsibility
in the Democratic Party. I don't think the first
time he came to my attention or, rather, I came
to his-he hosted me in his office-if he had
known then that he'd wind up on this stage
tonight, I'm not sure he would have done it.
And I thank him. Like so many others, he came
into the leadership of this party because of the
campaign of 1992.
I thank my dear friend David Wilhelm for
his leadership and all of those who work in
the vineyards of the Democratic Party. I thank
David especially for what he said tonight. Many
of the beneficiaries of the efforts we make today
are people who may not even understand entirely what we're doing, and they don't have
an organized force in the Congress.
I thank the leadership of Congress. Let me
say without hesitation that I have literally been
awestruck at the demonstration of courage repeatedly by the leadership and by many of the
freshmen and by many in between in our party
in the United States Congress. And you ought
to give them a hand tonight. [Applause]
You heard that the Vice President, of course,
broke the tie the other night in the Senate on
the economic program. What you ought to know
is that I was furiously working the phones, and
a couple of Senators-Senator Murray from
Washington was not well, and so we thought
we had enough votes to pass the bill, and so


our State and a dear friend of mine and of
Hillary's. I think that she will do an excellent
job of maintaining the Corporation for Public
Broadcasting's outstanding record."
NOTE: A biography of the nominee was made
available by the Office of the Press Secretary.
Committee Presidential Gala
she stayed home in bed. And two of the people
we thought would vote for it said, "Well, I won't
let it die, Mr. President, but if the Vice President can break a tie, that's okay with me." So,
we were there at the end. And right before
the vote came down to the end with the time
running off, the Vice President sent a note to
Senator Mitchell, our Democratic leader, and
he said, "George, I'm wavering." [Laughter] But
conviction overcame him at the end, and so
here we are tonight with a big crowd instead
of an empty house.
Let me say to all of you that a lot of speeches
have already been made tonight, and the entertainment was marvelous: Little Texas and Whitney Houston and my good friend Kenny G, who
let me play with him in the campaign. That
was the biggest thrill I got in the whole election.
I tell you, I always liked Kenny C because I
was running third in the polls when he agreed
to play with me in the campaign.
This has been a great night for us and a
great night for our party. But I want to remind
you that we are engaged on a great struggle
to change this country. A year and 8 months
ago I entered the race for President when no
one thought the incumbent could be defeated
and few thought I could be nominated. And
I didn't have any idea how it would come out.
I just knew that I had a couple of simple convictions. I felt very strongly then that we were
not doing what it takes to compete and win
in a global economy. I felt very strongly then
that we were not facing up to the honest problems we have at home. I felt very strongly that


942




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / June 28


too many people in public life were telling people what they wanted to hear today instead of
thinking about how we ought to live tomorrow.
Those things drove me into the race, and
they produced in the end, thanks to all of you,
a remarkable change in the course of American
life. But the details are always more difficult
than the rhetoric. Governor Cuomo used to say
frequently that we campaign in poetry, but we
must govern in prose. And as my daughter likes
to remind me of that great slogan the kids are
all saying today, denial is not just a river in
Egypt. So, when you move from rhetoric to
reality, sometimes the going gets tough. I
couldn't believe it, we have been ranted and
raved against, this administration, as you know;
it's all "tax and spend." But we've cut more
spending than any administration in history and
more than the ones before us. And that's a
fact.
And they say, "Well, only the Democrats are
voting for this program." But let me tell you,
look at the alternatives. In the House of Representatives there was a Republican alternative
with no taxes which slashed the middle class,
slashed the working poor, slashed the elderly
just above the poverty line, and more Republicans voted against it than Democrats voted
against our program. In the Senate there was
a Republican program, 4 months late, which
took $100 billion less off the deficit and was
tougher on the middle class and the poor. And
in the finance committee, the other party that
goes around saying, "It's spending, stupid," you
know that great slogan of theirs, guess how
many spending cut amendments were offered
by the Republicans in the Senate Finance Committee? Zero. Not one.
I say that because it is up to every one of
you to go home and tell the people of this
country the truth. This is not going to be easy,
but it is working. You heard the Vice President;
you heard David Wilhelm talk tonight. If anybody had told you on election night in November that by the middle of June unemployment
would be below 7 percent, we'd have 755,000
new jobs, a 20-year low in mortgage rates, a
6-year high in housing sales, a 9-year high in
construction employment, the family leave bill,
the motor voter bill, the Biodiversity Treaty, a


new policy on choice, the most diverse administration in history, an appointment schedulecontrary to what you may have heard-ahead
of the last two administrations, you would have
felt pretty good about that on election night.
And you ought to feel pretty good about it tonight, because this country is on the move.
But never forget this. That sounds good, and
compared to the last two administrations it may
be, but we've just been here 5 months, and
the changes we are trying to make are not in
place. We still have to do the economic program
and health care and national service and welfare
reform. We still have to pass a program that
says to people who work 40 hours a week and
have children in their homes, you're not in poverty anymore. We still have a lot of work to
do. And the things we're doing have still not
affected most Americans. We still don't have
a serious program for defense conversion, but
we're working on that. We've got an airline industry in trouble we're trying to help resuscitate
and move forward. We've got all kinds of jobs
in this country we have still got to create. We
have problems in this country that Government
has overlooked for so long, we pretend they're
not even there. People say to me, "I am so
glad that the Federal Government could help
to break up the terrorist ring in New York,"
or that once again we stood up for our values
last weekend. But never forget, in this the Capital City of this country 24 people were killed
last week. We have got a lot of work to do,
my fellow Americans.
And I'll tell you something. It may not always
be easy, and sometimes it may be ragged, but
you've got an administration in this town that
gets up and goes to work every day and thinks
about the problems and the promise of the average people of this country. And we will continue
to do it as long as you keep us here.
Thank you, and God bless you all. Thank you.
NOTE: The President spoke at 11:15 p.m. at the
Washington Convention Center. In his remarks,
he referred to Scott Pastrick, Presidential gala dinner chairman; and Democratic National Committee officers Roy Furman, national finance chairman, and David Wilhelm, chairman.


943




June 29 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


Remarks and a Question-and-Answer Session With the National Federation
of Independent Business
June 29, 1993


The President. Thank you. Thank you very
much, and good morning. Please be seated.
When Jack Faris came to see me the other
day in the Oval Office, he invited me to come
over here and speak. And he said the best time
to come would be noon. But the President of
Argentina will be in the White House at noon,
and I couldn't figure out how to explain that
to him, that we were going to miss lunch. So
then I was invited to come at 9:15, which is
okay for me most days. But I'm one of these
people who gets up at 6 every morning, and
then I wake up about 10:30. [Laughter] So if
I say anything I shouldn't today, I'll have total
deniability since it's 9:15.
I was eager to come by and address you this
morning for several reasons: first of all, because
your organization is one of this city's most aggressive participants in the economic debate
now taking place here and around the country;
and because when I was the Governor of my
State, I worked very closely with the NFIB on
a wide range of issues; and because I know
that unless we are firmly and unequivocally
committed to private sector job growth, and especially to small business growth, we cannot succeed as a country.
Let me say that when I got into the race
for President about a year and 8 months ago,
I did so after having worked for nearly a dozen
years as a Governor of a State that until the
last year I was Governor usually had an unemployment rate above the national average. I
spent all my time trying to figure out how to
create conditions in which jobs could grow, children could be educated, people could be
trained, and folks could be empowered to do
what they could do in a very tough global marketplace. I worked year-in and year-out to try
to establish partnerships with the private sector.
Until I became President, except for one brief
interlude when I took office and found an operating deficit as Governor, I had never proposed
raising one red cent in taxes to pay down a
debt, because my State had a very tough balanced budget law, perhaps the toughest in the
country in its practical operation. This has been
an interesting and a difficult experience for me


in that regard.
But here's how I see the world: We have
now been in a long-term economic slowdown
of about 3 years in which our economy is not
producing many jobs. We have been in a global
economic fight which has caused us grave problems for 20 years. And literally for 20 years
most middle class wage earners have worked
longer work weeks, and their wages have not
kept up with inflation. We have seen an enormous increase in this country, in the 1980's,
in the cost of health care, housing, and education, which has far outstripped the earnings
of most wage earners and small business people
to cope with. And we now find ourselves in
the midst of a global recession, as I prepare
to go to Tokyo to meet with the leaders of
the other G-7 nations-the European nations,
Canada, and Japan-in which our economy,
though it is weak by our standards, is now perhaps the best performing of all these countries.
During the 1980's, most of our job growth
came from two sources. First of all, we had
a huge operating deficit that was built into our
system because we had a very large tax cut
in 1981, twice the original size that President
Reagan proposed, when the Congress and the
President got into a bidding war, and very large
increases in defense spending. So that the deficit, plus investments in defense, especially in
defense contracts, as those of you who are from
California or Connecticut or Massachusetts who
saw it go up and then watched it come down,
know that that created a lot of jobs.
The other thing that created a lot of jobs
in the 1980's was you, the small business sector.
Indeed, throughout the 1980's and every year,
the Fortune 500 lowered employment in America, even as income went up, by a couple of
hundred thousand people a year. But small business people generated the vast mass of the jobs.
In fact, a study by David Birch at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology indicated that
about 85 percent of all new jobs were created
in units of under 50, and most of those were
created by people who themselves were small
business persons.
Then about 3 years ago, that stopped. And


944




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / June 29


we can all argue about why that is, but I think
it's clear that there were a couple of reasons.
First of all, small business people are not unaffected by slowdowns in the global economy, as
well as the domestic economy. Secondly, the
extra added cost of hiring one more employee
became exponentially greater as health care
costs, payroll costs, and other things mounted
up, and more and more people, even in the
small business sector, turned to overtime and
part-time workers.
But the bottom line is we now find ourselves
in a world in which there is a global recession,
in which we have the lowest unemployment rate
of any of our competing wealthy countries, except for Japan which has, as you know, a much
different trading system and economic organization, and in which still our unemployment rate
is way too high for us. And when we look to
the future, it seems to me absolutely clear that
we have to find ways to reinvigorate the job
machine of America and to restore the health
of small business.
The problem is that we have dug ourselves
into a number of holes that we have to dig
out of, none of which are easy. And all along
the way, we have to know that we may not
be able to get instant results because what happens in America today is at least to some extent
affected by what happens in Europe, what happens in Japan, and what happens in other countries. I know, for example, you had the Trade
Ambassador, Mickey Kantor, here yesterday talking about the trade agreement with Mexico. And
there's a lot of debate in this country about
that. Our administration believes it will create
more jobs than it will cost. We feel very strongly
about that. We're going to have a debate about
it later in the year, but the point is at least
it's the right debate. That's the right debate:
Is it going to help the American economy? Is
it going to create more jobs than it will cost?
Well, it is against that background, anyway,
that I became the President: 3 years of slow
economic growth, which doubtless contributed
to a challenger beating an incumbent; and then
a very large Federal debt, having gone from
$1 to $4 trillion in 12 years; an annual deficit
having gone from $74 billion a year in 1980
to $311 billion projected in 1993; and the deficit
for the next 5 years was written up $165 billion,
estimated after the election.
And so I was confronted with a very significant problem, one which had very practical im

pacts on you in at least two ways. First of all,
the bigger this debt and the deficit gets, the
more of your tax money we have to spend every
year paying interest on the debt and the less
we have to invest in the future: to finance research and development, to finance new technologies, to finance education and training of
the work force, to grow the economy. Second,
and even more important for you, America had
a historic gap between short-term interest rates
and long-term interest rates because of the size
of the deficit and because nothing was being
done to bring it down. So you had very low
short-term interest rates. As you know, they
started coming down way over a year ago with
the Federal Reserve lowering, lowering, lowering the rates they were charging. But our longterm interest rates, which determine home
mortgages,  business  loan  interest  rates,
consumer loan rates, car loan rates, college loan
rates, they were quite high. And the gap between the short and long-term rates was very
high.
It was obvious to me that unless we first
did something to reassert control over our economic destiny, unless we did something about
this deficit first, we would not be able to move
forward. And so I proposed a plan to the United
States Congress to bring the deficit down by
$500 billion over the next 5 years, in roughly
equal amounts of budget cuts and tax increases
with almost all the taxes, 74 percent of them,
falling on the upper 6 percent of income earners, including subchapter S corporations, the
upper 5 percent of those, and they were pretty
stiff.
But the reason I did it was because it seems
to me we had to try to lower the deficit about
$500 billion. We imposed what amounted to
a 5-year freeze on domestic discretionary spending. That is, we do increase funds for defense
conversion to help those poor people that lost
their jobs because of the defense cutbacks, for
Head Start, for education and training, and for
some technologies. But we cut other stuff even
more, so there's a decline in defense, a freeze
on domestic spending. The only thing that's
going up is basically the retirement programs
and the health care programs. I'll come back
to that. I'll come back to that in a moment.
So we had big cuts over the previous budget
in everything, all the entitlements: veterans, agriculture, pay of Federal employees, retirement
of Federal, civilian, and military employees.


945




June 29 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


Things that had not been touched in previous
budgets we went after, it cut them, locked that
down, and then asked for what I thought was
a progressive tax package.
But there were also some interesting growth
features in the tax program that I proposed that
the House of Representatives passed. One was
one of your long-time goals, increasing the
expensing provision from $10,000 to $25,000 a
year. I think that's real important. If we do
that, there are hundreds of thousands of businesses in this country that might be able to
hire one more person, might be able to get
their incomes up by buying another piece of
equipment.
The second was something that larger businesses, by and large, wanted, and that was a
change in the alternative minimum tax calculations designed entirely for one purpose: to encourage people to invest in more plant and
equipment, to become more productive. The
third was the small business capital gains tax,
designed to encourage people to invest in ventures under $50 million in capitalization and to
get a 50 percent cut on the tax due if they
held the investment for 5 years. This was designed to get a bunch of new venture capital
and private capital into the real job generators
of this economy.
The third was a permanent extension of the
research and development tax credit. Next, there
was changes in the passive loss provisions on
real estate designed to get home building and
real estate up again, particularly in those regions
of the country where it has been so depressed
that it's dragged everything else down.
Then we extended the deduction people can
take for their health insurance premiums to selfemployed people, as well as to other small businesses which already had it, which I thought
was very important, a big deal for farmers.
And finally, there were other things, but finally there was a proposal which I think we
ought to try to finally test whether the rhetoric
that both Democrats and Republicans have been
putting out in Washington for years, and in the
streets of America, about using the private sector to revitalize the distressed areas of our country could really prove true. We devised an
empowerment zone proposal which was an expansion of the enterprise zone proposal that for
the last several years had been supported by
everybody from Jack Kemp in the Republican
Party to Charles Rangel in New York in the


Democratic Party. This empowerment zone proposal went beyond anything previously proposed
to give really powerful incentives for the private
sector to hire people out of depressed cities
and small towns in rural areas or to put businesses into those areas. And it seems to me
that's very important.
If you look at all the millions of people that
live outside the free market economy in America
because they live in areas that are so depressed,
there is a huge potential market there if the
free market system can work. So, those things
were also in the bill. In other words, we raised
tax rates, but we tried to find ways for people
who have been successful, who have money, to
lower their taxes but only if they invested in
things designed to grow the economy, create
jobs, and expand opportunity for all Americans.
Now, when the Senate passed the bill last
week there were a lot of things in the Senate
bill that were good. They had some less tax
and some more spending cuts so that, by any
calculation, clearly now the spending cuts exceed
the tax increases. But by taking most of the
tax cut out of the energy tax and having to
make it up to get $500 billion in tax reductions,
they reduced the size of the small business
expensing from 25 to 20; they eliminated the
new business or the small business capital gains
tax; they put a surcharge on capital gains, which
I think is not well-advised; and made the research and development tax credit temporary.
So, we are now trying to resolve the conflicts
between those two bills. I know the NFIB will
be actively involved in that, but I think it's very
important that you understand basically what the
tradeoff was made between the Senate and the
House bills. The bottom line is both of them
reduced the deficit by $500 billion.
You had long-term rates going down again
today to a 16-year low, and this has already
produced some very significant consequences,
if I just might mention a few. From the time
Secretary of the Treasury, then designate, Lloyd
Bentsen said we were going to have a serious
deficit reduction plan and talked about what
was going to be in it in November, we've seen
long-term interest rates take a dramatic drop.
While the economy itself is not recovered by
any means, there have been some very significant advances tied directly to the drop in longterm interest rates. And if I might just mention
a few, number one, we've had a 20-year low
in home mortgages; a 6-year high in housing


946




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / June 29


sales; a 9-year high in increase in construction
employment, 130,000 new construction employees in America in a 4-month period; and there
have been 755,000 jobs, over 90 percent of
which are in the private sector, come into this
economy in the last 5 months. That compares
with only a net gain of a million over the previous 4 years, all tied to bringing down the longterm interest rates.
There are people in this room today who are
responsible for that, directly or indirectly, people
who have refinanced their home loans. Most
of the real financial gains have come from people who have refinanced their home loans and
then turned around and done something else
with the money, and that's bumped the economy. But business loans are lower, consumer
loans, car loans, college loans, the whole 9 yards.
That is the strategy.
It is estimated that if we can pass this deficit
reduction plan and keep the interest rates down
for a year, that'll put another $110 billion back
into this economy. And by the end of the year
or next year, that will really begin to produce
some job growth, and we'll also begin to
produce some real earnings potential.
So that is why we have done what we have
done. And I'll say again, as somebody who was
a Governor in a State with a very tough budgeting system, it was very painful for me to ask
anybody to pay any money just to pay down
the deficit. But unless we do something about
this, we will never-it's like a bone in our throat
as a nation-unless we deal with this, we can't
get on to dealing with our other problems. We'll
spend all our time in Washington working
around the edges of these other problems because we have not faced the problem of the
deficit.
Now, let me just make one or two other comments about that. No matter what plan you
might embrace to reduce the deficit, and no
matter what plan you've read or heard about,
every one of them can have our annual deficit
go down for 5 years, and then it starts to go
up again. Why? Health care costs. We cut $50
billion in the House version, $60 billion in the
Senate version off of projected Medicare expenses from the previous year's budget. And
it is still estimated that over 5 years, the Medicare budget alone will go up 45 percent. Now,
that's better than most of you are doing, right?
Most of you are paying more than 9 percent
a year in increased premiums. Most of you are


paying almost twice that.
But I say that to try to illustrate the next
point. There's been a lot of controversy about
the willingness of this administration to try to
take on this health issue and whether we're
being too comprehensive and what we're going
to do and all that. The point I want to make
is this: We've got to do something to bring costs
within inflation, or it's going to break the country. That's the first thing. You can talk to just
about any conservative in Congress of either
party, you can talk to the most conservative Republican in the Republican Party, and most of
them will tell you now we are not spending
enough money on some of the things that will
generate jobs in the future. If we don't spend
enough money to keep our technology lead over
other countries in areas critical to the future,
in super computing and electronics and aerospace and these other things, and if we don't
really educate and train our people, then our
incomes will fall behind. But if we are strangled
by rising health care costs, the future can have
no lobby in the Congress.
So this budget plan that we presented is great
on deficit reduction. It does invest some money
in the future, but it doesn't invest anything like
what you would want us to invest if we weren't
strung up by our heels by the deficit. And there
is no answer to it except to get health costs
in line with inflation. There is no other answer,
because that's the only thing that's eating us
alive now through Medicare and Medicaid. It
is the same with you.
Now, what we see is people have learned
a lot about controlling health care costs, and
a lot of big businesses that can self-insure now
have their costs in line with inflation. The California public employees system, which is a huge
system with bulk purchasing power, this year
has a contract which is below inflation. That's
great for them. But what does that mean? Even
more pressure on you to pay for the uncompensated care bills of people who don't have health
insurance if you do. Which means every year
more and more small businesses are either dropping coverage-about 100,000 Americans a
month lose their health insurance-or they have
more limited coverage that may or may not be
adequate for the people whom they insure.
So, what I want to say about that is this:
It seems clear to me, if you study the Federal
budget and you want the deficit down to zero
and you want America to invest and grow again,


947




June 29 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


if you look at the private budgets of businesses
in this country, that we have to do something
to give small businesses bulk purchasing power;
relief from all these rules and regulations the
Federal Government imposes; relief from the
incredible paperwork imposed on health care
providers by this country being the only country
in the world having 1,500 different health insurance companies, thousands of different policies,
a dime on the dollar more in paperwork costs
than any other advanced country in the world,
a dime on the dollar. And the more big businesses self-insure and control their own costs,
the more you're paying the difference. So, we
have got to do some things to simplify and make
more uniform this system.
Now, the big controversy obviously is over
whether there should be a mandate for employers, employees, one or both, to cover people
who have no health insurance. Here is the problem, and I invite you to the debate, but here
is the problem: Seventy percent of all small
businesses have some health insurance. And
they're paying out the ears for it. I have to
be delicate in my language. [Laughter] Seventy
percent do. Costs are going up like crazy. For
the 30 percent who don't, those folks, if they
get sick, will still get health care. Show up at
the emergency room, and they will get it. Everybody gets it. But who paid for the emergency
room to be there? The rest of you. You built
the infrastructure. You financed. You maintain
the infrastructure.
The Government should clearly insure the unemployed, uninsured. And my goal has been
to do that by managing the system better so
we don't have to raise taxes on you to do that,
because people who are paying too much already shouldn't pay more to fix the system. But
if you look at every system in the world, it
is perfectly clear that unless you have some
mechanism by which everybody is covered, you
cannot control the costs, and you cannot stop
the cost-shifting.
Now, nobody wants to do this in a way that
kills the only job-generator we've had in America over the last 2 years, which is you. But
it's very important to remember that most small
businesses do provide health insurance. This is
the nub of the economic dilemma. If it were
easy, somebody would have done it already,
right? I mean, if it were easy, it would already
be done. It's not easy. There is no perfect solution. But I assure you that we're all going to


be better off if we enter into an honest debate
and try to work through this, and we try to
resolve it. The worst thing we can do is to
leave it alone, and especially, the worst thing
we can do for the small business sector, because
bigger employers will figure out how to get
managed care, and they'll just go around this
whole health insurance system we have today.
Everybody else is going to be out there just
strung up. So we must face it. And we've got
to provide some means of covering people, letting them change jobs, and having people have
this without going bankrupt. And that is something that I am deeply dedicated to.
Let me mention one or two other issues that
are very important, and then we'll move on to
questions. I believe the SBA can be a force
for good in small businesses. And I promised
myself if I got elected President, when I started,
I would appoint somebody to run the SBA who
had literally had real experience and was not
just a political appointee. Now I plead guilty.
Erskine Bowles is a personal friend of mine.
His wife went to college with my wife. That
does not disqualify him. [Laughter] But his wife
is a successful business person, and he has spent
his lifetime trying to help people like you start
your businesses, expand your business, market
your business overseas. He actually knows what
he's doing. So it seems to me that would be
nice to have an SBA director who could do
that, who had been through that.
The second thing that I really thought about
a lot early in the election because of the experiences I had seen not only in my State but
around the country, is that we had to do something to try to deal with the credit crunch. The
access to credit is obviously going to have more
to do with how a lot of your members do than
a lot of other things this Government does. So,
early in my administration we brought together
all the appropriate banking regulatory agencies
and, in what was then an act of unprecedented
cooperation, we changed a lot of the restricted
regulations that cause so much of the credit
crunch. Banks are now clearly empowered to
make more character loans based on the reputation of the borrower. Documentation requirements by the Federal Government have been
relaxed dramatically, as have regulations regarding appraisals of real estate to secure small business loans. And there will be more flexibility
in classifying loans.
Now, that has been done at our level. It takes


948




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / June 29


more time than I wish it did for all those
changes here to actually be felt in every community bank in America. And one of the things
that the NFIB needs to do with Erskine Bowles
is to let us know in which communities this
is working and in which communities there has
been no change, because we made a vigorous,
clear effort to send this signal out all across
America by changing the way we did business
with the banks. But it has not changed in every
community in America, and a lot of people are
still really stung by what happened to them in
the eighties. But the banks are in much better
shape today than they were 3 years ago. And
that's good, that's a good omen for our future.
But now that they're in better shape the time
has come for them to loan money on good
terms, at low interest rates. So we need your
help on that.
Next I'd like to say a little something about
regulatory reform. Every President talks about
it, and almost nothing ever happens. There's
a division in our Budget Office that a lot of
you probably have never heard of in the Office
of Management and Budget called OIRA-that
would gag you-OIRA, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. For years, the position of Administrator of this Office, believe it
or not, was vacant. But this Office actually has
the capacity to rationally review all of these regulations. We have named, and Congress has confirmed, an Administrator for OIRA, and we are
going to do our best to see what we can do
to reduce unnecessary regulations.
Perhaps more important, I have asked the
Vice President as part of his job in reviewing
the whole operations of the Federal Government-and by the way, I predict you will be
very pleased by the report that is issued by
his group in September-we are reviewing the
operations of every last part of this Government.
Unlike your business, unlike all big businesses,
the way we do business in the Federal Government and many of these agencies has been
largely unexamined for decades. So that when
something new comes along that we have to
do, it normally is just added on to what was
being done already, instead of being substituted
for it. And the whole quality revolution that
has engulfed the American private sector and
led to rapid increases in productivity has largely
escaped Government. And we're trying to
change that, too. It escapes nearly every organization that has a mandate for customers and


income, so we're trying to change that. Our
goal is pretty simple: We want to avoid regulations that are inconsistent with the goals of jobs
and growth; we want to avoid regulations that
overlap; we want to create a process that is
open and fair, where business has some input,
and not just large businesses but also medium
and small ones as well; and we want to change
the whole way Washington works.
I think these are the kinds of things that
you would want us to do, and these are certainly
the things that we have to do. I don't plan
or pretend that we're always going to agree on
all these issues. And I wish that the world
looked to me as President just the way it does
to you or the way it even did to me as Governor.
Like I said, it took a lot of mental gymnastics
for me to finally face the hard reality that we
had this huge deficit and unless we did something about it, we were never going to be able
to do anything else. We'd spend all our timeI spent all my time giving speeches about things
we were going to do, and no impact would
be felt because we were out of control of our
economic destiny. So I hope that you will be
supportive, not supportive of me personally so
much as supportive of our efforts, common efforts to deal with our common problems. The
one thing I made up my mind to do when
I won the election in November was at least
try to level with the American people about
the problems and try to face things that other
people in public life had avoided. This is painful.
You know, my daughter and the kids her age
who get into all this interesting music has got
this great phrase. She said, "Dad, denial is not
just a river in Egypt." [Laughter] And sometimes I think that's probably a good phrase for
us to remember in a lot of ways.
But my plain duty to you is at least to try
to articulate what these issues are and face
them. We tried it the other way. We tried ignoring the deficit. It didn't go away. We tried telling everybody what they wanted to hear, that
it could all be done by some sleight of hand,
and it didn't happen. And we tried a lot of
things about health care in the Federal Government which, frankly, made your problems worse.
I could control health care costs without doing
anything on the health care system. And what
would happen? All the providers, when we just
cut Medicare and Medicaid more, all the providers will send you the bill. That's what happens
today.


949




June 29 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


So, I ask you to think about this. Let us
face our problems; let us talk about our problems. The first big urgent thing is to pass a
deficit reduction plan that keeps as many of
these growth incentives as we can possibly have.
That was the good thing about the House bill.
Then I look forward to engaging in the health
debate. I look forward to engaging in the trade
debate. I look forward to engaging in the job
creation debate. But in the end just remember,
every advanced country in the world is having
a terrible time creating jobs. We are doing better than most of them because of you, because
we have a vigorous small business sector. Unfortunately, a lot of the things that we want to
do may help some people and impose burdens
on others in the small business sector at the
same time, though we know that these big issues
will not go away. And we know now after 3
years of stagnation we have to change if we
want to grow.
I believe if we do it together the next 20
years can still be the best years this country
ever had. We are in a new and unprecedented
era. This happens to us about once a generation,
and when it happens we have to adjust as a
people. That is what we are now trying to do.
That's what makes being here so exciting. But
I never forget that the thing that's important
about it is that what happens here affects what
you do there. And what you do there, wherever
"there" is, in your hometown, is what really
makes America work.
Thank you very much.
Moderator. Mr. President, again we very
much appreciate you taking the time to be with
us in your remarks today. One of the things
the President has asked for and is willing to
do is to take some questions from us. I will
tell you from the years past, in other conferences with other Presidents who have spoken,
this is the first President who has said, "I would
like to have questions from the group." And
because we have such a large group assembled,
Mr. President, what we've done is, we've circulated cards for people to use to ask questions.
We've accumulated these, gone through, and
picked out the top questions. And we have time
for just two or three if we could.
The President. Did you say the tough questions? [Laughter]
Moderator. The tough ones, the only kind we
have.
The President. I have a feeling when this is


over, I'm going to know why my predecessors
didn't take questions. [Laughter] Go ahead.
Health Care Reform
Moderator. The first one is: I have a small
business with two part-time employees. The
business is out there for me to expand. However, mandated health care and the present uncertainty has caused me not to hire more people. What assurances can you give me and others in my position that will give me the confidence to hire more people and to create more
jobs?
The President. First of all, I think you ought
to wait and see what we come out with. I think
that most people believe that this plan would
be much tougher on small businesses than I
believe it will be. But let me put it to you
in another way. We have to decide what to
do with part-time employees. And either employers will have to make some contribution to
their health care. By the way, I think all employees should make some contribution to their
health care, because if they don't, they may get
to thinking it's free, and overutilization is one
of the problems. I mean, everybody should pay
something in accordance with their ability to
pay. But I have to say this: I believe employers
should make some contribution, because I will
say again, those who don't pay at all are being
supported, even when they don't use the hospital, even when they don't use the clinic, even
when they don't use anything, they're being supported by those who do pay something, because
they are keeping the infrastructure going. And
everybody's bills will be lower over the long
run if everyone makes a fair contribution. I
think small businesses should really be limited
in what they're required to pay by the Government. And also, anything that is done should
be phased in so that as we go along the way,
if there are mistakes or unanticipated consequences, they can be corrected. We should
not wave a magic wand and say, okay, next year
the system is going to look like this. We're going
to have to phase this thing in so we can all
work together and see what the problems are.
But I have to say that I think in terms of
job creation over the long run, you're going
to have more people working over the long run
if we don't have these costs being bounced
around and thrown off from one group of employers onto another. The trick is going to be
how to keep the questioner's costs low enough,


950




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / June 29


and also what is the fair way to apportion the
costs for the part-time workers.
Workers' Compensation
Moderator. Dear Mr. President, as a North
Carolina strong Democrat and a strong supporter of the Clinton-Gore campaign, please
share your views on reducing the cost of health
care and workmen's compensation for my small
business.
The President. Well, that's one thing I didn't
say. The half of the-is that you? Good for
you. This is just like a Baptist church. I figured
we've got all the saints on the front row here.
[Laughter] Let me say, first of all, one of the
things that we are seeking to do in this health
reform effort is to alleviate the inordinate burden of workers comp on employers by, and I
don't want to get and sort of prefigure exactly
what this is going to look like, but if you look
at the workers comp system it is really three
things: it's a health care system, it's a disability
payment system, and it's an unemployment system, right? It was created at a time when we
didn't have comprehensive systems to do all
that. We now have health care systems, a disability program, an unemployment program, and
we've got workers comp. And half the cost of
workers comp is the health care.
So, what we're going to try to do is to fold
the health care costs part of workers comp into
this health care program which would dramatically cut the cost of workers comp. Like everything else, it's a little more complicated than
it seems. Here is the dilemma. Here's the problem we don't want to do. Most people will tell
you who have tried to cut down on abuse of
workers comp, that having that health care part
of the program out there is one thing that stops
it from being abused, because you can prove
that people are well; you can say, now you have
to go back to work, you have to go to therapy.
So, if we merged the cost into a health care
program, we don't want to do it in a way that
in effect cuts the rest of it loose so people
can allege disability in excess of what it is and
the abuses that are plain in the present system
will be worse instead of less. We have to do
this in a way that will reduce the abuses in
the present system. So that's the dilemma. It
is obviously extremely costly administratively, has
a lot of health overlap, to have these duplicated
health systems for employees. It's not necessary,
and we ought to abolish it, but we need to


do it in a way that doesn't aggravate the disability problem of workers comp. So that's the issue
there. I think we can do it.
White House Conference on Small Business
Moderator. Thank you. The national White
House Conference on Small Business was scheduled to take place in 1994. Does your administration have a date set for the conference, and
will you allow us to assist with issues hitting
small business the hardest?
The President. The answer to the second
question is yes, we will allow you to assist. The
answer to the first question is, do we have a
date yet? That was not a yes or a no. He's
become a politician. He's just been up here
a couple of weeks, and he's already-[laughter]-he said that the answer is, it'll be sometime between January and March of 1995. I'm
really looking forward to it.
Meetings With Business Leaders
Moderator. We all are. And according to the
time that I fiave, this is the last question. Rather
than talk with the CEO's of the Fortune 500
about business matters, why not get a panel
of small business members, 50 or less employees, say, 25 from each State, to inform you
on a regular basis?
The President. Let me make a suggestion sort
of to follow up on that without embracing that
specific suggestion, although I think that's about
as good as any I've heard. I will hereby, in
front of you, deputize Mr. Bowles to work with
you to come up with some formula for bringing
in a representative group of small business leaders to see me on a regular basis and talk about
this. Let me say we'll do that.
Moderator. Thank you.
The President. Let me make one other point
about this. Let me say that I have startedand this question may have come from someone
who'd seen the press on this. But I have started
every week or 2 weeks for the last couple of
months, through Alexis Herman, who is my special Assistant for Public Liaison-she works with
groups throughout the country and also helped
organize my coming here today-having lunch
with business leaders from around the country.
And we try always to have one smaller business
person in with a lot of the big business leaders
who come. We have manufacturers, people from
finance. We always try to have at least one small
business person at the table, or either that or


951




June 29 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


someone who started a business from scratch
that may not be so small anymore, but they
started-just to try to have the mix. It's been
an immensely valuable thing for me just to do
this. And we just take an hour-and-a-half informal, off-the-record lunch. We talk about whatever they want to talk about and a couple of
things that I'm working on. But it really helps
to keep me connected to what's going on out
there. It's pretty easy to get isolated, as I'm
sure you know, in this town. And so I would
embrace this. I'm glad you stood up when I
said it, but it will do me more good than it
will you. I'll get a lot out of it, and we'll follow
up.
Government and the Private Sector
Moderator. Mr. President, your staff says that
they will give us time for one more question.
The President. Good.
Moderator. Which we appreciate. Mr. President, thank you for speaking to us. I'm sure
you agree that most of our social problems can
be eased or solved by putting every capable
American to work. What compromises in your
social agenda are you willing to make to reduce
the burden of Government?
The President. Well, the answer is I'm prepared to do nearly anything to put everybody
to work. But let me say again the country with
the lowest unemployment rate of all the wealthy
countries in the world is Japan. And it would
be hard to make a serious case that they have
a low unemployment rate because their Government's not involved in their economy. And basically what they have is high productivity for
exports and labor-intensive, even not very productive protections for the domestic market, so
they can keep unemployment low. It's an interesting system. I'm not suggesting we follow it;
I don't think we should. The only point I'm
trying to make is that a number of the business
leaders who come to see me believe that one
of the reasons that we have unemployment as
high as it is, is that we had nothing to substitute
for the big cutback in defense spending. For
example, when Eisenhower was President, we
built the interstate highway network. And then
we had in the seventies, we had a huge investment in building new water and sewer systems,
making environmental investments that had
never been made before. And then in the
eighties, we had a huge investment in defense
industries of all kinds, not just people in the


military but all the contractors.
So my feeling is, what we need to do is to
get the Government out of those things where
the private sector is doing well and doing better.
And I think, as I said, I'm really eagerly awaiting
the work the Vice President is doing. He's consulting experts from all over America on what
we can do to increase the productivity of the
Federal Government. I think the Government
does a lot of things that hold back the job engine in the private sector. But there are also
some things that Government does well that
we're not doing now as much as so many of
our competitors are. For example, if you wanted
to have a more efficient high-speed rail network
in this country, you'd have to have some sort
of public input here, just like they do in every
other country.
So I think the problem is, we're doing too
little of some of the things we do well, and
we're doing too much of things that we can't
really have much of an impact on except to
slow down the job machine. And it's not so
much less; we need a lot less in some areas,
but we also need to far more sharply define
what nearly all of us could agree the Government ought to do as well as what the Government ought not to do. And we're going to have
to be much more disciplined about it. I mean,
there are lots of departments here in this town
that have a good mission. But they also are
doing things that they started doing 25 or 30
years ago that may or may not have a credible
rationale for continuing now, and we can't afford
that anymore.
It's just like you. If you want to increase your
impact, and you're not getting any more money,
you've got to change what you're doing. You've
got to stop doing some things, and you want
to start doing others. And the thing I like about
this budget that we're about to adopt is that
if we want to do new things, it's going to require
us to stop doing some old things and will require some real discipline for the first time in
a long time. And we'll do our best. And if we
set up this consultation process, you can help
us along the way.
Thank you very much.
NOTE: The President spoke at 9:15 a.m. at the
Hyatt Regency. In his remarks, he referred to Jack
Faris, president and chief executive officer of the
federation.


952




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / June 29


Exchange With Reporters Prior to Discussions With President Carlos Saul
Menem of Argentina
June 29, 1993


President's Approval Rating
Q. How do you like your new popularity as
a result of the attack on Baghdad?
The President. I think there's a lot of evidence
that people are learning more about the specifics of the economic program again, too. I think
that's a lot of it.
Q. Do you really think that's it?
The President. Absolutely, I do.
Iraq
Q. There were new threats from Iraqi officials
this morning, threat of retaliation. Are you concerned about that, Mr. President?
The President. Well, we'll deal with those as
they arise.
Haiti
Q. Are you going to discuss the Haitian situation with Mr. Menem?
The President. Absolutely, I will. I want to
get his ideas. President Menem has been a real
force for democracy and for human rights in
our hemisphere. Argentina was extremely helpful in playing a leadership role in the recent
Guatemalan crisis. And I want to know what
he thinks about Haiti and what we might do.
Q. Are you going to sell him Skyhawks, 36
Skyhawks?
Economic Indicators
Q. [Inaudible]-sir, last month after you took
great pains to attach the jump to your economic
program.
The President. They won't be up every month.
But the economy in our country will have great
difficulty in totally recovering in any short period of time from the traumas of the last 10
to 12 to 15 years. But I think that it's clear
that if we can bring our deficit down, keep
our interest rates down, we can get growth up.
It's also true that we have to try to work with
our trading partners to get growth up. And I
might just mention Argentina. Our exports to


Argentina have tripled in the last 4 years. That's
the sort of thing we're trying to work on with
other countries around the world. And it's not
going to be easier quick. We're basically restructuring the American economy at a time when
the whole world is in a rebuilding process. But
I'm hopeful.
[At this point, one group of reporters left the
room, and another group entered.]
Argentina
Q. Mr. Clinton, can you tell us what you
want to achieve with this visit?
The President. Well, first of all, I want to
just get to know President Menem a little better.
He is the first Latin American leader I have
received here at the White House. I admire
very much the program of economic reform that
Argentina has pursued under his leadership,
their respect for human rights, their support
for democracy. I was especially grateful for the
position taken in the recent issue with Guatemala. And there are lots of things we have to
talk about.
Q. Mr. President, do you agree that Argentina
is leading Latin America?
The President. Do I believe Argentina's a
leader in Latin America? Absolutely. I hope that
we can explore stronger and broader trade relations. I hope that we can continue to work together on the problems in the hemisphere. I'm
going to ask President Menem for his views
on the situation in Haiti, for example, where
I very much want to see democracy restored.
And I wanted him to come here and to be
the first Latin American leader to come because
of the remarkable, some would say astonishing,
progress in Argentina in the last couple of years.
NOTE: The exchange began at 11:35 a.m. in the
Oval Office at the White House. A tape was not
available for verification of the content of this exchange.


953




June 29 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


The President's News Conference With President Carlos Saul Menem of
Argentina
June 29, 1993


President Clinton. Good afternoon, ladies and
gentlemen. Today I have the great honor of
welcoming President Carlos Menem of Argentina to the White House, the first leader of
a Latin American state to visit here since I took
office.
Under President Menem's administration, Argentina has become an international leader on
the great issues of the post-cold-war era, a leader in this hemisphere in defense of democracy
and human rights, a trusted and valued partner
and friend of the United States. Together we
are constructing a Western Hemisphere community of democracies, interpreted by common political values and growing economic ties. We
deeply appreciate President Menem's visit today.
He represents a new generation of Latin American Presidents committed to expanding freedom, strengthening democracy, and creating
prosperity. His leadership has been bold and
his accomplishments truly impressive.
We talked today about Argentina's democratic
reforms and the role Argentina has assumed as
an international leader. Today, Argentine troops
serve with the United Nations peacekeepers in
Croatia, in Kuwait, in Mozambique, and in other
troubled lands. In the Organization of American
States, Argentina consistently takes a strong
stand in favor of collective defenses of democracy. With Argentina's support, the OAS has
worked to defend democratic institutions in
Peru, reverse the coup in Guatemala. And I
am confident, together we can restore democracy in Haiti, a subject we discussed at great
length today.
Argentina has also confronted crises of recession and hyperinflation and has overcome both.
Argentina slashed its tariffs and opened its economy to world markets. It ended its fiscal deficit
and created a stable currency. It sold state enterprises and attracted new investment. And as
a result, last year Argentina's economy grew 9
percent. I asked him for a few of those points
for America today. That was one of the unresolved parts of our discussion. [Laughter]
Once Congress successfully ratifies the North
American Free Trade Agreement with Mexico
and with Canada, we will want to reduce trade


barriers with other countries in this hemisphere.
Freer trade promotes the kind of economic and
democratic reforms we see in Argentina. It
clearly benefits our economy as well as that of
our neighbors. As I said earlier today, in the
last 4 years our trade with Argentina has tripled,
accounting for 40,000 jobs in the United States.
Our meeting covered some other areas as
well. Argentina's Government has been an important voice in calling for a successful conclusion of the Uruguay round to open the world
trading system. Argentina stands among the nations leading the effort to confront the overriding challenge of stopping the spread of weapons of mass destruction. President Menem himself ended a dangerous ballistic missile program,
signed important nuclear nonproliferation agreements, placed strong controls on the export of
sensitive weapons-related materials and technology, and helped to lead the successful international effort to negotiate the Chemical Weapons Convention.
Argentina has been in the forefront of initiatives to increase the dialog on security issues
in its region. Its progress and support for democracy are two reasons why this hemisphere
today is more secure and more prosperous today
than it was in the past and why it will show
the way to a better world tomorrow.
Again, let me say it is an honor for me to
welcome the President, whom I admire, whose
accomplishments we respect, and whose country
will be a great partner for the United States
in the years ahead.
Mr. President.
President Menem. Thank you very much, Mr.
President. I would like to tell you of my gratitude that is sincere and loyal in the name of
my country and of my government for your
words. They are the result of a complete knowledge of what is happening in Argentina, in this
continent, and in the world.
You may be absolutely sure that Argentina
will continue along this road. There is absolutely
no possibility of any change in Argentine policies
in the field of economics and in the social fields.
I always say this is a road that we cannot walk
backwards on, and these are the results we are


954




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / June 29


obtaining. If I would have to explain here the
achievements obtained, I would have to repeat
the same words that you have used, Mr. President, and this would not perhaps be very much
in order. But we have talked in an environment
of cordiality and affection. We have discussed
our relations that are now at their best level
ever. We are prepared to improve on them,
and I have told the President of the United
States that in Argentina he will find a firm and
determined ally. And we consider the United
States a great ally for Argentina.
Within this framework we have discussed subjects that are related to the consolidation of
democracy and freedom, not only within this
continent, the issues related to Guatemala, Haiti,
Cuba and Peru, but we have also discussed the
absolute need for democracy, freedom, the respect of human rights, and all issues related
to the environment should become reality in
all of this world. We would like to see disappear
wherever possible that terrible scourge of war,
of any kind of discrimination, international terrorism, drug trafficking. We have not restricted
our conversations to a preestablished agenda.
We have extended our talks even further.
It is always good to come to the United States
of America. I believe it is also good to go to
Argentina, and that is why I have invited the
President to visit us, because valuable experiences are awaiting in Argentina and this will
allow us to make our links even stronger, the
links that are joining Argentina to the United
States.
Mr. President, once again, thank you very
much. Thank you for your gift. He gave me
as a gift a basketball signed by all the members
of the Chicago Bulls. So, thank you.
Iraq
Q. Mr. President, I'd like to ask you about
the bombing. Could the assassination plot
against former President Bush have moved forward without the approval of Saddam Hussein?
And why did the United States not try to hit
closer to home for Saddam Hussein, perhaps
his headquarters?
President Clinton. We believe the evidence
clearly indicates that the bombing operation was
authorized by the Iraqi Government. And it is
highly unusual, in the experience of our people-let me recast that-our analysts have no
experience of such an operation of that magnitude being authorized other than at the high

est levels. However, it was thought that under
international law and based on the facts of this
particular case, that the best possible target was
the target of the intelligence headquarters where
in all probability the operation itself was planned
and that to damage that headquarters significantly would send the appropriate message,
given the facts of this case.
Q. But in your mind-[inaudible]-did you
think Saddam Hussein signed off on this?
President Clinton. I have given you the only
answer I think it's appropriate for me to give
you.
Q. Mr. President, what do you think you accomplished with the bombing of Iraq and the
loss of innocent lives, the destruction?
President Clinton. First of all, we damaged
their major intelligence facility quite severely.
Secondly, we made it absolutely clear that we
will not tolerate acts of terrorism or other illegal
and dangerous acts. I think it sent a very important message.
Q. We understand there's been an incident
over the no-fly zone in southern Iraq today.
A U.S. F-4G Wild Weasel launched a HARM
missile against an Iraqi radar installation. What
can you tell us about that incident, and secondly,
what does it suggest to you that it comes at
a time when the Iraqis are still threatening retaliation for the weekend bombing?
President Clinton. The standard rules of engagement for flights in that region are that if
radar locks onto our airplanes, our airplanes are
authorized to take action against those installations. So this has happened a number of times,
and based on the facts that I now have, I
wouldn't read too much into it. It's part of the
standard rules of engagement.
Q. You said during the transition that you
could conceive of a situation where we could
have normal relations with Iraq with Saddam
Hussein still in power. Given what's occurred,
how would you now frame your position on this
issue?
President Clinton. What I said or at least tried
to say in the transition was that I thought we
ought to judge every country based on its conduct. And based on its conduct, I think that
the possibility of normal relations is very difficult
to conceive, not just in this instance but also
in the stubborn refusal of Iraq to comply with
the United Nations resolutions.
Q. Mr. President, just now you said that the
strike had damaged the intelligence facility. Yes

955




June 29 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


terday you said it had crippled the intelligence
facility.
President Clinton. I think it did cripple the
intelligence facility. At least the reports that I
received from the intelligence services was that
15 of the missiles had hit within just a few
feet of where they were exactly programmed,
and based on what they knew of the potential
for destruction of those missiles, that the facility
had been crippled. Those were the exact words
I got from the people who briefed me about
it.
Q. Was it possible that you were not briefed
correctly, because Pentagon officials were saying
that Saddam has multiple intelligence facilities
and that this was one of three or four and that,
in fact, he would be operational without this
facility, and especially because he relies so heavily on human intelligence and none of the people were involved
President Clinton. Well, I didn't mean that
they wouldn't have any more intelligence. But
I do think the building and whatever resources
are in that building, which is plainly the main
building, was severely damaged, and that's what
our intelligence people told me.
Is there anyone here from Argentina? Yes,
a little equal opportunity here.
Terrorism
Q. President Clinton, did President Menem
offer you a specific help to combat terrorism?
And do you think you have to put more guards
on President Menem because there was going
to be a plot or something like that from the
Arabs?
President Clinton. Well, we try to always provide appropriate security to world leaders who
come here. President Menem-perhaps I should
let him speak to this-but he was very supportive of the action we took in Iraq and very determined that we ought to stand together with
other civilized nations against terrorism everywhere.
President Menem. With more security I would
have felt uncomfortable in the United States.
I have a very special philosophy in life: Nobody
will die the day before his preestablished date.
And I rely and trust fully in God. He brought
us to this world, and He is to decide the day
we leave this world. With a great amount of
security around a head of state in general, any
terrorist activity may be successful. That is why
terrorism has to be fought back without any


kind of compassion. They lack absolutely any
kind of compassion since, when they place a
bomb, they are prepared to destroy the lives
of old people and children. Terrorism is now
one of the worst scourges of humanity.
Disarmament and Military Action
Q. Mr. President, the United States speaks
constantly of disarmament and world peace, especially after the fall of the Berlin Wall. Your
Government, through the Embassy in Buenos
Aires, has insisted on this policy of peace and
disarmament. Don't you believe that the United
States has not given an example to follow this
course when bombarding Baghdad as a result
of this intelligence information?
President Clinton. No, I disagree. As a matter
of fact, the United States has been a leader
in disarmament. We have signed significant
agreements with first the Soviet Union and now
with Russia trying to reduce our nuclear arsenals. We are working very hard to reduce the
spread of weapons of mass destruction. And I
think what we did last weekend with regard
to Iraq is a clear signal that people ought not
to use weapons in illegal ways. I would remind
you that the action I took was in response to
an operation that involved a bomb that, had
it exploded in downtown Kuwait City, had a
400-yard radius of lethal destruction. So, I think
it was the appropriate thing to do.
Latin America- U. S. Trade Agreements
Q. I have a question for you, Mr. Clinton,
and another for Mr. Menem.
First, assuming that NAFTA is approved by
Congress, when do you foresee Argentina, or
Chile, for that matter, negotiating an agreement
with the United States? I'm kind of interested
in a timetable. And for Mr. Menem, I would
like to get more details on that offer you made
yesterday to negotiate between the United
States and Cuba to improve relations between
the two countries.
President Clinton. I would be prepared to discuss immediately with Argentina, with Chile,
with other appropriate nations the possibility of
expanded trade relations along the NAFTA
model. I have long thought that NAFTA should
be a model for embracing all of Latin America's
democracies and free market economies. I have
no timetable. I think perhaps President Menem
would have a better view of that, but my attitude is we ought to get on with it. We ought


956




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / June 29


to try to increase the volume and the variety
of trade with the appropriate countries just as
quickly as possible.
President Menem. On this issue, we had already discussed this with the President, and I
have told him that as a priority so as to be
able to start formal talks on the access of Argentina or any other country in the region to
NAFTA, it would be fundamental to finish the
NAFTA agreement, that on the basis of due
legislation this process should come to its end.
If NAFTA has been passed and enacted during
the first months of the next year or the 1st
of January, only then can we start discussing
the incorporation of Argentina in NAFTA.
And at the same time, we must remember
that we are going through another process of
integration within MerCoSur, and we have a
commitment with the United States in the fourplus-one agreement as to the possibility of having a free trade area between these four countries of MerCoSur and the United States. This,
in the case of coming to understanding, will
make it possible not only to Argentina joining
NAFTA but also MerCoSur. As the result of
the NAFTA agreement coming to its enactment,
then the MerCoSur countries could perhaps also
be joining NAFTA. This is something that
should be discussed between the three other
countries that are members of NAFTA.
Cuba
Q. Reuters Agency said yesterday that you
were proposing to act as a mediator between
the United States and Cuba.
President Menem. As a reply to a question
by a journalist when he asked if I would be
prepared in participating in any kind of negotiations between the United States and Cuba, I
answered: President Bush asked me when we
met in Costa Rica for the 100th anniversary
of democracy, he asked me to stop over in Nicaragua to ask Daniel Ortega to respect the results
of the elections that were to be held a short
time after in that country, since doubts existed
as to the decision that the people of Daniel
Ortega's team would take on this issue. I spent
more than 2 hours discussing the subject with
Commander Ortega, and he was convinced he
would be winning the elections. And finally after
2 hours of discussion he said, "If Mrs. Violeta
Chamorro wins the elections, I will give her
the government." And if the United States requests it, I am prepared to discuss the issue


with Fidel Castro or with whoever it is necessary. I would like to see Cuba living in democracy as soon as possible.
Patent Protection and Farm Subsidies
Q. This is a question for both of you. Have
you discussed pharmaceutical patents and subsidies in agriculture? President Menem first and
then President Clinton, please.
President Menem. We have discussed this, and
I have told President Clinton what I told Mr.
Kantor yesterday. This draft law on patents has
been introduced through the Senate to the Argentine Parliament, and we are expecting that
it will be passed soon. But the executive power
of Argentina has sent this draft law to Parliament.
And on subsidies, this is a subject we discuss
constantly not only with the President of the
United States but also with the Presidents of
the European Community countries since they
have taken the more difficult stand on this issue
when they are subsidizing agriculture, damaging
countries such as Argentina. You must not forget
that the amount of subsidies is now exceeding
$300 billion. It becomes difficult to compete
under these circumstances. And I always tell
the people in the United States, the U.S. President, and the Europeans they were the masters
in free trade and economic freedom. It is not
understandable that they should insist on these
attitudes that go against the teachings that they
sent to the world at large.
President Clinton. The answer to your question is, just as President Menem said, we discussed the patent protection legislation, and I
expressed the hope of the United States that
it would pass soon by the legislative body in
Argentina.
I also, with regard to agricultural subsidies,
pointed out that the United States had reduced
agricultural subsidies unilaterally in 1990, that
our budget reduces them again this year, and
that we strongly support the Blair House accords
which were reached last year to reduce agricultural subsidies in the Uruguay round of GATT,
and that we are with Argentina on that. Also,
having grown up in a farming area, I expressed
enormous admiration for the fact that Argentina
has the deepest topsoil anywhere in the world.
So, if I were in his position, I would be taking
exactly the same position. With 20 feet of topsoil
he can grow anything and do well.
Yes, one last question, and then we've got


957




June 29 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


to go.
Iraq
Q. Despite what General Powell said, I don't
understand why the United States went after
the facility at night, rather than going after the
intelligence facility during the daytime when the
top people were there. And will you take action
if the Iraqis go after the Kurds or the Shiites?
President Clinton. I think we've made it clear
to them what our position is on the second
question you asked. The reason we went at night
was quite simply that we wanted to make a
strong point. We wanted to do as much damage
to the facility as we could. We wanted to mini

mize the loss of human life because of the nature of what actually happened. I think everyone
knows what our military is capable of doing.
What we needed to show them was that we
were fully possessed of the will to do it under
these circumstances. And I think we picked the
appropriate target, and I think we did it at the
appropriate time under these circumstances.
Thank you very much.
NOTE: The President's 18th news conference
began at 1:50 p.m. in the East Room at the White
House. President Menem spoke in Spanish, and
his remarks were translated by an interpreter.


Message to the Senate Transmitting the Convention on the Marking of
Plastic Explosives for Detection
June 29, 1993


To the Senate of the United States:
I transmit herewith, for the advice and consent of the Senate to ratification, the Convention
on the Marking of Plastic Explosives for the
Purpose of Detection with Technical Annex,
done at Montreal on March 1, 1991. The report
of the Department of State is also enclosed for
the information of the Senate.
The terrorist bombing of Pan Am 103 in December 1988 with the resultant deaths of 270
(including 189 Americans), and the terrorist
bombing of UTA flight 772 in September 1989
with the resultant deaths of 171 (including 7
Americans), dramatically demonstrate the threat
posed by virtually undetectable plastic explosives
in the hands of those nations and groups that
engage in terrorist savagery.
This Convention is aimed at precluding such
incidents from recurring, as well as others where
plastic explosives are utilized, by requiring States
that produce plastic explosives to mark them
at the time of manufacture with a substance
to enhance their detectability by commercially
available mechanical or canine detectors. States


are also required to ensure that controls are
implemented over the sale, use, and disposition
of marked and unmarked plastic explosives.
Work on the Convention began in January
1990 under the auspices of the International
Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) on the basis
of an initial draft prepared by a special subcommittee of the ICAO Legal Committee. That
work was completed, and the Convention was
adopted by consensus, at an international conference in Montreal in March 1991. The United
States and 50 other States signed the Convention. Early ratification by the United States
should encourage other nations to become party
to the Convention.
I recommend that the Senate give early and
favorable consideration to the Convention and
give its advice and consent to ratification, subject to the declaration described in the accompanying report of the Secretary of State.
WILLIAM J. CLINTON
The White House,
June 29, 1993.


958




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / June 29


Message on the Observance of Independence Day, 1993
June 29, 1993


On Independence Day, we celebrate the birth
of the first and greatest democracy of the modem era. The ideals embodied by the Declaration
of Independence have served as a guide for
our nation and as an inspiration for people
around the world. This document delineated the
very idea of America, that individual rights are
derived not from the generosity of the government, but from the hand of the Almighty. The
Founders forever abandoned their allegiance to
the old European notions of caste and instead
dedicated themselves to the belief that all people are created equal.
The brilliant men who gathered in Philadelphia 218 years ago to declare our nation's independence risked their honor, their fortunes, and
their very lives to create a better future for
their children and grandchildren. As the inheritors of freedom's legacy, we owe our liberties
to the fact that our Founders saw the need
for dramatic change and acted upon it.
Today, vast changes are sweeping the globe.
Nations that have known only tyranny for cenStatement on Flooding in the Midwest
June 29, 1993
I am very concerned about the flooding in
the heartland of our country, and I've asked
Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy to survey the
region and see firsthand what the excessive rains
have done to agriculture production there. I also
have directed the Federal Emergency Management Agency to keep me fully informed of their
activities on behalf of the affected States.
The Mississippi River is closed to navigation
over a 500-mile stretch from the Twin Cities
in Minnesota to St. Louis. Clearly, this is one
of the most significant natural disasters midwestern residents, business owners, and agricultural producers have faced in a very long time.
This region of the country is dependent upon
agricultural production, and when agriculture
faces a disaster like this one, everyone is adversely affected.
Tomorrow Secretary Espy will travel to Iowa,


turies are suddenly dedicating themselves to the
ideals of freedom and democracy. And wherever
freedom is proclaimed, echoes of the American
Declaration of Independence can be heard.
Thomas Jefferson's words are being spoken in
dozens of nations in hundreds of languages.
We are justly proud of the influence that our
beliefs have had on the world. But the mission
of America is far from complete. While the
world is filled with opportunity, it is rife with
uncertainty. We must dedicate ourselves to carrying on the dreams of the Founders and adding
our own chapter to the unfinished American
autobiography. By embracing the changes that
are altering the landscape of the world today,
we help ensure a brighter, more democratic,
and more peaceful world. On this Independence
Day, I encourage all Americans to rededicate
themselves to the conviction that our heroic
journey must go forever upward.
Best wishes to everyone for a wonderful day.
BILL CLINTON


Wisconsin (weather permitting), Minnesota, and
South Dakota to view the rain-related damage
and talk face to face with farmers and area
residents about the damage.
FEMA Director James Lee Witt reports that
his Agency already has placed survey teams in
the field where they are working with the State
emergency operating centers. These teams are
laying the groundwork necessary for Federal disaster assistance. We intend to speed the recovery of the affected communities and ensure disaster victims receive the help they need as rapidly as possible.
Upon his return, Secretary Espy will brief
me on the condition of the area and make recommendations that will help our fellow citizens
living in the region.
As you know, nine counties in southwestern
Minnesota were declared disaster areas in late


959




June 29 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


May. Last week, I granted Governor Arne
Carlson's request to extend the incident period
to allow for coverage for the torrential rains
after May 19th through June.
Wisconsin has been hard hit. The break in
the dam at Blackriver Falls has destroyed or
damaged over 100 homes. Many of the town's
residents have no flood insurance. Governor
Tommy Thompson has already asked the National Guard to assist the evacuation of flood
victims.
Iowa's Governor Branstad also is using the
National Guard to assist flood victims in the
eastern part of his State. He has told us that
many homes and businesses have been flooded
out, and thousands more are at risk if the levee


breaks.
The Mississippi River continues to rise in Missouri, threatening towns still dealing with the
ravages of the May floods. FEMA teams are
in eastern Missouri, continuing to monitor the
flooding of the Mississippi. Some areas have
been evacuated, and preliminary damage assessment teams are in place for a formal assessment
request, pending a call from Governor Mel
Carnahan.
I commend the bravery and endurance of the
many midwesterners facing torrents of rain and
rivers that have not yet crested. We will work
together to rebuild your communities as we
work together to rebuild America.


Nomination for the Federal Communications Commission
June 29, 1993


The President today announced his intention  municate with each other and with the world.
to nominate attorney Reed E. Hundt as a mem-  With his years of experience, I am confident
ber of the Federal Communications Commis-    Reed Hundt will do an excellent job steering
sion. Once Mr. Hundt is confirmed as a mem-  the FCC through the challenges it will face over
ber, the President intends to designate him  the next 5 years," the President said.
Chairman of the FCC.
"Telecommunications innovations are con-   NOTE: A biography of the nominee was made
stantly changing the way we as Americans com-  available by the Office of the Press Secretary.
Exchange With Reporters Prior to a Meeting With Congressional Leaders
June 30, 1993


Nuclear Testing
Q. Mr. President, why not resume nuclear
testing? There are a lot of people who argue
that it's necessary to ensure the safety of the
stockpile.
The President. I'll have a statement on that
in the next few days. I've been working very
hard on it. I will say this then, the story I
read about it today is not quite accurate. But
I have made a decision, and the administration
will have a policy, and we'll announce it sometime in the next few days. We're working out
some of the details, and we haven't finished
our congressional consultations yet.
Q. You mean if somebody else tests first, you


won't then test?
The President. I have nothing else to say
about it. I just-I'll talk about it whenNational and International Economy
Q. Mr. President, what do you think of the
new economic figures that have come out over
the last couple of days?
The President. Well, most of them are pretty
discouraging, and some are encouraging. But the
most important thing is to look at this thing
over the long run. We've had 3 or 4 very tough
years. And there's a global recession. Two-thirds
of our jobs in the late eighties came from exports, and it's hard to generate jobs from exports
when many European countries have actually


960




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / June 30


negative growth and Japan has no growth. And
one of the reasons that we're having this meeting today is to talk about what the United States
can do at the meeting of the G-7 to try to
get growth going in the global economy.
We have low interest rates now; people can
invest; a lot of people are refinancing their business and home loans, so there's money out there
to invest. But they've got to be able to know
that if we create jobs, that people will be able
to sell their products and services. And that's
why this G-7 meeting is so important, trying
to get some growth back into the global economy that will get the export portion of our job
growth going again.
Q. And what would you like the other G7 nations to do, sir?
The President. What would I like them
Q. Yes, sir.
The President. I think Japan ought to stimulate their economy and open their markets. And
the Europeans should resolve their own dif

ferences about agriculture and other things and
help us to sign the GATT agreement before
the end of the year. And the Germans have
worked very hard, the German Government has,
but I think the German central bank should
continue to lower interest rates there so that
all of us together can expand the economy.
It's very hard for the United States alone to
grow jobs without help from other nations. So
those are the things that I hope we can keep
working on. And if we get a good trade agreement, if we could open the markets of other
countries, then I think you'll see some real
growth coming into the economy.
Q. Is that possible given the political situation
of the leaders?
The President. It's harder, but it's possible.
NOTE: The exchange began at 10:21 a.m. in the
Cabinet Room at the White House. A tape was
not available for verification of the content of this
exchange.


Message to the Congress on Further Sanctions Against Haiti
June 30, 1993


To the Congress of the United States:
Pursuant to section 204(b) of the International
Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C.
1701 et seq.), the National Emergencies Act (50
U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), section 5 of the United
Nations Participation Act of 1945 (22 U.S.C.
287c), and section 301 of title 3 of the United
States Code, in view of United Nations Security
Council Resolution No. 841 of June 16, 1993,
and in order to take additional steps with respect to the actions and policies of the de facto
regime in Haiti and the national emergency described and declared in Executive Order No.
12775, I hereby report that I have exercised
my statutory authority with respect to Haiti and
issued an Executive order that:
-Blocks all property of any Haitian national
providing substantial financial or material contributions to the de facto regime in Haiti, or
doing substantial business with the de facto regime in Haiti, as identified by the Secretary
of the Treasury, that is or comes within the
United States or the possession or control of
United States persons. The proposed order de

fines the term "Haitian national" to mean a
citizen of Haiti, wherever located; an entity or
body organized under the laws of Haiti; and
any other person, entity, or body located in Haiti
and engaging in the importation, storage, or distribution of products or commodities controlled
by sanctions imposed on Haiti pursuant to resolutions adopted either by the United Nations
Security Council or the Organization of American States, or otherwise facilitating transactions
inconsistent with those sanctions;
-Prohibits the sale or supply, by United
States persons, or from the United States, or
using U.S.-registered vessels or aircraft, of petroleum or petroleum products or arms and related
materiel of all types, including weapons and ammunition, military vehicles and equipment, police equipment and spare parts for the aforementioned, regardless of origin, to any person
or entity in Haiti or to any person or entity
for the purpose of any business carried on in
or operated from Haiti, and any activities by
United States persons or in the United States
which promote or are calculated to promote


961




June 30 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


such sale or supply; and
-Prohibits the carriage on U.S.-registered
vessels of petroleum or petroleum products, or
arms and related materiel of all types, including
weapons and ammunition, military vehicles and
equipment, police equipment and spare parts
for the aforementioned, regardless of origin,
with entry into, or with the intent to enter,
the territory or territorial sea of Haiti.
I am enclosing a copy of the Executive order
that I have issued. The order was effective immediately.
The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation
with the Secretary of State, is authorized to issue
regulations implementing these prohibitions.
United Nations Security Council Resolution
841, unanimously adopted on June 16, 1993,
calls on all States to adopt certain measures
which are included within those outlined above.
These measures are called for in recognition
of the urgent need for an early, comprehensive,


and peaceful settlement of the crisis in Haiti
and in light of the failure of parties in Haiti
to act constructively to take steps necessary to
begin the restoration of democracy.
The measures we are taking respond to the
Security Council's call. They demonstrate our
commitment to remain at the forefront of the
international community's efforts to back up
with sanctions the negotiations process being
sponsored by the United Nations and the Organization of American States. These steps also
demonstrate unflinching support through our
foreign policy of the return of democracy to
Haiti.
WILLIAM J. CLINTON
The White House,
June 30, 1993.
NOTE: The Executive order is listed in Appendix
D at the end of this volume.


Message to the Congress Transmitting a Report on Aeronautics and Space
Activities
June 30, 1993


To the Congress of the United States:
I am pleased to transmit this report on the
Nation's achievements in aeronautics and space
during fiscal year 1992, as required under section 206 of the National Aeronautics and Space
Act of 1958, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2476). Not
only do aeronautics and space activities involve
14 contributing departments and agencies of the
Federal Government as reflected in this report,
but the results of their ongoing research and
development affect the Nation as a whole.
Fiscal year 1992 was a significant one for U.S.
aeronautics and space efforts. It included 7
Space Shuttle missions and 14 Government
launches of expendable launch vehicles (ELVs)
carrying a variety of payloads ranging from
NASA missions to classified payloads. In addition, there were eight launches of ELVs by commercial launch service providers operating under
licenses issued by the Department of Transportation's Office of Commercial Space Transportation. On December 7, 1991, the Air Force
achieved initial launch capability for the new
Atlas II launch vehicle in a commercial launch


by General Dynamics with support from the
Air Force. The Shuttle missions included one
using the Atmospheric Laboratory for Applications and Science (ATLAS-1) to study the Sun
and our atmosphere, as well as the first flight
of the newest orbiter, Endeavour, which rendezvoused with, retrieved, and replaced the perigee kick motor of the INTELSAT VI (F-3)
satellite that INTELSAT controllers then deployed into its intended orbit.
In aeronautics, efforts have ranged from development of new civil and military aircraft and
technologies to research and development of
ways to reduce aircraft noise and improve flight
safety and security.
One of the major Earth science highlights
of the year was the discovery that, like the ozone
layer over the Antarctic with its well-documented annual depletion, the ozone layer in the
Northern Hemisphere is increasingly vulnerable
to depletion by synthetic chemicals. Several
Federal agencies have cooperated to study this
and other environmental challenges.
Thus, fiscal year 1992 was a successful year


962




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / June 30


for the U.S. aeronautics and space programs.
Efforts in both areas have promoted significant
advances in the Nation's scientific and technical
knowledge that promise to improve the quality
of life on Earth by increasing scientific under

standing, expanding the economy, and improving
the environment.
WILLIAM J. CLINTON
The White House,
June 30, 1993.


Letter to Television Networks on Use of Program Violence Warnings
June 30, 1993


Dear Howard:
I applaud the action taken today by CBS and
by the other major broadcast networks to begin
addressing the problem of violence on television.
Millions of parents are rightly concerned that
their children are exposed to far too many
graphic pictures of murder and mayhem. The
announcement of voluntary violence warnings is
an important, commendable first step in dealing
with this crucial issue.
For the health of our society and the American family, we must continue to find ways to
limit the excessive portrayal of violence in our
television programming. In the past, the television industry has responded to public concerns
and has dealt in a responsible manner with issues such as drug use, alcohol, and smoking.
I encourage the broadcast industry, the creators
and producers, as well as the advertisers who


support network programming, to take full responsibility in limiting the amount of televised
violence.
Again, I commend the networks for this initial
effort and encourage you to continue to find
ways to make your programming suitable for
the children and youth of this nation.
Sincerely,
BILL CLINTON
NOTE: This letter was sent to Howard Stringer,
president, CBS Broadcast Group. Similar letters
were sent to Warren Littlefield, president, NBC
Entertainment; George Vradenburg, executive
vice president, Fox Television; Thomas S. Murphy, chairman of the board, Capital Cities-ABC;
and Ted Turner, chairman of the board and president, Turner Broadcasting System.


Nomination for Posts at the Department of Defense
June 30, 1993


The President today announced his intention
to nominate John Hamre to be Comptroller of
the Department of Defense. He also announced
that he is appointing Mitch Wallerstein to serve
at the Pentagon as Deputy Assistant Secretary
for Counterproliferation Policy.
'"We are continuing the process of putting


together a strong and effective staff at the Department of Defense," said the President. "John
Hamre and Mitch Wallerstein both bring outstanding academic credentials along with years
of hands-on experience to their new positions."
NOTE: Biographies of the nominees were made
available by the Office of the Press Secretary.


963




June 30 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


Nomination for Agency for International Development and
Ambassadorial Posts
June 30, 1993


The President announced today that he intends to nominate Richard Holbrooke to be his
Ambassador to Germany and Tom Niles as his
Ambassador to Greece. In addition, the President announced that he has nominated Robert
Houdek to be Ambassador to Eritrea and that
he intends to nominate Larry Byrne to be the
Associate Administrator for Finance and Administration at the Agency for International Development, U.S. International Development Cooperation Agency.
"The people we are adding to our foreign


policy team today are men of tremendous
achievement and character," said the President.
"I am particularly glad that Richard Holbrooke
will be serving our country as Ambassador to
Germany. Throughout his years in Government
and more recently as a leader in the private
sector, he has demonstrated the talents that are
needed for an important position such as this
one.
NOTE: Biographies of the nominees were made
available by the Office of the Press Secretary.


Nomination for Posts at the Housing and Urban Development, Veterans
Affairs, and Commerce Departments
June 30, 1993


The President announced his intention today
to nominate the following officials:
William Gilmartin, Assistant Secretary of
Housing and Urban Development for Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations
Eugene Brickhouse, Assistant Secretary of
Veterans Affairs for Human Resources and
Administration
Ginger Lew, General Counsel, Department of
Commerce


'These three outstanding individuals will
make excellent additions to our administration,"
said the President. "William Gilmartin, Eugene
Brickhouse, and Ginger Lew have all proven
themselves in their previous Government service. I am grateful that they have agreed to be
part of our efforts now."
NOTE: Biographies of the nominees were made
available by the Office of the Press Secretary.


Remarks Announcing the Forest Conservation Plan
July 1, 1993


Ladies and gentlemen, this issue has been
one which has bedeviled the people of the Pacific Northwest for some years now. It has been
one that has particularly moved me for two reasons: first of all, because so many people in
that part of the country brought their concerns
to me in the campaign on all sides of this issue,
the timber workers and companies, the environmentalists, the Native Americans, the people
who live in those areas who just wanted to see


the controversy resolved, so they could get on
with their lives; and secondly, because I grew
up in a place with a large timber industry and
a vast amount of natural wilderness, including
a large number of national forests. So I have
a very close identity with all the forces at play
in this great drama that has paralyzed the Pacific
Northwest for too long.
We're announcing a plan today which we believe will strengthen the long-term economic


964




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July I


and environmental health of the Pacific Northwest and northern California. The plan provides
an innovative approach to forest management
to protect the environment and to produce a
predictable and sustainable level of timber sales.
It offers a comprehensive, long-term plan for
economic development. And it makes sure that
Federal Agencies, for a change, will be working
together for the good of all the people of the
region.
The plan is a departure from the failed policies of the past, when as many as six different
Federal Agencies took different positions on various interpretations of Federal law and helped
to create a situation in which, at length, no
timber cutting at all could occur because of
litigation, and still environmentalists believed
that the long-term concerns of the environment
were not being addressed.
The plan is more difficult than I had thought
it would be in terms of the size of the timber
cuts, in part because during this process the
amount of timber actually in the forests and
available for cutting was revised downward
sharply, in no small measure because of years
of overcutting, and in a way that provides an
annual yield smaller than timber interests had
wanted, and a plan without some of the protections that environmentalists had sought. I can
only say that as with every other situation in
life, we have to play the hand we were dealt.
Had this crisis been dealt with years ago, we
might have a plan with a higher yield and with
more environmentally protected areas. We are
doing the best we can with the facts as they
now exist in the Pacific Northwest.
I believe the plan is fair and balanced. I believe it will protect jobs and offer new job opportunities where they must be found. It will
preserve the woodlands, the rivers, the streams
that make the Northwest an attractive place to
live and to visit. We believe in this case it is
clear that the Pacific Northwest requires both
a healthy economy and a healthy environment
and that one cannot exist without the other.
I want to say a special word of thanks to
the Vice President, to the Interior Secretary,
Bruce Babbitt, to Agriculture Secretary Mike
Espy, to Labor Secretary Reich, Commerce Secretary Brown, Environmental Protection Administrator Browner, Environmental Policy Director
Katie McGinty, and many others in our administration who worked together to bring all the
forces of the Federal Government into agree

ment, not because they all agreed on every issue
at every moment but because they knew that
we owed the people of the Pacific Northwest
at least a unified Federal position that would
break the logjam of the past several years.
This shows that people can work together and
make tough choices if they have the will and
courage to do so. Too often in the past the
issues which this plan addressed have simply
wound up in court while the economy, the environment, and the people suffered. These issues
are clearly difficult and divisive; you will see
that in the response to the position that our
administration has taken. If they were easy they
would have been answered long ago. The main
virtue of our plan, besides being fair and balanced, is that we attempt to answer the questions and let people get on with their lives.
We could not, we could not permit more years
of the status quo to continue, where everything
was paralyzed in the courts.
We reached out to hundreds of people, from
lumber workers and fishermen to environmentalists, scientists, business people, community leaders, and Native American tribes. We've
worked hard to balance all their interests and
to understand their concerns. We know that our
solutions will not make everybody happy. Indeed, they may not make anybody happy. But
we do understand that we're all going to be
better off if we act on the plan and end the
deadlock and divisiveness.
We started bringing people together at the
Forest Conference in April. In the words of
Archbishop Thomas Murphy then, we began to
find common ground for the common good. As
people reasoned together in a conference room
instead of confronting each other in a courtroom, they found at least that they shared common values: work and family, faith and a reverence for the majestic beauty of the natural
environment God has bequeathed to that gifted
part of our Nation.
This plan meets the standards that I set as
the conference concluded. It meets the need
for year-round, high-wage, high-skilled jobs and
a sustained, predictable level of economic activity in the forests. It protects the long-term
health of the forests, our wildlife, and our waterways. It is clearly scientifically sound, ecologically credible, and legally defensible.
By preserving the forests and setting predictable and sustainable levels of timber sales, it
protects jobs not just in the short term but


965




July 1 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


for years to come. We offer new assistance to
workers and to families for job training and retraining where that will inevitably be needed
as a result of the sustainable yield level set in
the plan, new assistance to businesses and industries to expand and create new family-wage jobs
for local workers, new assistance to communities
to build the infrastructure to support new and
diverse sources of economic growth, and new
initiatives to create jobs by investing in research
and restoration in the forests themselves. And
we end the subsidies for log exports that end
up exporting American jobs.
This plan offers an innovative approach to
conservation, protecting key watersheds and the
most valuable of our old-growth forests. It protects key rivers and streams while saving the
most important groves of ancient trees and providing habitat for salmon and other endangered
species. And it establishes new adapted management areas to develop new ways to achieve economic and ecological goals and to help communities to shape their own future.
Today I am signing a bill sponsored by Senator Patty Murray and Congresswoman Jolene
Unsoeld of Washington and supported by the
entire Northwest congressional delegation to restore the ban of export of raw logs from Stateowned lands and other publicly owned lands.
This act alone will save thousands of jobs in
the Northwest, including over 6,000 in Washing

ton State alone.
Today Secretary Babbitt and Secretary Espy
are going to the Northwest to talk to State and
local officials about how to implement the plan
and give to workers, companies, and communities the help they need and deserve. And soon
we will deliver an environmental impact statement based on the plan to the Federal District
Court in Washington State. We will do all we
can to resolve the legal actions that have halted
timber sales, and we will continue to work with
all those who share our commitment to achieve
these goals and move the sales forward.
Together we can build a better future for
the families of the Northwest, for their children,
and for their children's children. We can preserve the jobs in the forest, and we can preserve
the forest. The time has come to act to end
the logjam, to end the endless delay and bickering, and to restore some genuine security and
rootedness to the lives of the people who have
for too long been torn from pillar to post in
this important area of the United States. I believe this plan will do that, and this administration is committed to implementing it.
Thank you very much.
NOTE: The President spoke at 10:34 a.m. in Room
450 of the Old Executive Office Building. H.R.
2343, approved July 1, was assigned Public Law
No. 103-45.


Exchange With Reporters on Flooding in the Midwest
July 1, 1993


Q. What are you going to do to help the
people on the river, sir?
The President. That's what Secretary Espy and
I were just talking about. We don't have enough
money in the discretionary emergency fund to
meet the rather massive losses that a lot of
these farmers are facing. And so I expect he
will come to me with some legislation in the
fairly near future when we have a sense of what
the total dimension of the loss was in the corn
crop, the soybean crop, and what the other
problems are. And he is just briefing me now
on what he's seen and where we are. It's a
very, very serious thing for the farmers, though.
It's the most rain they've had in over 100 years.


Right?
Q. Have any idea what the loss would be,
I mean, in money?
The President. Well, he's going to brief me
as soon as he knows. I think we'll have to watch
it. The corn crop is very stunted because of
the rain, and this is soybean planting time and
coming to the end of it. So there's not a dramatic turnaround in conditions. You saw them
drain off the water during-[inaudible]-the
soybean crop on a lot of that land.
Q. So would there be a disaster declaration,
sir, at some point?
The President. We're going to work out exactly what we have to do. It appears that in


966




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 1


order to deal with the losses, we'll have to go
back to the Congress. I do not believe there
are sufficient funds in the discretionary emergency accounts that I have to deal with it. So
I think that we'll be going back. And as the
Secretary puts together the package, then obvi

ously he'll share it with you as soon as we know.
NOTE: The exchange began at approximately 11
a.m. in the Oval Office at the White House, during
a meeting with Secretary of Agriculture Mike
Espy. A tape was not available for verification of
the content of this exchange.


Remarks on the Swearing-In of National Drug Control Policy Director
Lee Brown
July 1, 1993


The President. Thank you very much. Thank
you. Please be seated, and welcome to the Rose
Garden. I want to acknowledge the presence
in our audience of Lee Brown's children; the
Attorney General; the Secretary of Transportation; the Secretary of Agriculture; General
Powell, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff; numerous other distinguished Americans;
and Members of Congress, including Senator
Hatch, Senator Dodd, Senator Cohen, Senator
Pressler, and Congressmen Rangel, Conyers,
Gilman, and Congresswoman Waters. I may
have left someone out, and Senator Kennedy
just called to say he was on the way. I think
that's all a great tribute to Lee Brown.
We are here today to install a uniquely qualified person to lead our Nation's effort in the
fight against illegal drugs and what they do to
our children, to our streets, and to our communities, and to do it for the first time from a
position sitting in the President's Cabinet. When
I named Lee Brown to head the Office of National Drug Control Policy, many called that
an inspired choice. I would say that is an accurate characterization because Lee Brown brings
three decades of experience in highest law enforcement offices in some of the toughest cities
in our country, New York and Houston and
Atlanta. I know if Mayor Dinkins were here
today he would want me to say a special word
of thanks for the unique partnership they enjoyed in a safe streets program, which clearly
lowered the crime rate in many neighborhoods
and many categories of crime in New York City.
Lee Brown's leadership in the cause of keeping our communities and citizens safe is unsurpassed, and now he must bring those skills and
all that experience to deal with the destructive


lure of illegal drugs. We know that successful
drug control does not take place in a vacuum.
This is a many-headed monster. Drugs violate
our borders when smugglers bring them in as
illegal cargo. Our jails are crowded, and our
court system is overloaded with users and dealers. Crime and violence are brought to communities large and small, and random drive-by
shootings and deliberate killings as well. Too
many young Americans are robbed of their future and many, many of their very lives.
For all those reasons, fighting drugs requires
a multifaceted offensive and the maximum use
of the resources we have as a people. That's
what we've been trying to do in this administration. With all the budget cuts and with a 5 -year hard freeze on overall domestic spending,
there's a 10 percent increase in the funds in
our budget for demand reduction and a dramatic increase in the funds available for community policing, as well as a clear commitment
to include drug treatment in the national health
care program that our administration will be
advancing in the near future.
But most important, we now will have an
effort that is coordinated as one, pulled together
and anchored by Lee Brown. No longer will
the Office of the Director of Drug Policy operate separately from the rest of the Government,
consigned just to being a bully pulpit. Now it
will work hand-in-hand with the other Cabinet
Agencies, and in doing so, our effectiveness will
be increased.
Our aim is to cut off the demand for drugs
at the knees through prevention. That means
more and better education, more treatment,
more rehabilitation. At the same time, we want
to strangle supplies by putting more officers on


967




July 1 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


the streets, by enforcing the law in our communities, at our Nation's borders, and by helping
our friends and allies to do the same thing beyond our borders. We pledge to work with other
nations who have shown the courage and the
political will to take on their own drug traffickers who destabilize their own societies and their
economies.
Our commitment to all these things is personified in Lee Brown. A tough guy might say
he's a drug trafficker's nightmare, a cop with
a doctorate or a doctor of criminology with a
badge. But the most important thing to me is
he's got a track record of results. How many
law enforcement officers in this country would
be proud to look on the record he has amassed
of actually reducing the rate of crime in the
streets where he has worked.
You know, the insecurity most Americans feel,
without regard to income or race, is a truly
appalling thing. And anything we can do not
only to give lives back to children who might
otherwise become involved in drugs but to give
the streets and the safety of the streets back
to ordinary American families of all kinds is
a service well done, and it might mean more
to them than anything else this Government
could produce during my tenure in office and
for the foreseeable future. The work that Lee
Brown did in pioneering community policing in
Houston and New York is now legendary, with
officers on foot patrol knowing their neighbors,
working to prevent crime as well as to catch
criminals.
This is a fight that surely can unite us all,
across the boundaries of party and race and
region and income. We are fighting for our families, our children, our communities, and our
future. Each and every American, make no mistake about it, also bears a personal responsibility
to play a role in this battle. Anyone who thinks
that Lee Brown or anyone else can solve this
problem for the American people, instead of
with the American people, has another think
coming. There are people in this audience today
whom I know have worked for decades to try
to help come to grips with this issue: parents
educating their children; teachers working hard
to prevent crime; law enforcement officers going
into the schools, working in programs like the
D.A.R.E. program; people who have worked in
drug treatment and know as I do, from our


own family's experience, that it works. All these
things are an important part of what we have
to do. Make no mistake about it: We've got
to try to get the streets back for our kids, too.
We ought to have a time in this country when
children don't have to be afraid to go down
to the neighborhood swimming pool in the summertime.
I am thankful that Lee Brown has taken on
this challenge. He'd made the decision to do
so at a time in his life when he might have
reasonably been expected, for personal and professional reasons, to take a different course. He
could clearly be making more money doing
something else; he could have far fewer headaches doing something else. He would not have
all of us investing so much of our hopes in
him if he were doing something else. The simple
fact that at this point in his life he resolved
to do this says a great deal about him and his
character.
I would like now to ask Judge Richard Watson
of the U.S. Court of International Trade to join
his friend Dr. Brown up here to administer the
oath of office, and I would like to invite-James
Watson, I'm sorry-and I'd like to invite Dr.
Brown's eldest daughter, Torri Clark, up here
to hold the Bible for her father.
[At this point, Judge Watson administered the
oath of office. Director Brown then thanked the
President and discussed his strategy to solve
America's drug problem.]
The President. Do you have any questions for
Dr. Brown?
Q. Mr. PresidentThe President. We'll take one or two. I just
had another press conference.
Q. Do you think an energy tax and small
business incentives
Q. Boo-o-o!
Q. should be non-negotiable items of a
budget package, which is equally important to
the economy as drug control?
The President. Well, we're going to pass a
good economic package. I feel confident about
that. And we're now trying to work out the
differences in the House and the Senate, and
I'll have more to say about that in a few days.
NOTE: The President spoke at 11:20 arm. in the
Rose Garden at the White House.


968




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 1


Remarks at a Meeting With Doug Luffborough and an Exchange With
Reporters
July 1, 1993


The President. Hello, everybody. Those of you
who travel with me regularly will, I think, recognize the young man on my right, Mr. Doug
Luffborough. He was the student speaker at
Northeastern University in Boston the other day.
This is his mother, whom I introduced from
the audience; got a big hand. He's here with
President John Curry of Northeastern and Senator John Kerry, his Senator. I invited him and
his mother to come visit me in the Oval Office,
so they didn't wait long to take me up on the
invitation. [Laughter] I'm glad to see them here
today.
You may remember also that he brought the
house down. He not only gave a great speech,
but he sang at the beginning of his speech.
I thought to myself, if I could sing like that
I wouldn't be giving speeches today. [Laughter]
Mr. Luffborough. Well, it was a wonderful
opportunity for me and a wonderful opportunity
for my family and especially for my mother.
I've been waiting for an opportunity like this,
and I'm just really thrilled. And I'm really glad
that Northeastern was the place you decided
to come. It's been a pleasure and an honor
to be here today. Thank you.
Q. Mr. President, what was it about Doug
that impressed you so much?
The President. First of all, that he had come
from such humble circumstances to go to college and to stay in college and that he had
made the most of it. He obviously never felt
sorry for himself. He obviously had a mother


who helped him to believe in himself, as many
others do. And the fact that his fellow students
picked him to be the spokesperson for their
class showed that they identified with the values
and the inner strength and drive that took him
to the success that he enjoys. I was very impressed. And I just thought it would be neat
if they could come down here and see me.
Vietnam
Q. Sir, what signal do you hope to send by
lifting U.S. opposition to international loans to
Vietnam?
The President. I haven't made an announcement on that. When I do, I'll be glad to discuss
it.
Iraq
Q. Mr. President, Tariq Aziz seems this afternoon to be holding out some type of an olive
branch, saying that Iraq will not avenge the attack the other day and also that he hopes for
better relations with your administration. What
response do you have, if any?
The President. I don't know. I need to be
briefed on what he said. But of course, they
shouldn't act in revenge. We have evidence that
what was done was wrong, and the United
States had to respond.
NOTE: The President spoke at 5:03 p.m. in the
Oval Office at the White House. A tape was not
available for verification of the content of these
remarks.


Letter to Congressional Leaders on Somalia
July 1, 1993


Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)
In my letter to you of June 10, 1993, regarding the deployment of U.S. Armed Forces to
Somalia, I reported on the deplorable June 5
attacks on United Nations Operation in Somalia
forces (UNOSOM II) instigated by one of Somalia's factional leaders. I also reported to you


that on June 6, 1993, the U.N. Security Council
adopted Resolution 837, which strongly condemned the unprovoked June 5 attacks that left
23 Pakistani peacekeepers dead. In addition, the
Security Council reemphasized the crucial importance of the disarmament of all Somali parties, and reaffirmed the Secretary General's au

969




July 1 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


thority under Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter
"to take all necessary measures against those
responsible for the armed attacks [of June 5],
including against those responsible for publicly
inciting such attacks, to establish the effective
authority of UNOSOM II throughout Somalia,
including to secure the investigation of their actions and their arrest and detention for prosecution, trial and punishment."
Since that time, the United Nations has acted
resolutely to restore order in Mogadishu and
to protect U.N. forces. These actions have ensured that the world community's crucial humanitarian efforts in Somalia and the national
reconciliation process in that country will continue to move forward. In view of these developments (in particular the role of U.S. Armed
Forces in the recent U.N.-led activities in Somalia), and because of my desire that the Congress
be kept fully informed regarding significant deployments of U.S. Armed Forces, I am providing
this supplement to my earlier report.
In planning appropriate measures to respond
to the violence and to implement the Security
Council's mandate, the United Nations was able
to draw upon the superb capabilities of the U.S.
Armed Forces that remained in Somalia following the transition to UNOSOM II. In addition
to the logistics and other support personnel assigned to UNOSOM II, the Quick Reaction
Forces (QRF)-under U.S. operational control-was available to assist UNOSOM II during
emergencies. At the height of the U.S.-led Unified Task Force (UNITAF) operations, just over
25,000 U.S. Armed Forces personnel were deployed to Somalia. Consistent with U.S. policy
objectives, the current smaller U.S. contribution
of approximately 4,400 personnel reflects the increased participation by other U.N. Member
States.
United States Armed Forces played an extremely important role in the successful efforts
of UNOSOM II to restore stability to the area
and to enable U.N. humanitarian operations in
Somalia to proceed. First, after determining that
the leadership of one of Somalia's factions had
planned and incited the June 5 attacks on U.N.
peacekeepers, UNOSOM II initiated air and
ground military operations in the early morning
hours of June 12. Primary targets included
weapons and ordnance caches and a radio facility that had been used to foment violence towards U.N. forces and opposition to implementation of the Security Council's humanitarian


mandate in Somalia. United States fixed-wing
and helicopter aircraft operating as part of the
QRF, in support of UNOSOM II, destroyed or
disabled those targets in a well-planned effort
consistent with the Security Council's disarmament objectives and the mandate to restore
security. United States forces sustained no casualties.
On June 17, the Special Representative of
the Secretary General, acting pursuant to Security Council Resolution 837, ordered the arrest
of General Mohammed Farah Aideed for alleged criminal acts against UNOSOM II peacekeeping forces on June 5. In addition,
UNOSOM II forces conducted further coordinated ground and air operations designed to
search, clear, and disarm the factional stronghold of General Aideed in south Mogadishu that
posed a continuing threat to U.N. operations.
Ground and aerial broadcasts warned civilians
to leave the area. Targets included weapons and
ammunition caches, command and control facilities, and defensive positions. Once again, the
U.S. QRF, in support of UNOSOM II, conducted air attacks, followed by search and clearing operations on the ground by non-U.S.
UNOSOM II military personnel. Only one U.S.
military member sustained minor injury, although there were several deaths and a number
of injuries among UNOSOM II forces from
other nations due to resistance by militia units
and sniper fire. Although Aideed has not yet
been arrested, the June 17 operation accomplished the objective of securing Aideed's
compound and neutralizing military capabilities
that had posed a major obstacle to U.N. efforts
to deliver humanitarian relief, facilitate political
reconciliation, and promote national reconstruction.
We now see renewed opportunity for
UNOSOM II to move forward steadily towards
fulfillment of the humanitarian mandate of the
Security Council that is shared by the world
community.   By   countering  the  lawless,
unprovoked violence against U.N. peacekeepers,
the United Nations has gone far towards preserving the credibility and security of peacekeeping forces in Somalia and throughout the world.
United States forces remain on guard along with
those of our U.N. partners to counter any
threats to the important U.N. mission in Somalia, should they arise.
As before, I remain committed to ensuring
that the Congress is kept fully informed on U.S.


970




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 1


peacekeeping contributions and the use of U.S.
Armed Forces for these vital purposes. I look
forward to continuing discussions and close cooperation with you on these and related issues.
Sincerely,


NOTE: Identical letters were sent to Thomas S.
Foley, Speaker of the House of Representatives,
and Robert C. Byrd, President pro tempore of
the Senate.


WILLIAM J. CLINTON
Statement on Germany's Reduction of Interest Rates
July 1, 1993


Today's news that Germany has cut interest
rates again is welcome news. With over 22 million people out of work in Europe, and our
economy at last beginning to create jobs again,
Germany's responsible fiscal and monetary actions could not have come at a more critical
time for both Europe and the United States.
It is also another sign that when America takes
the lead in cutting its deficit and getting interest
rates down we encourage other major nations
to follow our lead in spurring global growth.


By getting our house in order, we have facilitated pro-growth policies in Europe that mean
more demand for American products overseas
and more jobs and higher incomes for the
Americans who make those products here at
home.
Germany has taken an important step toward
improved growth, and I look forward to further
progress at the G-7 summit in Tokyo.
NOTE: Background information on European interest rates was attached to the statement.


Nomination for the Agency for International Development
July 1, 1993
The President announced today that he in-  ticularly with respect to Africa, Carol Lancaster
tends to nominate Carol Lancaster to be the  will bring a great deal to the management of
Deputy Administrator of the Agency for Inter-  AID," said the President. "I am grateful for
national Development, U.S. International Devel-  her service."
opment Cooperation Agency.                   NOTE: A biography of the nominee was made
"An expert in U.S. foreign aid policies, par-  available by the Office of the Press Secretary.
Nomination for Assistant Secretaries of the Navy
July 1, 1993
The President announced his choices for two  "They bring with them lifetimes of dedicated
top Navy posts today. He intends to nominate  service to their country and years of experience
Frederick F.Y. Pang to be Assistant Secretary  in shaping policies to keep our military the best
for Manpower and Reserve Affairs and Nora    in the world."
Slatkin to be Assistant Secretary for Acquisition.
"I am very glad to be adding these two people  NOTE: Biographies of the nominees were made
to my Navy team   today," said the President.  available by the Office of the Press Secretary.


971




July 1 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993
Nomination for an Assistant Secretary of Labor
July 1, 1993


The President announced his intention today
to nominate Joseph Dear, formerly director of
the State of Washington's Department of Labor
and Industries, to be the Assistant Secretary of
Labor for Occupational Safety and Health. In
that role, he will serve as the Administrator of
the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
"With his experience running a major State
agency regulating workplace safety and related
matters, Joseph Dear is an outstanding choice


for this important position," said the President.
"During his tenure in Washington, he turned
a deficit into a $350 million surplus in the workers' compensation budget. He established a
health care cost containment and quality assurance program and overhauled the workers' compensation system to save the taxpayers money
while increasing benefits to workers. That is the
kind of leadership I want to have at OSHA."
NOTE: A biography of the nominee was made
available by the Office of the Press Secretary.


Nomination for Posts at the Peace Corps
July 1, 1993


The President today announced his intention
to nominate former Peace Corps volunteer Carol
Bellamy, an attorney and former New York State
Senator and president of the New York City
Council, as Director of the Peace Corps. The
President also approved attorney Brian Sexton
as Peace Corps General Counsel.
"Throughout her career, Carol Bellamy has


achieved success in both the corporate world
and in her own initiatives to improve the lives
of those less fortunate," the President said. "I
am confident she will use her experience in
both of those areas to fulfill the important mission of the Peace Corps."
NOTE: Biographies of the nominees were made
available by the Office of the Press Secretary.


Statement by the Press Secretary on Assistance to Haiti
July 1, 1993


On June 25, 1993, the President signed Presidential Determination No. 93-28 on the Haiti
Reconstruction and Reconciliation Fund. The
determination, signed after careful consultation
with the relevant committees of the Congress,
waives legal restrictions on providing assistance
to Haiti in order to provide up to about $37.5
million from prior year Haiti foreign military
financing and development assistance funds and
from prior year Bolivia and Peru economic support and foreign military funds.
President Jean-Bertrand Aristide, who requested outside assistance, including for military
professionalization, in a letter to the U.N. and


OAS Secretaries-General, has indicated his
agreement with these broad objectives.
This assistance package is designed to support
negotiations to restore democracy to Haiti and
the implementation of a phased political solution. Disbursement will be carefully timed to
support the negotiations and respond to concrete progress toward restoring democracy. The
Department of State is notifying the relevant
committees of its intention to carry out the
reprogrammings this Presidential determination
authorizes and will consult further with the Congress on the military assistance component of
this assistance package.


972






Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 2


Our current aid program in Haiti of $52 million consists solely of humanitarian assistance,
feeding and health activities, funneled through
nongovernmental organizations. The new assistance package would provide continued support
for the U.NJOAS International Civilian Mission
($10 million), which monitors human rights in
Haiti; economic support and stabilization once
the democratic government of President Aristide
is restored (up to about $12.7 million); the beginning of an administration of justice program


to strengthen democratic institutions such as the
Justice Ministry ($3 million), and including the
creation and training of a new civilian police
force ($4 million) as well as a modest, nonlethal
military professionalization program to reduce its
size and train it to address the needs of Haiti's
society and missions set forth in Haiti's Constitution, particularly civic action, engineering, disaster relief, and coastal patrol (about $2.1 million).
NOTE: The Presidential determination is listed in
Appendix D at the end of this volume.


Remarks Announcing the Defense Conversion Plan and an Exchange With
Reporters
July 2, 1993


The President. Good morning. On Monday,
I leave for Tokyo for the C-7 summit, where
the world's leading economic powers will seek
to build a new era of global growth.
While international summits were once dominated by the drama of the cold war confrontation, today we compete in a quieter field, the
world of global economic competition. Now that
the cold war is over, we see the opportunity
around the world and in this country to reduce
defense spending rather dramatically and to devote our attention to rebuilding our country here
at home. But we know now clearly, since defense has been coming down since 1987, that
this is not an unmixed blessing in the short
run for Americans here at home.
Among other things, reduced defense spending means reduced spending on defense contracts. And people, therefore, who work in defense plants are affected by it. And it is impossible to reduce the number of men and women
in the armed services without an appropriate
reduction in the base structure of the United
States at home and abroad.
That is the difficult and painful, but important
work the base closing commission has had to
do. I have received their latest report, and I
have decided to forward that report on to Congress. As I transmit that report to Congress,
I am ordering an unprecedented Federal effort
in the form of a new five-point program to
ensure that when we close these bases we also
open a new and brighter economic future for


the affected workers and their communities.
And this week my administration announced
that we were going to shut down not only the
bases implied in the base closing commission,
but also some 90 bases overseas, to be fair and
also because our interests are served by that.
These five points are as follows: First, we
will provide an average grant of a million dollars
to each community affected by a major base
closing. Second, we will establish for the first
time a single Federal coordinator for each community so that all the resources and opportunities that attend this reconstruction effort can
be made available as quickly as possible. Third,
we will establish a fast-track cleanup program
for environmental problems. This has been an
enormous problem in the past in trying to move
bases to commercial uses. Fourth, we will establish a fast-tract disposal of Federal property emphasizing those uses most likely to create new
jobs for the communities affected by base closings. And finally, we will have a coordinated
effort to pool all Federal resources giving all
the affected communities easier access to Federal assistance. Compared to the past, we will
respond more quickly, cut redtape more aggressively, and mobilize resources more assertively
to help these communities so that when they
lose their bases they do not lose their future.
In the past, base closings forced communities
to cope with a jarring economic upheaval without tools or resources. Many bases were heavily
polluted, the cleanup seemed to take forever.


973






July 2 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


Redtape and bureaucracy frustrated local officials when they sought help. And people in the
community saw an employer of thousands turn
into a destroyer of economic security. For communities from coast to coast affected by base
closings, the Federal Government will now work
aggressively to help these patriotic citizens,
cities, and towns prosper. We will help them
to use their valuable assets as engines of economic growth.
This Governmentwide effort will cost over $5
billion in the next 5 years. We will respond
rapidly and spend money more wisely. Let me
give you one vivid example of this new approach. Current law actually requires the Federal Government to charge communities full
price for these closed bases if they are used
for job creation and economic development. But
the Government could give away a base for free
for recreational uses. That gets it backwards.
I believe if a community has pulled together
and produced a real plan for job creation and
economic growth, the Federal Government must
pitch in by giving that base to the community
at a discount or, in some cases, even for free.
Today I am directing the Department of Defense and the National Economic Council to
write a legislative proposal within 90 days allowing us to give job creation and economic development the highest priority in the disposition
of these assets. This law will be a sizable commitment by the Federal Government. These
bases are worth, in some instances, hundreds
of millions of dollars. But it's the least we can
do for the communities and the people who
supported our troops.
To avoid bureaucratic confusion, one week
from now we will appoint a team of transition
coordinators, senior military personnel who will
slash redtape and untangle bureaucracy to help
these communities. Cleanup will proceed faster
than before. We've increased the size of planning grants to help communities map out their
future. And a creative worker training program
will visit the bases within the next 2 weeks to
let workers know of their opportunities.
Even with all these aggressive efforts the closing of a military base, as with any large employer, will inevitably be traumatic for the host
community. And I cannot promise that every
job will be saved. But this will be a great test
for our Nation. Over the past 50 years these
communities have literally hosted millions of
American men and women in uniform who were


defending our freedom. When we needed them,
these cities and towns did their duty. When
they need us today, we can do no less. And
I am confident that we will be able to make
dramatic progress.
I'd like now to introduce the Defense Secretary to make a couple of remarks. I see you
raising your hands. We have four other Secretaries who have briefings to give, but after Secretary Aspin speaks, I will take a couple of questions on this subject. You'll have access to me
I think later on other matters, but on this subject I will take a couple of questions. But I
would like the Secretary of Defense to speak
first.
[At this point, Secretary Les Aspin outlined the
defense conversion program.]
The President. Let me make two other quick
comments, and then I'll take a couple questions.
This is one program that I think will benefit
from the fact that I was a Governor who managed a base closing from the other end before
we went through this. I have had experience
with every single problem that this five-point
program seeks to address, working with a major
base closing that occurred along the Mississippi
River in a county that had double-digit employment at the time the base closing was announced. And I believe this is a very practical
program that will have a huge practical difference in the lives of these communities, based
on my personal experience on the receiving end
of the base closing.
The second thing I want to say is, because
I won't be here when they speak, is this group
of Cabinet officers was here-we had a different
group yesterday when we announced our program for the Pacific Northwest. It will make
a big difference for people in these communities. Keep in mind a lot of these people have
only dealt-the only thing they know about the
Federal Government is the Defense Department
and the bases. They have never dealt with the
Labor Department, the EPA, HUD, Transportation, and Commerce. They don't understand
how to deal with all these folks at once. And
the fact that we're going to make it possible
for them to access the resources of all these
Departments at one time and through one person will be a huge boon. It's difficult enough
for all of you to figure out your way through
the maze of the Federal Government. For a
lot of these folks it is an unending nightmare


974




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 2


and a practical impossibility. So I did want to
make those two points.
Yes, in the back. You had your hand up first.
Go ahead.
Defense Conversion Plan
Q. Mr. President, when you go to Asia, how
do you plan to alleviate concerns that these closings might restrict the forward basing of air and
sea forces?
The President. Well, I plan to make clear
statements about our commitment to Asia and
our involvement in Asia, in both Japan and
Korea. And I think that we will clearly be able
to do that, and it will be more explicit when
the Secretary of Defense finishes his review.
Q. Will you address the forward basing question, sir?
The President. Yes. Go ahead.
Q. Mr. President, if this is all new money,
this $5 billion, and not reprogrammed money,
how do you expect to get it from Congress in
this budget climate? Your stimulus package got
killed. Everything else has been watered down.
There isn't money available.
The President. First of all, I think events will
prove that I was right to ask for the jobs package.
Q. Such as today's unemployment numbers?
The President. We can't discuss that yet. It's
not 9:30 a.m. [Laughter] But that's not the
point. You can't tell anything from the month's
figures anyway. This thing is moving forward
in fits and starts, and we're doing a pretty good
job of creating jobs, the American economy is
now. But the global economy dictates a more
aggressive response at this moment from America.
But the reason I think that this will work
is I think, first of all, it's a 5-year program.
Secondly, keep in mind, we had allocated in
the budget, as you remember when we went
to the Westinghouse plant, some $20 billion over
5 years that could be used for the total aggregate amount of defense conversion. And some
of that money was counted in this. But we allocated another $2 billion to environmental cleanup because that's a huge deal. We can move
these bases in a hurry if we can figure out
who's responsible for the environmental cleanup
and then get about doing it. So, the details
can be answered.
I believe the Congress will support this, because I think there's enormous bipartisan under

standing that you simply cannot take this away
from communities without reinvesting something
in them. And if it is a net savings to the Government over the long run, we have to invest something back to justify the cut.
Q. How much will you take?
The President. Secretary Aspin knows the
number.
Job Creation
Q. Military downsizing in general is getting
the blame for the higher unemployment figures
which were released an hour ago. Do you worry
that you're losing the battle on a broader scale
on trying to create jobs?
The President. Well, I think that-let me repeat, there are two things at work here. In any
given month, military downsizing-and keep in
mind, these decisions we're announcing today
will have an impact on the economy a year
and a half, 2 years from now, some of them
even longer than that, some of them 3 years
from now, the base closing commission's recommendations today. So we're giving some advance planning time on that. The military cutbacks that are manifesting themselves in this
unemployment rate were based on decisions
made a couple of years ago.
Again, I will say you've got two things at
work there. Because of the size of the deficit,
we are not reinvesting as much as I think we
should be reinvesting to generate jobs here at
home. But the larger problem is that two-thirds
of our jobs in the last 5 years have been generated, or new jobs, have been generated
through exports. And with Europe down and
Japan down-we've got Europe with the lowest
economic growth in 20 years and Japan with
the lowest economic growth in longer than that,
more than three decades. That's why I'm going
to the G-7. Because if we don't find a way
for all of us to do things together, it's going
to be difficult to sustain jobs.
Now, notwithstanding, the country has produced a substantial number of new jobs in the
first 5 months of this year. We're so far behind
in coming out of the recession that it's going
to be difficult to do unless we can have a global
strategy of growth so we can start getting some
jobs out of exports again.
Q. What is the economic impact of this overall base closing? You said that you can't guarantee that everybody will get a job. How may
people do you-I mean, do you have any esti

975




July 2 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


mate of how many people are thrown out of
work?
The President. Well, let me say this. What
I can tell you based on my personal experience
with this is that you've got a lot of very creative,
innovative people out there in these communities. And some of these bases have been rumored about now for a couple of years. So in
a lot of these communities, as a practical matter,
you've had the community leaders out there
imagining the worst for a long time, thinking
about what they might do, wondering about
what they will have to do if something like this
happens. I am confident, again based on my
personal experience, if we correct the problems
and create the opportunities that are embodied
in this five-point program, you're going to see
a lot of economic growth.
And let me say, the traditional economic analysis is that you can create the same number
of jobs in the commercial domestic sector that
we create in defense for roughly half the investment. So that if we can get a combination of
public effort now and private investment later,
we might wind up creating more jobs in some
of these communities. Some of these communities, I think, you've got enormous resources
out there in these bases, and they'll create more
jobs. The only thing I want to say is I don't
want to over-promise because I can't foresee
the next 5 years with any kind of precision.
I just know that this program is going to help
these people a lot more than anything that's
been done since we started defense downsizing.
President's Tie
Q. On the 0-7, as you're about to head offInterview With Foreign Journalists
July 2, 1993
Economic Summit
Q. What do you expect to be accomplished
out of Tokyo summit? And what special roles
do you see Japan can play in areas beyond economic constitution in-[inaudible] —of global
partners with the United States?
The President. First, let me say I think the
G-7 meeting will be a very important opportunity for the leaders of the major industrialized


by the way, that's a very nice tie. [Laughter]
I wish the American public could see that tie.
[Laughter]
The President. This was designed by a 12 -year-old. It's a Save the Children tie.
Q. I remember when you spoke about Gene's
ties.
Q. Do you want this one?
Q. No, I don't want it.
The President. If it weren't a gift, I would
give it to you.
Trade With Japan
Q. Is there any prospect of an agreement
with Japan on trade during this 0-7 summit?
The President. I don't think I should raise
any expectations of that just because it's difficult
for us to predict now what will happen. I can
tell you this: We're going to keep talking to
them, and in the end we're going to get this
worked out. I think that the changes now going
on in Japan over the long run are going to
be good for the Japanese people and good for
the American people. It may be painful for them
now, but a democracy is an uneven and inexact
process. I think that we are moving toward a
greater integration of the global economy in
ways that will be good for them and good for
us. That's what I believe. But this is a transition
period for them, and agreements are always
more difficult in transition periods.
I'm sorry, I have to go. We have to finish
this.
NOTE: The President spoke at 9:15 a.m. in the
Briefing Room at the White House.


countries of the world to reaffirm their commitment to global growth, to democracy, and to
security concerns. I believe there will be serious
discussions about three issues on the economic
front, one really perhaps for the first time.
The first is that I think there will be a real
discussion about how we can coordinate our
economic policies in ways that will produce
growth. From the first week I was in office,
we have spent a lot of time working through


976






Administration of WilliamJ. Clinton, 1993 / July 2


the finance ministers, the foreign ministers, and
others to talk about how we can coordinate our
strategies. For many years, other nations have
asked the United States, for example, to lower
the budget deficit. And we're working very hard
on that, first through this $500 billion deficit
reduction program that has now been passed
by both Houses of our Congress, then through
taking on a health care problem which is the
biggest source of our growing deficit. And we
need to make sure we are coordinating those
policies with things which will produce an overall higher level of growth than we now have.
It's a big problem for the United States, because
two-thirds of the new jobs we've created here
in the last 5 years have come from increased
trade with other nations. So if Europe is down
economically, if Japan is down economically, it's
hard for us to do well here. So I think there
will be that.
The second issue I think that we will discuss
and, I hope, make some genuine progress on,
creating a more open trading system and increasing the chances that we can successfully
conclude GATT by the end of the year.
The third thing that I hope to see a very
serious discussion on is the microeconomic policies of each of our nations and how we can
all do a better job of creating jobs within our
economy. Even Japan, with its very low unemployment rate by western standards, is having
some trouble now creating new jobs. But it's
a very big problem for the United States and
for every other country represented around this
room today.
And I think that increasingly in a global economy, national policy will have to focus on what
the economists call microeconomic policies:
What kind of labor support systems do you have;
what kind of education and training systems do
you have; how do you target investment to create jobs? The west, and increasingly Japan, are
having difficulty creating new jobs, even in times
of economic growth.
It's quite interesting. If you trace the last 6
or 7 years you can see that in all the western
nations, even when there is growth, there is
some trouble creating new jobs. So I think that
this will all be-we'll deal with this, and I hope
in a very informal and forthright atmosphere.
It will be an interesting summit, because
there will be several of the people there attending their very first one, first C-7, all at the
same time.


The second point you made about Japan's role
in the world, I'm going to do what I can while
in Japan to strengthen the bilateral relationship
between the United States and Japan. In many,
many ways it is our most significant bilateral
relationship and the key to what happens between the United States and Asia. It's interesting, even though we have incredibly important
ties to Europe, economic ties, we have a huge40 percent of our trade is now with the Pacific.
It accounts for almost 21/2 million jobs in America, trade with the Pacific. So it's a big issue.
And we have major security concerns, as you
know, with regard to Japan and with Korea.
So I'm very hopeful that even though Japan
is going through a period of political transition,
which I hope the Japanese people will view with
excitement and interest, not with too much concern, this is a normal thing for a democracy.
And periodically you go through these periods
of significant change, and I view it as a positive
thing for a great country. I think it will leave
you stronger and in a better position in the
world. So I hope we will discuss a lot of our
bilateral economic as well as strategic concerns
there. And I hope that when I leave Japan,
our relationship will be even stronger than it
is when I enter.
NAFTA
Q. Mr. President, there was a court decision
this week that's a roadblock to ratification of
the NAFTA agreement. Your administration has
said that you will go ahead, but you don't appear
to have a lot of wiggle room in Congress on
some of your other economic initiatives. And
I'm wondering, first of all, how you're going
to ensure the passage of NAFTA. And secondly,
on the eve of the summit, this raises the whole
issue of the conflict between environmental concerns and economic growth, and whether it's
drift nets in the Pacific or toxic waste in Mexico
or the whole problem of aid to the former Soviet Union, that conflict between the environment and economic growth underlies a lot of
these issues. And I'm wondering how you see
reconciling those issues at the C-7.
The President. Let me mention the NAFTA
first and then I'll answer the larger question.
First, on the narrow issue of the lawsuit, we
announced within an hour after the court's decision that we would appeal. And we believe we
can win an appeal, and we can win it within
the appropriate time. There may also be some


977




I II __


July 2 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


other avenues which will permit us to do some
kind of environmental impact statement and still
meet the time limit.
There is a strong opposition to the agreement
in some quarters in the United States, and the
relative economic problems that we all face now
make that more difficult. That is, when unemployment is up and growth is down, people are
more insecure. It makes some in Europe less
enthusiastic about the GATT now. It's the same
reason-it's just-a part of it is almost endemic
to the human condition.
I do think we have the votes to pass NAFTA
in the United States Senate. And I think thatand we do not have today the votes to pass
it in the United States House. But I think we
can get the votes to pass it essentially by doing
three things:
First of all, by successfully concluding the
agreements now subject to negotiation between
Canada and Mexico and the United States to
strengthen our common efforts at lifting labor
standards and environmental quality, particularly
along the Rio Grande River, which has been
a huge problem.
And I should say by way of background for
the rest of you, the reason the labor standards
issue is so big is that there was a report issued
in this country last year that indicated that the
Caribbean Basin Initiative of the United States,
where we tried to get investment in Caribbean
countries and put plants down there, had not
led to increasing the per capita incomes of the
people working in those businesses; that because
the people were so poor, that a lot of the people
who had taken the money that the United States
Government had put out had still depressed
their wages and increased their profits. So we've
given some thought to this labor standards issue
here and the environmental issue. So I think
if we get those agreements that will help.
The second thing that will help is if-we have
to just make the case, you know. Now when
we have an agreement, it's a lot easier to defend
the jobs argument. Right now there's a simple
argument against NAFTA being waged by, articulated by Mr. Perot in this country and others, that you can't make a trade agreement that
takes down all the barriers with a country on
your border with a per capita income that's only
one-eighth as much as yours is. Everybody will
take their money and invest in the other country. Well, it has great superficial appeal, but
the truth is that anybody who wants to go to


Mexico and invest their money for low wages
can do so today. But the market opening measures that have been taken by President Salinas
in the last few years have led the United States
from a $5 billion trade deficit to a $6 billion
trade surplus with Mexico. Mexico is now our
second biggest purchaser-manufacturer. And
we are in effect-because Canada, as you know,
is our biggest trade partner-we are now building this hemispheric economic bloc that we
want. And so I think we can refute it on the
merits.
The third thing we have to do is ask the
economists to consider what will happen if we
do not pass the trade agreement. Our relationships with Canada are secure, and we have a
bilateral agreement, and that's fine. But we
could go back in our relationships with Mexico,
which would mean economic problems for Mexico, more trade barriers, fewer jobs in America,
more illegal immigration. A lot of problems
could develop for the United States if we do
not do the NAFTA.
I think when those three things become crystal clear, we will prevail there.
Now on the larger issue, there is no easy
or simple answer to the conflict between the
environment and the economy in any of our
countries individually or in the globe as a whole.
However, I believe that our goal ought to be
to find ways to make preserving the environment good economics.
At the Rio conference last year, Japan, Germany, and many other European countries were
proving that you could do that because they
were down there promoting environmental technology while the United States was trying to
stop the environmental agreements. I think that
our country was not as wise as many of the
nations here represented in the way they approached the Rio conference. We have now
signed on, the United States has, to the
Biodiversity Treaty. And we have basically
adopted a policy of long-term environmental
preservation with an aggressive effort to figure
out how to make jobs and incomes and prosperity flow out of that. And I believe that there
are lots of opportunities to do that.
If I might just mention one, our bilateral aid
package to Russia that is now making its way
to the Congress focuses heavily on what we can
do with our technology to help them to reduce
the problems that their nuclear industry-and
not simply their bombs but their nuclear power


978




_ ___1___ _s____________lll____1____1_11_1_


Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 2


plants, for example-present to them, and what
else we can do in the area of energy and the
environment to help to clean up their environment in ways that are good for their economy
and good for ours. So I think there's a lot of
opportunity there.
GATT and the G-7
Q. You just said in the beginning, Mr. President, that you hoped that Tokyo would, and
I quote you, increase the chances of successfully
concluding a Uruguay round by the end of the
year. Can I turn that around and say do you
think that a failure to do that would seriously
jeopardize the whole G-7 process as it currently
exists?
The President. Well, there are lots of other
nations involved in the Uruguay round apart
from the G-7. That was one point that Prime
Minister Balladur made to me in our meeting
here.
But I think that our job is to lead. And I
know it is difficult to lead when you have troubles yourself. All of us have economic troubles.
All of us, to a greater or lesser extent, have
some political conflict within our countries. But
I think that it is very important-and almost
to change the atmosphere and the attitudes of
the peoples of the G-7. Yes, we're having economic trouble. And the fact that we're all having
it should be some indication that there is some
sort of historic change going on here and not
that there's some character flaw in our people
or some great mental breakdown in our countries or something else. This is a tidal wave
of global change going on here. But look at
the resources we have: We have innovative work
forces; we have great bases of technology; we
have an understanding of how the world works
economically. And I think we have within our
power the means to move forward and break
out of this problem we're in but only if we
have the courage to keep changing.
And so I would say, to try to answer your
question directly, there have been debates for
years about whether the G-7 process accomplishes anything. But if nothing else, if we can
agree among ourselves to take an expansive view
of the future and to talk about the strengths
of our nations and to recognize that there are
only three ways to grow our economies. One
is through the changes we make internally, the
microeconomic changes; the other is through coordinating our larger macroeconomic policies;


and the last is through creating a more open
system of trade so that there is global growth.
It's hard for the wealthy countries to grow
wealthier unless the people below us are getting
wealthier and can buy more of our products.
It's not a zero-sum game. And so I feel very
strongly that we ought to come out of the G7 with a more vigorous commitment to get the
Uruguay round done.
Now let me just say what I have done in
that regard. I have repeatedly said that the United States would bend over backwards to get
that done this year, that there are changes that
we would like to make. When the G-7 finance
ministers and central bank heads were here not
very long ago at Blair House across the street,
I went over and personally met with all of them
and reaffirmed my commitment to this. So I
don't know what else I can do, except that I
think a lot of this is a matter of attitude. We
have to try to lift our own visions and lift the
spirits of our people and realize that when
you're in difficulty, the worst thing you can do
is to hunker down, to withdraw.
When you have difficulties like this with a
fundamentally sound system, the time is to
change, to be innovative, to be creative, and
to reach out. And I think that's what we've
got to begin to do at the G-7. The tone, the
atmosphere, the ideas that are discussed in that
sense may be far more important than anything
specific that comes out of the communique.
What direction are we going to take the world
in?
Global Economy
Q. Mr. President, nobody seems to be happy
with the G-7 process, not to mention the results. I wonder if you could define for uselaborate on what you just said-that the purpose of the G-7 in today's world and tell us
what you would like to change.
The President. Well, I don't want to be too
presumptuous, since I've never attended one before. I've only read about them before. You
know, I always followed them very closely. But
what we are striving for-I think the other leaders agree with me, including those like Chancellor Kohl, who's been to many of these. My
own view is there ought to be enough time
at these G-7 meetings for a serious discussion
among the leaders without a lot of bureaucratic
procedures and rules and regulations about
these big issues. What about the crisis in the


979




July 2 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


wealthy countries creating jobs? What can we
do to create more jobs? How do you explain
the fact that France, for example-let's take
France. France had a productivity growth rate
that was the highest in Europe in some of the
years of the late eighties and still had relatively
high unemployment. The United States, which
has far fewer labor supports than most of the
European countries do, still has difficulty getting
its unemployment rate below 7 percent. We're
well into 2 years after the worst of our recession,
and yet we are 3 million jobs behind where
we would ordinarily be at this point after a
recession.
We should discuss these things, and we
should think about whether we can learn things
from one another about how to create jobs in
the west. We should be able to really talk
through very frankly what the political and other
economic barriers are to getting the GATT done
and really think about it and talk about it. It's
far more important than what's in the specific
words of the communique, whether we come
out of there with some sort of commitment to
do something, to take action, and to move.
And finally, I think we ought to really focus
on how our individual economic strategies may
not work as well unless we are coordinated.
Let me just give you one example. I'm trying
to do something that our country has not done
before. We are trying to dramatically cut our
Government deficit at a time when our economic growth is slow. Traditional economic theory would say if you have a sluggish economy,
you don't cut spending and raise taxes; you
might do the reverse, right? Why am I trying
to do that? Because we're in a global economy,
and the United States deficit caused an imbalance in the global economy, okay? But now,
this can work for us for a while just on our
own, because we had so much debt in the
1980's accumulated at high interest rates, by
bringing down the deficit, interest rates in
America have dropped very low. So businesses
and homeowners are going out now and refinancing their debt, and that puts a lot of new
money into our economy. So I can get a little
bit of growth just on what we do here. But
in the end, this will only work if there is an
expansionary policy in Japan, if Europe is able
to resume a higher level of growth so that the
system is brought into balance, because what
we do has a complementary action in the rest
of the G-7.


So these are the things, it seems to me, that
really matter. And that's why I think these 0 -7 meetings can really make a difference. But
I think that if we get all hung up on-you
know, we all have to have these prepared statements, and we're afraid we're going to say one
word out of the way or make one little mistake
which makes- a huge headline in some country.
And then we've got to have every little word
right in these communiques. I think that's justthat takes a lot of time and energy away from
what we should be doing, which is focusing on
how we can make the lives of our people better
and fulfill our responsibilities as leaders of the
world.
U.S. Leadership
Q. Mr. President, you said earlier, speaking
of C-7 leaders, that their job is to lead. Yet
there's a broad perception that there is real friction and misunderstanding and doubts about
U.S. willingness to lead, not only in the JapanU.S. relationship, but in the U.S.-European relationship. Why has this happened and what can
you do at the summit to clarify U.S. goals and
reassure U.S. allies?
The President. Well, let me first of all take
issue with you-I mean, not the perception.
The other nations of the world have asked
the United States for years and years and years
internally to do one thing. The only thing they
ever asked of us internally was to do something
about our budget deficit, which caused a significant imbalance in the global economic relations.
I read about it for years before I became President. And we're doing that, and it is very tough
to do in tough economic times. And we're going
to wind up with a very tough deficit reduction
plan that we believe is good for our economy
over the long run. And it's not been easy to
do, but we are doing that.
Secondly, the major crisis this world has faced
since I've been President, I think, was what
would happen to democracy in Russia. And
when it became apparent that democracy was
in trouble in Russia because of what was happening with President Yeltsin, I immediately
publicly supported him. I called every other
leader in the G-7 and many others around the
world and asked for people to support him. We
all did. And I think that we had something to
do with the outcome of events there.
I announced a $1.6 billion aid package to
Russia, and we have now, by the way, obligated


980




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 2


well over half of that money. And then I announced another $1.8 billion bilateral aid package to Russia which passed the House of Representatives with 75 percent of the vote almost
last week, bipartisan support. It's going to fly
through the Senate. The IMF gave their first
installment, $1.5 billion, to Russia the day before
yesterday, and we're going to discuss that at
the G-7 summit. I think-and that's a huge
potential market for all of us and a major political issue. And I think that is the big issue we
have faced, and I think we've done it very, very
well.
Now, the only point of contention between
us that I can see-we'll come back to the Japanese issue; you asked that and I haven't forgotten-but the only-in Europe is that we have
not agreed entirely on how to handle Bosnia,
although we've done a lot of work together.
The United States has spent almost $300 million
in humanitarian assistance. We have strongly enforced and pushed for tougher sanctions and
embargoes on Serbia. We believe and the Germans believe the arms embargo ought to be
lifted on Bosnia. France and Britain and Russia
disagree. I understand that. But that doesn't
mean we can't do anything together. We are
trying to work together. And this, I think everyone would admit, is the most difficult international problem that we face. I'm still hopeful
that something humane, decent, and politically
reasonable will emerge from this process before
it's too late. But we all have a disagreement
on that, and I'm sorry we do. But we can't
agree on everything. And this is a very difficult
problem. I still think I was right about what
was the best course. I think events subsequent
to the Athens meeting prove that beyond question. But nonetheless, I don't think that's a reason for us to give up on the European alliance,
give up on NATO, give up on the G-7. This
is a tough problem.
With regard to Japan, I think everyone who
has looked at the problem seriously thought
there would have to be some realignment in
our trade relations. And I think we're going
to work that out. But there are lots of other
things we have in common. Japan has supported
the United States, and the United States has
supported Japan in the things we've done to
support democracy all over the world. Our security relationship is very strong. I intend to reaffirm my commitment to that when I'm in Japan,
and my commitment to Korea and to Asia gen

erally when I'm in Korea.
So I think a lot of this-let me-if I might,
a lot of this uncertainty in Europe, particularly,
is a function of two things. One is the economic
problems that we all have which make people
always just more insecure. And two is, I've only
been President 5 months. And we have a new
Government in France. We have a new Government in Italy. We have a new Government in
Canada. And so a lot of these folks, we don't
all know each other. And I think when people
don't know each other, there is always a-but
you're trying to get to know one another-there
is the temptation to take whatever incident is
in the moment and reach some huge encyclopedia of meaning in it, which may or may not
be accurate.
So I think a lot of these things that you're
talking about will be taken care of by meetings
like this, by trips like this, and by constant working together. I will say-but every opportunity
I've had to work with the other European leaders has been satisfactory. I had good cooperation
between the United States and Italy, for example, when we were trying to reinforce the security of the U.N. forces within Bosnia, because
the U.S. is committed to defend them if they're
attacked, and everybody knows that. So I'm just
a lot more hopeful about this than I think some
are. I think a lot of this is just a function of
economic difficulties and new players who don't
really know each other thoroughly yet.
GATT and Resolution of Trade Issues
Q. Mr. President, if I may go back to trade,
I would like to know what do you say to the
French, who have decided that they won't sign
anything regarding GATT at the Tokyo summit
up until the United States lifted or the Department of Commerce lifted the sanctions of steel,
and we insisted that the United States accept
the principle of multilateral mechanism to solve
commercial conflicts.
The President. Well, those are two different
issues. First of all, the action that was taken
on steel was taken after a lot of deliberation,
most of which was done before I became President, subsequent to United States law, which
is clearly GAIT-consistent. So, I think, you
know, if the belief is that the United States
has been wrong on the facts, then we can discuss the facts. But there is nothing wrong with
our law, and it's not that different from the
laws of a lot of other countries that are part


981




July 2 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


of the world trading system.
Secondly, with regard to the trading mechanism, I have no problem with a multilateral
mechanism to enforce trading agreements. But
the GATT clearly contemplates that every country in the world, including France, should have
the right to act in its own interest if the international system breaks down, which is not to
say that you lose some rulings. But if there
is no resolution of a crisis, the international system breaks down. All our Section 301 trade
law does is to provide for some ultimate reservoir of authority for the United States to act
unilaterally if the system itself breaks down. If
France, for example, would like to propose a
stronger multilateral decisionmaking process as
a part of GATT before any country could act
on its own, I would be more than happy to
discuss that.
I do not see this Section 301 as giving the
United States the authority, for example, to decide on its own about all these trade agreements
and how they affect us without regard to what
other countries want to do. That is not at all
the way it is supposed to operate. It's supposed
to operate only against countries that are not
part of trading agreements at all, so we don't
have a trade-countries with whom we have no
multilateral agreements, or when there is a total
breakdown of the GAFT system in this case.
Germany's Interest Rate Reduction
Q. Mr. President, you raised today for the
first time, I think, the question and the very
important question of the structural impediments to growth. And so far you have and your
Government has somehow created the impression that Europe and the difficulties in creating
jobs should be loaded at the doorsteps of the
Bundesbank. And yesterday you even said,
"Well, this is a contribution to global growth."
And you raised the expectation and the-that
it was just a cyclical problem. Now, why didn't
you come out before with this very strong statement that you are looking for structural impediments, that the G-7 should concentrate on
doing away with structural barriers instead of
pushing all the time the micro question-the
macro question, excuse me?
The President. Well, first let me say that I
have not criticized Germany in the past, but
I have complimented them when the
Bundesbank has lowered interest rates. [Laughter]


Q. But maybe for different reasons.
The President. And I know that because I
realize that, first of all, all nations with independent central banks-and the United States
has one, too; that is, the Federal Reserve-independent of the-all nations that have independent central banks are very sensitive about political leaders from within the nation telling them
what to do and even more sensitive to suggestions from political leaders outside the nation's
borders. And so what I have attempted to do
is to say repeatedly, ever since I became President, that I thought that the extent to which
we could coordinate the economic policies with
Germany and the rest of Europe, and Japan,
that that was a good thing. Coordinated economic policies for growth, and expanded trade,
and smarter internal, microeconomic policies
were all necessary to create jobs and growth
in the world.
And when Germany-when the interest rates
were lower a couple of days ago, I did applaud
that because I think it makes a contribution
to growth. But I think-and the only reason
that I-and I have done it not to be presumptuous but only to say that the United States
was asked for years by its allies to deal with
our budget deficit. We are now doing that, and
we are getting the results that we hoped we
would. We have a 20 year low in long-term
interest rates, in home mortgage rates. We've
had a 6 year high in housing sales. It's tailing
off a little now but good housing sales. We've
created more construction jobs in the first 4
months of this year than in any similar period
for 9 years.
And the point I'm trying to make here is
that there is a limit to what we can do for
ourselves, and therefore what we can do for
Europe and Japan in terms of buying more of
your exports, unless all of us work together to
promote growth. And obviously, because of the
sheer size of the German economy and the
power of Germany as an exporter, the condition
of the German economy is critical to what happens to Americans. And you've had a very open
trading philosophy. So I thought it was a positive
thing, and I thought I should compliment it.
But I think it's a delicate thing to talk about,
because all of us who have ever suffered from
runaway inflation have appreciated some measure of independence in our central banks. And
yet all of us know that if the central banks
are entirely insensitive to the economic growth


982




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 2


needs of the country, we can't coordinate the
strategy. So it's a delicate matter. And I don't
wish to be seen as interfering, but I think when
a bank does something that's clearly a plus for
the German people and for all the rest of the
world, it's not wrong for an American President
to compliment it.
NOTE: The interview began at 10:45 a.m. in the
Oval Office at the White House. Journalists parInterview With Foreign Journalists
July 2, 1993
Economic Summit and GATT
Q. Mr. President, I want, first of all, to thank
you very much for this opportunity that, let me
tell you, we have not had for several years. So,
I thank you.
And first of all I want to ask you, this Tokyo
trip, it's for you the first appearance on the
international scene. But at the same time, the
expectations have never been so low for a G7 summit. You know the difficulties of the different countries and no trade agreement; Soviet
aid, we don't know how much, how it will go.
So, sir, what do you really think to accomplish?
The President. Well, let me say, first of all,
I think the direction of the G-7 meeting is
more important than the declaration. I think
you put too much, sometimes, stock in the statement. I think it's very important that as world
leaders we recommit ourselves to a strategy of
global growth, to a strategy of open trade, to
seriously examining the problems we are all having with creating jobs, and to dealing with the
common security issues that we face. I predict
that we will have a very successful meeting as
regards Russia. And I still believe that we can
make a lot of headway on the issues of trade
and global growth.
You know, what we really need to do with
all the economic problems our nations have and
the political problems is to remind ourselves
that these are still very great countries with
enormous possibilities and a great future. And
we need to sort of lift the spirits of the people
and focus on what we can do instead of what
we cannot do.


ticipating in the interview were Graham Fraser,
Toronto Globe and Mail, Canada; Alain Frachon,
Le Monde, France; Carola Kaps, Frankfurter
Allgemeine Zeitung, Germany; Rodolfo Brancoli,
Corriere Della Sera, Italy; Osamu Shima, Yomiuri
Shimbun, Japan; Jurek Martin, Financial Times,
United Kingdom; and Paul Horvitz, International
Herald Tribune. A tape was not available for verification of the content of this interview.


Security Issues
Q. With regard to the political issues, we still,
as you said so many times, Mr. President, we
live in still a very dangerous world with so many
challenges and crises. For example, you probably
knew that today three Italian peacekeepers have
been killed in Somalia, a dozen injured. Sir,
you go to Tokyo; have you some new ideas
on how to confront this dangerous world, the
challenges?
The President. Well, first of all, let me say
that my trip to Tokyo is a trip to the G-7
but also to Japan and to Asia. So one of the
things that I intend to do is to make absolutely
clear the United States' continuing commitment
to engagement in Asia. I hope that we will have
some time to talk at the G-7 about some of
our other problems. But I would point out that
the greatest security challenge we have faced
in my judgment in the last 5 months was the
threat to democracy in Russia. And the G-7
met the test. We rallied behind Yeltsin. We
rallied behind democracy. We supported a free
market economic reform in Russia. And I hope
we will do so again at the G-7.
We have not solved the problem in Bosnia,
and our nations are somewhat divided about
it. It is a very difficult problem. But I do have
some ideas about those things that I will be
discussing with the other leaders.
Japan
Q. Mr. President, let me start my question
with your view on Japan. Since you took office
you've mentioned Japan several times. At times
you were somewhat stern, expressing its remote

983




July 2 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


ness from an open market. At times you were
generous for expressing the relationship of the
most important bilateral one for the United
States. Which of your assessments is true to
your feeling?
The President. Both. And let me explain why.
First of all, I probably have more admiration
for your country in more ways than any President who has ever served. I've had the privilege
of traveling to Japan many times. I actively
sought Japanese companies to come to my State
when I was a Governor. I believe you have
a very great country with an even brighter future
than your past.
I think that our relationship is based on our
ability to stand up for our common security interests, to promote the values of democracy and
free markets, and to have a reasonable trade
relationship. I think that there are things that
we need to do in our trade relationship that
will benefit both of us.
I do not want to create American jobs at
the expense of Japanese jobs. I think that changing the nature of the trading relationship is in
the interest of both countries, and I don't think
it's fair for an American President to ask another
country to do something that's good for America
but bad for the other country. If I didn't think
it was good for both of us, I wouldn't push
that. But I think we'll work that out.
And the main thing I want to say to the
people of Japan is that this period of political
turmoil is not a bad thing for Japan. I know
it's different from what you've experienced in
the last few decades, but Japan has had an astonishing amount of success with the certain
political arrangement. But as the global economy
changes, as the people of Japan themselves
change in their aspirations, the political system
will have to alter to reflect that. It is not a
bad thing. It is a good thing. And the people
of Japan should be, I think, very hopeful about
their future.
Q. If I may follow-up, Mr. President, how
and how soon this economic present strain be
solved do you think?
The President. Well, I think it depends in
part on the development of ideas in Japan, both
within the government, both elected and civil
servant personnel, and among the people themselves. But I think you will see a resolution
of this. I'm not pessimistic at all about it, I'm
very hopeful that we will work these things out
in ways that are good for both countries. I want


to emphasize that.
I've seen some of the press reports in Japan
of some of my statements as if I want to protect
American jobs and take Japanese jobs away. It's
far more complex than that. I think that both
of us have to undergo changes. Every nation
represented in this circle, with the possible exception of Russia, has hounded the United
States, has asked the United States for years
to do something about our big Government deficit, saying that that caused a big imbalance in
global trade. We are doing that. So we are trying
to change. And change is not easy, and I think
all of us will have to make some changes.
Q. How soon?
The President. I think it won't be long. I
think we'll see-my hunch is that the capacity
for adjustment in both countries is greater than
we sometimes think, and I think we'll resolve
this pretty quickly.
Bosnia
Q. Mr. President, may I begin by asking you
about Bosnia? There's an impression that the
indecisive way in which you have handled this
issue is an illustration of the widening gap of
trust between America and Europe. You advocated lifting the arms embargo on the Muslims
and striking at some Serbian positions. And then
you appeared to back away from that. Then
you moved to a compromise plan for setting
up safe havens. Now, that's a concept which
you, yourself, described as a shooting gallery.
My question is this: Are you preparing now to
wash your hands of this whole affair and possibly
to blame the Europeans for the failure?
The President. No. Neither one. Let me, first
of all, point out what the United States has
done just since I've been President. We spent
a great deal of money on humanitarian aid; we
have pushed hard for strengthening the embargo
against Serbia; we have pushed for a number
of other things to try to help resolve the situation that we have all agreed on.
I did not back away from my position, sir.
Britain and France and Russia said they would
not support that position within the United Nations. The United States cannot act alone under
international law in this instance.
Q. It is their fault?
The President. No, they disagreed with me.
It's not their fault. They disagreed. We had an
honest disagreement about what the right policy
to follow was. I expect as we go through time


984




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 2


we'll disagree about other things. I thought I
could persuade them that we ought to try this
because I was convinced that the reason
Milosevic, Karadzic and others were making
concessions to try to bring this conflict to an
end is because the West was turning the pressure up.
There was an honest disagreement. The leaders of Britain and France and Russia honestly
did not believe that lifting the embargo would
make things better, would hasten the day of
peace. We had an honest disagreement. The
German Government agreed with the position
I took. But it was an honest disagreement within
the most complicated foreign policy problem
that any of us have faced in years. I don't seek
to place blame anywhere. I don't think that is
productive.
When my position did not prevail and when
I did not have the power to implement it unilaterally  because  of the  U.N. embargo  on
armsQ. Sure.
The President.   all I could do is do what
we did last week. I voted with many of the
nonaligned nations in the United Nations, and
we didn't win the battle.
Q. But Mr. PresidentThe President. But then I went back-when
you talk about changing my position, what I
did was I went back to the British, the French,
and the others and I said, "Okay, what can
we agree on? We don't want to say, 'Well, we
didn't get our way; so we're going to go home.'
We will work with you. What can we agree
on?" They proposed a course that we then embarked on, and they agreed not to totally rule
out lifting the arms embargo at a later date.
So I, frankly, was pleased to try to work with
and to support the efforts of Europe in this
regard. I didn't point the finger or blame. But
we can't deny the fact that there was an honest
disagreement. That doesn't mean that we should
all give up.
Q. So may I, as a followup, press you on
this? You see, as you say, you voted at the
United Nations with Djibouti and Morocco and
Pakistan and the Cape Verde Islands on this
issue about the arms embargo against Britain
and France. Now, the impression still, though,
is that nothing very much is happening and that
it's felt it's very different when the issue, say,
is Iraq when the job can be done with unmanned Tomahawk cruise missiles fired from


a safe distance. There seems to be a difference
of emphasis there in the urgency in the way
these matters are handled.
The President. Well, I disagree with that. The
difference is this: that in Iraq we had clear
evidence that the government planned a terrorist
attack and an assassination of a former President
of the United States for actions he took as President. We clearly had the right to take action
under international law, clearly.
Secondly, if you forget about that action and
you look at other actions against Iraq, they were
taken within the framework of the United Nations and United Nations resolutions. The United Nations operates against, if you will-the
governing resolution of the United Nations is
against the policy that I have advocated in
Bosnia. Therefore, it would take a change in
the United Nations posture to effect that policy.
The United States cannot go out and violate
international law or go out on its own. That
is not-we have never been for that.
And we are well aware that even though our
military establishment is the biggest and we are
the most powerful country in the world militarily, we are well aware that when we commit
ourselves to working with our neighbors,
through NATO, through the U.N., through the
Organization of American States, through any
other group, that we have to be prepared not
to always have our way just prevail overnight.
That's all that happened. I care just as much
about those Muslims in the heart of Bosnia as
I do about any other group of people in the
world. I would give anything to somehow bring
an end to the ethnic cleansing, to somehow have
a resolution of that. And I think that we are
still talking to one another and working in good
faith and trying to come to grips with that.
I do not believe, if you meant to ask me
this, I do not believe that the United States
or Europe should send huge numbers of soldiers
there to get involved in a civil war on one side
or the other. I do believe that we should use
as much muscle as we can muster to try to
bring a humane end to the tragedy.
But this is a tough problem. I think that's
the real answer here. This is not an easy problem. And I don't want to get into finger-pointing
or blame-making; that's not the point. And as
far as our willingness to commit troops, you
know we put troops into Somalia, and I would
say to the people of Italy and to the family
members of those three soldiers, you have my


985




July 2 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


gratitude and my deep condolences. But this
is a difficult world. A lot of these problems
are not going to be easily solved.
Russia
Q. Mr. President, Russian television. It looks
like in both of our countries, in the United
States and in Russia, what you see over the
last few months or maybe in a short time is
a growing awareness that, in spite of the fact
that the cold war is over, we still have a lot
of differences, that our national interests don't
coincide as often as somebody would like them
to do, to coincide. Now, when you meet President Yeltsin in a few days in Tokyo, on these
lines what would your posture be there? How
would you address these issues? And let me
remind   you   that  our   Prime   Minister
Chernomyrdin was unable to come here because
there were some differences unresolved yet.
The President. I would say first, we have a
lot more in common than we have which divides
us, that I am very proud of the support that
the United States and, indeed, that the C-7
gave to the movement toward democracy and
the fact that President Yeltsin stood up for the
democratic process in Russia. And I'm proud
of the courage shown by the Russian people
in trying to move toward a market-oriented
economy as well as to preserve democracy. And
our overriding interests at the C-7 meeting in
my judgment is to continue to provide assistance
to Russia in that effort. And I will strongly support it.
Now, are we going to have differences of
opinion from time to time? Yes, we are. I called
President Yeltsin about that matter. We're trying
to work it out. I still think we really need this
bilateral cooperation. I want the Vice President
and Prime Minister Chernomyrdin to meet and
to talk about what we can do on cooperating
in space, cooperating on nuclear issues, cooperating on environmental issues. And I think that
will proceed. I still think all that will be done.
But we're going to have differences from time
to time. People disagree. That happens in life.
Q. You're talking about support. Can we expect anything significant and concrete at the
C-7 concerning the aid to Russia?
The President. I certainly hope so. The United
States committed $1.6 billion at Vancouver.
Over half that money has now been obligated.
We have another bill moving through our Congress that deals largely with energy and nuclear


issues and environmental issues, as well as student exchanges and the attempt to privatizeassistance to privatize industry in Russia. That's
$1.8 billion. It has passed one House of our
Congress overwhelmingly and will pass the other
shortly.
The IMF, 2 days ago, released the first $1.5
billion in authority to Russia. And I think you
will see the C-7 agree that we ought all to
contribute to a fund to help privatize industry
and to start new enterprises and to do things
like that. I think this C-7 meeting will be good
for Russia.
Q. You think they will be cooperative, the
rest of the countries?
The President. Absolutely. We're all having
economic trouble, so there won't be probably
as much money as I would like because of the
economic difficulties that all the nations have.
But I think given the problems that the people
of these countries have, the commitment to do
more for Russia will be clear, substantial, and
generous because of all the problems all of our
countries have at home.
Economic Summit and GATT
Q. Mr. President, Prime Minister Balladur has
warned there will be no world trade agreement
unless U.S. penalties on steel are lifted. What
can the United States do in Tokyo to try to
diffuse the confrontation? And do you think
there is any room for a political compromise?
The President. Well, let me say, first of all,
the White House had no involvement in that
case. That case was developed earlier. We have
a process here which is almost like a judicial
process in a court for dealing with these things.
Clearly, it's legal to have this kind of operation
under GATT. So the legality is not in question.
If the Prime Minister believes that the facts
are different from the facts that were found
here, obviously, we can discuss that.
My attitude about that is that all these issues
ought to be subject to discussion at the C7 meetings. I mean, one of the things that really
bothers me about some of these meetings in
the past is that we have all been so afraid of
making a mistake, that we have all of our aides
around, and we've got everything written down
on paper. And if you spend all your time trying
to avoid making a mistake, it's hard to make
anything good happen. And so one of the things
that I'm really working for at G-7 is a totally
open framework where we can honestly share


986




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 2


with each other what we feel and how we can
resolve this.
France, if I might say, France has had some
truly astonishing economic accomplishments in
the last 10 years, many years in which the productivity growth in France was higher than any
other European country and higher than the
United States' growth. And yet France has had
some continuing problems with persistent high
unemployment, even with high growth.
So my own view is that it's very much in
the interest of France to have a GATT agreement which opens trade and gives the incredible
productive capacity of France broader outlets
around the world. And I don't want to do anything to stand in the way of that, but we're
going to have to work through some of these
issues. I think we can.
And I realize how hard it is in France or
in any other country with a high unemployment
rate to conduct a trade agreement, because people are afraid of change. But when you're in
trouble, that's when you need to change. That's
the moment when you need to change.
Global Economy
Q. Sir, you've been elected to put America
back to work. Do you think the United States
has a leadership responsibility in helping the
world economy get back to work?
The President. Absolutely. And I do not believe that Americans can go back to work in
sufficient numbers until the world begins to
work more.
For example, we've created in this country
in the last 5 months about 960,000 jobs. That's
about the same number we created in the previous 4 years. So it looks pretty good. But our
unemployment rate is still quite high here, and
the wages are not growing very much. In the
last 5 years, two-thirds of our jobs have come
from exports, two-thirds. So it is obvious that
we can't grow unless Europe grows, unless
Japan grows, unless Asia grows, unless Russia
becomes a market.
It is not simple generosity. Even though I
think it is the right thing to do, it is not simple
generosity that prompts me to try to put this
money into Russia. I think who is going to be
the United States customer in 5 years or 10
years? Who is going to be Europe's customer?
Who is going to be Japan's customer? Look at
all the people who live in Russia. Look at all
the people who live in Ukraine. Look at all


the people who live in the other Republics. My
job is not just to go to the C-7 meeting and
negotiate for the United States. My job is to
try to help us all do something that is good
for the world.
U.S. Leadership
Q. Mr. President, during the campaign you
talked a lot about American leadership. So far
we haven't seen it. Europeans are confused
about your direction in foreign policy, Iraq, Somalia, Bosnia. You didn't solve any of these
problems really. How would you define your
leadership role?
The President. First of all, the central challenge that we have faced since I've been President was the crisis in Russia. And the United
States did lead and Europe participated in and
Japan participated in an aggressive response
from the advanced nations of the world in standing up for democracy and market reform in
Russia. That overshadowed every other challenge that we have faced in terms of what it's
going to do for our long-term interests.
And let's not be confused about that. Somalia,
Iraq, Bosnia, these things are very important.
That was the central challenge that will affect
our interests. And we did respond, not just the
United States, all of us did. And we did the
right thing and so far it's had the right consequence.
With regard to Somalia, I frankly just disagree
with you about that. I think the United States,
under my predecessor-I can't take credit for
it-he led the way for a multinational coalition
to go into Somalia. We saved hundreds of thousands of lives. We restored order. Children can
go to school again. People can eat. They can
sleep. There are hospitals. Life is better.
Now, Somalia did not have the infrastructure
of a nation. And if we stay there-we are still
there; the Italians are there; others are still
there-there are going to be problems. Aideed
presented us a problem. We did our best to
break the back of his military capacity to disrupt
Somalia without appearing to go after him personally. And I think that's the right thing to
do. I would like it if he were arrested but without trying to just take him out personally. I
think we are on the right path in Somalia, but
we have to have patience in nation-building.
With regard to Iraq, the action I took in Iraq
was specifically designed to respond to the attempt to assassinate President Bush. It was the


987




July 2 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


right thing to do, I think. There are a whole
set of other issues which have to do with Iraq's
defiance of the U.N. resolutions. The Security
Council issued a very stern warning to Iraq,
and I think there will either be more compliance
or some sort of appropriate action.
But again, I would say to you if you look
at Iraq and you say we didn't solve that, it
seems to me that the west did the right thing
in not being obsessed with deposing Saddam
Hussein. We acted against him because he invaded Kuwait. So he was removed from Kuwait
and has been confined in a lot of the mischief
he might have otherwise have wreaked. So I
don't know if you can tout that as a failure.
Bosnia is a disappointment, but it is the most
difficult problem, not only in Europe but in
the world. We have honest disagreements
among ourselves. I still have every hope that
something can be done. And I have said repeatedly that the United States would be prepared
to contribute to a genuine effort to maintain
the peace if an agreement can be signed.
I had thought, as you know, that lifting the
arms embargo would accelerate movement to
a genuine peace. I still believe that. Others disagreed. That's the way it is in the world we're
living in. But I am prepared to make a contribution to maintaining a genuine settlement in
Bosnia. I do not believe the West should send
in huge numbers of troops to get involved in
trying to fight all three sides in a civil war.
That's not what I think we should do.
Germany
Q. The German Bundestag decided today that
Germans also can stay in Somalia.
The President. I'm very grateful for that.
Q. Do you expect Germany to make their
troops available for peacekeeping and peacemaking missions, or is this perhaps the price
Germany has to pay for a seat at the Security
Council?
The President. Well, as you know, I favor
a seat for Germany and for Japan in the Security
Council. I think they are great economic powers.
I think they have been responsible international
political citizens, and they are leaders. I do not
think I should involve myself too much in the
internal politics of Germany over this issue except to say that as President I am profoundly
grateful for the position that Chancellor Kohl
has taken on these issues and the willingness
of the German people to support involvement


in Somalia, to try to help insofar as they could
in Bosnia. And I think it is very hopeful for
the future.
I think all of us will have to get into more
of these difficult situations like Somalia that
have no easy immediate answer if we're going
to try to help. If we can reach an agreement
in Bosnia and we wind up sending troops there
as a result of a peace agreement, there still
will be ragged edges to it and difficult moments.
NAFTA
Q. Mr. President, I'd like to turn if I could
to the issue of the North American Free Trade
Agreement. As you know, there was a U.S. court
ruling this week that said that NAFTA could
do serious damage to the environment and ordering your administration to conduct an environmental impact review. You've decided to appeal that decision. What happens if you lose
the appeal? Are you going to at that point bull
ahead with NAFTA and ignore the court order?
The President. Well, in our country we can't
ignore court orders. But, first of all, we announced that we would appeal within the hour
of the decision. And we believe we will win.
We also are exploring other options for compliance that would not delay the treaty, and we
are proceeding full-speed ahead.
But the irony of this is that, as you know,
this administration has taken some extra time
with NAFTA to try to conclude environmental
agreements that would make it absolutely clear
that the NAFTA agreement would improve the
environment on both sides of the border. So
this is a delaying tactic but does not square
with the facts. NAFTA will help us to improve
the environment on both sides of the border.
That's what we're negotiating so hard with the
Mexicans on, and the Canadians have been supportive of the idea that we ought to try to make
sure that there's no environmental degradation.
So I still think we can pass it. And we're going
to work on it.
Q. In more general terms, I think you'd agree
that NAFTA's in considerable trouble in Congress and with American public opinion. At what
point are you going to get out and start aggressively selling this agreement, rather than leaving
it to Ross Perot and other critics of NAFTA
to make the running on it?
The President. Well, first of all, I've had a
very consistent and clear public position on it.
But I can only undertake one major battle at


988




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 2


a time. And right now, I've got to pass this
big budget and economic program. It's a dramatic change from the last 12 years of economic
policy in the U.S. It's tough. It's controversial.
We're going to do it, I think. But that will
be over soon.
Then the second thing is, in order to sell
it, we have to define exactly what "it" is, which
means that we have to conclude our negotiations
on the supplemental agreement. We'll do that
soon. And then I'll be out there working hard
to sell it. We have the votes, I believe, in the
Senate to pass it. We do not have the votes
in the House to pass it. I think we can get
the votes when we point out it will create jobs,
not cost jobs. If we don't do it, it will really
be difficult. And all the things people worry
about, you know, jobs going to Mexico, that


can all happen today. It has nothing to do with
NAFTA.
Q. Mr. President, our time is over. We thank
you very much.
The President. Thank you.
NOTE: The interview began at 11:30 a.m. in the
Roosevelt Room at the White House. In the interview, the President referred to Slobodan
Milosevic, President of Serbia; Radovan Karadzic,
leader of the Bosnian Serbs; and Somali warlord
Mohamed Farah Aideed. Journalists participating
in the interview were Hidetoshi Fujisawa, NHK,
Japan; Trevor McDonald, ITN, United Kingdom;
Sergei Goryachev, Ostankino, Russia; David
Halton, CBC, Canada; Jean-Marc Illouz, France
TV II; Jochen Schweizer, ARD, Germany; and
Giuseppe Lugato, RAI TV I, Italy.


Letter to Congressional Leaders on Trade With Romania
July 2, 1993


Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)
In accordance with section 407 of the Trade
Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-618, January 3,
1975; 88 Stat. 1978), as amended (the "Trade
Act"), I am transmitting a copy of a proclamation that extends nondiscriminatory treatment to
the products of Romania. I also enclose the
text of the "Agreement on Trade Relations Between the Government of the United States of
America and the Government of Romania," including exchanges of letters that form an integral part of the Agreement, which was signed
on April 3, 1992, and which is included as an
annex to the proclamation.
The Agreement will provide a nondiscriminatory framework for our bilateral trade relations and thus strengthen both economic and
political relations between the United States and
Romania. Conclusion of this Agreement is an
important step we can take to provide greater
economic benefits to both countries. It will also
give further impetus to the progress we have
made in our overall diplomatic relations since
last year and help to reinforce political and economic reform in Romania. In that context, the
United States is encouraging Romania to continue to strive for a democratic, pluralistic society, particularly through the conduct of early,


free, and fair national elections.
I believe that the Agreement is consistent
with both the letter and the spirit of the Trade
Act. It provides for mutual extension of nondiscriminatory tariff treatment while seeking to
ensure overall reciprocity of economic benefits.
It includes safeguard arrangements to ensure
that our trade with Romania will grow without
causing disruption to the U.S. market and consequent injury to domestic firms or loss of jobs
for American workers.
The Agreement also confirms and expands for
American businesses certain basic rights in conducting commercial transactions both within Romania and with Romanian nationals and business
entities. Other provisions include those dealing
with settlement of commercial disputes, financial
transactions, and government commercial offices. Through this Agreement, Romania also
undertakes obligations to modernize and upgrade very substantially its protection of intellectual property rights. Once fully implemented,
the Romanian intellectual property regime will
be on a par with that of our principal industrialized trading partners. This Agreement will not
alter U.S. law or practice with respect to the
protection of intellectual property.
On August 17, 1991, President Bush waived


989




July 2 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


application of subsections (a) and (b) of section
402 of the Trade Act to Romania. He determined that this waiver will substantially promote
the objectives of section 402, and, pursuant to
section 402(c)(2) of the Trade Act, notified the
Congress that he had received assurances that
the emigration practices of Romania will henceforth lead substantially to achievement of those
objectives.
I urge that the Congress act as soon as possible to approve the "Agreement on Trade Relations Between the Government of the United
States of America and the Government of Romania" and the proclamation extending non

discriminatory treatment to products of Romania
by enactment of a joint resolution referred to
in section 151 of the Trade Act.
Sincerely,
WILLIAM J. CLINTON
NOTE: Identical letters were sent to Thomas S.
Foley, Speaker of the House of Representatives,
and Albert Gore, Jr., President of the Senate. The
proclamation and related Presidential determination are listed in Appendix D at the end of this
volume. The agreement was published in the Federal Register on July 7.


Statement on United States Policy Toward Vietnam
July 2, 1993


It has always been my firm belief that America's highest priority in its approach toward Vietnam is to secure a full accounting on our prisoners of war and missing in action. Today I
am announcing two new steps toward that goal.
The first involves access by Vietnam to the
International Monetary Fund. The second is my
decision to send a new high-level delegation to
Vietnam to press for further progress on unresolved POW/MIA issues. Together, these steps
offer the best hope of providing America's
POW/MIA families the answers and peace of
mind they deserve.
Over the past several months, I have given
intense thought to how best to achieve the fullest possible accounting for our POW/MIA's and
how to shape U.S. policy toward Vietnam to
achieve that goal. I have met with veterans, with
the families whose loved ones have not returned,
and with Members of Congress who have a
strong interest in this issue, including some who
were held as prisoners of war.
Last night I met with a group of impressive,
dedicated representatives of veterans organizations and families who care deeply about our
Government's efforts to achieve the fullest possible accounting of our missing. They share my
own belief that our policy toward Vietnam must
be driven not by commercial interests but by
the overriding purpose of achieving further
progress toward the fullest possible accounting
of our POW/MIA's. Vietnam has long been a


divisive issue for America. It remains so today.
I know there is strong disagreement among all
those with an interest in the POW/MIA issue
on how best to further our mutual goal. Where
there is no disagreement, however, is on the
need to ensure that any decision taken is made
in answer to the only relevant question: Will
it help us discover the truth about our missing?
One of the tragedies of this issue is that our
own Government has often denied unnecessarily
information about this issue to the American
public. That is why I have instructed all U.S.
Government POW/MIA related documents to
be declassified by Veterans Day of this year,
except for that tiny fraction that could still affect
our national security or invade the privacy of
the families. I have also been working to consolidate the POW/MIA agencies and resources to
enhance the efficiency of these operations and
access by the public. They have a right to know,
and I intend to ensure they do.
Since taking office, I have reviewed the
progress made to date in resolving unanswered
questions concerning the fate of American service personnel who did not return from Vietnam.
I have insisted on the fullest possible accounting
from the Vietnamese Government and pressed
for further progress. As part of this effort, I
dispatched Gen. John Vessey to Vietnam last
April as my Special Emissary for POW/MIA Affairs to press for further progress. In addition,
Members of Congress and representatives of


990




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 2


veterans groups have traveled to Vietnam to
press for that goal.
In an effort to encourage further progress,
it is appropriate at this time to recognize what
the Vietnamese have done in our effort to account for our missing. Attached is a summary
outlining that progress. Therefore, I have decided to end our opposition to the efforts of
other nations to clear Vietnam's arrears in the
IMF. I believe, as do former POW's John
McCain and Douglas "Pete" Peterson and other
veterans such as John Kerry and others in Congress, that such action will best serve the goal
of achieving further progress toward the fullest
possible acccounting.
Any further steps in U.S.-Vietnamese relations
will strictly depend on further progress by the
Vietnamese on the POW/MIA issue. We should
not be swayed from that course; America owes
no less to the brave men and women who fought
in Vietnam and to their loved ones. Progress
to date is simply not sufficient to warrant any
change in our trade embargo or any further
steps toward normalization.
In order to press for further progress and
send a clear message to the Vietnamese Government, I will send to Hanoi a high-level delegation. The official delegation will include Deputy
Secretary of Veterans Affairs Hershel Gober, Assistant Secretary of State Winston Lord, and Lt.
Gen. Michael E. Ryan.
I also have invited representatives of the three
largest veterans groups to accompany the delegation. The American Legion, the Veterans of
Foreign Wars, and the Disabled American Veterans have each agreed to send representatives
with the delegation, and I am grateful for their
willingness to participate in this important mission. In addition, I have invited the National


League of Families of American Prisoners and
Missing in Southeast Asia to send a representative. I have also asked our current Ambassador
in Thailand, David Floyd Lambertson, who has
extensive experience in Vietnam, to assist the
delegation.
The delegation will make clear to the Vietnamese that any further steps in relations between our two nations depend on tangible
progress on the outstanding POW/MIA cases.
We insist upon efforts by the Vietnamese in
four key areas:
Remains: Concrete results from efforts on their
part to recover remains and repatriate American
remains.
Discrepancy cases: Continued resolution of 92
discrepancy cases, live sightings, and field
activities.
Laos: Further assistance in implementing
trilateral investigation with the Lao.
Archives: Accelerated efforts to provide all
POW/MIA related documents that will help lead
to genuine answers.
The individuals on this delegation share my
own determination to do all we can to find
the truth surrounding those who did not come
home. They will press hard for results.
The delegation will also raise with the Vietnamese continuing human rights concerns and
press for progress in the areas of basic freedoms,
democracy, and economic reform.
For many Americans, the Vietnam war left
deep wounds that have yet to heal. One of the
ways to help the process of healing is to help
the friends and families of POW's and MIA's
learn the truth. The steps I have outlined today
will advance that goal.


Statement by the Press Secretary on the President's Meetings With South
African Leaders
July 2, 1993


The President held separate meetings this
afternoon with South African State President
F.W. de Klerk and African National Congress
President Nelson Mandela. The meetings lasted
about 30 minutes each.
The two meetings focused on the process of


democratic reform in South Africa and how the
United States can assist that historic process.
The President expressed his appreciation for the
leadership demonstrated by both individuals in
moving South Africa towards the threshold of
a nonracial democracy. He expressed particular


991




July 2 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


admiration to President Mandela for his courage
and dignity through decades of struggle and sacrifice against the evils of apartheid and to President de Klerk for his wisdom and determination
in moving to dismantle that destructive system.
He welcomed the announcement earlier today
of the setting of a date for holding the first
nonracial elections in South Africa's history and
the progress made toward creation of a Transitional Executive Council (TEC) which will help
ensure those elections are free and fair.
The   President  welcomed  the  progress
achieved in the negotiations in the last few days
and commended all those working for a peaceful
transition to democracy. He pledged that the
United States will be a full partner in building
democracy in South Africa, including continued
support for programs of voter education and
training of election monitors. He stressed the
need to begin to tackle the cruel legacies of
apartheid, including economic inequity, unemployment, inadequate housing, and poor education for South Africa's nonwhite population.
He said that the United States will press for
a commitment at the C-7 summit in Tokyo next
week to reintegrate South Africa into the world
economy with agreement on a nonracial democracy.
The President noted that the administration
is working with Congress and antiapartheid
groups to develop additional support measures
Nomination for Secretary of the Air F
July 2, 1993


once negotiations have progressed to the point
where it is appropriate to lift remaining sanctions. Among these measures are negotiation of
an OPIC investment encouragement agreement,
a tax treaty, and a housing investment guarantee
program. Once the TEC is created, the United
States will stand ready to support its institutions
designed to facilitate a smooth transition to democracy.
The President also underscored the importance of the private sector in creating growth
and equality in South Africa. He looks forward
to the day when all South Africans can call
for the lifting of remaining economic and financial sanctions, including state and local government sanctions, and hopes that day will come
soon.
The President also expressed to President de
Klerk the deep appreciation of the United States
for the recent decision by the Government of
South Africa to forgo development of a spacelaunch vehicle program. He noted that the United States can now look forward to cooperation
with a democratic South Africa on the peaceful
uses of space technology.
The President said that he welcomed the opportunity to celebrate our Independence Day
by presenting Freedom Awards to Presidents de
Klerk and Mandela in Philadelphia on Sunday,
July 4.


The President announced his intention today  a woman of high achievement: a respected scito nominate Sheila E. Widnall, associate provost  entist, a skilled administrator, and a dedicated
of MIT and vice chair of the Carnegie Corpora-  citizen. I am confident that she will do an outtion Board, to be the Secretary of the Air Force.  standing job of guiding the Air Force through
Ms. Widnall will be the first woman Service  this period of post-cold-war change."
Secretary.
"I am very proud to be making this announce-  NOTE: A biography of the nominee was made
ment," said the President. "Sheila Widnall is  available by the Office of the Press Secretary.


992




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 3


Nomination for Ambassador to South Korea
July 2, 1993


The President announced today that he intends to nominate James T. Laney, the president
of Emory University, to be Ambassador to the
Republic of Korea.
"As I prepare for my visit to Seoul next week,
I am very pleased to make this announcement,"
said the President. "James Laney is a greatly


admired scholar and leader with an understanding and respect for Korea based on more than
45 years experience with the country. He will
make an outstanding Ambassador."
NOTE: A biography of the nominee was made
available by the Office of the Press Secretary.


Statement on Signing Legislation Extending Fast Track Procedures for the
GATT Multilateral Trade Negotiations
July 2, 1993


Today I am pleased to sign into law H.R.
1876, extending legislative "fast track" procedures to conclude the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations. I want to extend my
thanks to the Congress for its broad bipartisan
support for this legislation and the Administration's trade policies.
Fast track authority is critical to our effort
to complete these important negotiations by December 15, 1993. Fast track procedures give
our negotiators the bargaining power they need
in Geneva, while at the same time ensuring
the Congress' role during the negotiation and
approval of a Uruguay Round agreement.
The Uruguay Round is an ambitious effort,
involving more than 100 nations, to lower tariff
and non-tariff barriers around the world and
to strengthen and update a set of rules for international trade that have become increasingly ineffective and obsolete.
Completion of the Uruguay Round would provide a major boost to the world economy at
The President's Radio Address
July 3, 1993
Good morning. Two hundred and seventeen
years ago, our Founding Fathers declared our
independence to secure the liberty and prosperity we celebrate every July Fourth. Although
our times and challenges are very different from


a time when it is crucially needed. As the
world's leading exporter-and the world's most
open economy-the United States stands to
benefit significantly by reducing trade barriers
and opening markets around the world for manufactured goods, agricultural products, and services.
We remain committed to completing these
important negotiations this year, and we will encourage our trading partners to make their contribution to bringing the negotiations to a successful conclusion.
WILLIAM J. CLINTON
The White House,
July 2, 1993.
NOTE: H.R. 1876, approved July 2, was assigned
Public Law No. 103-49. This statement was released by the Office of the Press Secretary on July
3.


those our founders faced, these issues are still
the enduring concerns of the American people
today.
In a few days, I will represent the United
States in Japan at the annual meeting of the


993




July 3 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


major industrialized nations of the world to work
for new global policies that create more American jobs, open markets for our products, and
strengthen our security as we embrace the challenges of this new world. America commands
respect on the world stage because we have
taken aggressive steps to put our own economic
house in order at a time when all the advanced
nations are having real troubles with the economy.
Here in Washington the House and Senate
have both passed versions of my economic plan
to promote growth and to reduce the deficit
by $500 billion. The plan also has incentives
for people to invest more in our economy, to
create jobs, and provides money for education
and training in new technologies and helps the
defense workers who have been laid-off by defense cuts.
We've made a good beginning now. As this
plan has progressed through the Congress, interest rates have continued to come down, mortgage rates are now below 7.5 percent, and nearly 1 million new jobs have been added to the
economy since January, about the same number
as came in the previous 3 years.
Change is hard, though. Many people are still
skeptical. Many of the opponents of my plan
chant "tax-and-spend." But the truth is, it's not
an old tax-and-spend plan. And the people who
are attacking it are those who taxed the middle
class, cut taxes on the wealthy, borrowed and
spent our economy into a $4 trillion debt in
the last 12 years. Our plan is fair. It has $250
billion in spending cuts and asks the upper 6
percent of Americans to pay 75 percent of the
new taxes. It moves the working poor out of
poverty. It enables me to attend this meeting
of the other advanced nations with a record
of real results that will encourage our competitors to take steps to revive their economies as
well. And that's important for every American,
because we can't grow the United States economy as we ought to until we have cooperation
from other nations, and they're growing. Why?
Because since 1987, two-thirds of our new jobs
have come from exports. We live in a global
economy. We have to compete all over the
world, and we have to sell our products and
services everywhere.
When we stepped up to the plate here at
home to get our own house in order, it enabled
us to make the global economy work for the
people of the United States if others will do


their part. And that's what we're working on
now. As I said, all the nations I'll be meeting
with are facing difficult times. Their economies
are even slower than ours. But we know that
together we can grow, we can have a stronger
economy, and we can have more security.
I'd like to talk to you about that for a few
minutes. Because of the vigilance, the democratic values, the military strength of the United
States and our allies, we won the cold war.
Our inheritance, our victory is a new chance
to rebuild our economies and solve our problems in each of our countries while we reduce
military spending. But our profound responsibility remains to redefine what it means to preserve security in this post-cold-war era We must
be strong, we must be resolute, and we must
be safe. This great task has certainly changed
with the passage of the cold war. The technologies of mass destruction in the hands of
Russia and the United States are being reduced.
But technologies of mass destruction that just
a few years ago were possessed only by a handful of nations, and still are possessed only by
a few, are becoming more widely available. It
is now theoretically possible for many countries
to build missiles, to have nuclear weapons and
other weapons of mass destruction. This is a
new and different challenge that requires new
approaches and new thinking.
During my campaign for President, I promised a wholehearted commitment to achieving
a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty. A test
ban can strengthen our efforts worldwide to halt
the spread of nuclear technology in weapons.
Last year, the Congress directed that a test ban
be negotiated by 1996, and it established an
interim moratorium on nuclear testing while we
reviewed our requirements for further tests.
That moratorium on testing expires soon. Congress said that after the moratorium expires, but
before a test ban was achieved, the United
States could carry out up to 15 nuclear tests
to ensure the safety and reliability of our weapons. After a thorough review, my administration
has determined that the nuclear weapons in the
United States arsenal are safe and reliable. Additional nuclear tests could help us prepare for
a test ban and provide for some additional improvements in safety and reliability. However,
the price we would pay in conducting those
tests now, by undercutting our own nonproliferation goals and ensuring that other nations would resume testing, outweighs these


994




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 3


benefits.
I have therefore decided to extend the current moratorium on United States nuclear testing at least through September of next year,
as long as no other nation tests. And I call
on the other nuclear powers to do the same.
If these nations will join us in observing this
moratorium, we will be in the strongest possible
position to negotiate a comprehensive test ban
and to discourage other nations from developing
their own nuclear arsenals.
If, however, this moratorium is broken by another nation, I will direct the Department of
Energy to prepare to conduct additional tests
while seeking approval to do so from Congress.
I therefore expect the Department to maintain
a capability to resume testing.
To assure that our nuclear deterrent remains
unquestioned under a test ban, we will explore
other means of maintaining our confidence in
the safety, the reliability, and the performance
of our own weapons. We will also refocus much
of the talent and resources of our Nation's nuclear labs on new technologies to curb the
spread of nuclear weapons and verify arms control treaties.
Beyond these significant actions, I am also
taking steps to revitalize the Arms Control and
Disarmament Agency so that it can play an active role in meeting the arms control and nonproliferation challenges of this new era. I am


committed to protecting our people, deterring
aggression, and combating terrorism. The work
of combating proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction is difficult and unending, but it is
an essential part of this task. It must be done.
Americans have earned the right on this
Fourth of July weekend to enjoy life, liberty,
and the pursuit of happiness in the new era
America did so much to create. This moment
of opportunity is the reward for our vigilance
and sacrifice during the long years of the cold
war.
We now have the freedom to concern ourselves not merely with survival but with prosperity for ourselves and our children. We have the
strength and the stature to lead the world into
a future of greater security and global growth.
Because of the changes we have made, America can now fulfill the dreams and aspirations
of the patriots who made our freedom possible
more than 200 years ago. We can do them no
greater honor than to make the most of what
these times have to offer. Working together, we
will.
Have a happy and safe holiday, and thanks
for listening.
NOTE: This address was recorded at 6:34 p.m. on
July 2 in the Roosevelt Room at the White House
for broadcast at 10:06 a.m. on July 3.


Statement on Signing the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1993
July 3, 1993


On February 17, I unveiled my national economic strategy to increase growth and job creation, to reduce the deficit and lower interest
rates. The plan reflects my belief that the United States had to address long-standing economic
problems so we could expand growth and opportunity for all Americans.
The long-term portion of the plan is nearing
completion by the Congress. The House and
Senate have adopted versions of the plan that
reduce the deficit by $500 billion while providing needed investments in our country's future
strength and job creating ability. However, the
short-term component, a jobs bill designed to
keep the recovery on track, was not adopted


by the Congress.
While there are some optimistic signs-lower
long-term  interest rates, the lowest mortgage
rates in twenty years, and the creation of nearly
one million jobs since January-I am not satisfied with the performance of the economy, many
Americans are still hurting, and others are uncertain about the future.
Because too many Americans are still without
meaningful work, I was pleased to sign into law
last night a modest job creating bill, H.R. 2118,
the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1993.
This Act funds a variety of critical programs,
including key targeted investments that I requested in February. Adoption of this law means


995




July 3 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


that summer jobs will be created, local law enforcement will be able to hire back police laid
off during the last recession, and small businesses will be able to expand their payrolls,
products, and profits. It also provides funding
that will benefit farmers adversely affected by
weather conditions in the Midwest.
This bill does not nearly provide what I believe is necessary to help our economy. But
every job it creates, every policeman or policewoman it rehires, every farm devastated by
weather it assists, and every small business it
enables to grow will make a difference to the
people and communities served by this legislation.
These are among the provisions of the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1993:
The Act provides $220 million for summer
jobs for youth, including $50 million for the
Youth Fair Chance Program. This new program
will provide a comprehensive range of services
to low-income youth in communities with high
concentrations of poverty.
The Act provides $150 million for grants to
State and local government to enhance public
safety by hiring additional law enforcement personnel. These funds will help fight crime and
offset layoffs resulting from fiscal restraints on
local governments.
The Act provides $341 million to the Pell
Student financial assistance program to help address a shortage of funding from previous years.
H.R. 2118 provides $175 million to support
nearly $3.2 billion in SBA loan guarantees. Regular appropriations for SBA's primary lending
programs were exhausted in late April, and the
program has been shut down since then. The
supplemental funds provided for SBA will allow
thousands of businesses to receive loans for
start-up, expansion, and working capital.
The Act provides $475 million for veterans
compensation and pensions, and is necessary to
ensure that payments continue to be made to
veterans through the end of the fiscal year.
Honoring my commitment to provide additional assistance to victims of Hurricane Andrew,
the bill makes available $271 million for disaster
assistance through the Departments of Agriculture and Housing and Urban Development.


These funds are to be used to address the
destruction caused by Hurricane Andrew, Hurricane Iniki, and Typhoon Omar and, in some
cases, other Presidentially declared disasters as
well. These funds are necessary to promote rebuilding and to respond effectively to the continuing need for disaster relief. In accordance
with the applicable provisions of the Balanced
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of
1985, as amended, I join the Congress in designating the $63 million provided by the Act
for agriculture disaster assistance as an emergency requirement.
The Act extends Federal crop disaster relief
to farmers with disaster-related losses occurring
prior to August 1, 1993, without appropriating
additional disaster funds. Existing emergency
funds are sufficient to pay roughly 15 cents for
every dollar claimed. This provision will permit
some assistance to farmers impacted by the recent floods in the Midwest. I have directed Agriculture Secretary Espy to submit to me a crop
disaster assistance plan to provide additional assistance to these farmers.
The Act support $73 billion in loan guarantee
authority to allow the FHA single- and multifamily mortgage insurance programs and the
GNMA mortgage-backed securities program to
continue operating through the rest of the year.
Absent this supplemental, both programs would
soon deplete their funding.
Finally, the Act provides $1.3 billion for the
Department of Defense and partially offsets the
additional funding with nearly $1 billion in rescissions. The additional funds are for the costs
of Operation Restore Hope, Operation Southern
Watch, and other requirements.
I commend the Congress for developing a
supplemental appropriations bill that supports
my investment program and meets urgent National needs.
WILLIAM J. CLINTON
The White House,
July 3, 1993.
NOTE: H.R. 2118, approved July 2, was assigned
Public Law No. 103-50.


996




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 4


Remarks at an Independence Day Ceremony in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
July 4, 1993


Thank you very much, President de Klerk,
Mr. Mandela, Senator Wofford, distinguished
Members of Congress, Mayor Rendell and
members of the Philadelphia city government,
Judge Higginbotham, Reverend Sullivan, my fellow Americans.
As I flew here today from Washington over
the farmlands and the small towns and the cities
and I began to land here in Philadelphia, and
I could see closely Americans of all kinds enjoying the blessings of liberty and the fruits of
their labors, I couldn't help thinking that if the
Founding Fathers were with us today, they
would be proud of the work that they have
done.
I do want to say a special word to two distinguished Pennsylvanians who, but for health reasons, would clearly be here with us today, a
word of appreciation to them with whom I
talked just a few moments ago, your brave Governor, Bob Casey, engaged in his heroic struggle-we all wish him well-and your distinguished Senator Arlen Specter, who promised
me he would be back to work soon. He did
not promise me a vote, however. [Laughter]
On this, our Nation's birthday in our Nation's
birthplace, all of us are part of a truly historic
occasion as we welcome these two leaders in
the journey to nonracial democracy in South
Africa. Here they stand together, the head of
state and the former political prisoner. We
honor the dedication, the dignity, and the discipline of the ANC president, Nelson Mandela,
who walked out of prison after 27 years, astonishingly  still  unbowed,  unbroken,   and
unembittered. And we salute President de Klerk
for his wisdom and his determination in moving
to dismantle the destructive system of apartheid
and his courage in asking his people to give
up something that they have which is not fully
legitimate so that they can live together in real
harmony, real freedom, and real liberty. That,
too, is an act of courage we should honor.
I believe that in their common endeavors they
are working together to liberate all South Africans, to restore material wealth, and to bring
spiritual health to their beloved country. Many
Americans have stood for the cause of freedom
in South Africa and now I tell you both: The


United States stands ready to help the people
of South Africa as they move forward on the
journey of democracy.
Here where our own democracy is born, the
United States today reaches out a helping hand
to those who would build democracy in South
Africa. We stand ready to help with voter education. We stand ready to help to heal the cruel
legacies of apartheid, from unemployment to
poor housing to inadequate education. We want
to be your partner. This week when I travel
to the summit of the world's leading industrial
nations, I will work to include a new and democratic South Africa in the world economy and
our common commitment to it.
And closer to home, my fellow Americans,
we must rejoice today in the historic accord
reached late last evening to restore democracy
and its elected leader, President Aristide, to
Haiti. This agreement is a tribute to the dedicated efforts of the United Nations, the OAS,
and the United States negotiators and to the
resilience of the democratic idea and the commitment of the Haitian people to that idea.
I want to say a special word of thanks to
all the Members of Congress, including the
Congressional Black Caucus who worked so hard
to put the United States on the side of democracy in Haiti. This is their victory, too. I called
President Aristide this morning to express my
congratulations and my appreciation for his signing the peace accord, and he and I agreed that
today we could both wish each other happy
Independence Day.
Earlier today, as Americans have done for 217
years, I had the honor of participating, with
two young children who are direct descendants
of our Founders, in ringing the Liberty Bell.
When that bell first tolled, it rang with the
moral force of the most powerful common idea
humanity has ever known: the idea that each
of us stands equal before God and must therefore be equal before the law; the idea that our
human dignity is given to us not by any government but by God; the idea that we must be
citizens, not subjects, proud participants in the
democratic process of governing ourselves and
building our own future. It is that which we
celebrate and hope for in South Africa, in Haiti,


997




July 4 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


and throughout the rest of the world today and
that which we must still work to perfect in our
own Nation today. Because, even after 217
years, no one would say we have got it entirely
right yet.
Still, none can deny that this Nation has survived and succeeded for more than two centuries because at every crucial moment we have
had the courage to change, to make difficult
but necessary decisions, and still to be faithful
to the unchanging ideals which gave birth to
us. Thomas Jefferson wrote that blistering Declaration of Independence knowing that his ideals
challenged his country to change. He thought
of the immorality of slavery in America when
he wrote, "I tremble for my country when I
reflect that Cod is just." When Abraham Lincoln
wrote the Emancipation Proclamation, he gave
our Nation's bloodiest conflict a sacred, moral
purpose, to turn the promises of the Declaration
and the Constitution and the Bill of Rights into
living realities for all our people.
It is a struggle we are still waging. Still, we
struggle to live in a way that will please a just
God. Still, we struggle to live in a way that
we can secure for every American, without regard to race or region or station in life, the
blessing of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Still, we struggle to find ways to extend
a helping hand of freedom to people throughout
the world. No less than those who founded our
Republic or fought to keep it together in the
Civil War, we too, must have the vision and
courage to change, to preserve our unchanging
purposes in a dynamic and difficult world.
This is not just another nation that we live
in. It is the noblest effort at self-government
and continuous change the world has ever
known. Here, people from every continent and
every country come, believing that they can
build a new life for themselves and a better
future for their children. America embodies the
idea that a nation can be built by the people
of every other nation and still be a beacon of
hope and inspiration to the world and still prove
that out of all that diversity can become a deeper strength and unity founded on the ideals that
we celebrate on the Fourth of July.
To keep that promise, we must continue to
lead the world, not only politically and morally
but economically as well. And all of you know,
my fellow Americans, that is our great challenge
today, when most of our people are worried
about their own jobs and their own incomes,


the security of their health care, the safety of
their streets, the educational future of their children, the challenges to our deepest values here
in our own homes, and the challenges to our
position around the world.
The brave band who invented our country
217 years ago faced a difficult future with hope.
Today, we are bombarded constantly with the
magnitude and complexity of our problems, with
the foibles of our problem-solvers, with the message that things may not be able to get better.
Too many people are gripped by doubt when
we need confidence. They are gripped by cynicism when we need hope and faith and conviction.
My fellow Americans, on this Fourth of July
look at these two men standing here making
world history. Cynicism is a luxury the American
people cannot afford. Of course, there is much
to question and to worry about. But I ask you
to remember here today, this Nation has endured and triumphed over a bloody Civil War,
two World Wars, the Great Depression, the civil
rights struggle, riots in our streets, economic
problems, and social discord at home and great
challengers abroad. And we are still here, still
leading the way, still looking toward tomorrow.
Cynicism is a luxury we cannot afford. It defeats
us before we begin. It is our job to carry on
this great tradition.
Make no mistake about it, as long as we have
faith in the future and the courage to change,
our Nation is still unstoppable. I believe we
have a future where our ideas continue to be
the inspiration for the world, where our system
continues to be a model for the world, where
our economy, if we do what we need to do,
can once again be the envy of the world. All
around us, democracy and markets are on the
rise, a new global economy is emerging, and
we welcome the challenges that it brings. This
new economy is built on innovation. But America has always been the home of the great inventors, from Philadelphia's own Ben Franklin to
the geniuses today who build new computer
hardware and write software in their basements
and garages.
The new economy is built on education. And
America has always been a home to education,
from Thomas Jefferson, from those to the wonderful universities in this great city who educate
our young people there and reach out to those
in the inner-city schools. The new economy is
built on flexibility and change. We are, my


99GU8




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 4


friends, a nation born in revolution and renewed
through constant change. We can do what we
have to do today to renew the American dream.
The genius of our democracy is that we the
people are capable of self-government, capable
of difficult choices, capable of making the
changes that each time demands. Through the
miracle of democracy, we are attempting to do
just that today, to gain control of our economic
destiny, reduce our terrible budget deficit, invest
in our future, and do it in a way that is fair
and that will work.
In just a couple of days, I will go to Tokyo
to represent all of you in a meeting of the
world's great industrial nations to work with
them to get this economy moving again and
to create jobs and opportunity for our people
and for theirs as well. We will be able to go
there with our heads held high because, for
all of our difficult problems, we are moving:
almost a million new jobs in 1993, lower interest
rates at home, and a sense that things can get
better if we keep at it. After long periods of
division and denial, we are as a people rising
to the occasion to put our house in order. And
now we can say with an outstretched hand of
friendship to our friends: We have made tough
choices; so must you. And together, we can offer
opportunity to our people again. Let us stop
pointing the finger of blame and assume responsibility and lift the human natures and the
human potential of people throughout the world.
That is the job we will face in Tokyo.
My fellow Americans, in the shadow of this
building let us remember that once, here, patriots and visionaries pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor. Today I tell you
that we must pledge ourselves to make sure
this changing world changes fundamentally for
the better. Old injustices are ending; new opportunities and challenges are emerging. And to

gether, we can make the years ahead the best
years our Nation has ever had if we can rise
above cynicism and doubt, if we can see through
the siren's songs of the easy answers of the
moment, if we can remember that from the
beginning our people have always known that
Government could not solve all the problems
and that all citizens had to be responsible to
build this Nation together.
Today we celebrate these two leaders who
have advanced the cause of freedom in South
Africa and, to be sure, they have advanced the
cause of freedom throughout the world. Tonight,
from parks and waterfronts, in backyards, all
of us here in America will see our skies brightened by the celebration of our own freedom.
It will lift the spirits of people throughout this
country and throughout the world who yet yearn
to see and breathe and feel that freedom. Let
this celebration remind us that democracy is
a promise for each of us to keep, a promise
to be Americans in the best sense of the word,
to be citizens, not spectators, to do the best
we can in our families, our jobs, our communities, to shoulder the burden of responsibility,
not point the finger of blame. This was the
promise our founders made in this place on
this day two centuries ago. To keep that tradition, we must be believers and builders. And
so must we be every day, starting here, right
now, today. Let us resolve to do it.
God bless you, and God bless America.
NOTE: The President spoke at 5:10 p.m. in Independence Hall. In his remarks, he referred to
Mayor Edward G. Rendell of Philadelphia; Judge
A. Leon Higginbotham, retired, Third Circuit
Court of Appeals; and Rev. Leon Sullivan, founder
and president of Opportunities Industrialization
Center and leader in the antiapartheid movement.


Remarks at a Town Meeting in Eldridge, Iowa
July 4, 1993


The President. Thank you very much. Folks,
this is supposed to be informal, so I'm going
to sit down if you don't mind. That introduction
you just heard is a good illustration of Clinton's
first law of politics, which is whenever possible,


get somebody you've appointed to high office
to introduce you. They'll lie about you every
time. [Laughter]
I'm glad to be here with your secretary of
agriculture, your secretary of state, and your


999




July 4 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


Governor, my longtime friend. We served together for a long time. And when he got elected
Governor, he was 3 months younger than me.
He displaced me from being the youngest Governor. Now there are 10 or 12 Governors younger than we are. We've hung around too long
and worked ourselves into middle age.
I'm glad to be here with Congressman Jim
Leach and with Congressman Lane Evans, who's
the Congressman from across the river in Illinois. I want to say we had some contact with
Senator Grassley before I came today, and Senator Harkin called me the day before yesterday
and gave me a long litany of everything I was
supposed to be doing. I said, "Well, Tom, I
don't even need to go to Iowa now. I've been
educated, you know." [Laughter]
It is true that there wasn't much of a sales
job to get me to come here. If you could come
to Iowa on the Fourth of July or stay in Washington and burn up, what would you do?
[Laughter] So I'm glad to be back here. The
last time I was in this part of Iowa was when
I was on my bus trip. And actually, our bus
trip went through almost every place that's badly
flooded here, starting in northern Missouri and
Iowa and Illinois and Minnesota and Wisconsin.
And of course, you got some pretty substantial
damage in South Dakota also.
I am very glad to be back. I want to thank
Secretary Espy for coming out here so promptly.
I wish I could have come a few days earlier,
but the legislative and other schedules in Washington just wouldn't permit it.
I do want to say that I appreciate, Dale, what
you said about Secretary Espy. One reason I
asked him to be Secretary of Agriculture is that
he represented a district in Congress that bordered my State, and I wanted to appoint somebody Secretary of Agriculture that actually represented farmers and that had seen crops flood
and also seen crops burn, often on the same
land. If you hang around long enough, you see
it on the same land. And we are trying up
there to be responsive and to be helpful. And
I want to thank all the people here in Iowa
and all the people throughout this Mississippi
River area who have been very cooperative with
us and have helped us.
I came here mostly to listen to you today,
but I wanted to talk about-I've got three or
four notes here. I want to just make sure I
don't forget to say anything. Of the things we
already know, we know that the damage from


this flood is going to be somewhere in the
neighborhood of a billion dollars. We feel that
it is, anyway. I have only $100 million right
now in my disaster fund under present law. And
I signed a letter releasing that fund before I
came out here. There is also a new law which
has been passed by the Congress which provides
disaster payments for 1993. It's got about $297
million in it. It is on my desk, and I will sign
it as soon as I get back. And don't think I'm
derelict. You couldn't get get the money even
if I signed it yesterday. It'll take a while to
get.
So we're still going to be real short of funds.
So I'm going to ask Congress on an emergency
basis to provide some additional funding, and
Secretary Espy is going to be working with the
rest of the people in the executive branch and
your Representatives from here to put together
legislation that will adequately take care of the
problems insofar as we can under Federal law.
We are going to ask that the producers here
receive the same benefits as the people who
were affected by Hurricane Andrew and other
major disasters last year, which is something that
the congressional delegations and the Governors
have asked us to do, and we're going to do
that. And we will eliminate the August 1st deadline for disaster filing, which is what's in the
present law. We'll present a bill to do that,
and I've already talked to the leadership in the
House and the Senate on a bipartisan basis from
other States. And they don't have any problem
with doing that. They know that we need to.
The last thing I'd like to mention before I
open it to your comments and questions, because you may have some other specific things
we can do, is that I have asked Secretary Espy
to work with the other Federal agencies and
with the appropriate people in Congress on a
long-term reform of the crop insurance system.
Any farmer who's ever fooled with it knows it's
a good thing if you've got it, if you've got insured what goes wrong, in just the way it's supposed to be. But it's nowhere near what it ought
to be. If you don't get your beans planted in
the first place, for example, you can't get any
insurance on it, even if you pay and pay and
pay for years. That's a big issue. I come from
a State that has not near as much corn as Iowa,
just a little bit of corn, but a whole bunch of
soybeans. It's not a program crop, and if you
take out crop insurance against it and then it
gets wet and you can't plant it at all, under


1000




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 4


the present system you can't recover. It's just
not a very good, comprehensive, or appropriate
system in my opinion. So we're going to try
to see if we can't get some reforms up that
people will agree to.
And there are some other actions that Secretary Espy can take that he may want to talk
about or you may want to ask about. But these
are the specific things we think we can do.
I hope it will be enough so that we don't lose
a lot of farmers who are operating on the margins. I went through that whole thing in the
1980's when I was a Governor of a big farm
State, and every other day I had a friend who
was dropping out of farming. And we're going
to do what we can to move as quickly and
as aggressively as we can. I hope it will help.
I think it's real, real important to get this
long-term reform of the crop insurance system
and work it out so that people can access it,
and then if they got it, it amounts to something
when they suffer a loss. So we're going to do
what we can to get that done.
I thank you for spending part of your Fourth
of July with me. I know you could be out shooting fireworks, and I'm sorry about all the water.
We had a whole lot of my State under water
3 or 4 years ago when the Arkansas River flooded, and we had towns under water, house under
water like what I saw today, a town and an
awful lot of farmland. I know what you're going
through. I'm very sorry. I hope this will help,
and I assure you we'll be very diligent in pushing to get this action through Congress. If you
have any other ideas or suggestions we would
be glad to have them.
And thank you again, Governor. Thank you,
Mr. Secretary. Thank you, Madam  Secretary.
Congressman Leach, I'm glad to be in your district and see you looking so hale and hearty.
And thank you all very much for having us.
[At this point, a participant expressed appreciation for the President's visit and discussed severe
weather conditions in 1988 and 1991.]
The President. Can I ask just one fact question before we start, just for my interest because
we're a little bit further north than my home
State. Can you plant soybeans this late here?
Q. This is the cutoff.
The President. You mean 3 weeks from now,
if the land dries off, it's too late to plant, isn't
it?
Q. Right. Some people have planted as late


as the Fourth of July and get a half a crop.
At this point it's not worth the risk of planting
a crop. The cost you have of putting it in the
ground, you're not going to recover that. So
at this point, it's just too late, I think, in the
State of Iowa to plant soybeans. There was some
corn ground that was switched to soybeans, but
it's too late to do that now, too.
Q. Thank you, Mr. President, for your interest
in agriculture. I really appreciate it. And my
question to you is, will you require repayment
of the advance deficiency payments even though
the fellow didn't get the corn planted? I would
think that would be a very great help to those
that didn't get planted to not have that burden
of repayment.
The President. I think I'll let Secretary Espy
answer that. We talked about that very thing
on the airplane when we were about to land,
and we saw how much land was under water.
It was the first thing that came up when we
were looking at the damage.
Secretary Espy. This is something that we've
been looking at a lot lately, as you might imagine. And since I returned to Washington from
Iowa I've reviewed the law. And any outright
waiver of the advance deficiency payment that
you've already gotten is going to be really, really
difficult to do, certainly if you're not in the
program.
But what we want to do is to extend the
signing date for program crops, and we'll probably do it until the end of the month, July
31st, so that you can come in and declare your
intent to plant another crop, particularly corn.
Then you will fall in the 0-92, and then you
could keep your advance deficiency payment.
For those farmers that already have the payment, we can't waive it outright, but we'll certainly work with you to make sure we stretch
out the payment, or we can go to Congress
to ask that we have fallback authority to do
some other things.
The President. Under the law, just to flat out
do it, we don't have the authority right now.
So you either have to change the law or do
what Mike said in terms of putting back the
filing date and having people come in and make
a declaration.
[A participant expressed appreciation for the
President's visit and discussed other conditions
adversely affecting the crop yield, the special
stress the flood places on young farmers, and


1001




July 4 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


the possibility of an assessment fee on commodities traded to be set aside for disaster assistance. ]
The President. You know, there's another issue
that you alluded to there that I don't have an
answer to, but I worked on it quite a lot when
I was a Governor, and that is the whole question
of the small number of young farmers, unless
there are just young farmers that farm their
parents' land, and it's all paid for, and they've
got their debt paid down. The average age of
a farmer is pushing 60, just on the near side
of 60. That looks younger to me all the time[laughter]-but still it doesn't quite qualify as
young.
We spent a lot of time when I was a Governor trying to work out financing operations
and some other things for first-time farmers.
Secretary Espy and I spent a good deal of time
talking about that. Maybe this is not a discussion
for tonight because we're all here worried about
the floods, but if you had any specific ideas
about kinds of initiatives we might undertake
or partnerships for the States for first-time farmers to get young people in or help them get
through those first rough years if they've got
some accumulated mortgage or other debt, I'd
really like to know it, because I think it's a
pretty serious social problem for this country
to have the average age of farmers going up
every year and almost no young farmers coming
in.
[Governor Branstad suggested that a law regarding use of tax-exempt bonds to finance State
farm loan programs be made permanent or at
least extended.]
The President. That whole tax-exempt bond
law is now part of the discussion now being
held on the budget, and I am strongly in favor
of extending it. We had a program like that
at home. It works, and I'm strong for it. I think
it will be extended.
Governor Branstad. It could be made permanent as opposed to extended for a year or so.
The President. I think it will be extended.
We're trying to make it permanent, and I hope
we can do it.
[A participant discussed the loss of crops that
had not yet been planted and the requirement
that a certain percent of any county must be
damaged before the disaster assistance program
provides assistance. Secretary Espy then advo

cated reform of the crop insurance program.]
The President. Let me just mention one other
thing. You asked a question about the county
loss thing. That's always been in the Federal
law, at least as long as I've been fooling with
it. And under normal circumstances it's a pretty
good rule of thumb, you know, for example,
if there's, I don't know, a tornado or heavy
rains that are uniform across the State. But
when you have something that comes directly
out of the flooding of a river like this, it's possible, depending on the size and shape of the
county, that people could be wiped out and
could be living just across the county line and
their county not trigger.
So what I think we're going to have to do
on that-I can't promise, but I'm aware of it
because I've been through it before-what we're
going to do is wait until all the reports come
in, and we can see what the shape of the damage is. And if we've got substantial numbers
of people who are really wiped out who are
in counties where they don't have the 35 percent county loss for just pure geographical fluke,
then we need to make some provisions for that,
and I think we'll be able to.
Q. We need to have a crop insurance program
with a catastrophic feature to it, and we don't
have that now.
Q. I would like to say one thing. I'm from
Illinois just across the way here, but I'm not
from Iowa, but it's been bad over there, too.
Q. Mr. President, I'm 23 years old, and this
is my first year of farming. I had been planning
on starting, and I grew up on a farm, but everything I've done I've done myself. And I'm kind
of wondering where the money's coming from
that you're planning on helping everybody with.
The President. Where's the money coming
from, the $850 million?
Q. Exactly.
The President. Well, I don't think we'll have
any trouble getting it because this year we're
way below the spending targets established by
the Congress before I became President. We've
got the deficit way down; it's much lower than
they thought it was going to be. Our interest
payments are much lower because interest payments are down. And I think the Congress,
they'll do one of two things: They'll either appropriate it as an extra expense, or they'll just
cut the money out of somewhere else and pay
it.


1002




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 4


Everything we've done so far since I've been
there, we've just cut something else and put
it into some supplemental bill, which is what
we did, for example, to add another 200,000
summer jobs this summer.
So they'll either find something else to cut
and pay for it, or they may, because it's a genuine one-time emergency, just appropriate the
money since we're well under the spending limits approved by the previous Congress.
Q. In my opinion, what would help us out
now and in the future would be not this new
tax. We're taxed enough the way it is right now.
We only get 50 cents on the dollar. By the
time we spend it, I would just as soon be able
to spend my money the way I want to spend
it.
The President. You won't have to worry about
this causing taxes because it's a tiny fraction
of a huge Federal budget anyway.
Q. But the whole United States is getting
taxed on this, and it's not helping-what percentage of the United States population is farmers?
The President. Three percent, but 100 percent
of them eat.
Q. Yes, and 100 percent of them are going
to get taxed, too. I would just as soon that
you not tax me as a farmer, and I would just
as soon if you didn't raise taxes on the rest
of the Nation, too.
The President. Well, if we had a decent crop
insurance program, we wouldn't have to worry
about disaster payments. In other words, if we
had one that worked, if there was a system
of crop insurance that worked, we wouldn't have
to worry about it.
Q. As a farmer we've got enough to gamble
on with the weather, let alone gambling on our
Government raising taxes. And I remember
somebody saying no new taxes about 6 months
ago, I believe.
The President. Well, you didn't hear me say
no new taxes. I've promised to raise taxes on
the wealthy because their incomes were
producedQ. I'm far from wealthy, Mr. President.
The President. Well, if your income is under
$30,000, you'll probably get a tax cut under my
plan. If it's between $30,000 and $100,000, according to the Congressional Budget Office, it
will cost you a very little amount of money.
Q. Thirty thousand is a wealthy man then?
The President. No, that's not what I said. But


when I took office, sir-let's have a political
debate. I didn't think we were going to talk
about this, but I'd be more than happy to. Let
me tell you something. After the election-not
during the election when they had all the figures-the previous government announced after
the election that the deficit was going to be
$165 billion bigger than they said before the
election. We just discovered we're going to have
$50 billion more in deficit. This is just for 4
years, not the whole 5-year period.
So my choice was pretty simple. I could ignore that, or I could ask middle class people
between $30,000 and $100,000 to pay a modest
contribution to the deficit, get almost all the
money from people above $100,000, and cut
spending by as much as we would raise in taxes,
reduce the deficit $500 million, and bring interest rates down.
Let me finish. You've started to talk so you're
going to listen to me now. [Laughter] Since
I became President we dropped long-term interest rates a point; they're at their lowest rate
in 20 years, only because there's finally a Government in Washington trying to bring this deficit down. Millions of Americans have refinanced
their homes since January, and they've saved
more money in one year than they're going to
pay in 5 years by far if this small fuel tax passes
that the Congress has approved, by far.
The people whose taxes were raised substantially are people whose taxes were lowered in
the 1980's while taxes on the middle class were
raised. And for every dollar that the taxes were
raised, even on the wealthy, we cut spending.
We have cut everything in the Federal Government. We have a 5-year hard freeze on all domestic spending which includes the increases
we're putting into Head Start, job training, and
new technologies. We have slashed spending.
We have raised 74 percent of the taxes on people with incomes above $100,000, and we held
harmless everybody below $30,000.
I think it's a fair deal. And not only that,
if it gets the interest rates down, the country
will get more money out of it than they'll pay
in taxes. Even the people who don't agree with
me admit, right in the Wall Street Journal, if
we keep interest rates down this low, it will
put $100 billion a year back in the pockets of
ordinary Americans to refinance their homes,
their business loans, their farm loans, their
consumer loans, their car loans, their college
loans. And it's because we have let the deficit


1003




July 4 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


get out of hand and we're bringing it down.
We've got interest rates down. We can turn
the country around. I think it is a fair plan.
And you may believe you're taxed to death, but
our taxes are lower than all of our competitors.
And now our interest rates are, too, because
we're finally doing something about the deficit.
I might say-all the people who talk about
how terrible this was-we just had a hearing
in the Senate last week, and it was a straight
party line vote voting this bill out of the Senate
Finance Committee. But all those people that
said the issue was spending in the Senate Finance Committee, you know how many amendments the other side offered to cut spendingthey said, you know, "It's spending, stupid. It's
not taxes. It's spending"-zero. Not one, not
one amendment, because I had taken all these
politically tough spending cuts. We slashed education, slashed veterans, slashed-we cut everything in the world in a wide budget.
And I just think it was worth it to get the
deficit down. If you don't believe that you
should have any tax increase at all, even a very
modest one, to reduce the deficit, you're entitled to that opinion. But I think you'll make
more money from lower interest rates than
you'll pay in higher taxes. And I think it's fair.
Q. Not if I don't borrow money. I've got
my money saved from earning it, and I wish
the Government couldThe President. Most 22-year-olds don't have
that kind of money. Lucky you. I'm proud of
you.
[A participant thanked the President for visiting
and advocated action during the G-7 summit
to improve market access overseas. He also stated that commodity organizations across the
country would support the NAFTA. ]
The President. Thank you. Yes, give him a
hand.
If I might, let me just say one thing, to go
back to the comment the young man who just
spoke made about the taxes. If everybody in
this country who wanted to work had a job
and we had free and open markets in the world,
then we could lower taxes and reduce the deficit. That's the real truth. The real answer to
this whole issue is how to get growth back into
the economy. That is the ultimate answer. It's
not to have the argument he and I just had.
But the argument is how can you have more
people working and have more markets open.


And if I might just make two comments on
that. Since 1987, about two-thirds of the new
jobs generated in the American economy have
come from expanded trade. That's how you add
jobs in a world where you're already a wealthy
country and most people are working. I'm glad
to hear you say what you did about the North
American Free Trade Agreement. I believe that
most of the fears the American people have
are not well-founded about that. There are some
problems with it. We're trying to get side agreements on labor standards and the environment
to make sure the Mexican Government strengthens those things. But believe me, folks, anybody
who wants to move a plant to Mexico and work
people for low wages and export products back
in here, they can do that today. In other words,
if we don't hit a lick at this NAFTA deal, everything that people are worried about with
NAFTA can happen today.
But before Mr. Salinas became President of
Mexico, we had a $5 billion trade deficit with
Mexico. Today, we have a $6 billion trade surplus. Last month Mexico replaced Japan as the
second biggest purchaser of our industrial products. And you know what it does for you folks
here and the kinds of crops you raise. It's a
good deal.
So we're going to try to pass it. The people
who are against it are genuine and passionate,
and they represent folks just like you who work
hard, play by the rules, and are getting the
shaft and are scared to death and are afraid
this will make it worse. But I honestly believe
it will make it better. If I didn't think it would
be more incomes and more jobs and better for
the farmers, I wouldn't do it.
And I assure you, when I go to Japan, I'll
carry the message you sent me with.
[A participant supported improved market access through NAFTA and the GATT. Another
participant suggested that the Farmers Home reserve be reopened, and Secretary Espy said that
would be considered. A participant then discussed the need for adequate drainage of farmland, his view that efforts to save wetlands and
ducks had gone too far, and the issue of foreclosure. ]
The President. I don't know-Iowa-is this
thing on? I don't know what to say. Where
I come from, we grow more rice than anybody
else in the country. We're kind of interested
in that market access you're talking about. And


1004




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 4


the rice land floods anyway. So our ducks don't
give us that kind of trouble. I never knew I
was supposed to be as hard on ducks. I may
have to reassess my position on this. I'm not
kidding. I mean, I'm really not. Where I come
from it's a big deal, but it's not a problem because the rice land's flooded anyway at duck
season.
You want to say anything about the other
issue?
[Secretary Espy discussed farm legislation
planned for 1995. He announced that based
upon the Presidential emergency declaration
farmers would be allowed to modify their conserving use acreage and stated that farm, foreclosures not presently under purview of the
courts would be suspended pending review. Following his remarks, a participant asked if the
farm legislation planned for 1995 would provide
for increased farm subsidies which would allow
farmers a profit margin.]
The President. If I could just-Mike, you
might want to say something about that, but
if I could comment on that, just make two
points. First of all, on the disaster issue, we're
either going to have to have an adequate, reliable, comprehensive disaster program or a decent crop insurance program that works. And
if we had one, we wouldn't need the other.
On the question of supports, I can tell you
again, the last two farm bills I went through
as the Governor, with my farmers on the receiving end of them. As you know because you're
a farmer, we had a 20 percent unilateral cut
in farm supports in the '90 farm bill. So American farmers have really done their part to reach
out to our competitors overseas and ask them
to open their markets and stop their supports.
I think it's fair to say that the '95 farm bill,
at least from my point of view, since I'm in
a different position now, my attitude about it
is going to be determined by a couple of things,
one of which is, what are these other countries
doing? That is, what's it going to take for our
people to make a decent living? And if other
countries make an appropriate reduction so we
got a fair chance to compete in a market system,
well, that's one thing. If they don't, then I think
we're going to have to take a completely different look at this '95 farm bill about how it's
structured. And I think it's fair to say it's up
in the air now, and it depends on what happens
and what our competitors do. But I'm going


to be very sensitive to people like you because,
you know, there's a limit below which we ought
not to go in terms of how many farmers we've
got in this country as long as we're the most
productive in the world. It's just crazy to stay
on that trend.
[A participant suggested that the problems of
fuel availability and pollution could be effectively
addressed by use of ethanol.]
The President. I agree with that. Let Mike
talk a little about what we're doing.
[Secretary Espy indicated that the USDA strongly supported the use of ethanol as a viable alternative resource.]
The President. You know, if I might say, when
that whole energy tax issue was being debated,
we recommended that ethanol be exempt. And
then we had an alternative that was effectively
going to just take the tax out of the production
sector, out of agriculture and industry altogether. But the Senate decided that rather than
do that, they'd go to some more broad-based
fuel tax. But if they do it in a way that's consistent with State law, it will still be okay for the
farmers, I think.
[Secretary Espy noted that during the budget
process the administration had supported an exemption for ethanol production in the energy
tax. ]
The President. Can we take one more question?
[Governor Branstad said he had testified about
ethanol before the Environmental Protection
Agency on behalf of a coalition of Governors
and expressed his concern about what position
EPA would take concerning ethanol. He requested that the President watch the issue to
ensure that ethanol production had an opportunity to compete.]
The President. Yeah, I've noticed them doing
that. [Laughter] Go ahead.
Q. President Clinton, I'm a local small businessman and employ approximately 30 people.
And just to let you shift gears for a second
here, can you or would you please tell me something that can alleviate my concerns about the
upcoming striker bill. I'm concerned that it will
be detrimental not only to the small businessmen but to the economy in general, which again
is going to directly affect the farmer.


1005




July 4 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


The President. Well, you know that I have
expressed my support for the bill, and I knew
you knew that or you wouldn't have asked the
question. I don't have any idea of whether it
can pass the Senate or whether it will at this
time.
Here is the problem. Let's just talk about
the problem. For many years the Federal law
was that strikers could not be permanently replaced if they went on strike once a group voted
to unionize, if the allegation behind the strike
was that there had been an unfair labor practice.
But if it was just an economic strike, that is,
if the strikers say, "We ought to be getting a
better deal than we're getting, and we're fighting
over this contract," that they could be permanently replaced. That gave the management of
unionized firms a little more leverage in dealing
with strikes where the argument was wages and
benefits instead of, "They did something wrong
to us."
And it worked pretty well until the 1980's
when the economy became more global and
there was more pressure to keep down wages
and benefits and when the public mood became
decidedly more antiunion in the United States.
The reason it worked pretty well is management
had the right to do that under a court decision,
but they never did it. I mean, it was unheard
of. It never happened. For decades no strikes
were just broken and people were run off on
that account.
Then in the 1980's it started to happen with
some significant frequency, and that's what led
to the pressure for the striker replacement bill.
There was almost a compromise adopted in
the-and let me just say that this gentleman's
question is related to something else. Very few
small businesses in America are unionized. A
lot of small businesses believe that maybe they'd
be more of a target for a union if people
thought they could strike over wages and benefits. I personally doubt that very much because
of the relationships most people have with their
employees in small businesses. But that's really
the fear, I think, behind your question.
But where it is now is that it's passed the
House. They don't have the votes in the Senate
yet, and we're talking about whether they can
get some sort of compromise to deal with the
balance issue that I talked about. The people
who are for it in the Congress-I don't mean
everybody that's supporting it, but the people
who are for it in the Congress have no interest


in trying to make it either easier or harder than
it is right now for people to organize themselves
into unions. The question is whether that once
the workers vote to join a union, the bargaining
process plays out in a fair and balanced way.
And so I think there will be a lot of debate
in the next few weeks about whether some compromise along the lines of what they were talking about last time be passed to alleviate some
of the fears that you've expressed and still deal
with the balance question that came up in the
eighties.
[Governor Branstad expressed his appreciation
for the President's visit.]
The President. Thank you very much for what
you said. I'd like to say one thing in closing
if I might. First, I have very much enjoyed
being here, and I appreciate your taking some
of your family time away on the Fourth of July
to come out and visit about these farm issues.
Second thing I'd like to say is I really wish
I had more time to do a little town meeting
about the larger economic issues like the one
the young man raised about the tax issue.
This is a very difficult time for this country.
And a lot of the decisions that I have to make
as President are not simple or easy. Before I
became President I never raised any taxes from
anybody to balance a budget or reduce a debt.
I lived in a State that had a balanced budget
law that made my chief budget officer a criminal
if he let 3 months go by where spending outstripped revenues and where I literally had the
power to cut spending once a week if I wanted
to, to keep the budget in balance. And we did
what we did while having one of the fifth lowest
tax burdens in the country as a percentage of
income. So this whole experience dealing with
this deficit has been very painful to me. And
I guess we split the difference, he and I did,
on what we said.
When I was running for President I said that
I thought we ought to raise some taxes to pay
the deficit down on upper income people but
that we shouldn't raise taxes on the middle class,
and I meant it. When the deficit got written
up $165 billion, the choice I had was to take
the politically difficult decision in the short run
to ask for a modest contribution from middle
class folks, cut as much as I could in spending
without really getting into hurting older people
on Medicare or essential investments in education, and take three-quarters of the money


1006




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 4


from the top 6 percent of the income earners
in the country, or stick with literally what I
talked about in the campaign and risk not being
able to do enough to really get interest rates
down and try to get the economy going again.
It's a very tough call. It is not an easy call.
But as you will see when you read in the papers
about this trip I'm about to take to Japan, as
tough a shape as we're in, we're doing better
than Europe is. They're having negative growth.
Japan's got the slowest growth they've had in
40 years. And all these people have been after
us for 10 years to get our deficit down. They
said, "If you'll get your deficit down, we'll do
some things." And together we can grow the
world economy.
So I'm doing the best I can, believe me. You
may think I'm wrong, and maybe time will prove
me wrong, but I'm trying to make the best
decision I can to create jobs and incomes for


the American people so that we come out ahead
on this deal, not behind. It is a complicated,
difficult time that the goal ought to be to ask
every question in terms of:- Is it good for jobs?
Is it good for incomes? Will it help the economy
to grow? Will it help people to have security
and health care and educating their children
and to make this a stronger and better country?
And on this, the Fourth of July, we're always
going to have our partisan and philosophical differences, and that's what makes this country
wonderful. But if we can always keep that goal
in mind, then when we differ, at least we'll
be arguing about the right things.
Thank you, and Cod bless you all.
NOTE: The President spoke at 8:30 p.m. at the
Schneckloth farm. In his remarks, he referred to
Iowa secretary of agriculture Dale M. Cochran
and Iowa secretary of state Elaine Baxter.


Remarks on Departure From Moline, Illinois
July 4, 1993


I want to thank you all for coming out here
and for waiting on the Fourth of July. What
a wonderful gift it was for me to come back
and see all of you here. I couldn't believe it.
As you know, I've been here reviewing the
flood damage, meeting the families from both
Illinois and Iowa. And I just wanted to tell you
first of all, as someone who had grown up in
a farming area and has seen this kind of flooding
before, I know what it means. I know how hard
it is. And we're determined to do everything
we possible can to help the farmers in this area
and the communities get through it. And when
I get back from my trip to Asia, we'll be pursuing further legislation in the Congress to get
some more aid to your farmers and your communities so that we can recover from this and
go on. And I'm really appreciative of all the
time that the people in this area gave me today
to make sure that I understood what was going
on.
The second thing I'd like to say to you is
that for all the problems this Nation has on
the Fourth of July, and we've still got a lot
of them-there are an awful lot of people who
are worried about their jobs, the security of


their health care, the education of their children,
the safety of their streets-I'm about to leave
to go to a meeting of the world's richest countries where they think we're doing pretty well
because our unemployment rate is lower than
every country in Europe, we had a million more
jobs coming into our economy since the first
of the year, and we're finally doing something
to bring our terrible Government deficit down
and to prepare for our future. And I want you
to know that tomorrow when I leave and get
on that plane to go to Japan, I'm going to be
over there working for things that I think will
help to provide jobs and incomes and opportunity and hope for the American people.
These are very difficult and challenging times
for our country. A lot of the problems we face
are very complicated, and we could argue all
day about what the right decisions are. But I
promise you this: Every day when I go to work
and I fight for our economic plan, which I think
is fair and which I know will work, every decision I make I ask myself, is it going to help
Americans to have more jobs, better incomes,
more security, and a brighter future for their
children? And if we could at least ask that ques

1007




July 4 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


tion-we can have all of the debates in the
world- we'll keep our country going on the
right track.
Don't forget this is still the greatest country
in the world. And the next 20 years can be
the best we ever had, if we have the courage
to make the changes we've got to make to deal
with all these challenges before us. I think we
do. And after spending some time sitting on


a bale of hay with a bunch of Iowa farm families
tonight, I feel a lot better than I did when
I got up this morning on this wonderful Independence Day.
Thank you all, and God bless you. And thank
you for coming out.
NOTE: The President spoke at 10:36 p.m. at the
Quad Cities Airport. A tape was not available for
verification of the content of these remarks.


Remarks to the National Education Association in San Francisco, California
July 5, 1993


Thank you very much. Thank you for the
warm reception you gave to the First Lady and
to Secretary Riley. Thank you for inviting me
back.
You know, last year when we were in Washington I was out in the crowd over there by
the Nebraska delegation. Where are the Nebraska teachers this year, over there? And where
are the teachers from Arkansas? Over there.
Thank you. Always a rowdy group. [Laughter]
I want to thank all of you who teach our
children, staff our schools, lead our communities, and build our future. I am very grateful
for the support you gave in the campaign of
1992, grateful for the support and the work you
continue to do as we work our way through
the changes this Nation has to make in the
Congress and in the country. But most of all,
I want to say at the outset, what I tried to
say all along the way last year: Perhaps more
than any person who ever sought this job, I
spent my apprenticeship in the schools of my
State, in the schools of this country, listening
to teachers talking with children, learning from
principals, trying to inspire people everywhere
to work together for reform. And I want to
thank you most of all for your clear and simple
devotion to the work of teaching.
While I was thinking about this speech, I
received a quote from the novel, "The Prince
of Tides." Secretary Riley gave it to me. I want
to give him full credit. He'll probably have to
take the blame for a thing or two along the
way. [Laughter] But I love the "Prince of
Tides"; it's my favorite novel I guess I've read
in the last decade or so. And the main character


is a teacher named Tom. There's a passage in
the book that I remember vividly where he's
asked why he chose to, quote, "sell himself
short" when he was so talented and he could
have done anything with his life. He replied,
and I quote from Pat Conroy's eloquence:
"There's no word in the language I revere more
than 'teacher'. My heart sings when a kid refers
to me as his teacher, and it always has. I've
honored myself and the entire family of man
by becoming a teacher."
I am delighted to be here with so many distinguished Californians, in addition to the teachers: Senator Boxer, Congresswoman Pelosi, Congressman Lantos, Congresswoman Anna Eshoo,
Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey, Speaker Willie
Brown, controller Gray Davis, secretary of
state March Fong Eu, insurance commissioner
John Garamendi, Mayor Frank Jordan, Brad
Sherman, and many others. To all those folks
who are here in our administration and to Keith
Geiger and all the people who work for you
in Washington, I have a special word of thanks
to the NEA for the gift of our Assistant Secretary for the Office of Education and Research
and Improvement, Dr. Sharon Robinson, who
is also here today.
For the past 5 months all of us have been
working hard with you to change our country
and to build our future. The film that you so
graciously put together shows some of the
progress that has been made; the family leave
bill; the motor voter bill; a tough ethics set
of rules for the executive branch; one House
of Congress having already passed finally a lobby
reform bill that requires all lobbyists to register


1008




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 5


and to report what they spend on Members
of Congress; and a campaign finance reform bill
that lowers the cost of campaigns and opens
the airwaves to honest debate and reduces the
influence of organized groups; a new environmental policy, which puts the United States at
the head, instead of at the rear of the environmental movement that is sweeping the globe.
We did reverse the gag rule and the ban on
fetal tissue research, which was undermining diabetes and Parkinson's and other medical research so critical to the health and the welfare
and the future of the United States.
There is much more to be done. Soon we
will pass the economic program. Soon we will
begin in earnest an attempt to provide health
security and to control health care costs and
to provide quality health care to every American
family. Soon we will have the Vice President's
recommendations on how we can literally
reinvent our National Government so that we
can reduce the amount of regnlation and increase the empowerment we give to people at
the local level and free up funds not only to
bring our deficit down but to invest in people
instead of the constant expansion of yesterday's
Government.
These things are very important. And already,
in spite of the fact that most Americans are
still having a very tough time and are very insecure in this tough global economy, the fact that
our economic program is two-thirds home has
led to a dramatic reduction in interest rates,
which has caused millions of people to refinance
their home mortgages and save them a whole
lot more money in lower interest than the middle class will be asked to pay to bring this deficit
down and leave us some modest funds to invest
in education and our future.
We have already seen in 5 months nearly
one million jobs added to this economy. It is
not enough. It is nowhere near where we should
be coming out of the so-called bottom of the
recession, now nearly 2 years ago. But it is a
beginning, and it indicates that we are moving
along the right track.
In a few hours I will be traveling to Tokyo
to attend the annual summit of the world's largest industrial nations. A foreign summit with
all of its protocol, its interpreters, its communiques, seems awfully remote to most Americans' lives and probably seems remote to the
work most of you do in our schools. But in
fact, the work that I will be doing in the next


few days and the work that you do every day
are closely related, for we have entered an era
where the line between our domestic policy and
our foreign policy has completely evaporated.
Today I want to take a few moments to explain to you what this trip is about, how it
relates to what you do, and the goals that we
all share for our country. Like your work in
the schools, this trip is about crafting our future.
Its goals are our prosperity and security in a
tough global economy.
Forty-five years ago at the end of the cold
war, President Harry Truman and a generation
of visionary leaders realized we had entered a
new age that demanded new policies and new
institutions. They built NATO to deter Soviet
aggression. They created international financial
institutions to help to rebuild Europe and Japan
and promote global economic growth.
Now our generation after the cold war must
create a new vision, new policies, and new
agreements to enable the world's nations to
prosper. We cannot long continue to promote
democracy when Europe is having the slowest
economic growth in 20 years, Japan facing the
slowest economic growth in four decades, and
America over 3 million jobs behind where we
ought to be at this point in our development,
still with the strongest economy of all these industrialized nations. We can do better, and we
must. You think about every one of your schools
with every financial problem you've got. If every
American who wanted a job had one, and we
were growing this economy, the money would
be there to pay our teachers, to invest in our
schools, to give our kids a better life.
A generation ago, our students prepared
themselves for a working world dominated by
large corporations and heavy manufacturing industries which competed with each other and
the United States, but suffered no foreign competitors and could dominate the international
markets they chose to enter. Today they enter
a high-tech information revolution spearheaded
by flexible entrepreneurial firmns, both large and
small, that are networked through computers
with their suppliers and their customers all
around the world. They enter a world where
everybody's job, directly or indirectly, is affected
by global competition. In this economy, money
and management and technology are incredibly
mobile, and a nation's well-being depends largely on the skills of its work force and the capacity
of the people to adapt and be productive.


1009




July 5 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


A generation ago, students planned for lifetime careers with one company. Today's graduates can expect to change jobs six or seven
times in a lifetime, even if they stay with one
company. Before they reach retirement, always
in conjunction with other workers in the world,
they will be in constant competition. And we
must face the hard fact that many of the people
with whom we compete for the high-wage, highgrowth jobs are uniformly more thoroughly prepared to begin their work than our people are.
The European Community will require fluency in two foreign languages for high school
graduates by the year 2000. Germany has one
of the most well-developed youth apprenticeship
programs in the world. The rigor of Japan's public school system is legendary. We know that
we, too, have our strengths, and we know that
we, too, are challenged in ways that no other
nation is. No other nation with which we compete for this future has so many diverse cultures,
so many diverse ethnic groups, so many diverse
religious groups, and so many poor children that
we are trying to educate all the way through
high school. No other nation has anything like
the system of higher education that we do, and
we should be proud of that as well.
But if you look at the challenges we face,
if you look at the results faced here in California
by big companies and trying to secure qualified
employees, if you look at the challenges faced
by the children that go to school in this State
in some of the toughest neighborhoods in America every day, we still have to say that these
things can be challenges to us, but they can
never be excuses. For the global economy is
here to stay. We can't wish it away. We can't
hide from it, and no political leader can promise
to protect you from it. We simply have to compete, not retreat, and we have to do it while
maintaining our position of world leadership.
That means your job and my job are fundamentally intertwined. And unless we both do it very
well, this country cannot be what it ought to
be.
Now, there are people who believe that the
situation is all bad and that our best days are
behind us, and we're not going to do what we
need to do. I think they're dead wrong. We
are better positioned for this new world than
most people think. The new economy is built
on information and innovation. We are an innovative people with a passion for information
technology that dates all the way back to the


first telegraph and the first telephone and is
found today in millions of American homes.
The new global economy is built on flexibility
and constant change. We are a people whose
open society and open political system embrace
change more energetically than any other nation.
The new global economy is based on interacting
and doing business with the people all over the
world, understanding their economies, their societies, and their languages. We are a nation of
immigrants. We have two centuries of experience in building bridges across the lines of race
and religion and culture. One county in this
State has people from 150 different racial and
ethnic groups. We can meet the challenges of
the global economy, and we will.
This new economy is based on high productivity. And after faltering in the seventies and the
early eighties, our productivity growth is once
again making America the high-quality, low-cost
producer in many areas. American automobiles
in the last year have been regaining market
share in the United States, something people
thought would never happen. Why? Because
they're the best cars at the most reasonable
price. And we can do that in many other areas.
Of course, we have problems. We still lose
a stunning number of our children to poverty,
to drugs, to violence. Too many of them simply
never learn enough to compete and win. Too
many, indeed, can barely function in a highly
organized and flexible society.
For more than a decade, our policies ignored
these problems. We ran up huge deficits, not
to invest in our children and our future but
huge deficits that mortgaged our future, weakened our economy. And all the while we actually
reduced our investments in education and technology and the things that make a country
strong. We mortgaged our future by rewarding
speculation over savings, by cutting taxes on the
wealthy while we raised them on the middle
class, by failing to invest in those things which
really count in the long run.
But we are turning that around. We are getting our house in order. We are putting the
steel back into our competitive edge. But the
job that the President has in doing this is no
different than the job you have faced in your
classroom hundreds, indeed, thousands of times
if you've been a teacher long enough. A lot
of people don't want to hear what you have
to say, to do what it takes to learn what they
need to know. [Applause] Thank you.


1010




_1_ _ _ _ I ls


Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 5


How many times have you been in a classroom when you had to say something that was
genuinely challenging and tough to a single student or to a whole class, and they would simply
resist and resist and resist it. That's what's going
on in this country today, isn't it? Our people
have been told what they wanted to hear for
so long, instead of what it really takes to make
it, that there is a natural resistance, one which
I understand and do not begrudge. For 12 years,
voters have been spoon-fed pablum. They've
been told that there was a free ride. There
was a free ride. If only if we would cut somebody else's program, if only we would blame
someone else, you can have it all. You can have
your lower taxes and all the projects you want,
and we'll just cut it somewhere else.
Well, the people of California know better.
They know that we had to and we should welcome the opportunity to cut defense spending
at the end of the cold war. But that means
tough choices like closing bases and reducing
contracts. And if there is no plan to invest in
the people that are left behind, then an awful
lot of unfair harm will be done. So if you're
going to make the tough decision, you have to
level with the people, and then forge ahead
to try to make something good happen.
But I've heard all these siren songs about
how "it's spending, stupid." Well, let me tell
you something: In our budget, which cuts $500
billion from the deficit, half of it comes from
spending cuts. We have a hard freeze on domestic spending over the next 5 years, even though
we spend more money in some things you and
I care about. We reduced defense spending as
much as we should, and we have pushed the
limit of that. We have cut and cut and cut
the entitlements. We have cut the discretionary
programs. We have cut the defense programs.
And when this program came up in the Senate Finance Committee, a fair program that
raises 75 percent of its money from the top
6 percent of the income-earners whose taxes
were reduced in the 1980's, and has $250 billion
in spending cuts, over 100 cuts of $100 million
or more-let me ask you a question that you
can take home to the classroom of your community: The other side who kept screaming to
America, "This is a tax-and-spend program, and
the only problem is spending," had their chance
to offer spending cuts in the Senate Finance
Committee. How many spending cuts do you
suppose they offered over and above the tough


cuts that I had taken out of agriculture and
veterans and every other program? Zero, that's
how many. You couldn't find them when it got
to be specific.
Let me tell you, for every $10 of deficit reduction in this plan designed to get interest
rates down and spur growth, $5 comes from
spending cuts; $3.75 from the upper 6 percent
of American earners, as I said, whose taxes were
lowered in the 1980's; $1.25 comes from the
great middle class with incomes of between
$30,000 and $100,000. Families under $30,000
are held harmless, and for the first time in the
history of this country, if this program passes,
people who work 40 hours a week and have
children in their homes will be lifted out of
poverty. That's the best incentive to get off and
stay off welfare I ever heard. That's what's in
this plan, and those are the facts.
I challenge you to embrace this issue with
exuberance and joy and optimism. The only
thing I question about the end of that beautiful
film was when everybody said, "We've got to
stick with the President, and it's hard to
change." It was almost like a burden to carry.
This is like teaching a new class to your students. This is no big deal. America will change
if somebody will tell the people the truth instead
of giving them the same old pablum.
In spite of all the cutbacks, this budget does
invest more, in Head Start, in immunizations,
in family preservation, in college loans, in national service tuition grants, in school-to-work
transition, in defense conversion, to help all
those people in the Bay area that are going
to lose their jobs because of base closings, and
in new technologies to create new jobs for the
21st century to take up for all the defense cuts.
It sure does, but we still maintain a freeze on
overall spending for 5 years because we've cut
so much out of other things.
Now, those are the facts. We need your help
to get them out. But most importantly, we need
America's help to put this country on the right
track. This deficit is like a bone in our throat.
It is keeping us from investing in our people,
in our growth, and in our future. And you can
help to take it out by explaining to the American
people what the facts are. This is not about
labels and slogans. This is not about tax and
spend. It's not about borrow and spend, either,
which is what we've been doing for the last
12 years.
And it is not enough to reform our economic


1011




July 5 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


system. We must reform our schools, our welfare system, our health system, and our political
system. We have to be about that, too. And
we are. We have to do something for all these
people who have been hurt by the base closings
and the defense contract cutbacks. Here in the
Bay area, the people here took the hardest lick
from this, the third round of our base closures.
They and the people in South Carolina and the
people in a part of New York were hardest
hit. It is wrong for us not to do something
for them. So we propose to spend over the
next 4 years $5 billion to speed up the environmental cleanup, to give preference to job-creating strategies around these base closings, to train
people, to empower communities, to let people
rebuild their lives in a new peace-oriented society where we still value the people who won
the cold war. It is worth the money. We have
to do that.
Now, what has all that got to do with education, and what has all that got to do with
what I'm about to do? That is what I want
to say to you in the last portion of my remarks.
I am leaving when I leave you to go to Tokyo
to the G-7 summit. This will strengthen my
hand, the progress we are making on the economic program. And every one of you, in lobbying your Members of Congress to support it,
have helped that. Why will it strengthen my
hand? Because for years American Presidents
have gone to these meetings, and they have
complained that other countries should open
their markets to American goods, that other
countries should trade with us more fairly. Do
you know what the American Presidents have
been told? "Don't talk to us about that. Your
deficit is so big it is distorting the global economy. It is mandating your big trade deficit. Your
Government deficit is messing up the whole
works. Don't tell us to change until you change."
Well, guess what? I'm going to be able to go
for the first time in a decade and say, "We
are changing. Now you must change, too. Work
with us. Let's put some jobs back into this global
economy. We can create more jobs and have
more economic growth if we can open
everybody's markets and if we can coordinate
our economic policies." And now we'll be able
to say, "You've been asking us to do this for
10 years. Here we are. Now help. Let's do it."
We cannot grow unless all the world grows.
I will say again, Japan has its lowest rate of
growth in decades. Europe has its lowest rate


of growth in 20 years. Since 1987, over twothirds of our new jobs have come from exports.
Somebody has to be able to buy from us in
order to create jobs that way. This is very important. And by helping us to pass the economic
program, you have made a contribution to that.
I also want to say to you very frankly that
I am going to challenge the other countries to
work with us in a new cooperative effort to
tackle the most troubling problem of this new
era, and that is the stubbornly high rates of
unemployment, even in times of economic
growth. Even in times of economic growth.
There are European nations that have had big
economic growth and have still not been able
to get their unemployment rate down below 9
percent.
We're supposed to have been out of the bottom of our recession 2 years ago. And yes, we
have nearly a million jobs in the first 5 months
of this year, but we're still over 3 million behind
where we ought to be based on historical trends.
This is a global crisis. The wealthy countries,
even when they become more productive, even
when they grow, are having trouble creating new
jobs. We need to know why. We need to ask
new questions, and we need to find new answers. We have to do this. We owe it to you,
to your families, and to the future of this country.
Today I am announcing that I have asked
my top economic and labor advisers to invite
their counterparts from all these nations to come
to the United States in the next few months
to a meeting in which we search for the causes
and possible answers for this stubbornly high
unemployment. There are things each of us can
do within our Nation, and we do it together,
that will help us not just to grow the economy
but to ensure that economic growth means more
jobs for Americans and more jobs for the world.
That is the way we have to do this, and this
is a very important advance in the dialog going
on among these countries. We've never really
discussed this issue before, and we have to face
it. I have called several of the other leaders
of these other countries, and they are very enthusiastic because they're just as frustrated as
I am that no matter what they seem to do
for their economy, the jobs aren't coming along.
And I will say again, if everybody in every one
of your communities who wanted to work had
a job, we wouldn't have half the problems we
do today.


1012




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 5


Finally, I want to emphasize in this area one
other issue. I'm not just going to a meeting
of the top industrialized nations, I'm taking my
first foreign trip to Asia, to send a message
that the Asian Pacific region has a very important role to play in your future. After the summit in Tokyo-thank you-[laughter]-I'm going
to Korea as well. This region today is absolutely
bursting with energy and growth. Already, over
40 percent of our trade is with the Asian Pacific
region. Last year it exceeded $120 billion and
accounted for almost 212 million American jobs.
Along with Europe and the Western Hemisphere, Asia is where we must find much of
our growth in the next few years. In recent
years, when we looked across the Pacific, we
focused on our trade difficulties with Japan.
Well, the trade deficit with Japan is real, unacceptable, and we're working very hard to take
some steps with Japan to deal with that. But
our relationships with the Pacific for the most
part are good for us, and we will benefit from
them.
We must never forget how much we've already benefited from all the immigrants who
have come to this Nation, many of them to
this State, from all the nations of Asia. We can
build on that for a brighter future.
I want to lay out ways in which we can make
our relationship with Japan, with Korea, and
with these other nations stronger. I hope we
will have a new global agreement on more open
trade before the end of the year. I hope we
can coordinate our efforts with these countries
because when we do that, it really affects jobs
in your community.
These kinds of policies are important, but
they're not sufficient, and that's where you come
in. Our policies can open the door to new opportunities for the American people, but whether they can walk through the door depends on
whether they are educated and trained for the
new global economy. Without the knowledge,
without the skills, without the temperament,
without the drive to capitalize on opportunities,
America will still not be what it ought to be.
One hundred years ago our Nation's wealth
was based on raw materials. Fifty years ago it
was based on the huge capacity we had for
mass production. Today it's based on what our
people know and what they can learn. That's
why the very best investment we can make is
in the one resource that remains firmly rooted
within our borders, the people who live in the


United States of America.
When I was a boy, education was touted, as
it always has been, as America's great equalizer.
It is still that. But today, it is America's great
energizer as well, the best change agent we can
possibly have. It binds us together, it draws our
youngsters in, it moves them ahead, it builds
their self-worth, it instills a sense of pride and
civic responsibility. America's public schools
have been the cornerstones of progress for over
two centuries, from the little red schoolhouses,
to land grant colleges, to hundreds of community colleges that gave the children of working
parents a chance to make something of themselves. We have seen what education can do.
Now there are school-to-work programs
launched in cities and suburbs and rural districts
around the country that are giving people the
real chance to compete for a lifetime. And now
I go into educational settings, and I see people
in their twenties, their thirties, their forties, their
fifties, their sixties, sometimes their seventies,
learning anew for the challenges and opportunities they face.
You know better than anyone else the immense challenges that you face in our schools
because they have such ambitious goals and such
difficult and challenging obstacles. No other nation, as I said before, tries to teach so many
students from so many backgrounds and cultures
and languages. You shoulder our country's hardest and most important work. That's why we
need to make sure that you and your schools
are ready for the 21st century. That's what the
national education goals are all about, to ensure
that every child enters school ready to learn,
to get rid of drugs and violence and make our
schools safe. Several weeks ago, our administration's "Safe Schools Act" was introduced into
the House and the Senate. It is a good beginning. We cannot expect the students of this
country to reach high achievement when their
very safety or the safety of their teachers is
in danger.
In safe schools, we can make sure our students know what they need to know. We can
make sure that our students lead the world in
math and science achievement. We can make
sure that we can compete in the global economy
and live in the global village. As I head overseas,
I'm reminded how much more we need to do.
We need to give our students a thirst for exploration and a sense of widening horizons. As one
college president puts it, we need to acquire


1013




July 5 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


global literacy. Our students need to understand
not only the meaning of democracy but the spirit of Japanese culture and the richness of African
history. We need them to know more about
foreign languages than just how to order in a
restaurant. Foreign languages in this era aren't
simply a sign of refinement, they are a survival
tool for America in the global economy.
And while I have said repeatedly all across
this country, the magic of education is what
occurs in the classroom and what the parents
give if they do their job, it is still clear that
your National Government has a role to play
and must be your partner. Our job is to provide
leadership, to set standards, to offer incentives
that will help States and local school systems
chart their own path to excellence with responsibility and accountability from all in the system.
Most of all, we can do that if we are your
partners. And I believe that the president of
this organization would say we have had the
partnership I promised in the campaign of 1992,
and we will continue to have it through the
work of Secretary Riley and Secretary Reich at
the Labor Department and our entire Cabinet.
We want the teachers of America to be the
engines of reform. And we are convinced that
they will be.
Our education agenda is ambitious, and its
heart is Goals 2000, which enshrines into law
the national education goals and world-class
standards. We must reach them by the turn
of the century. The legislation we need to make
it happen, enshrining Goals 2000, is awaiting
action now in both Houses of Congress. It has
bipartisan support, thanks in large measure to
the Herculian efforts of the Secretary of Education.
Goals 2000 will give parents and students and
teachers a clear assessment of classroom performance. It will encourage schools to be more
creative in organizing classrooms, training teachers, and motivating students. It will help students to prepare for work after graduation. It
will provide funding to support the reform efforts that are blossoming all across America. It
will mean that the investments we propose to
make in Head Start and other early childhood
programs, like immunization, will actually be
able to bear fruits so that the gains from preschool will be able to be made permanent instead of being lost if we have the right sort
of goals and the right sort of standards and
the right sort of partnership and support. That


is what we seek through Goals 2000.
I intend to fight hard for this bill's passage.
And I intend to fight hard against anything that
will water it down, weaken it, or divert it from
its essential mission: partnerships with people
at the State and local level. We cannot run
the schools of this country from Washington,
DC. We need to empower you to run them.
I also want to mention our school-to-work
initiative. Today half of America's young people
don't go on to college. We know from now
the census data in the 1980's that every high
school graduate who gets at least 2 years of
post-high school education at least has a decent
chance to get a good job with a growing income,
and that every high school graduate with less
than 2 years of post-high school education or
every person who drops out of high school has
an excellent chance of being unemployed or getting a job with a declining income. I think it
is clear what our course should be. Every student ought to finish high school, every high
school graduate ought to have at least 2 years
of school-to-work transitional education and
training so they can successfully learn for a lifetime. That has to be our objective. Our legislation forges a remarkable and heretofore unprecedented partnership between the Departments
of Education and the Department of Labor and
then working with people at the local level. We
must do this.
This is not a controversial issue. It may never
blister across the headlines of America. But I'm
telling you, if we want to raise the per capita
income of Americans, we've got to make every
worker literate, we've got to make everybody
have the equivalent of a high school degree,
and we've got to give people the chance to
get at least 2 years of further training. That
will raise incomes and increase jobs in the United States.
Now, my fellow Americans, as I leave you
and head off to Japan, I want to say again that
there is a common challenge that spans your
work and mine. For the challenge we face in
the global economy is about more than interest
rates and trade balances. And the challenge you
face in your own classrooms is about more than
discrete subjects and SAT test scores. The fundamental question of our time involves a matter
of national character, the question of whether
we will apply our heritage and values to the
demands of a new and rigorous time. I am confident of the answer. I am concerned still that


1014




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 6


so many of our people seem to lack the same
confidence. I know life is tough for most Americans, as much because it is uncertain as because
of the real difficulties of the moment. But both
are real. Still there is no nation with more resilience, more creativity, more love for freedom
and devotion to progress than the United States.
So now it is time once again to show what
we are made of.
Yesterday in Philadelphia on the 217th anniversary of the United States, I had the astonishing experience of being an American President
sitting in the middle of the President of South
Africa and the president of the African National
Congress, the President of a nation once known
as the most vociferous symbol of apartheid in
the world and the man who had been the symbol of the struggle against apartheid, having lingered for 27 years in jail as a political prisoner
there together to receive in common a political
medal from the founding city of the United
States of America because they put their differences behind them, agreed on elections,
agreed on a nonracial democracy. And by next
year we will have that in South Africa. Now,
that, that is a symbol. That is a symbol of what
people can do when they suspend their cynicism


and they suspend their bitterness and they overcome their difficulties and they act on their beliefs. And what has that got to do with us?
Because what is bringing them together are
democratic ideals forged in the American Constitution, a commitment to a bill of rights like
the American Bill of Rights to protect the rights
of minorities as well as majorities and to enable
people who are different to live in peace and
to pursue progress.
If we can inspire that in that country, how
can we not still be a nation of builders and
believers here at home. You and I are joined
in common cause, and I believe we will succeed.
You in the classroom and me in my classroom.
And so, now I go abroad grateful for your support, grateful for your commitment to our children, and more confident than ever that together we can do our jobs and make life for
all Americans what it ought to be.
God bless you, and God bless America.
NOTE: The President spoke at 10:02 a.m. at the
Moscone Center. In his remarks, he referred to
Brad Sherman, chairman of the State Board of
Equalization, and Keith Geiger, president, National Education Association.


The President's News Conference With Prime Minister Kiichi Miyazawa
of Japan in Tokyo
July 6, 1993


Prime Minister Miyazawa. I'm sorry to have
kept you waiting. Now I would like to lead
off with a brief explanation. I would like to,
first of all, extend my warmest welcome to President Clinton and his entourage. And it also is,
I believe, most meaningful that President Clinton has chosen Asia as the first overseas visit
this time. Of course, his visit is for the summit
meeting as well, but he will meet with President
Soeharto of Indonesia as well. And I had mentioned, therefore, that I very highly rate the
fact that he has visited Asia this time and made
the Japan-U.S. leaders meeting as well.
Our relations, the Japan-U.S. relations are
built on three pillars: security, global cooperation, and our bilateral economy. In April we
said in Washington that we should be establishing a framework for our economy, and both


of us at the working level had been working
on this, but time had lapsed. So I sent a personal letter to President Clinton, and today I
also received a very kind response to that personal letter. And we wanted on a working level
to expedite their work on this matter as quickly
as possible. And at the working level, both sides
are working. Both of us are determined that
a proper framework must be put in place.
And in the summit meetings starting tomorrow, we've agreed that we shall cooperate with
each other in bringing the summit meeting to
a success.
Mr. President, please.
The President. Thank you very much. First
of all, it's very good to see Prime Minister
Miyazawa again. We had a fine meeting in
Washington in April at the White House, and


1015




July 6 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


I was honored to have the opportunity to come
here and meet with the Prime Minister before
the beginning of the C-7 summit.
It bears repeating again that the United States
has no more important bilateral relationship
than our relationship with Japan. We are strategic allies and our futures are bound up together.
We have one of the world's most important trading partnerships. We have an array of regional
and global alliances. And our historic relationship, as it undergoes change, must also maintain
some continuity. I have invested a lot in both
the change and the continuity because I think
they are terribly important. And I was glad to
have the opportunity to discuss a wide range
of issues with the Prime Minister today.
We discussed the need for a successful conclusion to the Uruguay round and our hope
that we can agree, among the C-7 leaders, on
market access, on a range of manufacturing
products. We discussed the need to coordinate
economic strategies of the world's wealthiest
economies in the hope of restoring some growth
and job opportunities to our own people and
to the global economy.
We discussed the issue which the Prime Minister mentioned on the framework of our own
relationships, and I'll have a little more to say
about that. But before I do, I want to say something about our security relationship which too
often is overlooked.
I emphasized to the Prime Minister that the
United States intends to maintain our forward
military presence, our presence in Japan, our
presence in Korea, and our security agreements
in this area. We intend to maintain a full engagement in this region. We discussed some of
the difficulties that we face here, but we feel
confident, looking toward the future, that our
security partnership, which has kept us free of
war and which has maintained a strict nonproliferation approach in this region, can continue, and we hope that it will.
I also expressed my support for the extraordinary work Japan has done in supporting the
process of reconciliation in Cambodia, in supporting United Nations efforts in Somalia and
elsewhere. And I also want to say how much
I appreciate the support that Japan has given
to the efforts the United States has made with
the C-7 to support democracy and market reforms in Russia. I believe that we will see a
very positive outcome to those common efforts
here at the C-7 meeting.


The primary focus of our relationship was
strengthening the economic relationships between our two nations. We are moving away,
I hope, from continued tension toward greater
shared benefits. The changes I seek in our relationship are not changes that I hope will benefit
the United States at the expense of Japan but
changes that I believe will benefit the people
of both nations. We discussed this back in April.
We discussed it again today.
As the Prime Minister said, we reaffirmed
our belief in the importance of creating a framework and establishing basic principles for our
trading relationships. I remain convinced that
we can conclude an important agreement on
this issue. The negotiations have not been free
of difficulty, but frankly, some significant
progress has been made. And we agreed in our
private meeting that our respective sides would
continue to work in good faith and with real
intensity during the next few days to see what
we can do.
The best way we can strengthen our historic
friendship, as we must, is to make our trade
and investment genuinely in the best interests
of the peoples of both countries. I hope we
will have more trade, not less, more openness,
more growth, and more jobs in both Japan and
the United States. And I believe we can achieve
that with the proper framework.
Finally, let me say that it's a great pleasure
for Mrs. Clinton and I both to be back here
in Japan. I came here several times when I
was a Governor. I suppose, Mr. Prime Minister,
I won't have quite the freedom of movement
that I once enjoyed as a more private citizen,
but on the other hand, I'm being treated to
an enormous amount of Japanese hospitality, for
which the United States is very grateful, and
I look forward to the next few days.
Prime Minister Miyazawa. Thank you very
much. Now questions, please.
Framework Agreement
Q. I would like to ask this question of both
leaders. I understand from your remarks just
now that you have not reached an agreement
on the framework which is a matter of focus.
I wonder, on these matters of great contention
between Japan and the United States like the
setting of targets with reduction of surplus, or
on the Japanese side, there is a compromise
idea for specific sectors, and I wonder if there
has been any move closer to each other. If so,


1016




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 6


how far have you been able to move to each
other?
Prime Minister Miyazawa. Well, if you asked,
we not reached any agreement, that is wrong.
Over the past several days, I myself, and President Clinton have exchanged letters and through
that process, the working level of both sides,
setting the target of the summit, decided to
finalize our work. And that exercise was conducted very intensively, and that effort is continuing.
The President. Let me say that I agree with
what the Prime Minister said. Late last week,
after the sides had concluded the last round
of negotiations without an agreement, the Prime
Minister took the initiative and sent me a very
thoughtful letter which reached out across the
gap between our two positions. I then responded to that letter, and we concluded that
both sides should go back to the table. That
is where they are.
Differences remain, but enough progress has
been made that we believe they should continue
to work during this critical period, and that is
what they will do. And we have hopes. We
don't want to raise false hopes, but we have
hopes.
Q. Mr. President, in light of the possible
pending changes in the Japanese Government,
how crucial is it that this framework is reached
at this summit? And how likely do you think
that would be? And if I could also ask the
Prime Minister if he could help Americans understand what the difficulty is that the Japanese
have with the idea of numerical targets.
The President. Well, let me say, if we can
get an agreement, the sooner we get it the better. I have been very impressed over the last
several days with the terrific amount of energy
and engagement that Prime Minister Miyazawa
has personally brought to these negotiations and
to the openness with which we have discussed
these issues and the clear willingness of the
Japanese Government and the Prime Minister
himself to reach an agreement if we can in
good conscience.
There are still issues which divide us. Even
if we make an agreement, there will be some
issues which divide us. But our purpose is to
make progress in dealing with the enormous
trade imbalances and also with dealing with the
need for our two countries to integrate our economic relationship so that both sides can benefit
more. And I believe that it is possible. Conven

tional wisdom would have it that it would not
be possible at such a political moment, but the
Prime Minister has defied conventional wisdom.
That does not mean that we will get an agreement. We don't know that yet. But at least we
are trying, and that's I think a great credit to
him.
Prime Minister Miyazawa. Well, both of our
countries have a market economy. And even if
the government wants to do this or that, that
cannot be translated into reality in a market
economy. That is what market economy is about.
Now, it is true that the Japanese current account surplus is too large, and we would like
to somehow reduce this-work hard at reducing
it. There is no doubt about it. But when it
comes to suggesting that this surplus should be
down to a certain percentage of GDP, you can't
control GDP itself. And also since the world
trade is free trade, you cannot determine exports
and imports. We cannot control either the denominator or the numerator. Therefore, we cannot do that. That's a very simple reason.
Any question from the Japanese side?
Japanese Elections
Q. I would like to ask this question of President Clinton, a question on Japanese politics.
In your press conference in Washington, DC,
I think you expressed some hope and expectations for Japanese politics. Does that contain
your expectations for a change in government?
I wonder what sort of expectations do you have
of Japanese politics?
The President. First let me say I wish I had
been able to answer the previous question a
little bit. We have a slight difference of view
on that. But my views on the trade issue I
think are well-known to the lady in orange. So
there's no point in bringing them up again.
I'm glad you asked the question about Japanese politics. The United States takes no position, and I take no personal position on how
the people of Japan should vote or will vote.
That is a matter for them to decide. What I
said and what I believe is that no matter how
the vote comes out in terms of the distribution
of party preferences for seats in the Diet, this
is a period of change and ferment in Japan.
It is a period of change and ferment in the
United States. It could hardly be otherwise.
There is a global crisis of slow growth in the
wealthiest countries. There is a global crisis of
job growth in the wealthiest countries. Many


1017




July 6 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


wealthy countries, even when they have economic growth, are not now creating new jobs.
There is a global feeling among all the democracies of the world that there ought to be more
political reform. There is a thirst for political
reform in my country, in Japan, in South Korea,
in virtually every major democracy in the world.
So you see these trends developing around the
world.
The point I wanted to make is that, no matter
whether the LDP wins the election or there
is some different or modified result-however
it comes out, this is already a period of change
in Japan, and I would hope that that would
be viewed with hope and not with fear by the
Japanese people. That is a part of the process
of democracy, and we can make it a good thing
in your country as we are attempting to make
it a good thing in ours.
North Korea
Q. Mr. President, last week in an interview
with columnists in Washington, you expressed
your worst nightmare in Asian security questions
would be a North Korea that would have the
bomb and be willing to use it. And your second
worst nightmare was a Pacific arms race that
could lead to-you used the example of development of a nuclear capability by Japan. Could
you explain how you feel that might be brought
about? And, Prime Minister Miyazawa, would
you explain whether you believe that's ever possible under any circumstances, please?
The President. Well, the two were related.
I don't think it would ever happen in the absence of the development of nuclear capacity
Remarks at a Reception for Japanese
July 6, 1993
Thank you very much. On behalf of Hillary
and myself, I want to say how glad we are
to be in Japan and how much we appreciate
Ambassador and Mrs. Armacost inviting all of
you to come here and to meet us.
I want to keep my remarks brief because I
hope we can have more time for personal visiting. I do want you to know that I just had
a very good meeting with Prime Minister
Miyazawa, and we discussed a whole range of


by North Korea and some retrenchment by the
United States.
I want to say again, the United States has
no intention at this moment or in the future
of weakening its security ties in the Pacific, not
to Japan, not to South Korea. We intend to
stay engaged, and the security commitments we
have given with regard to nuclear and defense
issues to Japan are as strong today as they have
ever been. And they will so remain.
I very much want North Korea to stay in
the NPT and to fully comply with all the requirements of doing so. I think it is in the
interest of North Korea to do so. I just simply
was recognizing the fact that if North Korea
did not do that, that would create a lot of difficulty and concern here in Japan. Whatever
North Korea does, the United States will honor
its commitments to our allies and friends in
this region on the nuclear issue and on security
issues generally.
Prime Minister Miyazawa. For Japan, if the
people's Democratic Republic of Korea acquire
nuclear weapons and also acquires launch capability, that in itself would be a direct threat.
It will be a direct threat for Japan. I'm sure
you will understand that. We have, obviously,
no intention of producing nuclear weapons, and
therefore, we will-and definitely we'd be very
concerned if we are to be exposed to that sort
of threat.
Thank you very much for the press conference.
NOTE: The President's 19th news conference
began at 6:04 p.m. at the likura House.
Leaders in Tokyo
issues. I would say, the most important are that
I was able to reaffirm the commitment of the
United States to the security relationship that
exists between our two nations and the continuing involvement of the United States in a security relationship in Japan and Korea and across
a whole broad range of issues that face us as
a people.
Secondly, we had a good discussion about our
efforts at the upcoming G-7 summit to promote


1018




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 7


a higher rate of economic growth throughout
the globe, to open more markets to trade
through the Uruguay round, and finally, to try
to secure a democracy and market reforms in
Russia, something that Japan has been very
helpful to the United States on and for which
we are very grateful.
And lastly, we discussed negotiations which
are still ongoing in our attempt to establish a
framework of basic principles for a new agreement about our trading relationships. Perhaps
we can have more to say about that in our
personal conversations.
The United States thinks it is absolutely critical for the imbalances to be reduced. We think
it is in the interest of both countries for that
to happen. We have worked very hard in our
Nation on increasing our productivity and our
ability to compete in the last several years. And
now, as you know, we are taking very, very
strong steps to do what our Japanese friends
have asked us for years to do, which is to bring
down our Government's deficit.
So we come here with an outstretched hand


and the hope that all of the ferment and change
and political debate going on in Japan will be
a very positive thing for your people and for
our relationship. Many of the issues you're debating from political reform to economic issues
are also being debated in our country and,
frankly, in most other advanced democracies. I
think this period of change should be viewed
by all of us with hope, with the view that we're
going to make something very good come out
of it, not only in the election process but in
the aftermath.
And there is no more important relationship
to the United States than our relationship with
Japan. And I intend to keep it on a firm footing,
and I hope that our relationship with all of
you will contribute to that and, most importantly, to the welfare of the people of Japan
and the people of the United States.
Thank you very much.
NOTE: The President spoke at 6:42 p.m. at the
residence of U.S. Ambassador Michael H.
Armacost.


Remarks and a Question-and-Answer Session at Waseda University in
Tokyo
July 7, 1993


The President. Thank you very much. Mr.
President, thank you for that introduction, I
foolishly came out here without my earphones,
so I don't know what he said to make you
laugh-[laughter]-or what he said about Robert Kennedy. So I should give a speech about
how we need to train more Americans to speak
good Japanese. Perhaps someday an American
President will come here and give a speech to
you in your native language. Then I will know
we are really making progress in reaching across
the barriers that divide us.
It is a great pleasure for me and for the
First Lady to be here at this distinguished university today. Waseda is a center of true academic excellence and a training ground for many
of Japan's most distinguished leaders. I am
proud to be the first American President to visit
here.
But as has already been said, 31 years ago
another American, whom I admired very much,


Robert Kennedy, spoke in this hall. It was a
very different time. The modern economies of
Japan and Asia were just emerging. It was the
middle of the cold war. Fierce arguments raged
here, as in other nations, about where the future
lay, with communism or democracy, with socialism or capitalism. On that evening in 1962,
those arguments spilled onto this stage. When
members of the student Communist movement
heckled Robert Kennedy, he challenged their
leader to come up and join him. In his characteristic way, Kennedy transformed a diatribe
into a dialog and close-mindedness into an open
debate.
That is what I hope we will have here today.
The exchange that followed was heated, but it
demonstrated the best of the values of freedom
and democracy that our two nations share.
Three decades later, on this day, in this place,
the times are very different, but no less challenging. The need for vigorous and open dialog


1019




July 7 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


remains. The time has come for America to
join with Japan and others in this region to
create a new Pacific community. And this, to
be sure, will require both of our nations to
lead and both of our nations to change.
The new Pacific community will rest on a
revived partnership between the United States
and Japan, on progress toward more open
economies and greater trade, and on support
for democracy. Our community must also rest
on the firm and continuing commitment of the
United States to maintain its treaty alliances and
its forward military presence in Japan and Korea
and throughout this region.
Is it appropriate? I believe it is, to address
these issues here in Japan. The post-cold-war
relationship between our two nations is one of
the great success stories of the latter half of
the 20th century. We have built a vital friendship. We continue to anchor this region's security and to fuel its development. Japan is an
increasingly important global partner in peacekeeping, in promoting democracy, in protecting
the environment, in addressing major challenges
in this region and throughout the world. Because our relationship has been built on enduring common interests and genuine friendship,
it has transcended particular leaders in each
country, and it will continue to do so.
History has decided the debate that waged
here in 1962, a debate over whether communism works. It didn't. Its ruins litter the
world stage. Our two nations have proved that
capitalism works, that democracy works, that
freedom works. Still, no system is perfect. New
problems and challenges constantly arise. Old
problems deeply rooted in cultures and prejudices remain. To make the most of this new
world, we both must change. As Robert Kennedy once noted, "Progress is a nice word, but
its motivator is change, and change has its enemies."
The cold war passed from the world stage
as the global flow of information pierced the
Iron Curtain with news of other ways of living.
And the world moved steadily toward a more
integrated global economy. Money, management, and technology are increasingly mobile
today. Trillions of dollars in capital traverse the
globe every day. In one generation international
trade has nearly tripled as a percentage of global
output. In the late 1980's, increased trade accounted for well over half of the new jobs in
the United States.


Meanwhile there have been huge changes in
the organization and the nature of work itself.
We are moving away from an economy based
on standardized mass production to one dominated by an explosion of customized production
and services. The volume of information is increasing at an astonishing rate. Change has become the only constant of life. And only firms
that are flexible and innovative, with very welltrained people, are doing very well.
The new global economy requires little explanation here in Japan. You have pioneered the
modernization of Asia. Now from Taipei to
Seoul, from Bangkok to Shanghai, Asian economies are growing at dramatic rates, providing
jobs and incomes, providing consumer goods
and services to people who could not have even
dreamed of them just a generation ago.
To be sure, Asia's progress is uneven. There
are still millions in abject poverty. Four of the
world's last five Communist regimes and other
repressive regimes continue to defy the clear
laws of human nature and the future. But the
scenes of life in this region paint an unmistakable picture of change and vitality and opportunity and growth.
A generation ago in Singapore, bumboats
floated up to the boat quay to unload their
cargoes of produce and cloth which were sent
out into a labyrinth of smoky shophouses and
small family markets. Today such scenes are
joined by those of container ships steaming into
Singapore's modern port, one every 6 minutes,
disgorging their goods into mechanized warehouses and modern supermarkets. In China's
Guangdong Province, young entrepreneurs are
leaving safe jobs in state-owned enterprises to
start their own companies. To describe their
daring spirit the Chinese have coined a phrase
that literally means "to plunge into the sea."
Such images help to explain why Asia likely will
remain the world's fastest growing region for
some time. Its imports will exceed 2 trillion
U.S. dollars. This growth will help to make a
tripolar world driven by the Americans, by Europe, and by Asia.
In years past, frankly, some Americans viewed
Asia's vibrancy and particularly Japan's success
as a threat. I see it very differently. I believe
the Pacific region can and will be a vast source
of jobs, of income, of partnerships, of ideas,
of growth for our own people in the United
States, if we have the courage to deal with the
problems both of our nations have within and


1020




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 7


beyond our borders.
Already over 40 percent of American trade
is with this region. Last year, over 2.3 million
American jobs were related to the $120 billion
we exported to Asia. Millions of Asian-Americans in the United States today embody our
Nation's devotion to family values, to hard work,
to education. In so doing, they have helped to
strengthen our cultural ties and our economic
ties to this region.
Today, our Nation is ready to be a full partner
in Asian growth. After years of difficult transition, our private sector is embracing the opportunities and meeting the challenges of the global
economy. Productivity is on the rise. Attempts
to pierce overseas markets are more intense
than ever. Many of our manufacturing service
and financial firms are now the high-quality,
low-cost producers in their fields.
At last, our governmental sector in the United
States is also moving in the right direction. After
years of being urged by Japan and by other
nations to do something about the massive
American budget deficit, we are on the brink
of doing something about it. After years of being
urged to do something about improving our
education system and making our manufacturing
and other sectors more productive and more
competitive, we are doing something about it.
We are nearing the adoption of a bold plan
to reduce our public deficit by $500 billion over
the next 5 years and to increase our investments
in education, in technology, and in new jobs
for the American people. We are moving to
reform our health care system, the world's most
expensive, to control costs and provide quality
care to all of our people. We are moving to
give incentives to the millions of Americans who
live in poverty so they will move from poverty
into middle class working lives. We too are moving to reform our political system, to reduce
the cost of our political campaigns and the influence of lobbyists on our lawmakers. We are
moving to face one of our most painful social
problems, high rates of crime and violence, with
new initiatives to put more police officers on
our streets, give better futures to our young
people in depressed areas, and keep guns out
of the hand of dangerous criminals.
But it is not enough for the United States
to change within. To increase the jobs, raise
the incomes, and improve the quality of life
of the American people, we must also change
our relationships with our partners and ask them


to do the same.
Our first international economic priority must
be to create a new and stronger partnership
between the United States and Japan. Our relationship with Japan is the centerpiece of our
policy toward the Pacific community. Our two
nations account for nearly 40 percent of the
world's output. Neither of us could thrive without the other. Producers in each of our countries are consumers for firms in the other.
We are also joined in our efforts to address
global economic problems. We work closely in
an effort to move toward a new trade agreement. And I hope Japan will join in the initiative
I proposed just 2 days ago in San Francisco:
a meeting of the senior G-7 economics and
labor and education advisers to look into a new
problem with the global economy, stubbornly
persistent unemployment in the richest nations
of the world, even where there is economic
growth, rooted in the inability of so many of
these nations to create new jobs.
The economic relationship we have has always
benefited both our nations. Americans buy huge
volumes of Japanese products. American companies in Japan employ thousands of your citizens.
Joint ventures between Japanese and American
enterprises advance the economic and other interests of people in both nations. Japanese companies have opened many manufacturing firms,
sales offices, and other facilities in the United
States. In the 1980's when my country went
on a huge debt binge, massively increasing public and private debt, Japanese purchases of much
of that debt helped to keep our economy going
and helped to prevent our interest rates from
exploding.
Still, our economic relationship is not in balance. Unlike our relations with all other wealthy
nations, we have a huge and persistent trade
deficit with Japan. It usually exceeds $40 billion,
with a deficit in manufacturing products in excess of $60 billion in spite of the fact that in
recent years our manufacturing productivity has
increased very greatly.
It is impossible to attribute this trade imbalance solely to unfair Japanese barriers, from governmental policies to a unique distribution system. Indeed, it is in part simply a tribute to
Japanese abilities to produce high-quality, competitively priced goods and to the skill of Japanese businesses in piercing so many overseas
markets, including our own. Yet, it is clear that
our markets are more open to your products


1021




July 7 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


and your investments than yours are to ours.
And it is clear that governmental policies consistently promoting production over consumption, exports over domestic sales, and protections
of the home market contribute to this problem.
The trade deficit is on the rise this year even
with the market rise of the yen against the dollar. Though American purchases of Japanese
products have remained fairly constant, Japanese
purchases of American products have dropped
markedly as a consequence of slow growth here
in your economy with no offsetting government
policies to stimulate demand.
This problem has, as all of you know, fueled
resentment in our country both from workers
and from businesses who have worked hard to
streamline their operations, reduce labor costs,
and increase productivity and now want the benefits that can only come from being able to
compete and win in a global economy. Our people understand when our Nation has a huge
trade deficit with an emerging economy like
China. The same was true just a few years ago
with Korea and Taiwan. But both those nations
have moved closer to trade balance with the
U.S. as they have become more prosperous. The
same has not happened with Japan.
This persistent trade imbalance has not just
hurt American workers and businesses, it has
hurt the Japanese people. It has deprived you
as consumers of the full benefit of your hard
and productive work. For example, partly because of restrictive economic policies, the average Japanese family pays more than twice as
much of your income for food as the average
American family. And many other consumer
products are far, far more expensive here than
elsewhere, with these differentials going far beyond what can be accounted for by the transportation costs of bringing products to this market.
Our relationships with Japan have been durable not only because of our security alliance
and our political partnership but because our
economic relationship has actually served our
interests and yours. I believe we must change
this economic interest to improve the lives not
just of the American people but of the Japanese
people as well. It would be wrong for me to
come here as President to ask you to embrace
changes that would only benefit the people who
live in my country. I believe that the changes
I advocate will benefit both of us, or I would
not be here pushing them.
During my April meeting with Prime Minister


Miyazawa, we agreed to build a new framework
for trade on macroeconomic, sectoral, and structural issues. Now, I don't know how that translates into Japanese, but the average American
has no idea what that means. [Laughter] What
it means is that we are going to try to deal
honestly with the differences we have over our
nations' economic policies. We want to talk
about the specific sectors of the economy where
we believe that more trade is warranted. We
want to talk about structural differences between
our two countries that operate as effective barriers to finding greater balance and greater volume of trade. Our governments have made
progress in these last few days in crafting the
basic principles of this new framework. And we
will persist until we can produce a sound agreement that is in the interests of people in both
countries.
What the United States seeks, let me make
clear, is not managed trade or so-called trade
by the numbers but better results from better
rules of trade. Openness like this cannot simply
come from  pressure from  the United States.
That is one reason I wanted so much to be
here with you today. A new openness can only
come ultimately when Japanese leaders and Japanese citizens recognize that it is in your interests to pursue this course.
So today I would send this message to all
of you and to the people beyond the walls here
in this hall: You have a common cause with
the people of America, a common cause against
outdated practices that undermine our relationship and diminish the quality of your lives. The
ideas I propose are beneficial to both of us
because they will increase the number and lower
the costs of the products you are able to buy,
the services you are able to access, and they
will thereby reward the work, the education,
and the skills that you bring to daily life here
in Japan. You are entitled to no less, and it
will be a part of your role as a great nation
for the foreseeable future to have that sort of
open relationship. We should take these steps
together for ourselves and for future generations. I am optimistic that the people of Japan
and the people of the United States can hear
the same message and move toward the same
goal.
Japan has, after all, a proud heritage of embracing bold change when the times call for
it. Much of the success you have enjoyed in
recent years comes from a phenomenal ability


1022




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 7


to adapt to the changing contours of the global
economy. And over 120 years ago, the leaders
of the Meiji Restoration embarked on a series
of rapid and successful initiatives that transformed a feudal Japan into a modem society,
making it more open to the West and the broader world, without sacrificing the uniqueness of
the Japanese culture.
On this campus today, there is a statue honoring one of the great statesmen of that period,
this school's founder, Count Okuma. In his exhaustive narrative of the Meiji Restoration,
Okuma attributes the period's reforms, and I
quote, to "thoughtful and farsighted Japanese
leaders." And he concludes, "Even as the spirit
of liberality has animated the Japanese race during the past half-century of its remarkable
progress, so it will ever impel its march along
the paths of civilization and humanity." To keep
the country's doors wide open is a national principle to which Japan has attached the greatest
importance from its earliest days. I believe and
hope that spirit still prevails and that a stronger
Japan-U.S. economic relationship, driven by mutual wisdom, can power our new Pacific community well into the next century.
The second building block of that community
must be a more open regional and global economy. That means that together we must resist
the pressures that are now apparent in all
wealthy countries to put up walls and to protect
specific markets and constituencies in times of
slow growth. We must resist them because the
only way wealthy countries can grow richer is
if there is global economic growth and we can
increase trade with people who themselves are
growing more prosperous. An essential starting
point is the successful completion of the Uruguay round of the General Agreement on Tariffs
and Trade. I am committed to doing that by
the end of this year, and I hope that your government is also. I believe we should also work
to reduce regional trade barriers. That is what
we in the United States are attempting to do
in negotiating an agreement with Mexico and
Canada not to close North America to the rest
of the world but to open it up. And perhaps
we should consider Asian-Pacific trading areas
as well.
The most promising economic forum we have
for debating a lot of these issues in the new
Pacific community is the Organization for AsianPacific Economic Cooperation, APEC. The 15
members of APEC account for nearly half of


the world's output and most of the fastest growing economies. This fall, we will host the APEC
ministerial meeting in Seattle. I will speak at
that meeting to signal America's engagement in
the region. But I hope we can go beyond it.
I am consulting with the leaders of APEC at
this moment on a proposal that they join me
in Seattle in an informal leadership conference
to discuss what we can do to continue to bring
down the barriers that divide us and to create
more opportunities for all of our people. In addressing common economic challenges we can
begin to chart a course toward prosperity and
opportunity for the entire region.
Of course, the purpose of meetings like this
is not simply more meetings and communiques,
it is to improve our people's lives, not just the
lives of those who dash around financial districts
in Tokyo or New York with cellular telephones
in their pockets but the millions of people in
my country and the billions of people on the
Earth who work hard every day in factories and
on farms simply to feed their families and to
give their children a better life than they have
enjoyed. It will make a world of difference to
them if our leaders can set pro-grow policies,
dismantle trade barriers, and get government
out of the way. Expanded trade and more open
economies will not only enrich people, they also
empower them. Trade is a revolutionary force
that wears down the foundations of despotic
rule. The experiences of the Philippines, Taiwan,
Korea, and others prove that the move toward
more open economies also feeds people's hunger
for democracy and freedom and more open political systems.
This then should be our third priority in
building a new Pacific community: to support
the wave of democratic reform sweeping across
this region. Economic growth, of course, can
occur in closed societies, even in repressive
ones. But in an information age, it cannot ultimately be maintained. People with prosperity
simply crave more freedom. Open societies are
better able to address the frictions that economic growth creates and to assure the continuance of prosperity. A free press roots out corruption, even though it sometimes aggravates
political leaders. The rule of law encourages and
protects investments.
This spread of democracy is one of the best
guarantees of regional peace and prosperity and
stability that we could ever have in this region.
Democracies make better neighbors. They don't


1023




July 7 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


wage war on each other, engage in terrorism,
or generate refugees. Democracy makes it possible for allies to continue their close relations
despite changes in leadership. Democracy's virtues are at the core of why we have worked
so hard to support the reforms and the reformers in Russia, which is now on a path toward
becoming one of the Pacific's great democratic
powers.
The movement toward democracy is the best
guarantor of human rights. Some have argued
that democracy is somehow unsuited for Asia,
or at least for some nations in Asia, that human
rights are relative and that they simply mask
Western cultural imperialism. I believe those
voices are wrong. It is not Western urging or
Western imperialism but the aspiration of Asian
peoples themselves that explain the growing
number of democracies and democratic movements in this region. And it is an insult to the
spirit and hopes and dreams of the people who
live here to assert that anything else is true.
Each of our Pacific nations must pursue
progress while maintaining the best of their
unique cultures. But there is no cultural justification for torture or tyranny. We refuse to
let repression cloak itself in moral relativism,
for democracy and human rights are not occidental yearnings, they are universal yearnings.
These, then, are the economic essentials for
this new Pacific community, one in which most
of you, being so much younger than I am, will
spend far more of your lives in than will I.
A better U.S.-Japan relationship, more open
economies and trade, more democratic governments, these things will make your lives better.
I will pursue these goals vigorously. You will
see that commitment reflected in what our administration does. Together we can make this
decade and the coming century a time of greater
security, democracy, prosperity, and personal,
family, community, and national empowerment.
So today, on this holiday of Tanabata, a holiday of joining together and hopeful wishes, let
us wish for a new Pacific community, built on
shared effort, shared benefit, and a shared destiny. Let us write out our brightest dreams for
our children on pieces of paper as bright and
differently colored and numberless as are the
peoples of the Asian-Pacific region. In the spirit
of this holiday, let us fly those dreams from
bamboo poles that are as high as our hopes
for the era, and then, together, let us dedicate
ourselves to the hard work of making those


dreams come true. Senator Kennedy was right
when he said that change has its enemies. But
my friends, we can make change our friend.
Thank you very much.
Now, I'm going to take some questions, and
I think I'm supposed to go down here. So I
will try to go down there without breaking my
leg, and then we'll take some questions.
Japanese Imperial Family
Q. Thank you for giving me a chance to ask
you a question today. The wedding ceremony
of the Crowned Prince and the Princess Masako
Owada was held recently. What did you think
of the ceremony? And also, what do you think
of the Imperial Family, which you don't have
in the United States?
The President. Well, the Imperial Family is
an important part of your culture. We do not
have one in the United States, as you know.
That's because when we broke off from England, they had a king, and so we thought we
had to behave differently. So we elected our
Presidents, and then over 100 years later we
decided they could only stay for 8 years. And
then when times got tough, most of them found
it was difficult even to stay 8 years. [Laughter]
But let me say, I'm very interested in the
Imperial Family. We followed the marriage with
great interest, my wife and I, and discussed the
marriage and how impressed we were with the
Princess and with the devotion of the Prince
who pursued her. I have invited the Emperor
and the Empress to visit the United States next
year, and we are hopeful that they will come
sometime in the late spring or the early summer
and that they will have a very good trip. We
are eager to receive them.
Q. Thank you very much.
Iraq and Bosnia
Q. With regard, Mr. President, to the Iraq
retaliatory attack. Of course, this took place, and
there was no military mobilization that took
place on the part of Iraq. However, this attack
did take place. And I'm just wondering what
your thoughts are on this situation.
The President. You mean the attack that I
ordered on Iraq?
Q. With regard to this attack, of course, there
are criticisms that are launched by the Middle
Eastern countries that perhaps this might be
a discriminatory measure that was taken by the
United States society which still has as the ma

1024




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 7


jority the white people. And in the United
States, of course, despite that fact, it's an ethnically mixed group of people who live there,
and you have your own special situation. However, there is this criticism that has been
launched by the Middle Eastern countries that
this is, in fact, nationalism where, perhaps, discrimination on the part of the United States
against Iraq. And then, of course, there is also
the issue of the ethnic cleansing that is taking
place in Bosnia that I would also like to have
you address.
The President. First, let me talk about Iraq,
and then I will discuss the other issues. There
was no discrimination involved. Our intelligence
and law enforcement agencies conducted an investigation on the people who were arrested in
Kuwait and charged with bringing in a very dangerous bomb for the purpose of assassinating
former President Bush because of actions he
took as President in the Gulf war. I was advised
that they believe that that in fact occurred, that
a plan devised by the Iraqi Government was
attempted to be carried out in Kuwait to kill
former President Bush with a bomb that had
a lethal radius of about 400 yards. That is, it
could have killed people within 400 yards
around where it exploded. So I took what I
thought was appropriate and perfectly legal retaliatory action, basically as a deterrent to further behavior of that kind. It had nothing to
do with any racial or religious distinction. And
indeed, Iraq's closest neighbors, Kuwait and
Saudi Arabia, applauded the action that was
taken.
Secondly, with regard to Bosnia, the United
States has spent hundreds of millions of dollars
in humanitarian aid. It is prepared to do more
and advocated, along with the nonaligned nations and most of the Muslim nations of the
world, lifting the arms embargo on the Bosnian
Government and giving the Bosnian Government time to implement the arms embargo with
standby air power. That position did not prevail
in the United Nations because others were
against it. That's what I thought the right thing
to do was.
The United States also was involved in helping people in Somalia. We were actively involved
in the agreement announced just last weekend
to restore Father Aristide to Haiti within 4
months.
There was no racial or religious or ethnic
discrimination involved in the Iraqi action. It


was, I believe, clearly the right thing to do.
But we are reaching out to Muslim peoples all
across the world with our friendship with Turkey, our friendship with many of the newly independent states of the former Soviet Union, and
elsewhere, people who share our values. We
respect their religious and their cultural traditions. We want stronger ties. And I very much
hope that the multiethnic government in Bosnia
can survive.
Q. Thank you.
Korean Reunification
Q. I am a student, Mr. President, from South
Korea, and I would like to ask you a question
about the Korean Peninsula. As you are aware,
sir, South Korea and the DPRK are, in fact,
not reintegrated. We are the last two states in
the nation that need to be reintegrated. And
I'm wondering if you have any prospects, if you
have any thoughts on when the reintegration
of South Korea and North Korea might take
place.
The President. Well, I think that that is a
matter for the Korean people themselves to decide. And we will obviously support the decision
that they make. I have to tell you that my hopes
for an early reintegration have been dampened
somewhat by the recent controversy over whether North Korea would withdraw from the NPT
regime, not allow the international inspectors
to continue to inspect the sites to ensure that
North Korea does not become a nuclear power.
That would be a very grave development, not
just for South Korea but for Japan as well and
for all of Asia.
I think the most important thing I can do
as President to speed the day of reunification
on terms that are humane and decent and honorable is to maintain a strong presence in the
area, to honor our security commitments, and
to do everything I can to deter the development
of nuclear potential in North Korea. These two
nations should unite again based on shared culture and family ties and common economic interests and a common interest in a peaceful
future, not trying to be a nuclear power at a
time when Russia and the United States, for
example, are trying to reduce their nuclear arsenals. We need fewer nuclear weapons, not more.
That's one reason I announced that we would
not resume nuclear testing a few days ago, in
the hopes that we could, together with the other
nuclear powers, continue to discourage the de

1025




July 7 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


velopment of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction.
Q. Thank you.
Human Rights
Q. Mr. President, you mentioned the importance of human rights, and I understand that
recently you've submitted some international
conventions to the Senate for consideration, including the convention on torture. Does this
indicate a change in policy from previous administrations concerning human rights, and do you
have any plans to submit any other human rights
conventions to the Senate?
The President. Well first of all, I want to
see how we do with the ones we submitted.
I think they will be ratified. I wouldn't rule
out the submission of others. It does recommend a change in policy. Our administration
has been very forceful in its advocacy of human
rights. The Secretary of State gave a very eloquent speech in Vienna recently advocating the
universality of human rights and rejecting the
idea that there were some cultural relativism
involved. And I think you can look forward to
the United States standing up for human rights
on every continent, in every way that we possibly can. I will say that it is very rare for me
to have a discussion with any leader from any
other country in which I do not bring the subject up. And we work at it steadily every day.
Q. Thank you.
Q. We will end this program because of your
schedule.
The President. I would stay all day if I could.
I like this.
Hillary Clinton and the Role of Women
Q. In Japan there are many people who think
that women should not work, have a job, especially after marriage. But in the United States,
I heard that feminism is more accepted in people, and there is less discrimination. Actually,
there are many working women like Mrs. Hillary
Clinton. And then I want to ask you two questions. How do the American people think about
Mrs. Hillary Clinton acting or making political
speeches in official situations? And second, what
do you yourself think of her as your political
partner?
The President. Well, first of all, most American women, even with young children, are in
the work force now. More than half of them,
even with children under 6, are in the work


force. That presents us with a great source of
wealth and talent to strengthen America. It also
presents us with challenges, providing adequate
care for the children, trying to provide adequate
time for the parents to be with the children.
After all, raising children is still the most important work of any society, and it should not be
minimized. But I strongly believe that women
should have equal opportunities with men in
all areas. We have many women in the United
States Senate, we have many women Governors
of States, and someday before long I think we'll
have a woman President.
As you noted, my wife is a lawyer. We're
both lawyers, and most people who know us
think that she is the real lawyer in our family.
So I like it when she gives political speeches,
when she works as she is now as the head of
our task force to reform our health care system.
I asked her to do it because I thought she
had more ability than anyone else I knew to
do that job. And if we get that done for the
American people, that will be perhaps the most
important social reform in America in a generation. And so I think I would be irresponsible
as the President of the United States not to
use the talents of someone I know can serve
the American people. It's very simple to me;
it's a straightforward thing.
Now, having said that, this issue is still-it's
not as controversial perhaps as in Japan, but
it's still a controversial issue at home. There
are still people who have some reservations
about the role of women in various areas of
our life. There are still people who have certain
reservations about whether a spouse of a political leader should make speeches, have opinions
that are expressed, and do this kind of work.
I might say that most of the people who say
that my wife shouldn't be doing this really disagree with our position. They're saying she
shouldn't be doing this, but most of them just
don't agree with what we're trying to do. So
there is some controversy in the United States
about it, but I think most people, and I know
most women, respect the fact that the First
Lady is functioning as a full citizen and as a
partner, as a part of this administration. I am
ultimately responsible for the decisions that the
President must make. There are all kinds of
things that we never even talk about. But to
ask her to do something she is clearly competent
and able to do seems to me is the right thing
to do for America.


1026




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 7


If you look at the population trends in Japan,
your rather low birthrate but your phenomenally
high life expectancy, so that most Japanese couples will have literally decades after their children have left the home, it seems to me that
your country will have to take advantage of the
brains and the education and the skills and the
capacities of women in order to be what you


ought to be and do what you have to do. I
think you will have to do that.
Do I have to leave, Mr. President?
Q. Thank you very much.
The President. Thank you very much.
NOTE: The President spoke at 9:29 a.m. in Okuma
Hall.


The President's News Conference With Prime Minister Carlo Azeglio
Ciampi of Italy in Tokyo
July 7, 1993


The President. Good morning. I have just finished my first personal meeting with Prime Minister Ciampi, and I enjoyed it immensely. The
close ties between the United States and Italy
will stand us in good stead as we try to meet
the common challenges that we face. I told the
Prime Minister that I admire very much the
economic reforms and the political reforms that
he and his government are undertaking and the
impressive results they are producing.
I also mentioned that in appointing one of
the United States finest professional diplomats,
Mr. Reg Bartholomew, Ambassador of Italy, I
have tried to send a signal of the enormous
importance of that bilateral relationship to the
United States. The fact that Mr. Bartholomew
grew up in the United States speaking Italian
at home reinforces that tie.
In addition, I invited the Prime Minister to
come to the United States some time in the
next couple of months for a personal visit at
the White House so that we might discuss the
issues of common concern further.
We talked a good deal today about economic
issues and the importance of the G-7
reaffirming our support for a conclusion of the
Uruguay round this year. This has gone on entirely too long. With recession in Europe, slow
growth in Japan and the United States, it is
imperative that we send a signal of economic
expansion and hope. And both of us, I think
it's fair to say, support that approach.
We also discussed the foreign affairs issues
which concern us both, including Somalia and
Bosnia, and I was very impressed with the comments and the points that the Prime Minister
made.


I want to close by thanking Italy for its renewed effort in global problem-solving; the humanitarian and peacekeeping assistance in
Bosnia, Albania, Somalia, Mozambique; its mediation efforts in the Nagorno-Karabakh. The
United States highly values this as well as the
critical partnership we have enjoyed with Italy
in NATO, and we look forward to the NATO
summit coming up in the next few months to
reaffirm that partnership.
Again, let me say, I thank the Prime Minister
for his time today. It was very enlightening for
me. I learned a good deal, and I look forward
to a continued warm and constructive relationship between the United States and Italy.
Mr. Prime Minister.
Prime Minister Ciampi. First of all, I would
like to thank the President for having invited
me to visit Washington. This invitation I accept
with great pleasure. I would also like to add
that our talks today were very cordial and positive. And despite our age differences, the spirit
was the same.
I tried to illustrate to the President the great
changes that are underway in Italy right now.
But I also made it a point to emphasize that,
despite these changes, one thing will not change,
and that is our foreign policy. Italy will continue,
as Italy has continued to do, to give its full
consent to future problems, the most important
problems which affect the world scene. It is
important that this summit concludes by giving
clear signals to the operators in the world. This
clear-sent message would be to enhance a recovery of-to enhance the Uruguay round negotiations which have dragged on for too long. This
would help to contribute our energies to over

1027




July 7 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


come the recession that we are going through
now and to develop the economy in the world
and to create new jobs.
We also discussed the issues which directly
affect the U.S. and Europe and the U.S. and
Italy. We have also exchanged our opinions on
the two most crucial issues of the day, which
are Bosnia and Somalia. As far as Somalia is
concerned, the most important thing is that we
cannot forget what our priority goal is. And the
goal is to normalize the political and social situation in the country, which has undergone domestic strife and which has prevented the distribution of food to the starving population. And
in undertaking our military action, we must
never forget the political action which, of course,
must be supported by the military action. And
I have found a full understanding on the President's part as far as Italy's request to have a
greater presence of the Italians in Somalia.
And in conclusion, I must again thank the
President of the United States, Bill Clinton. This
is our first meeting, although we have spoken
on the phone before in a very cordial and practical conversation. The fact that we have finally
met personally reinforces in me the sensation
that the President is a very agreeable person
and that we can work out our problems together.
Political Reforn
Q. Mr. President, in your university speech,
you appeared to be going over the head of the
Japanese Government when you made this direct appeal to the Japanese consumers for open
markets. Now, with Japanese elections only two
weeks away, why shouldn't the Japanese see this
as intervention in domestic politics? And given
the uncertainty of the political situation right
here now, isn't that somewhat of a political gamble on your part?
The President. No, because I was not trying
to interfere in domestic politics. I thought I
owed it to the Japanese people and especially
to the young people who were largely the audience today to make the case of the United
States directly to them. I wanted them to understand clearly that the things that we advocate
in terms of changing the trade relations between
our two countries are things which I believe
are in the interest of the Japanese as well as
American workers.
And just to reinforce the point about not
wanting to interfere into the domestic politics,


keep in mind, a major part of this election is
being argued out on questions of domestic political reform. Italy is dealing with issues of domestic political reform. The United States is dealing
with campaign finance reform and lobbying reform. This whole issue of political reform is
very much alive in most of the advanced democracies today. The point of that is this: It is
impossible for the United States to know with
any real certainty what outcome of the election
might produce a government more responsive
to the arguments we're making.
The present government has reached out to
us in good faith to attempt to negotiate the
principles behind a basic framework for new
trade relations. Those negotiations are going on
right now. So I want to make it clear-I'm very
glad you asked the question-we are not, in
any way, trying to influence the outcome of
the election in terms of who wins what seats
in the Diet. That is up to the people of Japan.
But I owe it to the people of Japan, since there
is no more important bilateral relationship than
the relationship between the United States and
Japan, to make the United States case directly
to them, and that's what I was trying to do
today.
Somalia
Q. Did you discuss the possibility that Italy
gets a higher post in the high command militarily, and did you discuss the restarting of the
negotiation towards national reconciliation in Somalia?
The President. We discussed the former, but
not the latter, expressly. The Prime Minister
did say, and he's absolutely right, that the ultimate purpose of our presence in Somalia is to
restore normal conditions of life and to try to
help to build the nation there so that people
can engage in self-government. Because of the
intervention of the United Nations, people were
saved from starving, medicine was provided,
schools were reopened, the conditions of normal
life have returned for most people. The present
tension, occasioned by the action of General
Aideed and then our reaction to that, is really
the sort of thing people assumed would happen
at the beginning of the United Nations intervention. But in the end, as the Prime Minister
said, we have to try to have a political resolution
of this.
Now, with regard to the fact that the major
elements there in terms of military forces are


1028




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 7


Italian, Pakistani, and American-of course,
there is unified United Nations Command under
General Bir, something that we supported. How
all the forces relate to General Bir is ultimately
a matter for the United Nations Command to
resolve. But I thought that the Prime Minister
raised some serious questions and some legitimate issues, and I pledged to discuss those with
our defense people and to get back to him and
also to discuss it with the U.N. people. We
didn't resolve it, and I can't say the United
States has a position now, because this is the
first opportunity I've had to discuss it. But he
made a very important case that every nation
with a substantial military presence there should
at least have its views heard in some organized
way. Perhaps he would like to comment, but
I think that's a fair statement of where we were.
Prime Minister Ciampi. I've little to add. It's
very clear what I said, and it's very clear what
President Clinton said.
Japanese Elections
Q. Mr. Clinton, I recognize that you weren't
trying to interfere in Japanese politics. You did
talk in the speech at Waseda about change. Do
you see a linkage between the kind of change
you're talking about and the kind of proposals
being offered by the opposition parties?
The President. Well, let me say again the
question of political reform is one that every
mature democracy has to face. But what I was
talking about today is the necessity of changing
the nature of the economic relationships. The
opposition parties are in different places on a
lot of those issues, and the incumbent government in the form of a personal letter from the
Prime Minister has reached out across a gap
to us within the last week that has not been
bridged in years. So I will say again, I have
no way of predicting what kind of election outcome would produce a government most likely
to pursue this course that I am advocating, this
new partnership with us. My belief is that no
matter who wins the election, in the end, history
is on our side and will- require a change in
the relationships.
So I want to say again, I maintain a strictly
neutral position about the people who are running and who should win. That is a decision
for the Japanese people to make. I am generally
supportive of the notion of political reform. I
have generally tried to reassure the people of
Japan that I do not think they should be too


filled with anxiety in the face of these changes.
This is the sort of thing that is happening in
many, many countries, including the United
States. But they will have to decide which party
and which individual candidates and which leaders are best for them. That is not for the United
States to say.
Electoral Reform and Unity in Italy
Q. Mr. President, you spoke about changes
in democracies. But in Italy these changes have
been fairly dramatic. There has been fear of
separation between north and south. There have
been proposals for the introduction of direct
election of the government. Do you share those
fears that a separation could be possible? And
do you think the political change could happen
fast? And do you think that works better where
democracy is a direct election of the government?
And just for Mr. Ciampi, you spoke about
the need from the G-7 of getting clear messages
for the markets. Don't you think that the markets are expecting clear messages from Italy that
something more should be done? Will you go
back to Italy proposing the more comprehensive
plan for restructuring the political and economic
systems of the country?
The President. It is inappropriate for me to
express a firm opinion about the questions you
ask since the Italian people will have to resolve
that for themselves, just as the Japanese people
will have to resolve their questions of political
reform. But I would make two observations.
First is that the differences in economy and
culture between the north and the south in your
country have some analogy in our country. That
is, we have some places in our country that
are far wealthier than others. We have places
in our country that are far different culturally
than others. And that is a continuing challenge.
My own view is that we're much better facing
those things together and trying to create a community of interest than we would be if we were
to split up. I realize the challenge it presents
to Italy; I spent time in southern Italy; I spent
time in northern Italy. I'm well aware of the
fact that some parts of northern Italy achieve
per capita incomes higher than the Federal Republic of Germany before the merger of West
and East Germany. But I think that these are
the kinds of challenges that would have to be
faced, regardless, and the heritage of Italy as
a united country is a very old one indeed.


1029




July 7 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


With regard to the electoral system, at various
times the people in democracies, when times
are tough, tire of the system they have. In our
country, for example, we had a third party candidate get the highest percentage of the vote
that a third party candidate has gotten since
the beginning of this century.
On the other hand, I believe that the twoparty system and the fact that we have roughly
centrist parties with majority rule, right of center, left of center a little bit, but roughly centrist
parties, has stabilized our political system over
the years. Sometimes, people have been disappointed that there weren't clear-cut differences and ideas throughout American history
in the parties, and then sometimes there are.
But if you have a majority rule system, you
tend to have more compromise and more stability. Sometimes people grow tired of it, and they
look for other options. It has happened to us
three or four times in our history where a new
party has come up, and one of our existing parties has disappeared over 217 years. But it has
served us well, I believe, on balance. Nearly
any student of American history would say that
we have been served well by that system. Now,
Exchange With Reporters Prior to the
Summit in Tokyo
July 7, 1993
Trade Negotiations
Q. Mr. President, what do you hope to accomplish at this first summit meeting?
The President. My spokesperson over there,
she has my proxy. [Laughter]
Well, we're off to a good start. We hope to
get the Uruguay round going again, and we have
very encouraging news on that. We hope we
can promote growth in our economies and jobs
for our people, all of us do. And I think we
will do what we can to support reform in Russia.
So there are lots of thingsQ. Do you think there will be success on
the Uruguay round, sir?
The President. I certainly hope so. I think
there will be an announcement on that later
today.
Prime Minister Miyazawa. [Inaudible]-made
great headway.


whether it will work in Italy is a decision you'll
have to make.
Prime Minister Ciampi. First of all, I would
like to add a few points, Mr. President, and
they will be very brief and very clear. First
of all, no new party in Italy or no party at
all questions the unity of Italy. The second point
is that the Italian Parliament is currently studying electoral reform to solve the institutional
problems of Italy. Second of all, the Italian Government-and I would hope that you would
read the relative documentation-is fully supporting the electoral reform and is making it
the number one priority.
The President. Thank you very much.
Q. Progress on trade talks?
The President. You know, I was out at the
university, and then I came directly back here
to meet with the Prime Minister. So I've received no report. I can't say.
NOTE: The President's 20th news conference
began at noon in the Wakakusa Room at the
Okura Hotel. Prime Minister Ciampi spoke in
Italian, and his remarks were translated by an interpreter.
Opening Session of the Economic
Q. Great headway, did you say, Mr. Prime
Minister?
Prime Minister Miyazawa. Yes.
The President. Our people worked almost all
night last night. A great advantage for the Americans, since they couldn't sleep anyway. [Laughter]
[At this point, one group of reporters left the
room, and another group entered.]
Q. Mr. Prime Minister, do you have any message-world community as you lead this meeting?
Prime Minister Miyazawa. [Inaudible] —contribute to the prosperity-of the whole world.
[At this point, the second group of reporters
left the room, and a third group entered.]
Q. Is there progress on the Japanese trade


1030




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 8


talks, Mr. President?
The President. They're working hard. I think
the big news today will be on the manufacturing
goods in the GATT round, and we'll have an
announcement about that later today. It will be
a big deal for Americans, lots of jobs involved


if it works. And we're hopeful.
NOTE: The exchange began at approximately 2:15
p.m. at the Akasaka Palace. A tape was not available for verification of the content of this news
conference.


Nomination for Ambassadors and U.S. Attorneys
July 7, 1993


The President has announced his intention
to nominate the following to the position of
U.S. Attorney: John W. Raley, Jr., of Oklahoma;
Charles R. Tetzlaff of Vermont; and William
D. Wilmoth of West Virginia.
The President also intends to nominate Walter Carrington to be Ambassador to Nigeria and
Theodore E. Russell to be Ambassador to the
Slovak Republic.
"With these U.S. Attorney appointments we
will continue to place skilled and dedicated professionals in the Justice Department," the President said. "With the addition of Charles Tetzlaff
and William Wilmoth and the reappointment of


Attorney Raley, I believe the American public
and the judicial system will be well served."
The President called Walter C. Carrington "a
career professional whose affiliation with several
renowned international agencies, including several associated with African issues, makes him
a sound choice for the Nigerian post."
"Theodore Russell," the President said, "has
demonstrated a talent and dedication for foreign
service throughout his career, and I will be
pleased to make his nomination official."
NOTE: Biographies of the nominees were made
available by the Office of the Press Secretary.


Remarks on the Market Access Agreement and an Exchange With
Reporters in Tokyo
July 7, 1993


The President. Ladies and gentlemen, I want
to read a statement about the market access
agreement that was reached. Ambassador
Kantor, I know, has already been down here
answering your questions, and Secretary Christopher and Secretary Bentsen are here.
I want to try to explain why I can't take
a broad range of questions on the C-7 summit.
Under the rules of the summit, we can't discuss
what's going on while it's going on unless we
get an exemption. Since we've actually made
an agreement on this, I can make the following
statement.
The breakthrough achieved today in the international trade talks is good news for America
and good news for the world. It means more
jobs and higher incomes for our people. While
there are difficult negotiations ahead, today's


agreement on manufactured goods breaks the
logjam in the Uruguay round. For years, talks
in that round have languished. C-7 leaders have
emerged from these summits pledging renewed
commitment to complete the round. Their
pledges have gone unfulfilled. But this year, we
have recaptured the momentum.
If we can complete the Uruguay round by
the end of this year, and I believe we can now,
then this agreement will bring the largest tariff
reductions ever. It will lower duties on 18 categories of manufactured goods from paper to
chemicals to electronics. It eliminates tariffs entirely, that is, it creates global free trade for
eight major sectors including farm implements,
steels, and pharmaceuticals. This agreement
means new jobs and new growth in the United
States and in other nations. It proves that gov

1031




July 8 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


eminment can be a productive partner with business, helping to open markets and create jobs.
Special praise is due to the European Community, to Canada, and to Japan, who joined
with us in this effort; to our negotiator, Ambassador Mickey Kantor; and to the United States
Congress which voted last week to renew my
fast track authority to complete this round.
With today's accord, I am more determined
than ever to press ahead with the Uruguay
round by the end of this year. This really can
mean an enormous number of jobs to the American people. When we came here, frankly, we
did not know whether we could get an agreement on market access for manufactured goods.
It is a very, very good sign that the agreement
was achieved not only because of the jobs that
this holds for Americans but because of the
promise it holds to actually complete the Uruguay round.
G-7 Meetings
Q. Mr. President, could you just tell us
whether you're getting to know the other leaders
and what the mood was at the meetings?
The President. Good mood. It was a good
mood. Of course, I know-I have spent time
with several of them already. But so far it's
been a very good mood. We had over 3 hours
Radio Address to Midwest Flood Victii
July 8, 1993
This is President Clinton. Although I'm in
Japan at a meeting of our economic allies, I'm
deeply concerned about the disaster hitting
many of you in the Midwest. As the waters
continue to rise, I'm keeping in touch through
Vice President Gore and Federal officials in
Washington. My direction to them is simple,
urgent, and clear: All Federal agencies delivering services to you must coordinate their actions.
Teamwork is the order of the day.
I want the services you need to be delivered
responsibly, efficiently, and without delay. And
most of all, I want you to be treated the way
every American would ask to be treated if they
were on the receiving end of this disaster, with
compassion and effectiveness as neighbors and
friends.


all alone where we just talked about various
things. And I'm looking forward to more of this
time. It's very valuable, actually, getting to know
them because there are so many things we have
to do together.
Q. What about the Japanese agreement?
Q. Do you feel, Mr. President, that they're
trying to size you up, take your measure?
The President. I don't know. I'm getting to
know them. I'm having a good time.
U.S. Leadership
Q. Does it answer any of the questions about
leadership, America's leadership?
The President. Well, I think Mr. Kantor probably told you how this agreement came about
and what the sequence of events was. But I
don't think there's any question that our country
played its appropriate role in getting this agreement.
Q. Any closer to the agreement guidelines
for the Japanese?
The President. Bye.
NOTE: The President spoke at 7 p.m. at the Okura
Hotel. These remarks were released by the Office
of the Press Secretary on July 8. A tape was not
available for verification of the content of these
remarks.


When I was Governor of Arkansas, I worked
with farmers in my State through a number
of natural disasters, including very serious floods.
What I saw in Iowa last weekend when I was
there with Secretary Espy were conditions as
bad as I've ever seen. That's why I'm determined to have a Federal response that rises
to the occasion and deals effectively with the
problems you're facing.
Before I left for Japan, I asked Vice President
Gore to monitor actively the efforts to deal with
this disaster. With his leadership and the hard
work of a number of dedicated Federal officials,
relief and response efforts are already underway.
We're organizing the appropriate Federal agencies to ensure that they work together as a team.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency,


1032




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 9


FEMA, is working around the clock, cooperating
with each of the affected States and managing
our coordinated response. FEMA personnel are
in five States now, assisting State governments
with preparedness and recovery efforts. And
FEMA's in close coordination with other States.
Where disasters are declared, FEMA will set
up facilities called "disaster application centers"
to provide a speedy and efficient one-stop process for recovery. It's also providing an 800 number for victims of the flooding which allows for
rapid application for aid by telephone. The Department of Transportation is monitoring the
conditions of barge traffic and damage to highways. The Army Corps of Engineers and the
National Guard are out fortifying levees and
flood walls, providing security and traffic control
and simply doing their best to stop or alleviate
water damage wherever they can. The Department of Agriculture is making shelter available,
helping farmers with their loan obligations, and
working to alleviate crop losses and losses farmers experience when they can't plant their crops.
The Emergency Broadcast System is being used
throughout the region to provide notifications
of flash floods, evacuations, and tornadoes.
Efforts are being made now to remove debris
in Minnesota, to provide sandbags in Iowa and
Illinois, to guard against public health problems,
and to provide potable water where needed. I've
asked our Budget Director, Leon Panetta, to
begin assembling a funding bill that will provide
emergency assistance to the region. We'll be
working with Congress early next week to get


this process underway. We'll ask for Federal
funds on an emergency basis to help pay for
crop losses and damage to homes, businesses,
and public property.
Times of turmoil and trouble bring out the
best in Americans. This flood has been no exception. Members of the Red Cross and the
Salvation Army are doing what these organizations have always done, bringing comfort to people of your region who have had their lives
turned upside down by this flood. National
Guard personnel have been mobilizing, filling
sandbags and providing assistance wherever they
can. Some of them have canceled vacations to
come home and help the people of their communities, strangers and friends alike. These are
good people, and I'm thankful to them for all
they're doing.
In closing, let me ask each of you to take
heart and have faith. As hard as these times
are, you know that the waters will soon recede
and the work of recovery will begin. The people
who grow our food and the communities that
surround and support you are central to the
American way of life. Just as we depend upon
you for the harvest, you can depend upon us
for support at this critical moment in your lives.
For that is the American way.
Thanks for listening, and God bless you all.
NOTE: The President spoke at 11:06 p.m. from
the Okura Hotel in Tokyo for broadcast in the
United States.


Remarks to the American Chamber of Commerce in Tokyo
July 9, 1993


The President. I would like to resume the
discussion because I want to have as much time
as possible just to listen and learn today. Let
me say that in my former life I came here
several times and met with business leaders on
behalf of the interests of my State.
I'm sure that the people who have spoken
before me have basically outlined the strategy
we are attempting to pursue back home. But
essentially what we're trying to do is to deal
with the major problems of America at home
and then try to get ourselves in a better position


to do what we can to be a good partner for
the private sector in competing in a global economy.
We are well on the way to passing a recordbreaking deficit reduction plan that has great
credibility in the financial markets. And we've
got a big decline in long-term interest rates at
home, which I think is quite good. For all the
economic softness, and it's quite considerable
at home, we have over 950,000 new jobs in
the economy in the last 5 months. That's about
as many as the United States produced in the


1033




July 9 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


previous 3 years.
We've got a serious attempt going on to bring
health care costs under control, which as all
of you know is one of the major causes of America's lack of competitiveness. We're over 14 percent of GDP in health care; nobody is over
9 except Canada, and they're barely over 9. And
we're working on significant changes in our policies with regard to technology, defense conversion, and trade, among other things.
So, that's a basic outline of what I've been
trying to do for the last 5 months. I wanted
to come here and just listen to you today because you've been able to do something that
I think is very important, which is to operate
in Japan to create opportunity. And I just want
to know what you think we should be doing
and how we can do more to help you and to
create more people like you.
I didn't hear what Mr. Fallon said, but if
the Ambassador fairly characterizes it, and he's
pretty good at doing that, my attitude about
this is that I prefer an open trading system.
I don't think a wealthy nation can grow wealthier unless there is global economic growth. There
are all kinds of challenges to that. Now, I think
the environmental movement that is sweeping
the globe actually gives us a chance to create
more jobs, not lose them, if we do it in an
intelligent way.
But my view is also that the United States
should try to get better rules but play by the
rules that are in play. That's sort of always been
my attitude. I could never have won an election
if I wanted the rules to be different from those
that obtain at the time. You can always try to
improve the rules. We're trying to have a different campaign finance reform system, we're
trying to have a different lobby reform system
in America, but meanwhile we all play by the
rules that are there. So, that's my attitude about
that. I wish I'd heard exactly what you had to
say but I think-I get criticized in some quarters
for saying that, but normally when you show
up for a game you've got to play by the operative rules, not the ones you wish were in play.
[At this point, panelists discussed problems and
successes unique to operating an American business in Japan.]


The President. I was just going to make one
other comment about this. You made a very
perceptive observation when you said the Justice
Ministry only has this issue to negotiate and
we've got nothing to give back because they
can't imagine why Japanese lawyers would set
up offices in New York to do business or anything like that. I mean, I can understand that.
Most people just assume when they go to another country they'll use lawyers who understand
the law and practice in those countries. But
one of the big problems we've got in America,
as I'm sure you know, is that we don't have
enough lawyers who are facilitators and we have
too many who are, in effect, litigators. We have
too many who slow down the operations of the
private sector rather than who speed it up.
And there may be a little something we can
do on the political side by indirection, by, you
know, by sort of saying that Japanese companies
doing business in America-one of the things
that this administration is looking at in the
whole productivity mix is how we can reduce
the cost of litigation and the cost of decision
making and the delays there. And there may
be some merit in our taking some initiative to
bring some Japanese lawyers who do business
work to the United States to work with American lawyers, to work with American businesses
to see if we can kind of change the culture
a bit and maybe some of the laws in our country. That is a little something we could give
back, and it wouldn't do us any harm to do
that anyway.
Q. There are some who are there already.
And they can do that. We can't do the same
thing here.
The President. I know but, I mean, if they
thought they were going to, their companies operating in America
Q. I'm talking about the lawyers.
The President. Yes, I know, but if they
thought their companies in America were going
to get something out of it, it might help us
to get a little more leverage here. And we'll
pursue that. You made a very compelling point.
NOTE: The President spoke at 8:10 a.m. in the
Akebono Room at the Okura Hotel.


1034




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 9


The President's News Conference With Prime Minister Kim Campbell of
Canada in Tokyo
July 9, 1993


The President. Good afternoon. I have just
spent a very rewarding hour and a half with
Prime Minister Campbell and members of her
government. After a very impressive career in
other posts in government and a very rapid rise
to the leadership of her country, I must say
I have been very impressed with the contributions that she has made to this summit and
with the conversations that we have had all
along, but especially today.
The relationship that we have with Canada
is really unique in all the world. It is our largest
trading relationship. We are each other's largest
trading partners. And even though we have disputes from time to time, when you consider
the volume and diversity of trade between us,
those disputes are remarkably few and narrow
in scope.
Canada has been a very strong security partner of the United States. And while we share
a lot in common, we also are very different
and distinctive countries, and I think we have
a lot to learn from one another.
I might just mention with regard to two specific issues that we discussed, first, I reaffirmed
to the Prime Minister my commitment to successfully concluding the side agreements to the
North American Free Trade Agreement and to
then moving forward to successful passage of
that agreement in the United States Congress.
As you know, it has passed the Canadian Parliament pending its ratification by Congress. And
secondly, I asked the Prime Minister for her
support in our attempts to fulfill the agreement
signed just a few days ago by President Aristide
and General Cedras to restore democracy in
Haiti. Canada has been one of the United
States' best friends on the Haitian issue, with
a substantial Haitian population and a lot of
French-speaking people who can make a unique
contribution to this restoration process. So for
both those things, I am grateful for our common
positions, and I appreciate her support.
I think I'll turn the microphone over to Prime
Minister Campbell now, and then we'll be glad
to answer some questions.
Prime Minister Campbell. Thank you very
much, Mr. President.


I'd simply like to reiterate that we had a very
fruitful discussion, and I think as two novices
in the summit process, we both enjoyed participating very much. I'd like to thank the President
for responding very quickly to a request that
we have made, and that is that he designate
someone in the White House to be a point
of contact for us in managing a variety of issues
that arise between our two countries, and particularly some trade dispute issues. And the
President has agreed to do that, and we're looking forward to having that person designated.
I also want to take this opportunity to congratulate the President and his Government on
the resolution of the situation in Haiti. I think
without the United States' involvement, we
would not have that kind of happy resolution.
And I confirm Canada's willingness and commitment to be supportive to the followup process
in Haiti.
Economic Summit and Japan-U.S. Trade
Q. Mr. President, how important is it for you
and Prime Minister Miyazawa to wrap up this
summit with a bilateral U.S.-Japanese trade
agreement? Will the summit be detracted if you
fail to achieve this agreement, given the fact
that when you met in April, both of you indicated that you would achieve this agreement
by now?
The President. No, it will not, because I think
everybody concedes that the summit has far exceeded expectations for it before we began, for
two reasons: first of all, the market access agreement on manufactured goods, which is the biggest tariff reduction agreement among nations
in 7 years-the jobs, the implications of that
are staggering if we can, in fact, conclude the
trade agreement by the end of the year; and
secondly, because of the size and scope of the
aid package to Russia which is very much, as
I have said repeatedly, in the interest of the
United States and every other democracy in the
world-continuing to denuclearize Russia, continuing to develop a free market economy that
can interact with the rest of us. So this has
been an extremely successful summit.
We should be driven in our negotiations with


1035




July 9 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


Japan by one simple question: Is this a good
agreement or not? Will it advance our common
interests in reducing the imbalances in our relationship? And if the answer is yes, we should
go forward; and if it's not, we shouldn't. And
that's what we're going to do. I don't think
it has anything to do with the way the summit
comes out. It's been a huge net plus.
Q. Mr. President, there seems to be a new
optimism today about seeing such an agreement,
and are you willing to compromise on the numerical targets or the basic issues enough to
bring about an agreement?
The President. Well, I hope there will be an
agreement, and I hope I can answer yes to
the question that I just posed. I don't think
I should say much more about it now. They're
talking
Q. But there is a new optimism?
The President. I don't want to characterize
it. I think anything I say to characterize it, up
or down, may be wrong. We just have to wait
and see what happens.
Q. Mr. President, the economic declaration
that you just approved today said that in the
future the summits should be more informal,
and they should have fewer documents and declarations. And given that this one was a lot less
specific in terms of the commitments to growth
and stimulus than you had originally wanted,
have you given any thought to doing away with
this declaration in the future? Did this have
any purpose at all?
The President. No, I like this political declaration. Actually, I think both the declarations that
we issued here are briefer than they have been
in the past, and they're quite specific and, I
think, quite good. But we tried very hard not
to make them unrealistic, that is, not to have
the nations commit to things they had no intention of doing or, perhaps more to the point,
no capacity to do.
So I feel pretty good about that. I think what
the people who've been here for many years
said was that they liked the fact that we were
moving back toward a more informal summit
process where we focused on one or two big
issues, where we tried to get one or two things
done, and we didn't overly bureaucratize it. And
I think our commitment was to go to Italy next
year with smaller operations, more streamlined,
even less bureaucracy but focusing on intense,
very honest and open interchanges among the
leaders, and then try to get one or two specific


things done.
Anyone from the Canadian press?
Canada-U.S. Trade and Strike on Iraq
Q. For your benefit, Mr. President, I'll put
my question in English. I would like to know,
Mrs. Campbell, in what terms you did talk to
the President about trade disputes between Canada and the United States. And I'd like to know
as well if you asked him that the next time
the United States launches an attack somewhere,
if Canada would like to be informed before the
event instead of after?
Prime Minister Campbell. Well, in answer to
your second question, the answer is yes.
In answer to the first question, I raised a
number of the issues that are outstanding between us. Now, obviously we weren't in a position to resolve them here. A number of my
provincial colleagues also raised concerns, and
so I discussed the irritants that are between
us, particularly wheat, sugar, softwood lumber.
And I'm very pleased that we will be pursuing
those, but more importantly, that we now will
have someone in the White House who will
be designated as someone that we can be in
touch with to help manage those particular irritants between us.
The President. Let me answer-if I might answer that question. The Prime Minister mentioned wheat, sugar, lumber, and beer. We
talked about those issues. She also brought to
my attention, frankly, something that I have to
admit I think she's absolutely right on, that Canada should have been notified at the time we
took the action in Iraq. Let me tell you, there
was a very tight time window there because
of the coincidence of the time when I received
the final report from my intelligence and investigative agencies and when the trial started again
and getting past the Sabbath in the Islamic
countries, the day of worship. That's something
that we should have done then and that we
will do in the future. Canada has been a good
strategic ally of the United States. It's absolutely
pivotal in any number of ways. And it was a
very legitimate issue to raise.
Another question from the Canadian press?
Trade With Japan
Q. Prime Minister, President Clinton has
been pressed from the Japanese to reduce their
trade deficit. Are you not afraid that such pressure might result in Japanese investment in Can

1036




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 9


ada being reduced and siphoned off to the United States?
Prime Minister Campbell. Well, there is already a competitive environment for investment.
I think the challenge for us is to be an attractive
investment environment. And right now there
are no guarantees. So I don't see that that's
necessarily going to result in the future. I think
what the Americans are most concerned about
is not simply the flow of investment from Japan
to North America but the opening of the Japanese market to goods that are made in North
America. And I think that's the significant part
of that, of the concern that the United States
has raised with Japan. So the short answer to
your question is no, I don't see that as a problem in either the short or medium term.
The President. If anything, it might increase
Japanese investment in both the United States
and Canada so that market share could be maintained while abating the trade deficit. So I
wouldn't worry about that at all. I think if anything happens on the investment side, it will
encourage more investment in our continent.
The President's News Conference in 1
July 9. 1992
The President. Good evening. The summit we
have concluded today sends a message of hope
to America and to the world. Some have called
this a jobs summit, and they are right because
the creation of new jobs in the United States
and in all the other countries here present was
at the center of all of our discussions.
All of us are mindful that we have a long
way to go to restore real growth and opportunity
to the global economy, but we have made a
serious start. We reached an agreement here
that can open manufacturing markets to American products and to all other products in ways
that we have not seen in many years. Indeed,
the agreement if finally concluded could bring
the largest reduction in tariffs in world history.
While tough negotiations still remain, this
world trade agreement captures the momentum
that we have needed in these negotiations for
a long time. We now can move toward completion of a broader trade agreement that could
spur the creation of hundreds of thousands of


Q. Prime Minister, do you support numerical
trade targets with Japan the way the United
States is seeking at the moment?
Prime Minister Campbell. Well, I think it's
up to the United States and Japan to find the
mechanism that will work best to meet their
goals. I made the point both to the President
and to the Prime Minister of Japan that it is
in Canada's interest that they resolve those
problems because when the United States and
Japan have a trade dispute, it is very often Canada that gets sideswiped by the remedies.
So it is very much in Canada's strategic interests that those issues be resolved. As to which
mechanism is used, I think that's up to the
United States and Japan to determine. But we
very much support the resolution of that dispute.
The President. Thank you all very much.
NOTE: The President's 21st news conference
began at 2:23 p.m. at the U.S. Ambassador's residence. In his remarks, he referred to Gen. Raoul
Cedras, commander of the Haitian military.


jobs over the next decade in the United States
and millions throughout the world.
We also agreed that the other industrialized
nations will send their top education, labor, and
economic ministers to Washington in the fall
for a serious conference on the creation of jobs.
All the advanced nations are having difficulty
creating new jobs even when their economies
are growing. This was a constant cause of concern in all of our conversations, and we are
now going to make a serious effort to examine
the problem from every angle and to try to
come up with new and innovative solutions
which can be helpful in the United States and
throughout the C-7 countries. We have to figure
out how to unlock the doors for people who
are left behind in this new global economy.
I want to say a special word of appreciation
that the other industrial nations expressed their
support and praise for the United States' economic plan to reduce our deficit dramatically
and invest in our future.


1037




July 9 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


Ever since 1980, whenever these meetings
have occurred, the statements issued at the end
have either explicitly or implicitly criticized the
United States for our budget deficit. This statement explicitly supports the United States for
our effort to bring the deficit down and to bring
growth and investment back into our economy.
Other nations clearly welcome our resolve. I
might note that the fact that both Houses of
Congress had passed the economic plan greatly
strengthened my hand in the discussions and
the negotiations which have taken place here
this week.
This summit also held out fresh hope for
other peoples of the world, especially those involved in democratic reform in Russia, led by
President Yeltsin who joined us here today. The
$3 billion program we announced here to help
Russia move to a market system will not only
bolster prospects for freedom there, it is a very
solid investment for the United States. Funds
to move state-owned industries to private hands
to make the free enterprise system work, funds
to make available operations for new enterprises,
funds from the World Bank, and funds for credits for export, all these things will help Americans to do more business in Russia and will
help Russia to succeed in a way that will continue the path charted by the end of the cold
war, fewer nuclear weapons, fewer defense investments, more opportunities to invest in people and jobs and a peaceful future.
American leadership has been indispensable
to growth and to freedom throughout this century. In partnership with others, we will now
be able to continue to meet that responsibility
in the years ahead. I have said before and I
will say again, I came to this summit in the
hope that we could get an agreement to open
more markets to manufactured products, in the
hope that we could get a strong program for
Russian aid, in the hope that together we would
demonstrate resolve to restore the ability of all
of our countries to create jobs and opportunities
for our people. I believe those objectives were
achieved. And I am pleased at the first of these
G-7 meetings which I was able to attend.
Helen [Helen Thomas, United Press International].
Japan
Q. Mr. President, a host of Presidents have
tried to convince Japan that trade is a twoway street. What makes you think you can con

vince them? What is the chance of getting an
agreement on trade talks? And what did you
learn at the summit that you didn't know before?
The President. You ask a lot of questions.
What did you say? You have a followup?
[Laughter] No, Brit [Brit Hume, ABC News],
you get the followup.
I think we do have a chance to get an agreement, and I think in part it is because we are
coming to a common understanding that the
serious imbalance in trade between our two nations cannot continue and that, in the end, it
is not in the interest of either country.
I met this morning with several hundred
members of the American Chamber of Commerce here in Tokyo, people who are selling
their products and services in this country. They
pointed out and illustrated to me once again
why more sales of American products in the
Japanese market would be good for both countries. When these people come here, they hire
Japanese people. They create jobs here in Japan.
But as the market is opened up, the price of
products and service and their variety is dramatically expanded-the price is driven down; the
variety and number of services and products
are expanded. So the Japanese people will win
if we can correct this imbalance. And of course,
the American people will win. It will mean lots
more jobs for our folks.
That's what I tried to say at Waseda University. I think that we are now coming to a common understanding that it is in the interest of
both countries to change this policy. I think
we're also coming to a common understanding
that we have to try some new approaches, that
Americans have had real increases in productivity and quality-we are now the high-quality,
low-cost producer of many products and services-and that that alone is not going to be
sufficient to change the market imbalance. And
I think those two realizations give us a shot.
And I'm hoping that we can move forward.
What did I learn that I didn't know when
I got here? I learned a lot more about the
other world leaders. I got to know them all
better. I got to understand more about where
they're coming from, what their countries' problems and opportunities are, and what we can
achieve together. I'm, frankly, more optimistic
about our potential for common action than I
was before I came here.
I also feel much better about our long-term


1038




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 9


capacity to make some progress in our relationships with Japan. I was glad to be the first
American President ever to address a university
audience and to answer questions there. And
I feel much more positively about that relationship than I did when I came here. And it is,
perhaps, our most bilateral relationship. So that's
very good.
Russia
Q. Mr. President, Boris Yeltsin said today that
sooner or later Russia would make the G-7 a
G-8. My question is why not sooner than later?
What are the arguments against keeping Russia
out of the G-7?
The President. Well, I don't want to make
the argument against keeping Russia out of the
G-7. I do believe that you will see him here
every time we meet as long as he is President
of Russia, which I think will be quite a while.
And I think that's a very good thing.
I think that when the G-7 was organized,
it was organized as a group of the world's most
powerful economic interests and not just political interests. And I think that there will come
a time when Russia will probably join this group
when there is a consensus that that time has
come.
To be fair to all the people who are here,
there was really no serious discussion of that.
But for the first time, President Yeltsin was invited to come next year before he ever even
made a statement. That was part of the Chairman, Prime Minister Miyazawa's opening statement, to make sure he would know that he
was going to be invited to come and participate
in next year's meeting in Italy.
Brit.
Multilateral Trade Negotiations
Q. Mr. President, you mentioned that further
negotiation must be done toward a new world
trade agreement. One of the major sticking
points for a number of years has, of course,
been the issue of agriculture subsidies and agriculture generally. I wondered what, if anything,
you may have heard here from your counterparts from Europe and the EC and from Japan
that renews your hope, if it does, that such
a thing may be possible by December, as you've
suggested.
The President. Well, if all the Europeans will
adhere to the Blair House accords, I think
there's a good chance we can have an agricul

tural agreement.
As you know, France has some problems with
it and has expressed those. And it was an issue
in the last election in France. But as I pointed
out, the United States cut our agricultural subsidies unilaterally and substantially in 1990, and
we have proposed further reductions this year
as part of the deficit reduction package. If we
were to reopen the Blair House accord, our
farmers would want us to go in the opposite
direction on these issues from the direction that
some of the European interests would take.
Because the European Community is made
up of diverse nations, they have a mechanism
within the Community to make adjustments
among the countries if they adhere to an agreement like an agricultural agreement that affects
some countries more adversely than others. So
I'm still hopeful that as these negotiations resume-and they will resume in Geneva soonthat the Blair House accord will stand and that
we'll be able to work out a balance of trade
agreements that will enable it to stand.
If that happens, then much of what we need
to do in agriculture will have been done. This
market opening agreement, if it can be embraced by the other nations at the GATT, will
be nailed down, and then we'll just have a few
issues left to go. I remind you the majority
of the issues have been resolved although some
of the tough ones remain.
Andrea [Andrea Mitchell, NBC News].
North Korea
Q. Mr. President, a week ago before leaving
for Asia, you said that North Korea was perhaps
the scariest place in the world. And many analysts including Larry Eagleburger have said that
North Korea already has the bomb; others believe that it is at least very close to having the
bomb. Would you consider a preemptive strike?
Would you rule that out? And what message
do you want to send in your trip to South Korea
about our military interests in the region and
about the role of our American troops?
The President. Well, first of all, I don't answer
hypothetical questions, especially as they relate
to national security, for obvious reasons. But
the message should be clear. Even as we move
into and through the 6th year of defense cuts,
we are not reducing our base presence in Japan;
we are not reducing our base presence in Korea.
We are strengthening our military presence in
Asia and in the Pacific, and we reaffirm our


1039




July 9 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


security commitments to Japan and to Korea
and to all our other allies in this region. And
we intend to press to see that the Non-Proliferation Treaty's regime is fully observed, including
having the international observers there.
That is the position that the United States
takes. And I think we have to adhere to it very
firmly.
Susan [Susan Spencer, CBS News].
Q. So what should we do about North Korea,
sir?
The President. Well, we don't-North Korea
has not yet declined to comply. And we're going
to have to-let us continue the negotiations.
Until there is a rupture that seems final, I don't
think we should talk about what would happen
at that point.
Approval Ratings and the Economic Summmit
Q. Sir, before the summit started it was noted
widely that your own approval ratings, as unhappy as you may sometimes be with them,
were higher than those of any other political
leader here. Virtually all of these people are
either on the way out or in some great difficulty
at home. How did that diminish this summit?
And having been to one now and seen how
bureaucratic they can be, do you really think
in these days of modern communications that
these sorts of extravaganzas are necessary at all?
The President. Well, first of all, I think that
it did not diminish the summit. In fact, there
was more done here and there was more energy
and more zip in it than I thought there would
be. And I think part of it was, apparently, this
summit is less bureaucratic than its predecessors. We ended two of our meetings an hour
early, which I liked awful well. And there was
an amazing amount of open, free flow of honest
exchange. It was very, very good.
I think that any time you have the major
economies of the world in the doldrums, combined in some of these countries with a real
impetus toward political reform and a felt need
of the people to make their political systems
work better, you can't expect to see high poll
numbers. When people are having a tough time
making ends meet, they don't tend to be very
happy with their political leaders. So that is a
given.
Notwithstanding that, this summit produced
real substantive benefits for the people who sent
these leaders here.
Now, there was a reaffirmation, a unanimous


reaffirmation on the part of the heads of state
in this meeting to make this process less bureaucratic, less expensive, and less cumbersome. And
I think you will see an even more streamlined
summit next year in Italy, one in which all the
delegations are smaller and in which there is
more flexibility. I hope that something was
learned out of this summit, that if you focus
on one or two objectives and really work at
it and work at it, you can get something done.
Wolf [Wolf Blitzer, Cable News Network] and
then David [David Lauter, Los Angeles Times].
Iraq
Q. Mr. President, even as you were meeting
here with these other world leaders, there seems
to be another standoff in Baghdad with U.N.
weapons inspectors and the Iraqi Government.
Double-pronged question: How serious is this,
and what, if anything, is the U.S. prepared to
do? Is there a unilateral response, or would
it be only multilateral this time?
The President. First of all, I think it is serious.
And secondly, the response should be a multilateral one. The action we took in response to
the plot to assassinate President Bush was a
unilateral one, and it should have been, clearly
provided for under international law. This action
is a violation of the United Nations resolutions,
and we are going to keep pushing on it. Hopefully, the Iraqis will relent. If they don't, then
we'll go back to the U.N., to the Security Council, and decide where to go from there.
David.
Economic Summit and Job Creation
Q. Mr. President, if I could follow up for
a moment on your answer to Susan's question,
I wonder, given that these things tend to be
very scripted and set out ahead of time, was
there any moment in this thing, any event that
happened over the last few days that told you
something that you didn't know, that presented
things in a new light that might give us some
insight into how this process works?
The President. Well, first of all, there were
moments that were not at all scripted. The first
time we met everybody went around the table
and sort of described the condition of the economy in each country and what the government
was attempting to do about it. And that was
somewhat scripted in the sense that everyone
was told in advance we'd be asked to do that.
After that, only the topics were basically


1040




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 9


scripted. Very few of us carried a lot of notes
around. Very few people referred to them. We
really talked about these issues.
I think the thing that impressed me the
most-maybe it's just because what I'm most
concerned about-was the high level of rather
sophisticated knowledge that all these people
had about the stagnation of their own economies
when it comes to creating jobs. For example,
it was pointed out that the French economy
was actually, by every other measure, very, very
strong in most years of the eighties and several
years had a higher growth rate than the German
economy. And they still never got their unemployment rate below 9.5 percent, even when
they were just really chugging along. The Japanese economy which still enjoys quite a low
unemployment rate, in part because of the
structure of this economy, still is having quite
a lot of difficulty creating jobs.
Most of these countries have very low population growth rates, rapidly aging population, and
they're very worried that unless they can turn
this situation around that 10 years from now
they're going to have two people working for
every person that's retired. And they're really
quite concerned about it. I think the fact that
they're all thinking about it and they all had
a little bit different take on it, gave me some
hope that we might be able to find some solutions.
Q. Did anyone offer solutions?
The President. Well, there were lots of different solutions offered. But one of the thingsHelmut Kohl is a very wise man, I think, and
one of the things he said that was interesting
was that if we could come to grips with this
in the same way we try to come to grips with
trade problems, for example, that if there are
tough decisions to be made, it will be easier
for each country to make them if the people
who live in each country are aware that this
is a worldwide problem and that there have
to be some new and different directions taken.
Hillary Clinton
Q. Mr. President, your wife, Hillary Rodham
Clinton, has caused quite a stir in Japan, and
yet she's followed a very traditional wives' schedule here which, frankly, doesn't seem much like
her. I wonder if she's been muzzled here perhaps to avoid offending Japanese sensibilities?
The President. No, she did what she wanted
to do. She thought about it quite a lot, and


I've been, frankly, impressed and gratified by
the response that she's gotten from just the people in the street, especially the young working
women as well as the students at the university
the other day. And I think it's a real indication
of the aspirations of younger Japanese people
to see that everybody here has a chance to live
up to their potential. I was really very pleased
by it.
Economic Program
Q. You return home in a few days. You're
going to be facing kind of a do-or-die situation
with the budget bill which got you so much
play here. How do you relate your accomplishments from this week to what faces you when
you get back next week?
The President. Well, it certainly ought to
strengthen the resolve of the Congress to carry
through on this. There's no question that the
other countries were very much encouraged by
the determination of the United States to reduce
its deficit, that they believe that's one of the
things that has distorted the world economy for
the last several years.
And likewise, there is no question that some
of our job growth we're going to have to do
on our own. So a lot of these investments, both
the private and the public investments in the
economic plan, to create jobs should be adopted.
So I am hoping that what happened this week
will strengthen the resolve of the Congress to
go ahead and pass the economic plan and to
do it in short order so that we can go on to
other things. We all, after all, have a lot of
other things to do. We have to get the health
care cost controls in and provide basic health
care security to American families. We have to
continue to deal with the transformation from
a defense to a domestic economy and try to
help people accommodate all those changes.
We've got an enormous amount of work to do.
We've got a crime bill we need to pass. We've
got a lot of other things on the agenda. So
we've got to get this economic plan passed.
Q. Mr. President, you came hereThe President. Go ahead. I'll take both of
you. Just stand there. That's called splitting the
difference.
Go ahead.
Korean War
Q. Mr. President, with regard to your forth

1041




July 9 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


coming trip to Korea, I wondered, first of all,
do you have any personal recollections of the
war? I know you were quite young when that
happened. And secondly, knowing your views
on the Vietnam war, is the Korean war one
that you would have felt comfortable fighting
in, where you were not so with Vietnam?
The President. Absolutely. We did the right
thing there, and I don't really think we had
any choice, given the way it began. And I think
the years and the aftermath have certainly validated the decision which was made to contest
the forces of communism where we did and
when we did.
And yes, I do have quite a vivid memory.
I remember mostly, even though I was very
young, President Eisenhower's campaign and
what he said about going to Korea. It's almost
my first political memory, that campaign.
Yes, go ahead.
Russian Nuclear Powerplants
9. Mr. President, we were told that you came
to this summit with growing concerns about the
condition of former Soviet nuclear powerplants
that are deteriorating. Will you broach this personally with Yeltsin tomorrow? Is there another
Chernobyl out there? In other words, how imminent of a crisis is this, and what's the West
going to do about it?
The President. Actually, we talked about it
today at some great length. And there were two
issues raised. The first is, President Yeltsin
thanked the West for the assistance which has
already been given to try to help them make
those plants either safer or decommission them.
What he called the first generation of their nuclear plants, they're actually trying to decommission them all, just take them out of commission
so they won't run the risk of another Chernobyl.
He said they had virtually completed that task.
And he talked a little bit about his plans for
energy and for nuclear power specifically. And
I think the conversation was quite reassuring
to the others who were there. I say to the others
because I had talked about it a little bit with
him before.
The second thing that came up, which I was
very impressed by, raised by President Mitterrand, was the question of whether the Russian
plans for decommissioning these plants, as well
as technical assistance to do it ought to be made
available to other Republics of the former Soviet
Union who had similar plants, and he agreed


to do that. He said that if other Republics that
had these kind of nuclear plants wanted the
plans and wanted the technical assistance, he
would be very happy to do it. And the rest
of us said we'd be glad to support that. So
that was the resolution that I thought quite
good.
Unemployment
Q. Do you have any concern that the jobs
summit may turn to looking like it's a unionbashing event in that a lot of the work rules
that are established in Europe that a lot of people think caused the problems are, in fact, union
related?
The President. They could, but there's a serious factual problem, if that's the total slant on
it, which is the experience of Germany before
the East was integrated into it. That is, if you
split out East Germany from West Germany
and you look just at the unemployment rate
in West Germany for the last year or two, you'll
see that's the only country in Europe with an
unemployment rate as low as ours. Ours is too
high. And their is too high, but theirs is much
lower than all the other European countries.
And yet they have very high costs in terms of
mandatory vacations, in terms of mandatory
worker retraining, in terms of general education
investment in workers, in terms of mandatory
health care coverage. Although their health care
is much less expensive than ours, all employers
have to undertake it.
So it's a hard case to make in the case of
Germany where they have rather high labor
costs and manufacturing wage costs, higher than
the United States on average, terrifically productive workers, and they have managed to keep
their unemployment fairly low. Now their overall
unemployment is higher because of the very
high unemployment in East Germany.
So we're going to have to be a little more
sophisticated than that. I mean, there are some
things that may add to unemployment or may
prohibit job creation and some that aren't.
Bosnia
Q. Mr. President, you said in your political
communique that stronger measures could be
taken against Serbia to end the war in Bosnia,
but you didn't say what those measures were,
nor under what conditions they might be taken.
Given your inability to bring the Europeans
along on your efforts before in the fighting there


1042




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 9


regarding air strikes and lifting the arms embargo, why should we think that action will now
be taken as a result of your communique?
The President. The discussions that I had at
this meeting about Bosnia were almost all, not
all but almost all, one-on-one with other leaders.
And frankly, I counseled against raising hopes
unnecessarily and focusing more on what we
might do and saying less until we were prepared
to do something.
I will say this: The one new statement that
is in this policy that I am absolutely convinced
that all the leaders of the other countries meant,
that should have some impact on the situation,
was the one proposed by Chancellor Kohl which
says that, essentially, that if Serbia and Croatia
carve up Bosnia in the absence of an international peace agreement to which the Bosnian
Government freely subscribes, that the rest of
us have no intention of doing any business with
either of them if that happens.
That would have a very serious detrimental
economic consequence on both Croatia and Serbia. And it had never been said exactly like
that before, particularly as it relates to Croatia.
So I think that is the new part of this statement.
Yes.
Japan
Q. Mr. President, the last time an American
President was in this city the Japanese Prime
Minister said he pitied the United States. It
was a remark you cited often in the campaign.
In your talks with the Prime Minister did you
detect any change in that attitude, or did you
think there's still pity for the United States?
The President. I did detect a change. But
I have to tell you, I have tried very hard to
move this dialog into a constructive frame of
mind. When I spoke at Waseda University, I
acknowledged that one of the reasons that there
was such a big trade deficit with Japan in the
Exchange With Reporters in Tokyo
July 9, 1993
Aid to Russia
Q. Mr. President, we wanted to ask you about
Russian aid. Is there any sense of disappointment that there isn't more cash, less credit, that


1980's was that we had such a huge Government
deficit, we needed a lot of Japanese money to
pay for our debt, to keep our interest rates
down.
In other words, I tried to go beyond the rhetoric and finger-pointing of both sides. I also
pointed out, however, that we have now had
10 years of high manufacturing productivity
growth, that we really are the high quality, low
cost producer of many goods and services, and
that we have to recognize we have to have a
new relationship.
I think we should focus on things that are
positive for both of us and be very, very firm
about the need to change. But I don't sense
a lot of ridicule here. And as a matter of fact,
what I was hoping was that the Japanese would
not be too concerned about all the changes
going on in this country. A lot of the political
changes are without precedent in the postwar
era, post-World-War-II era. But they are the
inevitable part of growing in a democracy and
changing. And I sense a real sense of anticipation and openness here that's perhaps a little
greater than it has been in past years and pretty
uniformly throughout the people that I met and
talked with.
I must say a special word of appreciation to
our host, Prime Minister Miyazawa, who, even
though his party is facing elections, as you know,
in just a few days, displayed a great vigor and
willingness to discuss a lot of these issues and
to try to bring them to closure, and clearly had
to sign off on the market access agreement and
had to make some changes to do so in his government's position.
Thank you very much.
NOTE: The President's 22d news conference
began at 8:10 p.m. in the garden of the U.S. Ambassador's residence.


this isn't helpful enough to Yeltsin? What is
your take on it?
The President. No. As a matter of fact, I
think, based on where we were 5 or 6 weeks
ago, this is a real success. I'm very pleased.


1043




July 9 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


I came here with the hope of getting $500 million in a privatization fund to help convert these
government-owned industries to private sector
industries. And the Europeans have really come
forward. I talked to a lot of them in the last
week, and it appears to me that we'll have at
least $500 million in that fund and an aid package that will probably be somewhere in the
neighborhood of $3 billion. So that is very good.
It's also very good for America. I mean, there's
a lot of business to be done in Russia by Americans to create American jobs, business and energy and natural resources, in environmental
technologies, in all kinds of consumer operations. This is a huge new market for American
goods and services.
It's also good news because it will end-a
lot of this money will enable us to continue
to denuclearize Russia, that is, to dismantle their
nuclear weapons and to help to deal with the
aftermath of that. And that is very, very important in terms of making our country and our
world more safe and helping us to continue
to manage these defense reductions. So I'm very
happy about that.
Q. What did President Yeltsin tell you tonight? What was his reaction, do you know?
The President. Well, he's in a good humor
tonight, but we just had dinner together. It was
a formal dinner, so we didn't have much time
to talk business. I'm going to see him tomorrow,
and I'm looking forward to visiting with him
again. But he is in very good shape now, since
the election. The process of political reform is
continuing in Russia, and I feel good about it.
And also, one thing I really appreciate about
President Yeltsin is that he encouraged us to
set up an operation in Moscow to make sure
that our money was not wasted, which I was
very impressed with. And so I've been working
for months now to try to get agreement among
all these countries about exactly what mechanism we'll have to monitor the expenditure of
this money. And we've achieved agreement on
that. So I'm very encouraged about that.
Trade Negotiations
Q. Mr. President, do you expect any more
breakthroughs at this summit, I mean, in terms
of Japanese trade rules and so forth? Or are
we just flailing?
The President. No, we're not just flailing. But
I don't know. I mean, if that were to happen
it would be a good thing, as long as it's a good


agreement for America. But I don't want to
raise any false hopes. We were able to get this
huge breakthrough on the trade in manufactured goods with these other nations, which
could lead to a huge number of new jobs for
America. The same thing could happen if we
could get a breakthrough in our trade relations
with Japan. But our job is to negotiate firmly
in the interests of the United States, and we're
doing that. And we'll just have to see what happens.
Russian Role in Economic Summit
Q. Mr. President, why is the G-7 not disposed to make themselves the G-8 and include
Russia?
The President. Well, I think you will see more
and more involvement by Russia over the next
couple of years. President Yeltsin's coming here;
I expect he'll be with us next year. And I don't
think that this group is wedded to any particular
membership. But I'm not sure it's the right time
to discuss a formal expansion. But he's going
to have a major role in this meeting tomorrow,
and I expect him to be here next year.
Q. Isn't the statement on Bosnia somewhat
disappointing?
Japan-U.S. Relations
Q. Will you have dinner tonight with Mr.
Miyazawa? And what do you read into the fact
that he wants to see you again for a trade agreement orThe President. I think they are interested in
moving our relationships forward. To me, it was
encouraging that he invited me to dinner because we've already been together once. And
I think it indicates that the Japanese do understand there has to be some change in the relationship between the United States and Japan,
in both our interests.
Whether we can agree on exactly what the
shape of that should be at this time, I don't
know. And I'm doing the best I can to represent
the interests of our country. But as I said in
my speech yesterday to the university students,
I also believe that the position I've taken is
in the best interests of Japan. I know it's in
the best interests of Japanese consumers, but
it's going to help to stabilize this economy, too,
if they can open their markets more and not
be driven by the desire to maintain these massive trade surpluses. So we'll work at it. But
I was gratified that he invited me to dinner,


1044




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 9


and I'm going to go.
Q. Wasn't there something good to tell you?
Q. Wasn't the statement on Bosnia
Economic Summit
Q. You had expressed some frustration with
the sort of formal, stilted nature of these things,
sir. Did you feel you're making any progress
towards getting them
The President. A lot. A lot.
Q. How is that working out?
The President. Well, we finished an hour early
today, partly because of the extra informality.
The reason we finished an hour early today is
because we discussed a lot of what was on the
agenda today, yesterday, when we had a more
unstructured 3-hour meeting and last night during our dinner. And we agreed this afternoon
to make next year's session even more informal
so that we could focus on a few big things,
cut out a lot of the bureaucracy and all the
other stuff that goes with these summits, and
really try to get a few big things done in a
very informal way. So I feel good about it.


Q. Aren't you disappointed on Bosnia, Mr.
President? Isn't it sort of a weak statement on
Bosnia?
Japanese Crown Prince and Princess
Q. How did you like the Crown Prince?
Q. No, let me just ask-let me askPress Secretary Myers. He's done.
Q. How did you like her?
The President. A lot. I had dinner with her.
I liked her a lot. I liked him a lot.
Q. What did you talk about?
Press Secretary Myers. Okay, thanks, you
guys. Everybody out. Come on.
Q. Give us some color.
Midwest Flooding
Q. What did they tell you about the floodThe President. I think they've crested at the
upper level. But there will be rolling floods all
the way down the Mississippi. We'll just have
to see what happens.
NOTE: The exchange began at 11:30 p.m. in the
President's suite at the Okura Hotel.


Letter to Congressional Leaders on the Former Yugoslav Republic of
Macedonia
July 9. 1993


Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)
On June 18, 1993, the U.N. Security Council
adopted Resolution 842, expanding the size of
the U.N. Protection Force (UNPROFOR) in the
former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. The
Security Council acknowledged the important
contribution of the existing UNPROFOR presence to stability in the region and welcomed
the addition of a U.S. peacekeeping contingent
to UNPROFOR in Macedonia. I have since ordered the deployment of U.S. Armed Forces
to Macedonia for these purposes and am providing this report, consistent with Section 4 of the
War Powers Resolution, to ensure that the Congress is kept fully informed about this important
U.S. action in support of United Nations efforts
in the region.
After the adoption of U.N. Security Council
Resolution 795 (1992), which established the
UNPROFOR Macedonia mission under Chapter


VI of the U.N. Charter, UNPROFOR deployed
a Nordic battalion composed of some 700 military personnel to Macedonia in early 1993. This
peacekeeping force has been stationed along the
northern Macedonian border with the mandate
of monitoring and reporting any developments
that could signify a threat to the territory of
Macedonia. Norway, Finland, and Sweden have
contributed infantry companies to this battalion,
which is under the U.N. command of a Danish
Brigadier General.
Over the past several days, we have begun
implementing plans to augment UNPROFOR
Macedonia with U.S. Armed Forces, consistent
with Security Council Resolution 842 and as part
of the U.S. commitment to support multilateral
efforts to prevent the Balkan conflict from
spreading and to contribute to stability in the
region. At my direction, the Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff through the Commander


1045




July 9 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


in Chief, U.S. European Command, ordered the
deployment of Company C, 6th Battalion, 502nd
Infantry Regiment of the Berlin Brigade to Macedonia. On July 3, advance parties and support
elements began transporting equipment into
Macedonia by U.S. C-141 aircraft. The main
body of this unit began arriving by U.S. C5 aircraft on July 7. The unit's equipment, including M-113 Armored Personnel Carriers
(APCs), has also been delivered to the operating
area. It is expected that the full contingent of
U.S. military personnel, numbering approximately 350, will be in place and equipped by
July 12.
The U.S. contingent will serve under the
operational control of UNPROFOR Macedonia
and will conduct missions as directed by the
U.N. commander. Although UNPROFOR Macedonia is a U.N. peacekeeping force under
Chapter VI of the Charter and has not encoun

tered hostilities to date, our forces are fully prepared not only to fulfill their peacekeeping mission but to defend themselves if necessary.
This deployment is important to our foreign
policy and natural security interests and has
been directed in accordance with Section 7 of
the United Nations Participation Act and pursuant to my constitutional authority as Commander
in Chief and Chief Executive. I will continue
to keep you informed about the progress of this
and other U.S. efforts towards peace and stability in the vital Balkan region.
Sincerely,
BILL CLINTON
NOTE: Identical letters were sent to Thomas S.
Foley, Speaker of the House of Representatives,
and Robert C. Byrd, President pro tempore of
the Senate.


Nomination for Posts at the Commerce and Transportation Departments
July 9, 1993


The President has announced his intention
to nominate David Barram to the position of
Deputy Secretary at the Department of Commerce and Steve Palmer to be Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs at the Department of Transportation.
"These appointments are a continuation of
our efforts to nominate accomplished and dedicated professionals to important Government
positions," the President said.
The President said that Mr. Barram's private


sector experience will be a valuable asset at the
Commerce Department. "His professional background combined with his extensive community
service will add an important perspective."
"Steve Palmer," said the President, "has
lengthy experience in Federal Government
which makes him especially qualified for this
post."
NOTE: Biographies of the nominees were made
available by the Office of the Press Secretary.


The President's News Conference with President Boris Yeltsin of Russia in
Tokyo
July 10, 1992
President Clinton. Good morning. I want to  ward democracy and toward a free market econmake just a couple of brief remarks and let  omy. They've taken bold steps to create a new
President Yeltsin make a couple of remarks, and  constitution.
then we'll take a few questions.              We have now obligated over two-thirds of the
Since I last met with President Yeltsin in Van-  funds that we promised to contribute to Russia's
couver, the Russian people have voted in an  march toward democracy and free markets at
historic referendum to continue their march to-  Vancouver. We are delivering the promised hu

1046




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 10


manitarian food shipments. We have provided
substantial support for Russia's efforts to privatize state-owned industries. Loans to create
new Russian businesses and jobs will soon be
on the way through our Russian-American Enterprise Fund. And just this week, the United
States Export-Import Bank signed a $2 billion
oil and gas framework that will help to revitalize
Russia's energy sector and provide for expanded
sales of American equipment and services.
As I have said to the American people from
the very beginning, an investment in Russia's
future is good for the American people as well
as good for the Russian people.
I want to mention a special project in particular that Hillary has been involved with. She discovered that Mrs. Yeltsin has a special interest
in improving the dental health care of Russia's
children, and she was able to arrange the delivery of surplus American military equipment for
two dental clinics in Moscow. I very much appreciate Mrs. Yeltsin's efforts in this regard.
I've also been working, as all of you know,
with the congressional leadership and members
of both parties to pass a second round of Russian aid through the Congress, as well as to
eliminate obsolete cold war restrictions that still
impede our trade, scientific, and cultural contracts with Russia. I expect those will be successful also.
We discussed a lot of issues here today, but
the bottom line is we believe we have a good
partnership. We think it is working in the interests of the people of Russia and the people
of the United States. And we intend to keep
it going.
Mr. President.
President Yeltsin. Thank you.
After the Vancouver meeting, President Clinton and I have established a relationship over
months that have been replete with significant
work. It was President Clinton's purpose to ensure that Congress adopt the package of agreements that we had set. I, for my part, had
to win the referendum and also ensure that we
prepare ourselves for the adoption of our new
constitution. And I think both parties, the two
Presidents, have resolved these matters.
And today we had an opportunity of checking
up on time limits, what has been accomplished
since the Vancouver meeting, what has been
failed in a sense, and it's like answering to the
test that you have to undergo at school. And
I think that, in a sense, well, I think that we


managed to clear about 25 questions together.
And this, of course, concerned bilateral relations
and also international matters, starting with the
Asian and the Pacific region, the Middle East,
and also general problems or world problems
that we share in connection with the military.
Now, I'd like to say that I'm happy with our
meeting here. And I think that our partnership
and our friendship is strengthening day by day,
and this is indeed the guarantee of further developments and progress.
Thank you.
Russian Military Sales
Q. Were you able to persuade Mr. Yeltsin
to cancel the sale of Russian missile technology
to India and Libya? Did you discuss that, and
where does that stand now?
President Clinton. We discussed the outstanding differences of opinion, and we agreed to
continue the negotiations intensely and immediately. And I think you may have some sort
of answer at least on the ongoing status of the
negotiations next week.
Russia-U.S. Relations
Q. How do you evaluate the level of Russian
and American relations in terms of dealing with
problems? Are they at the level of mutual understanding or shall we say there is certain interaction, and how far are we getting in the relations between the two countries?
President Clinton. Is that for me or for President Yeltsin?
Q. Both.
President Clinton. I think we have forged a
remarkable partnership. We have worked together on any number of issues including this
G-7 summit we just completed, including our
efforts to avoid the problems that would be created if North Korea were to withdraw from the
nonproliferation regime, and a whole range of
other issues.
I think it has been a remarkable partnership.
Are there differences between our two countries
and between our positions? Of course there are.
Can we resolve every issue? Of course we can't.
We represent two great countries that are now
very much more alike than they have ever been
in their histories but still have some differences.
But I think the peoples of our nations should
feel very good about the level of cooperation
that we have and the deep bonds of partnership
that we have formed.


1047




July 10 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


President Yeltsin. I'd like to say that we do
have a very good partnership, and I think that
we're developing relations and more than that.
Earlier, we used not to discuss matters of local
conflicts within the Community of Independent
States. But this time we have touched on matters concerning Georgia, the situation in Georgia, and we've also covered the Baltic States
and a number of other aspects and issues. So
indeed, we have started tackling specific issues.
And so we have brought the oppositions closer,
and there is a lot that is in parallel, so to speak.
Ukraine
Q. This is a question for both Presidents.
Ukraine has said that it wants to be a nuclear
power, and it does not want to give up its weapons. What do you think of that?
President Clinton. Well, there are different
voices in Ukraine. Ukraine is also committed
to join the NPT and to ratify START I and
to go on to START II. We have a lot of outstanding negotiations with Ukraine. We are now
trying to negotiate a comprehensive agreement
for the disposition of highly enriched uranium
in Ukraine and Kazakhstan, as well as in Russia.
There are lots of things that we have going
on.
And I can only tell you for my part that
I hope that there will be a nonnuclear Ukraine,
that the commitments the Government has
made will be kept. And I hope the United States
can be engaged with Ukraine in a positive way
so that they will feel that it is very much in
their interests to do that. And I think President
Yeltsin feels the same way.
President Yeltsin. Yes, indeed, I agree with
you. And we've agreed today to supply certain
ideas so that the concept of a trilateral agreement for Ukraine-let's say, Ukraine, U.S.A.,
and Russia.


Russia-U.S. Trade
Q. I heard-[inaudible]-yesterday that some
300 legislative acts in the United States discriminatory towards Russia would be lifted within
2 years or so. What can you say on that, and
how soon Russia is going to get the most favorable nation status? Thank you.
President Clinton. First of all, I think that
many of those acts discriminatory against Russia
that date back to the cold war period will be
removed from the books of Congress in this
year. We have compiled quite a long list of
them that we think cannot be justified anymore.
And there is a strong base of support in both
political parties in the United States Congress
to remove those laws. So we will, as soon as
I go home, we will begin to put in motion
the process of removing many of those statutes.
As to the second question you mentioned,
we are working also on the possibility of the
graduation out of the Jackson-Vanik restrictions
for Russia. And the President and I discussed
a couple of items outstanding on that. And we
made an agreement about how we would proceed with them. And I think if we can resolve
them, you will see that moving forward as well.
Thank you very much.
Visit to Moscow
Q. Are you going to have a meeting in Moscow?
President Clinton. It's possible. I hope so. We
didn't set a definite date, but I accepted President Yeltsin's invitation.
Q. This year?
President Clinton. I hope it will be this year.
That depends on what we do at home, you
know. But I hope so.
NOTE: The President's 23d news conference
began at 9:17 a.m. at the U.S. Ambassador's residence. President Yeltsin spoke in Russian, and his
remarks were translated by an interpreter.


Remarks With Prime Minister Kiichi Miyazawa of Japan in Tokyo
July 10, 1993


Prime Minister Miyazawa. President Clinton
and I were able to agree upon the establishment
of the Japan-U.S. framework for a new eco

nomic partnership. This agreement comes at a
time to coincide with the Tokyo summit, which
symbolizes the cooperation and coordination


1048




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 10


between the G-7 partners in the international
society in the post-cold-war era.
This framework is something that President
Clinton and I agreed to establish in our bilateral
summit meeting held in last April. President
Clinton and I share the views that establishing
such a new framework and stabilizing JapanU.S. economic relations from the medium- to
long-term perspective and managing our bilateral economic relationship constructively are extremely important not only to the enhancement
of the national life of our two countries but
also to the maintenance and strengthening of
the free trading system of the world.
The negotiating teams of our two countries,
based on those perspectives, the negotiating
teams of both countries made serious negotiations both in Washington and Tokyo. And they
made further negotiations on the occasion of
President Clinton's visit, and subsequently, they
have succeeded in reaching an agreement.
Let me share you the gist of this framework
in a few words. This framework aims at facilitating frank and broad exchange of views between
our two countries, and aims at resolving the
economic issues between our two countries
based on the spirit of joint exercise between
the two largest free market economies that are
the United States and Japan, and also aims at
advancing our cooperation on issues such as environment and technology which have significance. More concretely, under this framework
we will operate on the principles of two-way
dialog and limiting our consultations to matters
within the scope and responsibility of government.
Under those principles, we will deal with the
following: to Japan's efforts at reducing the current account surplus and the reduction of the
American Federal budget deficit, in the macroeconomic area. In sectoral and structural area
we will deal with government procurement and
deregulation, et cetera. And on our common
task for cooperation on global perspective, we
will deal with issues such as environment and
technology. And we will announce the achievements regarding these issues at our biannual
bilateral summit meeting.
Furthermore, let me share with you that
Japan intends to take measures on its own initiative to further expand its market access, to enhance its transparency, and promote deregulation, all along with our objective to achieve better quality of life. And I expect and hope that


in the United States as well the U.S. Government will make progress in reducing the Federal
budget deficit and in strengthening international
competitiveness.
Through the efforts of our two governments,
we would like to contribute to the strengthening
of Japan-U.S. economic relations and also to
contribute to the development of world economy in the future.
Thank you, Mr. Clinton.
The President. Thank you. Thank you very
much. Today's agreement is an important step
toward a more balanced trade relationship between the United States and Japan, but it also
benefits the world trading system.
For years we have had trade agreements that
have failed to reduce our chronic trade deficits.
Those agreements have not worked because they
lacked a commitment to tangible results and
they provided no way to measure success. This
has caused resentment to build over time on
both sides, threatening our vital friendship.
This framework agreement we are announcing
today takes a different approach. As I said in
my speech at Waseda University earlier this
week, we are not interested in managed trade
or trade by numbers but better results from
better rules of trade. This framework launches
us on that road.
As the Prime Minister said, we will negotiate
a series of agreements under this framework,
some to be completed within 6 months, the
rest within a year, that will allow greater penetration of the Japanese marketplace in specific
areas of the economy. And these new agreements will include specific timetables and objective criteria for measuring success. These results-oriented agreements can create bigger markets for key U.S. industries, including the automotive industry, computers, telecommunications,
satellites, medical equipment, financial service,
and insurance. If we are successful, we will create benefits for citizens in both the United
States and Japan: more jobs and opportunities
for America's workers and businesses, new
choices and lower prices for Japanese consumers, and new jobs for Japanese citizens in business establishments located in Japan but owned
by citizens of other countries.
Again, as the Prime Minister said, this framework also includes a basic bargain. We agree
that the United States will significantly cut our
budget deficit, which has clearly slowed the
growth of the global economy. And we will con

1049




July 10 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


tinue our efforts to improve our competitive position, to be the high-quality, low-cost producer
of more and more goods and services. In return,
the Japanese agree to what the agree quotes
as highly significant reductions in their trade
surplus and increases in their imports of goods
and services from the United States and other
countries. In other words, both nations have
made some tough choices.
We should have no illusions. We announced
today a framework to govern specific agreements
yet to be negotiated. Negotiating those agreements will surely be difficult. But now, at least,
we have agreed what the outcome of these negotiations needs to be: tangible, measurable
progress.
I have said for some time that the United
States and Japan, the two largest economies of
the world, must strengthen our friendship. Our
political relationship is strong; our security relationship is firm. These trading disputes have
been corrosive, and both of us are called upon
to change. It is essential that we put this relationship on a footing of mutual respect and mutual responsibility. This framework is a good beginning.
As the Prime Minister said, many people
worked very hard on these negotiations. And
before I conclude my statement, I would like
to express appreciation to people on both sides.
I want to thank on the American side Mr. Bo


Cutter, who was our lead negotiator and is the
Deputy Director of the National Economic
Council; Charlene Barshefsky, the Deputy U.S.
Trade Representative; Roger Altman, the Deputy Secretary of the Treasury; and Joan Spero,
the Under Secretary of State. They did an excellent job. They worked many long hours with
their Japanese counterparts. I also want to thank
the Japanese negotiating team, and I want to
say a special word of appreciation to Prime Minister Miyazawa for his leadership here at the
C-7 summit and his constant attention to these
bilateral negotiations while they were going on.
He has shown wisdom, determination, and genuine leadership.
Perhaps only I and a few others know how
difficult these negotiations have been, how many
late night discussions have been involved, how
hard so many people have tried for our two
countries to reach across the divide that has
separated us on this issue. I do not believe that
this day would have come to pass had it not
been for Prime Minister Miyazawa, and I thank
him in a very heartfelt way. I think he has
done a great service today for the people of
Japan, the people of the United States, and for
the principle of a free world economy.
NOTE: The remarks began at 10 a.m. at the Okura
Hotel. A tape was not available for verification
of the content of these remarks.


Remarks and an Exchange With Reporters Following Discussions With
President Kim Yong-sam of South Korea in Seoul
July 10, 1993


President Kim. Today President Clinton and
I had very useful discussions of the wide-ranging
issues of mutual concern for about 11/2 hours.
I was deeply impressed by President Clinton,
who is playing leadership role in maintaining
world peace and coping with new challenges
in the post-cold-war era.
In today's meeting, President Clinton and I
discussed current international political situation,
including new post-cold-war situation in northeast Asia. We also had wide-ranging consultations on how to further develop the Korea-U.S.
partnership in the areas of politics, security,
economy, and trade.


In particular, we had an indepth discussion
on North Korea's nuclear development program.
And we shared the view that this issue poses
a serious threat not only to peace on the Korean
Peninsula but also to the security of northeast
Asia and the world as a whole. Also, we expressed our satisfaction over the close coordination between our two countries in dealing with
the North Korean nuclear issue. Most importantly, we confirmed that, through this process,
we should continue to encourage North Korea
to remain within the nuclear nonproliferation
regime and to implement faithfully these inspection responsibilities with the IAEA mechanism.


1050




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 10


We also reconfirmed that through effective mutual inspections by the two Koreas themselves,
the denuclearization declaration should be fully
implemented, leading eventually to the resolution of North Korea's nuclear issue.
We will, therefore, continue our efforts to
persuade North Korea to remove suspicion over
its nuclear program. The next round of U.S.North Korean contacts will be held in a few
days. And at the same time, we will keep the
door open for South-North dialog. In case, however, North Korea does not demonstrate different attitudes toward the resolution of the nuclear issue, in spite of our sincere efforts, then
the international community will inevitably have
to come up with appropriate countermeasures
to deal with the issue.
President Clinton renewed firm commitment
of the United States to the defense and security
of the Republic of Korea and reassured that
any further reduction of U.S. forces in Korea
would be made only after the uncertainties surrounding North Korea's nuclear program has
been thoroughly examined.
President Clinton and I noted with satisfaction
the amicable trade relations between our two
countries and concurred that the measures the
Korean Government is taking to liberalize and
internationalize this economy under the new
economic policy will help further expand and
develop our bilateral trade relations. More specifically, President Clinton and I agreed on the
need to develop a future-oriented economic
partnership between our two countries. And for
this purpose, we have agreed to launch a new
bilateral forum for consultation, named the Dialogue for Economic Cooperation. Within this
framework, the two countries will discuss various
ways to enhance bilateral economic cooperation
and address the issues of economic deregulation
as it affects economic relations between our two
countries. Also, we shared the hope that the
Uruguay round of multilateral trade negotiations
should be concluded before the end of this year
to help revitalize the world economy. And we
have agreed to work together to achieve that
goal.
As staunch friends and allies, the Republic
of Korea and the United States have maintained
a close and cooperative relationship during the
last several decades. Our countries will continue
to expand this relationship to make it into a
lasting and comprehensive partnership based
upon the common ideals of democracy in the


fields of politics, national security, economy,
trade, culture, and academic exchanges.
I'm entirely satisfied with the result of our
today's summit meeting, and I'm fully convinced
that today's meeting will mark the first of many
fruitful occasions of such consultations between
President Clinton and me in the future. Thank
you very much.
President Clinton. Thank you very much.
First, let me thank President Kim for his warm
welcome and for his very accurate summary of
the discussions that we have just held. I would
simply like to highlight a couple of points.
First, we reviewed our mutual efforts to ensure the security and peace of the people living
on the Korean Peninsula. And I reassured President Kim of my commitment to ensure that
the United States continues to play its historic
role. We devoted particular attention to the
issue of North Korea's nuclear program and
agreed to continue our very close cooperation
in dealing with this matter. This program is of
great concern not only to the United States and
the Republic of Korea but to all in this region.
We agreed to consult closely on our joint efforts
to achieve a full resolution of this issue, and
we are resolute to take additional steps if they
are required. I did reaffirm my strong intention
to have no further reduction in our military
presence in this region as long as there is any
outstanding question of security regarding this
issue.
President Kim and I also discussed the importance of working together to expand trade
through the Organization on Asian Pacific Economic Cooperation and the meetings we will
have there in Washington this fall.
I thanked President Kim for his support of
the results of the G-7 conference just concluded
in Tokyo, his support of the Uruguay round
of the world trade negotiations, and for the announcement of the new Dialogue for Economic
Cooperation to resolve the outstanding issues
between our two countries and to build an even
stronger economic cooperation between us.
Finally, I want to express my appreciation to
President Kim for his personal lifetime devotion
to the cause of democracy and for the very
good example that the anticorruption and deregulation campaigns here set for all of Asia
and indeed for budding democracies throughout
the world. I believe that this is the sort of example we need more of.
And finally, let me say I appreciate the visit


1051




July 10 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


that we had. I think we established a very good
personal relationship and a very good bond between our two countries. I look forward to further talks, and the President has accepted my
invitation to visit the United States later this
year, so we will have another chance to work
on these issues personally.
North Korean Nuclear Development
Q. Mr. President, in case North Korea doesn't
show sincere efforts to solve their nuclear problem, then the Republic of Korea will react with
appropriate countermeasures to deal with the
issue. Is there any time scale in your plan to
deal with this issue, and what is the most appropriate measures to be taken towards it?
President Kim. I do not necessarily think that
it is desirable to give you any time scale or
any concrete appropriate actions to be taken.
But what is most important, what is most clear,
is that with regard to this issue we had a very
close consultation with the United States, and
we will continue to do so in the future.
China
Q. President Clinton, what role can China
play in trying to be helpful, if at all helpful,
in this? Do you see China as being instrumental
in trying to persuade the North Koreans to follow the treaties?
President Clinton. I do believe China can play
a constructive role. When the United States and
South Korea were attempting to discourage
North Korea from withdrawing from the NPT,
China was quite helpful. I think the Chinese
Government is very interested in supporting the
position we have taken here. They have stronger
and stronger trade relations with South Korea.
And they obviously are more and more interested in becoming a commercial power of the
future rather than a military power of the past.
And so, we will both-we agreed today that
we would continue to inform the Chinese of
what we were doing, and we will certainly ask
for their support in our efforts.
Dialogue for Economic Cooperation
Q. President Clinton, there was an announcement today that the Dialogue for Economic Cooperation will be launched from today. At the
same time, there is an expectation that the Uruguay round of negotiations, multilateral negotiations, will come to conclusion, at latest, before
the end of this year. Now, there is, however,


a concern that perhaps the launching of this
new Economic Cooperation Dialogue is a means
for the United States to press ahead with its
own idea of economic relationship with the
United States in a bilateral sense. Does it carry
any truth, or do you have any comment on
this?
President Clinton. First let me say that is a
very good question. I do not see our efforts
to get an agreement in the Uruguay round and
this announcement today as in conflict. Between
any two nations that have as many trade relations as the United States and the Republic
of Korea, there will always be issues outstanding
that need to be discussed.
Obviously, if by the end of the year we can
conclude a successful Uruguay round, that may
resolve some of the issues between our two
countries. But still there will be other issues
in terms of the practical openness of our markets, what we can do to encourage more investment, how we enforce the laws that we all agree
should be on the books. There are lots of questions like this that in good faith two friends
ought to discuss. And so, we're very hopeful
that that is what we can do.
I should say, too, as much for the Americans
as for the Koreans here, that just a few years
ago Korea had a very large trade surplus with
the U.S. In the last 2 or 3 years, it's been
a very small trade surplus, and this year we
might actually have a small surplus with Korea.
So our trade is more or less in balance, and
the problems we have relate to the way we
implement certain things. So I don't think you
should be concerned. We are going to go forward with the Uruguay round, and we won't
do anything in this context that is in conflict
with the desire to get a world trade agreement.
North Korean Nuclear Development
Q. President Clinton, you mentioned being
resolute to take additional steps to stop North
Korea's nuclear program. What are the carrots
and sticks that you could apply to make North
Korea comply with the IAEA safeguards?
President Clinton. First, let me say that the
talks will resume in a few days. I think it is
obvious that the most important carrot out there
is the one that President Kim has articulated
when he described the conditions under which
the two nations might move toward reunification
with various confidence-building measures and
other steps along the way. The economic success


1052




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 10


of South Korea and the prospect that North
Korea might one day have a cultural unity again
and an economic success must be the greatest
carrot of all. The sticks I think are obvious,
but I think, again, I would support what President Kim said. We should not be discussing


at this point what we might do if all our other
efforts fail.
Thank you.
NOTE: The remarks began at 4 p.m. at the Blue
House. President Kim spoke in Korean, and his
remarks were translated by an interpreter.


Remarks to the Korean National Assembly in Seoul
July 10, 1993


Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, leaders
of the National Assembly, members of all political parties here present joined together in our
common devotion to democracy.
It is a great honor for me to be here today
with my wife, with the United States Secretary
of State, the Secretary of Defense, with other
military and political leaders from our Government in this great hall of democracy.
I first visited your beautiful capital city 5 years
ago. Since then, Korea's energy and culture have
shown themselves in many new ways: Your bustling capital has continued to grow. Your economy has continued to expand. Your nation
hosted the Olympics and has taken its place
as a full member of the United Nations. You
have established new ties to Russia and to
China. But no achievement is more important
than the consolidation of your democracy with
the election of a bold democrat, President Kim
Yong-sam.
Geography has placed our two nations far
apart, but history has drawn us close together.
Ours is a friendship formed in blood as our
troops fought shoulder to shoulder in defense
of freedom. Then as Korea's economy became
the "miracle on the Han," we built an economic
partnership that today exceeds $30 billion in
fairly well-balanced trade. Today, Korea's democratic progress adds yet another bond of shared
values between our two peoples.
When President Truman sent American
troops to Korea's defense 43 years ago, he said
he aimed to prove that, and I quote, "Free
men under God can build a community of
neighbors working together for the good of all."
Our efforts together since then have benefited
all our peoples, not only the people of our own
countries but in the Asian Pacific region, all


who seek to live in peace and freedom. Our
relationship has made this region more secure,
more prosperous, and more free. Now with the
cold war over and profound changes sweeping
throughout your country, this whole populous
region, and indeed throughout the world, we
must create a new vision of how we as a community of neighbors can live in peace. I believe
the time has come to create a new Pacific community built on shared strength, shared prosperity, and a shared commitment to democratic values.
Today I want to discuss the fundamentals of
security for that new Pacific community and the
role the United States intends to play. I had
the opportunity just a few days ago at the G7 summit in Tokyo to travel to Waseda University to talk about the economic aspects of that
new partnership. And I think clearly all the economic reforms that we can make will benefit
a great market system like Korea.
But we must always remember that security
comes first. Above all, the United States intends
to remain actively engaged in this region. America is, after all, a Pacific nation. We have many
peoples from all over Asia now making their
home in America, including more than one million Koreans. We have fought three wars here
in this century. We must not squander that investment. The best way for us to deter regional
aggression, perpetuate the region's robust economic growth, and secure our own maritime
and other interests is be an active presence.
We must and we will continue to lead.
To some in America there is a fear that America's global leadership is an outdated luxury we
can no longer afford. Well, they are wrong. In
truth, our global leadership has never been a
more indispensable or a more worthwhile invest

1053




July 10 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


ment for us. So long as we remain bordered
by oceans and powered by trade, so long as
our flag is a symbol of democracy and hope
to a fractious world, the imperative of America's
leadership will remain.
I believe there are four priorities for the security of our new Pacific community: first, a continued American military commitment to this
region; second, stronger efforts to combat the
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction;
third, new regional dialogs on the full range
of our common security challenges; and last,
support for democracy and more open societies
throughout this region.
The bedrock of America's security role in the
Asian Pacific must be a continued military presence. In a period of change, we need to preserve what has been reliable. Today we therefore affirm our five bilateral security agreements
with Korea, with Japan, with Australia, with the
Philippines, and with Thailand.
Those agreements work because they serve
the interests of each of the states. They enable
the U.S. Armed Forces to maintain a substantial
forward presence. At the same time they have
enabled Asia to focus less energy on an arms
race and more energy on the peaceful race toward economic development and opportunity for
the peoples of this region.
The contribution Japan and Korea make to
defray the cost of stationing our forces underscores the importance of that presence to both
of those countries. There is no better example
of that commitment than our alliance with your
nation.
As the cold war recedes into history, a divided
Korea remains one of its most bitter legacies.
Our nation has always joined yours in believing
that one day Korea's artificial division will end.
We support Korea's peaceful unification on
terms acceptable to the Korean people. And
when the reunification comes, we will stand beside you in making the transition on the terms
that you have outlined. But that day has not
yet arrived. The demilitarized zone still traces
a stark line between safety and danger. North
Korea's million men in arms, most stationed
within 30 miles of the DMZ, continue to pose
a threat. Its troubling nuclear program raises
questions about its intentions. Its internal repression and irresponsible weapons sales show
North Korea is not yet willing to be a responsible member of the community of nations.
So let me say clearly: Our commitment to


Korea's security remains undiminished. The Korean Peninsula remains a vital American interest.
Our troops will stay here as long as the Korean
people want and need us here.
We lost tens of thousands of America's best
in Korea's mountains and mud and sky. But
Korea lost millions. That sacrifice affirmed some
old truths: Vulnerability invites aggression; peace
depends upon deterrence. We cannot forget
those lessons again.
And so it is throughout the region. Our commitment to an active military presence remains.
Our mutual agreement with the Philippines to
close our bases there should not be cause for
Asian alarm. The larger picture tells a different
story. We have obtained increased access for
our forces throughout Southeast Asia to facilitate
our presence and, if necessary, to project our
forces beyond the region.
Here in Korea we have frozen American troop
withdrawals and are modernizing Korean and
American forces on the peninsula. We have deployed to Japan the Belleau Wood Amphibious
Group and the U.S.S. Independence Battle
Group, the largest and most modem in the
world. These are not signs of disengagement.
These are signs that America intends to stay.
The second security priority for our new Pacific Community is to combat the spread of
weapons of mass destruction and their means
of delivery. We cannot let the expanding threat
of these deadly weapons replace the cold war
nightmare of nuclear annihilation. And today,
that possibility is too real. North Korea appears
committed to indiscriminate sales of the SCUD
missiles that were such a source of terror and
destruction in the Persian Gulf. Now it is developing, testing, and looking to export a more
powerful missile with a range of 600 miles or
more, enough for North Korea to threaten
Osaka or for Iran to threaten Tel Aviv.
We have serious concerns as well about China's compliance with international standards
against missile proliferation. And since both you
and we are attempting to engage China in a
more extensive trade relationship, I hope together we can have a positive influence against
that development.
The Pacific nations simply must develop new
ways to combat the spread of biological, chemical, and missile technologies. And in the coming
weeks, the U.S. will propose new efforts aimed
at that goal. But no specter hangs over this
peninsula or this region more darkly than the


1054




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 10


danger of nuclear proliferation. Nearly 160 nations have now joined to resist that threat
through the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty,
the most universally supported treaty in all history.
Now, for the first time since that treaty was
open for signatures, one of its members has
threatened to withdraw. Our goals remain firm.
We seek a nonnuclear Korean Peninsula and
robust global rules against proliferation. That is
why we urge North Korea to reaffirm its commitment to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, to fulfill its full-scope safeguards obligations to the
International Atomic Energy Agency, including
IAEA inspections of undeclared nuclear sites,
and to implement bilateral inspections under the
South-North nuclear accord.
Our goal is not endless discussions but certifiable compliance. North Korea must understand
our intentions. We are seeking to prevent aggression, not to initiate it. And so long as North
Korea abides by the U.N. Charter and international nonproliferation commitments, it has
nothing to fear from America.
The U.S. has worked to bring North Korea
back within the fold of nuclear responsibility.
But your nation, too, has a critical role to play.
The future of this peninsula is for you and
North Korea to shape. The South-North nuclear
accord you negotiated goes even further than
existing international accords. It not only banishes nuclear weapons from the peninsula, it
also bans the production of nuclear materials
that could be used to make those weapons. We
urge full implementation of this path-breaking
accord which can serve as a model for other
regions of nuclear tension.
Even as we address immediate concerns such
as proliferation, we must also have a vision of
how we will meet the broader challenges of
this era. That is what I sought to create during
the recently concluded G-7 talks, for example,
by proposing new ways to focus on new problems such as the slow pace of job creation in
the C-7 countries. And it is why I have proposed a NATO summit so that we can adapt
that institution to new times and new challenges.
In both Asia and Europe the dominant unitary
threat of Soviet aggression has disappeared. In
both regions, the end of the cold war has allowed a host of problems to emerge or to reappear, such as ancient ethnic rivalries, regional
tensions, flows of refugees, and the trafficking
of deadly weapons and dangerous drugs.


In Europe these changes require us to adapt
an existing security institution, NATO. In the
Pacific no such institution exists. Moreover,
since the Asian Pacific face a unitary threat,
there is no need for us to create one single
alliance. The challenge for the Asian Pacific in
this decade, instead, is to develop multiple new
arrangements to meet multiple threats and opportunities. These arrangements can function
like overlapping plates of armor, individually
providing protection and together covering the
full body of our common security concerns.
Some new arrangements may involve groups
of nations confronting immediate problems. This
is the model we pursued to address North Korea's nuclear program. Our two nations worked
not only with each other but also with Japan
and with others who could bring their influence
to bear. Other arrangements may involve peacekeeping, such as the massive and promising
U.N. effort to support reconciliation in Cambodia. Still others may pursue confidence-building measures to head off regional or subregional
disputes.
We also need new regional security dialogs.
This month's ASEAN post-ministerial conference in Singapore, which the United States
will attend, offers an immediate opportunity to
further such a dialog. Korea can play a vital
role in the region's new arrangements, for it
stands at the center of northeast Asia, within
2 hours by air from Singapore, Tokyo, Beijing,
and Vladivostok.
The many economic discussions within the region also can play a role. By lowering barriers
to trade and investment, we can generate jobs,
ease regional tensions, and thus enhance regional security. That is why I welcome the new
dialog for economic cooperation our two nations
are launching on this visit. And that is why I
announced in Japan that I would like to host
an informal economic conference among
APEC's leaders following the ministerial meeting in Seattle, Washington, this fall.
The goal of all these efforts is to integrate,
not isolate, the region's powers. China is a key
example. We believe China cannot be a full
partner in the world community until it respects
human rights and international agreements on
trade and weapon sales. But we also are prepared to involve China in building this region's
new security and economic architectures. We
need an involved and engaged China, not an
isolated China.


1055




July 10 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


Some in the U.S. have been reluctant to enter
into regional security dialogs in Asia. They fear
it would seem a pretext for American withdrawal
from the area. But I see this as a way to supplement our alliances and forward military presence, not to supplant them.
These dialogs can ensure that the end of the
cold war does not provide an opening for regional rivalries, chaos, and arms races. They can
build a foundation for our shared security well
into the 21st century.
Ultimately, the guarantee of our security must
rest in the character and the intentions of the
region's nations themselves. That is why our
final security priority must be to support the
spread of democracy throughout the Asian Pacific. Democracies not only are more likely to
meet the needs and respect the rights of their
people, they also make better neighbors. They
do not wage war on each other, practice terrorism, generate refugees or traffick in drugs and
outlaw weapons. They make more reliable partners in trade and in the kind of dialogs we
announced today.
Today, some argue democracy and human
rights are somehow unsuited to parts of Asia
or that they mask some cultural imperialism on
the part of the West. My ear is drawn instead
to more compelling voices: the Chai Ling, who
proclaim democracy's spirit at Tiananmen
Square; to Aung San Suu Kyi whose eloquent
opposition to repression in Burma has stirred
the entire world; to Boris Yeltsin who is leading
Russia toward becoming a great democratic
power on the Pacific; and to your own President
Kim and others in this multiparty assembly who
have helped democracy flower here in the Land
of the Morning Calm.
You are truly an example to people all over
the Asian Pacific region because you have had
the courage to confront the issues of political
reform and economic reform; to ask the hard
questions of yourselves; to have the public debates necessary when people honestly seek to
improve and open their society and move forward. And I salute you on behalf of freedomloving people everywhere in the world.
To be sure, every nation must retain its own
culture, and we will all struggle about what it
means to define that. But Korea proves that
democracy and human rights are not Western
imports. They flow from the internal spirit of
human beings because they reflect universal aspirations.


Now we must respond to those aspirations
throughout this region. We must support the
nongovernmental organizations that seek to
strengthen Asia's building blocks of civic society,
such as open elections, trade unions, and a free
press. And we must deploy accurate news and
information against Asia's closed societies. I have
proposed creating an Asian democracy radio for
this purpose, and I look forward to its establishment in the near future.
Two hundred seventeen years ago, America's
founders declared the rights of self-government
to be God-given, and therefore inalienable.
Today, here on Asian soil, let us together reaffirm that declaration, not only as an article of
faith but as a sturdy building block in our region's shared security.
This, then, is our Nation's vision for security
in the new Pacific community: a continued United States military presence, new efforts to combat proliferation, new regional security dialogs,
and vigorous support for democracies and democratic movements. These elements of security
can help create a Pacific region where economic
competition is vigorous but peaceful; where diverse nations work as partners to improve their
shared security; where democracy, as well as
balanced military strength, takes its place as a
guardian of our security.
We will not realize every aspect of that vision
overnight, nor will the new Pacific community
come to pass without great effort. But neither
of our nations is a stranger to hard work.
I think in particular, of the image of your
great long-distance runner, Hwang Yung Cho,
who endured the final steep hill in Barcelona
to capture the gold in the marathon in the 1992
Olympics. His energy and perseverance captured
the spirit of the Korean people who have not
only endured but prospered through a long,
hard, and challenging history. We respect that
spirit. We honor your values. We have stood
shoulder to shoulder with you in days past, and
so it shall be in the days ahead. The struggle
for freedom and democracy and opportunity is,
indeed, a marathon. Let us run the race together.
Thank you very much.
NOTE: The President spoke at 5:33 p.m. in the
National Assembly Hall. In his remarks, he referred to Park Jyun Kyu, Speaker of the National
Assembly.


1056




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 10


Remarks at a State Dinner in Seoul
July 10, 1993
President and Mrs. Kim, distinguished guests:
First let me, on behalf of my wife and all the
Americans here present, thank you for the warm
hospitality we have already received. I had a
very fine meeting today with President Kim and
then had the opportunity to be the guest of
the Speaker at the National Assembly.
Tonight we celebrate the warm friendship between our two nations. Forty-three years ago
America and the Republic of Korea joined
forces to preserve freedom on the peninsula.
The times then were perilous, and few could
have imagined just how successful those efforts
would be. Your nation's remarkable development
has made Korea a model today for other nations
seeking to join the ranks of the developed world.
And your rising prosperity is now complemented
in the leadership of President Kim by a second
"miracle on the Han," the flowering of democracy. President Kim, you have been an eloquent
voice for democracy when democracy was not
an easy thing to advocate. Your values and your
valor have led the people of Korea to a new
level of freedom.
The President's Radio Address
July 10, 1993
Good morning. This week I've been in Tokyo
attending the annual summit of the world's
seven major industrial nations. This year we devoted most of the time to an issue critical to
most Americans, how to create more jobs and
more prosperity.
In this era, our standard of living is increasingly linked to other countries. The more other
nations lower their trade barriers, the more
American firms can export. And the more we
export, the more jobs we'll create. The more
the economies of other nations expand, the
more their people can buy our products, creating even more American jobs. Our exports to
other countries account for some 7 million
American jobs. And most of our job growth over
the last decade has come from increases in our
sales overseas.


And so I come, along with our party, to Korea
to discuss, in the spirit of friendship, the challenges that lie ahead; to continue a dedicated
partnership between our two peoples; to affirm
our resolute commitment to Korea's security;
and to begin a personal partnership with you,
Mr. President, which I know will flourish in
the years ahead.
In our separate Inaugural Addresses, Mr.
President, we each invoked the image of a season of rebirth. You heralded the hope of a new
spring, and I suggested a new spring of hope.
Now as we enter the summer months, let us
celebrate the meeting of our minds and rejoice
in the warm friendship between America and
Korea.
With great respect, I ask everyone here to
join me in a toast to you, Mr. President, and
to the Republic of Korea for peace, for democracy, for eventual unification, and for continued
prosperity.
NOTE: The President spoke at 8:45 p.m. at the
Blue House.


For some weeks, I've been saying that the
more we get our own economic house in order,
the more we can get our trading partners to
open up their markets and expand their own
economies. That was clearly true this week. My
hand was strengthened in these meetings with
other world leaders because of everything the
American people have been doing: calling for
change, pushing the Congress to cut the deficit
and increase investment in American jobs, demanding that we reform our campaign laws, our
Government, and our health care system. In
these meetings I was able to say to the world's
other leaders, "The American people are willing
to make some tough choices, and now your nations must do the same thing so that together
we can get the world's economy growing again."
For over 10 years, every time a American


1057




July 10 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


President came to one of the meetings, the leaders of the other nations of the world said, "Before we can straighten out this economy, America has to reduce its deficit and invest more
in the education and training of its people."
Now we're doing that, and we can ask the other
nations to play their part as well.
This has been a good week for the American
people. I'm going home with some tangible
agreements that can make life better for our
workers and our businesses. Let me give you
one example. After years of deadlock at these
summits over the world trade agreement, we
were able to get the world's major trading powers to agree on a plan that will dramatically
lower tariffs on manufactured products. This
agreement covers everything from paper to
chemicals to electronics. For several groups of
products, including steel, farm equipment, and
pharmaceuticals, our agreement will eliminate
tariffs entirely. This plan could mean the biggest
reduction in tariffs in history. Now, how does
this affect American workers? Well, the lower
the tariffs, the lower the price on American
goods when they hit the market in another
country. And the lower the price, the more we
sell and the more jobs we create back home.
This agreement has added momentum to our
efforts to achieve a large global trade agreement
by the end of the year, an agreement that could
create hundreds of thousands of export-based
American jobs and dramatically rebuild the manufacturing sector in America. These jobs will
be the better, higher paying jobs.
Agreements like this are a good start to get
our economy moving again. But there's still a
lot of work ahead of us. For example, over the
next few weeks we still need to get Congress
to take the final steps to pass the budget and
deficit cutting plan. If you haven't said anything
to your Member of Congress to let them know
how you feel, please pick up the phone first
thing Monday morning and do that. We've got
to keep bringing our deficit down so we can
keep these interest rates down and get our economy moving again.
Meeting with the world's other leaders this
week drove home another important point. The
challenges facing our Nation are also facing most
other nations as well. Workers in every advanced
country are coping with increased foreign com

petition. Communities in every major nation are
frustrated by stubbornly high rates of unemployment. Overseas, as in the U.S., there is a tremendous thirst for political and economic reform so people can have more control over their
own lives, their jobs, and their governments.
The changes you and I are pursuing in our
businesses, in our communities, in our Government, are making America stronger. But they're
also having an impact on other countries in ways
we usually don't even think about. We're showing people the world over that the challenges
of this new era can be met. As the American
people have done in so many other times, we're
setting an example, offering hope, and providing
inspiration. Our country has never shied away
from challenges. After this week, I am more
confident than ever we're going to make the
world's new economy work for us.
Before I sign off this morning, I want to
say a word about a continuing tragedy I've followed closely while I've been overseas: the terrible flooding that has hit the Midwest in and
near the Mississippi River Valley. On Sunday
I went to speak with some of the families who
have been hit by the rising waters in Iowa and
Illinois. As someone who grew up in farm country, I was stunned by the devastation-houses,
businesses, farms, in some cases whole communities, all under water.
I want the people in these communities to
know that my thoughts have been with them.
Before I left the country, I asked Vice President
Gore to take personal charge to make sure that
all the emergency services available get to those
who need them. I know that people all over
America have been offering their help and support to these flood-ravaged cities and towns. All
our prayers are with the people of the Midwest
as they face the task of rebuilding their communities, their farms, and their lives. When hard
times hit, the American people stand by each
other. Even in this new era, I don't think that
will ever change.
Thanks for listening.
NOTE: This address was recorded at 11:55 p.m.
on July 9 at the Okura Hotel in Tokyo, Japan,
for broadcast at 11:06 p.m. on July 10 from Seoul,
South Korea.


1058




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 11


Exchange With Reporters in Seoul
July 11, 1993
South Korea
Q. What do you think of Korea?
The President. It's a terrific country. It's amazing all the things that have been done in such
a short time. And the vibrancy of the democracy
is really amazing. To think that President Kim
just a few years ago was under house arrest
and then he winds up being the President of
the country; it's a real tribute to the people
here as well as to their leaders.
North Korea
Q. What do you hope to accomplish with your
visit to the DMZ this afternoon?
Remarks to the American and Korean
July 11, 1993
Really, I came here mostly to listen. And I'm
very delighted to be here. I'm glad to have
this opportunity. You may know that the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Treasury
and I met with the U.S.-Japan Chamber of
Commerce in Tokyo the other day. We had
about 375 people there, and it was very interesting. We had a roundtable, and they had a panel,
sort of like you. And I just listened and asked
them what we could do to help.
Let me just make a couple of observations.
First of all, this has been, I think, from an
economic point of view, quite a successful trip
for the United States. The G-7 summit produced an agreement by the G-7 members on
market access which would, if incorporated into
the final General Agreement on Tariffs and
Trade, would be the biggest reduction in tariffs
in 7 years and have a huge market-opening impact on manufactured goods throughout the
world. I also think it will give some real impetus
as we go back to Geneva to complete the Uruguay round this year. So I feel good about that.
The second thing the G-7 did was to adopt
a $3 billion, 18-month grant and loan assistance
package to Russia, anchored in a $500 million
fund to help to privatize more of their state

The President. First of all, since I'm in the
country, I want to go up there and see our
forces and tell them how much I appreciate
what they're doing. Secondly, I want to reinforce
the message that I issued yesterday in my meeting with President Kim and in my speech to
the National Assembly.
Q. Why do you feel North Korea needs the
message right now?
The President. Because they are not fully in
compliance with the NPT.
NOTE: The exchange began at 9:55 a.m. at the
Blue House. A tape was not available for verification of the content of this exchange.
Chambers of Commerce in Seoul
owned industries more rapidly. That comes just
after the United States Export-Import Bank has
approved $2 billion in credits for energy operations.
So I think we're really moving quite well in
our partnership with Russia. I feel much better
about the stability of the political climate and
the capacity for economic change than I did
even after the election there. There's been a
lot that happened that is basically quite encouraging.
Then thirdly, at 2 a.m. in the morning on
the day that I left, the United States and Japan
reached agreement on a framework for changing
our trading relationships, which is quite encouraging. We committed to work toward some specific agreements in specific areas that will have
some real targets, measurable progress for
change in objective ways, and commits our relationship to a results-oriented basis for the first
time in a way that I think is quite good. So
this was a good trip.
Back home, let me just observe that the problems in America are well-known, and they are
basically faced by every wealthy country in the
world today. We have modest growth; we're behind where we ordinarily would be in job


1059




July 11 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


growth after the bottom of a recession, and the
incomes for most working people have remained
pretty stagnant for more than a decade. And
it's all part of this global slowdown that you're
all very familiar with.
The positives are that, because of the progress
of the deficit reduction package, we've got longterm interest rates down now to a 20-year low,
tens of billions of dollars being generated back
into the economy through refinancing of homes
and business loans, about a million new jobs
coming into this economy in the first 6 months
of this year as compared with about a million
in the previous 3 years.
So, even though the job engine is still slow,
it's picked up markedly in the first 6 months
of this year. And I think, clearly, largely because
of the low interest rates and the refinancing,
so that we're shifting not so much from debt
to equity but from high-cost debt to lower cost
debt, and the difference is being freed up for
some new investment. And we can work that
for a year, or maybe a year and a half, because
there's so much accumulated high-interest debt
in the American system.
The strategy we are seeking to follow at home
is one that brings the deficit down, increases
investments both public and private, and the
generation of new jobs and new technologies
addresses some of the real distortions in the
American economy, such as the exploding cost
of health care and the fact that we spend 30
percent more on it than anybody else does, and
attempts to develop policies for defense conversion, technology, and trade which will hook us
into the global economy in a better way.
We also tried to achieve an agreement at
GATT toward more coordination of our economic policies to produce higher levels of global
growth. And there was some modest success.


For the first time in a decade, GATT did not
criticize America's trade-I mean, budget deficit. They complimented us for trying to get it
down, which is nice.
But we also got an agreement, I think, to
continue to work with the Europeans and the
Japanese, but there are domestic political considerations which limit what they can do. The
Germans are bringing their interest rates down,
but they're also tightening up their economy.
The Japanese are stimulating their economy, but
not as much as we wish they were. Nonetheless,
I think on balance things are going in the right
direction at home, and the G-7 was a big, big
plus for the concept of an open trading system
and for the promise of future growth.
Now, having said that, obviously there are a
lot of differences between words that are spoken
by people in political life, and even that are
put down on paper, and the way things operate
in fact. So I'm here today as much as anything
else for an hour now just to listen to you, to
ask you how we can help to support your mission here. America had a 20-year high in productivity increase in the last quarter of last year.
There are many, many areas of the world now
where in products and services we are the highquality, low-cost producer. And there are all
kinds of opportunities for us around the world
that we need a good partnership between the
United States and the private sector to achieve.
And so unless we know what you're thinking
and what we're supposed to do, it will be hard
to do that. And that's why the Secretary and
I and all the folks on the wall are here today,
and the rest of this hour belongs to you.
NOTE: The President spoke at 10:40 a.m. at
Yongsan Army Base.


Exchange With Reporters at the Demilitarized Zone in South Korea
July 11, 1993


Q. So what do you think?
The President. I think anyone who sees this
would understand how important it is for us
to stay strong on the issue of North Korea staying in the NPT and allowing those atomic energy inspectors back in there. And I think any

one who sees this would be proud of these
young men in uniform for being here.
NOTE: The exchange began at 1:45 p.m. at a lookout post near Camp Bonifas.


1060




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 11


Exchange With Reporters at the Demilitarized Zone
July 11, 1993


North Korea
Q. How many more years do you think this
line will hold?
The President. I don't know. I hope it won't
be long. But in the meanwhile, I'm glad these
people are here. All these young men are doing
something very important. And when you see,
as I said, when you see the way North Korea's
been behaving, their presence here is even more
important. The American people should be very
proud of them. They are making a major contribution to the defense of freedom and also
to the spread of freedom. And in the end our
side of that bridge will prevail.
Q. Do you think they know you're here?
The President. I imagine they do. They were
certainly looking. And someday they'll be able
toQ. Menacingly?
The President. Well, I hope someday they'll
just be able to walk on over here in peace.
Q. Knowing what you know now, do you think
they're more likely or less likely, the North Koreans, to comply with the treaty?
The President. Well, I don't know. They've
been rather calm in response to my trip here.
And that is somewhat encouraging. But it
doesn't make any sense. When you examine the
nature of the American security commitment to
Korea, to Japan, to this region, it is pointless
for them to try to develop nuclear weapons because if they ever use them it would be the
end of their country. All they have to do is
read our security agreements.
So I hope that this trip will serve to get


things back on track. And I hope they will comply. The President of South Korea, President
Kim, has laid out a long-term gradual way of
reunification that is clearly in the interest of
the people on both sides of this great divide.
But we can't even resume that until they make
it clear that they're going to stay in the NonProliferation Treaty regime, they're going to
allow the inspectors back in, they're not going
to try to become a nuclear power. That's the
major issue for this day. And until that happens,
we just need to redouble our resolve and make
it clear where we are.
Q. Well, weren't they moving toward rapprochement, and all of a sudden something happened, they were really
The President. They seemed to be. And, as
I said, President Kim reached out to them. And
it's clear that the people of South Korea would
like reunification to be possible, if you can preserve democracy and freedom.
So we'll just have to see. The wisdom of what
our country has done for 40 years is basically
demonstrated by this abrupt change in North
Korean policy. We know what works. If we just
stay strong and we stay resolute and we stay
firm, we know that will work. And eventually,
we have to hope that they will take the sensible
course and that we can then resume the thaw
that was in place before this last unfortunate
development.
Thank you.
NOTE: The exchange began at 2:55 p.m. at the
Bridge of No Return.


Remarks to the Troops at Camp Casey, South Korea
July 11, 1993


The President. Thank you. Thank you very
much. Thank you, General Abrams. Thank you,
Sergeant Corley, for the tomahawk.
Audience members. Oooh.
The President. He looks to me like he could
use it. [Laughter]
I want to say how glad I am to be here


today. I want to introduce a couple of the people who came with me: the Secretary of State
Warren Christopher; your Secretary of Defense,
Les Aspin; I think you know General Luck. And
I thank you already for the welcome to me
and my wife, the First Lady.
I see some of the young women soldiers


1061




July 11 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


jumping up and down here in the back. We'll
do that better-that's good.
I want to say to all of you, it is a great
privilege for me to be here on the frontier of
freedom with the warriors of the 2d Infantry
Division. You are a very critical part of the finest
Armed Forces the world has ever seen.
I'm sorry to be a little late, but I think you
all know that because of the rains we couldn't
take the helicopters today, and we drove to the
DMZ.
Audience members. Woo! Woo! Woo!
The President. It was the first opportunity I
had ever had to be along the DMZ. And I
understand that I was in a more forward position than any President had been before. When
I stood on the Bridge of No Return and looked
over with my binoculars at those young North
Korean soldiers, I thought to myself, I wish they
were free to walk across this bridge and be
with us in peace and freedom. And because
of you, someday they will be, because of you.
For 40 years American soldiers like you have
stood shoulder to shoulder with our Korean allies, providing South Korea with security against
attack and the opportunity to flourish first as
a great economy and now as a great democracy.
I want every one of you to know whatever you
do here, if you carry a rifle or drive a truck
or repair a helicopter, whatever you do, your
work is vital. And I admire your service, and
believe it or not, so do millions of Americans
you will never see or meet who do not know
your names and may not even know exactly what
you do. All of them know they live a little freer
and a little better because of you and your sacrifice and your service.
All of you know that this is a challenging
time to be in the military. Because the cold
war has ended, some people think the threats
to our country have ended, but you know better.
You know that there is a reduced need for certain missions and forces around the world, but
many threats continue.
Just a few weeks ago I ordered an attack
on Baghdad, and you know why: because we
concluded that Iraq had staged a plot to assassinate former President Bush while he was in
Kuwait. And they were under the illusion that
we treat our political leaders like they treat
theirs. This is America. We honor everybody
who has served this country, and we stick together. But when I gave that order, I did it
with the confidence that we had the best mili

tary in the world, equipped with the finest technology in history. And after that action was over,
I felt more strongly than ever before that we
must continue to have the best military in the
world and the finest technology in the world.
For 6 years now, force levels have been lowered, budgets have been reduced, bases have
been closed. These changes are unsettling and
difficult, but I tell you that still we must maintain our readiness and we must make these cutbacks gradually and with a real feeling for the
men and women who have won the cold war
and deserve their country's best efforts to help
them maintain successful lives.
And even in this time of transition, we must
remember that we have to show foresight and
caution in reducing our defenses. North Korea's
stubborn refusal in recent months to fully comply with the requirements of the Nuclear NonProliferation Agreement is the most urgent example of this. And in this new round of military
cuts, I know that you all noticed no cuts were
made in troop levels in Korea or Japan, and
we beefed up our naval presence in the Pacific
because that is what the national security requires.
You know, too many times in the past, in
the absence of an overpowering threat, our
country has forgotten just how badly we need
people like you, with the morale and energy
and vigor and determination that you're all demonstrating today. In 1945, before any of you
were born, we won the Second World War.
And just 5 short years later, we were involved
in another conflict here in Korea. But by then
we had diminished our strength so much that
we entered the conflict inadequately prepared,
without enough equipment or training, without
enough strength. We must not ever make that
mistake again.
So I say to you that, while over the next
few years we will continue to reduce defense
expenditures where appropriate and acknowledge that in many cases that may be desirable,
there is clearly a line below which we cannot
go. Our Armed Forces must still be able to
fight and win on a moment's notice.
Let me make this last point: To do that, of
course, we have to provide you with the most
sophisticated precision-guided weapons we can.
To do that, of course, we have to provide you
with all the support we can. But in the end,
you will make the difference: your discipline,
your character, your will to win, your love for


1062




Administration of WilliamJ. Clinton, 1993 / July 11


your country, your ability to get up day-in and
day-out and feel the way you are manifesting
your feelings for your country and your duty
today. That is America's winning edge, and that
is what we must never lose.
Let me say in closing, I know that what you
do is difficult and sometimes dangerous and
often very lonely. You're a long way from home.
When I was up on the DMZ, I met three people from my home State, a long way from home.
You, too? And I want all of you to know that
your demonstration of your professionalism and
your dedication means that you and America
really are second to none. What I want you


also to know is that I can see from my perspective sometimes something you may not be able
to see, and that is, these pictures of you here
saying what you're saying, doing what you're
doing, being who you are, give great pause to
the enemies of freedom and great heart to our
allies and to all the American people.
Thank you, and God bless you all. Thank you.
NOTE: The President spoke at 5:10 p.m. In his
remarks, he referred to Brig. Gen. John Abrams,
USA, commanding general, 2d Infantry Division,
Camp Casey, and Gen. Gary E. Luck, USA, commander in chief, U.S. Forces, Korea.


Remarks at the U.S.S. Arizona Memorial in Honolulu, Hawaii
July 11, 1993


Admiral Larson, ladies and gentlemen, it's a
great honor for me to be here, not for the
first time but for the first time as President,
to honor the memory and the service of those
who were killed 52 years ago on a Sunday morning like this in the service of their country. During December of 1941, Americans throughout
our Nation were going about their business
aware that much of the rest of the world was
already embroiled in a conflict but hopeful that
America would not be forced into it, that somehow by standing apart we might keep America's
shores and our sons and daughters safe from
the strife that had then engulfed much of the
rest of the world.
Much has changed since that fateful Sunday
morning in 1941. The United States no longer
faces the threat of an expansionist Germany or
Japan. Indeed, I have just met with the leaders
of those two nations and four others in an attempt to increase the prosperity and opportunity
of all the peoples who live within our nations.
The expansionist Soviet Union, which sprung up
after the Great War, was dismantled in the failure of communism in the last few years. And
at this same meeting in Tokyo, the new democratically elected President of Russia, Boris
Yeltsin, came and talked to us about how together we might build a brighter and freer and
more prosperous future for his people.
Our closest friends now are those with whom
we fought a half a century ago. And yet, it


is still as clear now as it was then that the
United States cannot disengage from the world.
To be economically and physically secure, we
must continue to be strong. In visits to Japan
and to Korea I have reaffirmed the commitment
of the United States to the security of our allies
and friends in the Pacific, beginning with a continuing military presence made possible by the
men and women who serve our Nation here
at Pearl Harbor and throughout the region. As
we honor those who gave their lives a half century ago, let us also honor those who guard
our security today.
I had breakfast with some of the young men
and women of the Pacific Command this morning. And Admiral, I thank you very much for
that opportunity. I was profoundly impressed by
their energy, their discipline, their knowledge,
their commitment, their willingness to do their
jobs. I met with other members of our Armed
Forces in Korea yesterday, including in the
DMZ, where I was able to take the most forward position that any American President has
ever enjoyed, standing on the Bridge of No Return about 10 yards from the dividing line which
still separates us from what is perhaps the most
anachronistic Communist regime remaining in
the world.
I believe more strongly than ever before that
the world has never had a better fighting force
than the men and women who serve in the
military service of our country. We are all in


1063




July 11 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


their debt for their service and their dedication.
We are all proud of what they do for us.
So in the presence of this memorial to those
who gave their all in 1941, looking across the
harbor at our magnificent fleet of 1993, let us
resolve today to honor their sacrifice and their
service by maintaining the best prepared and
Remarks to the Community in Honolu
July 11, 1993
The President. Thank you. Thank you very
much. Thank you so much. Thank you, Mayor
Fasi, Congressman Abercrombie, Congresswoman Mink, Senator Akaka, my longtime and
good friend Governor Waihee. When I look out
here at this wonderful scene tonight, it is almost
impossible for me to remember that in the
snows of New Hampshire in 1992, when many
people thought I had no chance to be elected
President, John Waihee left this scene and came
to that snow to campaign for me, and I'll never
forget it. Thank you very much.
I want to thank all of you for coming out
and all the people behind me. I can't turn
around and face them or the sound will go
off. I am so glad to be home. How's this? [Applause] Like that. [Applause]
It is wonderful to be home after my first
trip overseas as your President. I went to Asia
to a meeting of the world's seven great industrial
nations. I also went to meet in Japan and Korea
and here today in Hawaii with the people who
are in charge of the national security interests
of the United States in Asia and the Pacific
region. This morning I ended that trip with a
visit to the Arizona Memorial and a briefing
by the commander in chief of our forces in
the Pacific and his senior officers.
As Hillary said, yesterday we were in Korea
along the Demilitarized Zone. And I walked out
further than any American President ever had
onto the Bridge of No Return, about 10 yards
from the line separating South and North Korea.
And with my binoculars I looked into the other
side, and I saw some young North Korean soldiers looking back at me. And I thought to myself, I wish you could walk over this bridge,
and I hope it won't be long until you can, until


best equipped force in the world, always ready
to meet any challenge, always worthy, and receiving our full support.
Thank you very much.
NOTE: The President spoke at 10:15 a.m. In his
remarks, he referred to Adm. Charles R. Larson,
commander in chief, U.S. Pacific Command.


we put down the threat of nuclear war and
open up the hand of friendship.
You would be very proud if you could see
what I saw in Korea, in Japan, see the young
men and women who voluntarily have joined
our Nation's Armed Forces and gone there and
represent us with great ability and enormous
enthusiasm, I might add, young people from
every State in this country. And I was proud
of them, and you can feel better about your
country just seeing and knowing that they're
there.
The other thing I did on this trip was to
worry about what I could do abroad to help
our economy here at home. There is a direct
connection, as the people of Hawaii know as
well as any people in America, between how
well America does and how well the rest of
the world does. We have been in a period of
slow economic growth with great problems in
creating new jobs, in raising incomes. But I
went to Japan, which is having its lowest period
of economic performance in 20 years, to meet
with leaders from Europe, where every nation
has a higher unemployment rate than we do
and many countries are in their lowest period
of economic performance in 30 or 40 years.
There is a global economic slowdown, and we
have to turn it around to open opportunities
for Americans.
To be sure, there are things we can do here,
and we have made a beginning, a serious beginning at bringing the terrible budget deficit down
and spending less on things we shouldn't spend
on and investing more in education, in technology, in defense conversion, and building a
stronger future for the American people.
We are building new partnerships with people


1064




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 11


in their private capacities. Something I did as
President when I was overseas was to meet with
over 350 Americans representing business interests in Japan and then meeting with the executive board of the American Chamber of Commerce in Korea to talk about what we could
do together to create opportunities for American
businesses and American workers.
And we are making some progress. We have
interest rates at a 20-year low, millions of people
refinancing their homes and their business loans,
almost one million new jobs in the American
economy since January. That compares with only
a million new jobs in 3 years before then. We
are making some progress, but we've got a long
way to go.
I want to tell you what this trip meant for
America and what it means for Hawaii. First
of all, we agreed among ourselves, these seven
nations, that we would support the reduction
in tariffs in the trade of manufacturing goods
all across the world on a level that we have
not seen in many years. That could mean literally millions of jobs in the global economy,
hundreds of thousands of jobs in the American
economy where manufacturing is coming back.
We are now the high-quality, low-cost producer
of many products and services again. Our automobiles are regaining market share here in
America and are more attractive than they have
been in decades.
The second thing we did was to agree to
invest some money, including some of your
money, to keep democracy and a free market
going in Russia. Why? Because it's in our interests for them to reduce their nuclear arsenals
instead of build them up, because it's in our
interests for all those people over there to become customers for United States products and
travelers to Hawaii someday.
And finally, in what could prove to be an
historic breakthrough, we agreed on a framework to change the terms of trade between the
United States and Japan. The Japanese made
a good-faith commitment to bring down the
enormous trade surplus between the United
States and Japan and to help work with us to
sell more products and more services and to
equalize the imbalance in the global economy.
They have been saying to us for 10 years,
"You've got to bring your budget deficit down."
I went to Japan and I said, "OK, we did that.
Now bring your trade surplus down." And they
said yes. They said yes.


And let me say again, this can affect you.
No State is more closely tied to Japan than
Hawaii. How many Japanese visitors come to
these shores every year? If we have a more
open economic system and consumer goods and
services cost less in Japan, then the Japanese
people will have more of the benefits of their
hard work and their efforts, their incomes will
go further, and more of them than ever before
will be able to travel to the United States of
America and to Hawaii, to integrate the global
economy in a way that is positive and good.
That is what we were doing. Two-thirds of
the jobs that have been created in the United
States of America since 1987 have come from
trade. We are in an increasingly smaller global
economy, and we have to find ways to live together on this planet in ways that help us all.
That is what I was trying to do, to help America
by going to Japan. And I believe it was a good
trip.
Finally, since Presidents don't often come to
Hawaii, let me make a couple of remarks about
this wonderful State. Let me say first, thanks
for the support you gave to me and to the
Vice President in the last election. Thank you
for setting a model for health care and in many
other areas. And let me say that I have been
benefited enormously by the work that your
congressional representatives have done in informing me about issues of concern to Hawaii.
And I want to just mention two, if I might.
Number one, my wife, as she said, is going
to Kauai to. view the hurricane damage in a
couple of days. Just a few days ago, I signed
a bill to provide $40 million in extra assistance
to the victims of the hurricane in Hawaii. And
I have instructed the Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development to
devote an enormous amount of his time to work
to repair the damage here. And he will be doing
that as well as taking some of the money that
they have to rebuild some of the houses on
that troubled island. So we hope we can be
good partners with you in rebuilding Hawaii.
The next thing I would like to say is that,
as Governor Waihee said, this is the 100th anniversary of the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy. Your Governor has talked to me for months
and months, going way back last year, about
issues of concern to native Hawaiians. And I
pledge to you that I will work with him, with
Senator Inouye, with Senator Akaka, with Congressman Abercrombie and Congresswoman


1065




July 11 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


Mink to address these concerns in a positive
way. We will not forget them.
Finally, let me say that, as Hillary said, we
have learned a lot from Hawaii's health care
system, but you should know that your Governor
has asked us to give him permission to do some
more things to fully cover all Hawaiians and
to manage this system better.
And so I want to close with this thought:
We will never bring the Government's budget
deficit down to zero, we will never restore full
health to the American economy until we find
a way to provide basic health security to all
American families and bring the cost of health
care in line with inflation. It is the single biggest
long-term drag on our budget deficit and our
economic performance. And I pledge to you,
building on the example of Hawaii, preserving
the right of people to choose their doctor and
to keep the medical system that works so well,
we will find a solution to this problem, and
we will begin soon. We must do it to bring


the American people together and restore the
economic health of America.
Audience members. Justice for Hawaii! Justice
for Hawaii! Justice for Hawaii!
The President. I hope we can provide it.
Thank you for being here in such numbers.
We want to get out and visit with you. This
is probably the longest political speech any of
you ever listened to on a vacation in your lives.
So to close, I'll give you a laugh. I told my
mother about this trip, and I said, "'You know,
Mother, when we come back we pick up 19
hours, and I'll have two whole Sundays." And
she said over the phone, "Son, you need it."
[Laughter]
Thank you all, and God bless you. I'm glad
to see you.
NOTE: The President spoke at approximately 6:30
p.m. at the Hilton Hawaiian Village. In his remarks, he referred to Mayor Frank F. Fasi of
Honolulu.


Letter to Congressional Leaders on Economic Sanctions Against Libya
July 12, 1993


Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)
I hereby report to the Congress on the developments since the last report of December 30,
1992, concerning the national emergency with
respect to Libya that was declared in Executive
Order No. 12543 of January 7, 1986. This report
is submitted pursuant to section 401(c) of the
National Emergencies Act, 50 U.S.C. 1641(c);
section 204(c) of the International Emergency
Economic Powers Act ("IEEPA"), 50 U.S.C.
1703(c); and section 505(c) of the International
Security and Development Cooperation Act of
1985, 22 U.S.C. 2349aa-9(c).
1. There has been one amendment to the
Libyan Sanctions Regulations, 31 C.F.R. Part
550 (the "Regulations"), administered by the Office of Foreign Assets Control ("FAC") of the
Department of the Treasury, since the last report on December 30, 1992. The amendment,
published on March 10, 1993, 58 Fed. Reg.
13198, added an interpretation of the Regulations' prohibition against the exportation of services to Libya from the United States, and a
general license and statement of licensing policy


concerning the provision of certain legal services. A copy of the amendment is attached to
this report.
The prohibition against exportation of services
to Libya contained in section 550.202 of the
Regulations is interpreted in new section
550.422. Services (including legal services) are
considered to be exported to Libya if their benefit is received in Libya and the services are
performed (1) in the United States; (2) by an
entity located in the United States, including
its overseas branches; or (3) outside the United
States by an individual U.S. person ordinarily
resident in the United States. The benefit of
services performed anywhere in the world on
behalf of the Government of Libya, including
a controlled entity or Specially Designated National of the Government of Libya, is presumed
to be received in Libya. Legal services performed by U.S. persons outside the United
States with respect to property interests of the
Government of Libya are prohibited pursuant
to section 550.209, which prohibits U.S. persons
from dealing in any property (including con

1066




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 12


tracts) in which the Government of Libya has
an interest. Section 550.205, which prohibits
performance by U.S. persons of any contract
in support of an industrial or other commercial
or governmental project in Libya, may also be
applicable in these instances. For example, sections 550.205 and 550.209 of the Regulations,
taken together, prohibit U.S. persons from representing a foreign entity in contract negotiations, contract performance, or arbitration with
the Government of Libya. Such representation
may be authorized only by specific license from
FAC.
New section 550.517 of the Regulations states
that the provision of legal services to the Government of Libya or to a person in Libya generally requires the issuance of a specific license,
and that the receipt of compensation for such
legal services must, in all cases, be specifically
licensed by FAC. However, the provision of the
following legal services to the Government of
Libya or to a person in Libya (but not receipt
of compensation for those services) is generally
licensed: (1) the provision of legal advice and
counselling to the Government of Libya or to
a person in Libya on requirements of and compliance with U.S. law, provided that such advice
and counselling are not provided to facilitate
transactions in violation of the Regulations; (2)
representation of the Government of Libya or
of a person in Libya when named as a defendant
in domestic U.S. legal, arbitration, or administrative proceedings; (3) initiation of domestic U.S.
legal or administrative proceedings in defense
of property interests subject to U.S. jurisdiction
of the Government of Libya that were in existence prior to January 8, 1986, or of a person
in Libya; (4) representation of the Government
of Libya or of a person in Libya before any
Federal agency with respect to the imposition,
administration, or enforcement of U.S. sanctions
against Libya; and (5) provision of legal services
in any other context in which prevailing U.S.
law requires access to legal counsel at public
expense. The enforcement of any judgment, decree, attachment, or lien through execution, garnishment, or other judicial process purporting
to transfer or otherwise alter or affect a Government of Libya property interest is prohibited
unless specifically licensed.
2. During the current 6-month period, FAC
made numerous decisions with respect to applications for licenses to engage in transactions
under the Regulations, issuing 60 licensing de

terminations-both approvals and denials. Consistent with FAC's ongoing scrutiny of banking
transactions, the majority of the determinations
(51) concerned requests by non-Libyan persons
or entities to unblock bank accounts initially
blocked because of an apparent Libyan interest.
Three determinations involved license applications for export sales transactions from the United States to Libya. Four determinations concerned registration of individuals pursuant to a
general license authorizing travel to Libya for
the sole purpose of visiting close family members. Finally, FAC has also issued two licenses
authorizing U.S. landlords to liquidate the personalty of the People's Committee for Libyan
Students, with the net proceeds from the sale
paid into blocked accounts.
3. During the current 6-month period, FAC
has continued to emphasize to the international
banking community in the United States the
importance of identifying and blocking payments
made by or on behalf of Libya. The Office
worked closely with the banks to implement new
interdiction software systems to identify such
payments. As a result, during the reporting period, more than 44 transactions involving Libya
have been blocked.
The proactive compliance programs initiated
by FAC have resulted in the imposition of substantially fewer civil penalties for banks' failure
to block payments in which an interest of the
Government of Libya exists. Since December
30, 1992, FAC has collected $140,000 in civil
penalties for violations of U.S. sanctions against
Libya. Fewer than one-third of the violations
involved the failure of banks to block funds
transfers to Libyan-owned or -controlled banks,
with the remainder about equally divided between violations involving merchandise transshipment and illegal representation of the Government of Libya.
Various enforcement actions carried over from
previous reporting periods have continued to be
aggressively pursued. Several new investigations
of potentially significant violations of the Libyan
sanctions have been initiated by FAC and cooperating U.S. law enforcement agencies. Many
of these cases involved complex conspiracies to
circumvent the embargo through the use of
international diversionary shipping routes to and
from Libya. For example, during the current
reporting period, a U.S. citizen was indicted for
his employment as a manager at a German oil
refinery, Holborn Europa Raffinerie GmbH,


1067




July 12 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


which dealt primarily in Libyan crude oil and
and in which the Government of Libya had acquired a majority ownership interest. In addition, a foreign national and two foreign firms
for whom that individual acted as agent were
indicated by a Federal grand jury for illegally
transshipping agricultural equipment from the
United States to Libya.
FAC has worked closely with the Departments of State and Justice to identify several
U.S. persons who had entered into contracts
or other agreements with the Government of
Libya, or other third-country parties, to lobby
United States Government officials and to engage in public relations work on behalf of the
Government of Libya without obtaining FAC
authorization, in violation of the Regulations. In
one such case, FAC levied civil penalties totaling
$35,000 against three individuals who had engaged in such activity.
In addition, during this reporting period, FAC
blocked a foreign merchant vessel under the
management and control of a Specially Designated National of Libya, following the vessel's
unauthorized entry into a U.S. port. FAC imposed and received a civil penalty in the amount
of $10,000 from agents of the shipping company
prior to authorizing release of the vessel and
its departure from the U.S. port.
FAC has continued to pursue its Operation
Roadblock initiative, issuing an additional 70
warning letters and demands for information
during the reporting period to persons believed
to have travelled to and worked in Libya, or
made travel-related payments to Libya in violation of U.S. law. To date, Operation Roadblock's
ongoing investigative efforts have resulted in one
criminal conviction and several civil penalty assessments. In addition, these investigations have


yielded substantial information concerning alleged criminal violations of the embargo by businesses and individuals. FAC is aggressively pursuing its investigations of such suspected violators in cooperation with other agencies of the
United States Government, including the Departments of State and Justice, the Treasury Department's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the U.S. Customs Service.
4. The expenses incurred by the Federal Government in the 6-month period from January
7 through July 6, 1993, that are directly attributable to the exercise of powers and authorities
conferred by the declaration of the Libyan national emergency are estimated at approximately
$2.7 million. Personnel costs were largely centered in the Department of the Treasury (particularly in the Office of Foreign Assets Control,
the Office of the General Counsel, and the U.S.
Customs Service), the Department of State, and
the Department of Commerce.
5. The policies and actions of the Government
of Libya continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and
foreign policy of the United States. I shall continue to exercise the powers at my disposal to
apply economic sanctions against Libya fully and
effectively, so long as those measures are appropriate, and will continue to report periodically
to the Congress on significant developments as
required by law.
Sincerely,
WILLIAM J. CLINTON
NOTE: Identical letters were sent to Thomas S.
Foley, Speaker of the House of Representatives,
and Albert Gore, Jr., President of the Senate.


Letter to Congressional Leaders on Economic Sanctions Against Haiti
July 12, 1993


Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)
1. In December 1990, the Haitian people
elected Jean-Bertrand Aristide as their President
in a free and fair election. The United States
applauded this remarkable achievement and actively supported the new government. However,
Haiti's progress toward democracy was thwarted


in September 1991, when the Haitian military
illegally and violently ousted President Aristide.
2. The United States, on its own and with
the Organization of American States ("OAS"),
immediately imposed sanctions against the illegal
regime. The United States has also actively supported the efforts of the OAS and the United


1068




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 12


Nations to restore democracy to Haiti and return President Aristide through negotiations between the Haitian parties. In March, Secretary
of State Christopher named Ambassador Lawrence Pezzullo as our Special Envoy on Haiti.
In addition the United States and the international community offered material assistance
to facilitate the return to democracy, build constitutional structures, and foster economic wellbeing.
3. When the de facto regime rebuffed the
international community's efforts, I ordered several measures to increase our pressure on it.
On June 4, I barred the entry into the United
States of individuals associated with the de facto
regime who have been impeding a settlement.
I also ordered that their assets under U.S. jurisdiction be frozen and that transactions with
them be prohibited. With strong U.S. backing,
the OAS voted to tighten its embargo. We took
the lead in the successful effort to have the
United Nations Security Council adopt mandatory oil, arms, and financial sanctions on Haiti
on June 16; these came into effect June 23.
4. On June 30, 1993, I issued Executive Order
No. 12853, which broadens U.S. authority to
block all property of and prohibit transactions
involving Haitian nationals providing substantial
financial or material contributions to, or doing
substantial business with, the de facto regime
in Haiti. The Executive order also prohibits the
sale or supply from the United States of petroleum, petroleum products, arms, or related materiel of all types. The order also prohibits the
carriage on U.S.-registered vessels of petroleum
or petroleum products, or arms and related materiel, with entry into, or with the intent to
enter, the territory or territorial waters of Haiti.
Issuance of this Executive order demonstrates
continued U.S. leadership of the international
community's use of strong sanctions to reinforce
the negotiations process being sponsored by the
United Nations and the OAS.
5. This report details the measures we have
instituted and enforced pursuant to the requirements of the International Emergency Economic
Powers Act. I am committed to the restoration
of democracy in Haiti, and I am confident that
the measures we have taken will help achieve
that outcome.
6. On October 4, 1991, in Executive Order
No. 12775, President Bush declared a national
emergency to deal with the threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of


the United States caused by events that had
occurred in Haiti to disrupt the legitimate exercise of power by the democratically elected government of that country (56 Fed. Reg. 50641).
In that order, the President ordered the immediate blocking of all property and interests in
property of the Government of Haiti (including
the Banque de la Republique d'Haiti) then or
thereafter located in the United States or within
the possession or control of a U.S. person, including its overseas branches. The Executive
order also prohibited any direct or indirect payments or transfers to the de facto regime in
Haiti of funds or other financial or investment
assets or credits by any U.S. person or any entity
organized under the laws of Haiti and owned
or controlled by a U.S. person.
Subsequently, on October 28, 1991, the President issued Executive Order No. 12779, adding
trade sanctions against Haiti to the sanctions
imposed on October 4 (56 Fed. Reg. 55975).
This order prohibited exportation from the United States of goods, technology, and services, and
importation into the United States of Haitianorigin goods and services, after November 5,
1991, with certain limited exceptions. The order
exempts trade in publications and other informational materials from the import, export, and
payment prohibitions and permits the exportation to Haiti of donations to relieve human
suffering as well as commercial sales of five food
commodities: rice, beans, sugar, wheat flour, and
cooking oil. In order to permit the return to
the United States of goods being prepared for
U.S. customers by Haiti's substantial "assembly
sector," the order also permitted, through December 5, 1991, the importation into the United
States of goods assembled or processed in Haiti
that contained parts or materials previously exported to Haiti from the United States. On February 5, 1992, it was announced that specific
licenses could be applied for on a case-by-case
basis by U.S. persons wishing to resume a preembargo import/export relationship with the assembly sector in Haiti.
7. The declaration of the national emergency
on October 4, 1991, was made pursuant to the
authority vested in the President by the Constitution and laws of the United States, including
the International Emergency Economic Powers
Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) ("IEEPA"), the
National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et
seq.), and section 301 of title 3 of the United
States Code. The emergency declaration was re

1069




July 12 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


ported to the Congress on October 4, 1991,
pursuant to section 204(b) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C.
1703(b)). The additional sanctions set forth in
the Executive order of October 28, 1991, were
imposed pursuant to the authority vested in the
President by the Constitution and laws of the
United States, including the statutes cited above,
and represent the response by the United States
to Resolution MRE/RES. 2/91, adopted by the
Ad Hoc Meeting of Ministers of Foreign Affairs
of the OAS on October 8, 1991, which called
on Member States to impose a trade embargo
on Haiti and to freeze Government of Haiti
assets. The current report is submitted pursuant
to 50 U.S.C. 1641(c) and 1703(c), and discusses
Administration actions and expenses since the
last report that are directly related to the national emergency with respect to Haiti declared
in Executive Order No. 12775, as implemented
pursuant to that order and Executive Order No.
12779.
8. On March 31, 1992, the Office of Foreign
Assets Control of the Department of the Treasury ("FAC"), after consultation with the Department of State and other Federal agencies, issued
the Haitian Transactions Regulations ("HTR")
(31 C.F.R. Part 580 Fed. Reg. 10820, March
31, 1992), to implement the prohibitions set
forth in Executive Orders No. 12775 and No.
12779. Since the last report, there has been
one amendment to the HTR and one policy
statement issued concerning the HTR.
On January 13, 1993, FAC, in consultation
with the Department of State and other Federal
agencies, amended section 580.510 of the HTR
(58 Fed. Reg. 4080) to provide general authorization for the commercial exportation from the
United States to Haiti of medicine and medical
supplies. New section 580.517 of the HTR also
provides for specific licensing on a case-by-case
basis authorizing the exportation of (1) personal
hygiene items and ingredients used in the manufacture of medicines; (2) paper and school supplies; and (3) generators and generator parts
intended for use in humanitarian projects. A
copy of the amendment is attached to this report.
Early in the embargo an exception to the
export ban had been made with respect to medicines and medical supplies. Prior to the recent
amendment, such exportations could be authorized only by specific licenses issued on a caseby-case basis. The general license provided by
the amendment applies only to finished medi

cines and medical supplies. The exportation to
Haiti of components and materials used in the
manufacture of medicines and medical supplies,
and personal hygiene items, requires specific licensing on a case-by-case basis.
Although significant quantities of school supplies have been donated to Haiti by various U.S.
organizations since the inception of the embargo, supplies of many basic items have remained
chronically low. Applications for specific export
licenses are carefully screened to ensure that
goods intended primarily for entertainment and
other non-educational uses are denied authorization. Qualifying shipments of paper are limited
to paper that will be used as writing paper,
notebooks, tablets, and texts.
In order to operate medical apparatus, refrigeration units, and communications devices, hospitals, schools, and various charitable and religious organizations require alternative energy
sources to augment the often intermittent supply
available from the government-run utility. To
meet this need, specific licenses are issued for
generators and generator parts and only where
the humanitarian application of the equipment
is definitively established.
9. On January 8, 1993, FAC published a policy statement extending all then-current licenses
issued under section 580.515 of the HTR (58
Fed. Reg. 3228). Those licenses, which authorize
transactions in connection with both the exportation to Haiti of articles containing specified
parts or materials, and the importation into the
United States of specified articles assembled in
Haiti containing materials or parts exported from
the United States, were extended to January 31,
1994. The policy statement also clarified reporting requirements pursuant to these licenses. A
copy of the policy statement is attached to this
report.
10. In implementing the Haitian sanctions
program, FAC has made extensive use of its
authority to specifically license transactions with
respect to Haiti in an effort to mitigate the
effects of the sanctions on the legitimate Government of Haiti and on the livelihood on Haitian workers employed by Haiti's export assembly sector having established relationships with
U.S. firms, and to ensure the availability of necessary medicines and medical supplies and the
undisrupted flow of humanitarian donations to
Haiti's poor. For example, specific licenses have
been issued (1) permitting expenditures from
blocked assets for the operations of the legiti

1070




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 12


mate Government of Haiti; (2) permitting U.S.
firms with pre-embargo relationships with product assembly operations in Haiti to resume those
relationships in order to continue employment
for their workers or, if they choose to withdraw
from Haiti, to return to the United States assembly equipment, machinery, and parts and
materials previously exported to Haiti; (3) permitting U.S. companies operating in Haiti to
establish, under specified circumstances, interest-bearing blocked reserve accounts in commercial or investment banking institutions in the
United States for deposit of amounts owed the
de facto regime; (4) permitting the continued
material support of U.S. and international religious, charitable, public health, and other humanitarian organizations and projects operating
in Haiti; and (5) authorizing commercial sales
of agricultural inputs such as fertilizer and
foodcrop seeds.
11. The widespread supply of embargoed
goods, particularly petroleum products, to Haiti
by foreign-flag vessels led to the adoption on
May 17, 1992, by the Ad Hoc Meeting of Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the OAS of Resolution MRE/RES. 3/92 urging, among other
things, a port ban on vessels engaged in trade
with Haiti in violation of the OAS embargo.
There was broad consensus among OAS member representatives, as well as European permanent observer missions, on the importance of
preventing oil shipments to Haiti. Vessels from
some non-OAS Caribbean ports and European
countries have been involved in trade, particularly in oil supplies, that undermines the embargo. As previously reported, section 580.211 was
added to the HTR (57 Fed. Reg. 23954, June
5, 1992) prohibiting vessels calling in Haiti on
or after the effective date from entering the
United States without authorization by FAC.
Strict enforcement of the vessel regulation issued to implement Resolution MRE/RES. 3/92
has benefitted from the close coordination between FAC, the U.S. Embassy at Port-au-Prince,
the U.S. Customs Service, the U.S. Navy, and
the U.S. Coast Guard in monitoring vessel traffic
to and from Haiti.
This coordination has resulted in the identification of some 60 vessels involved in the shipment or transshipment of unauthorized goods
to or from Haiti. Enforcement coordination with
the U.S. Customs Service in Miami has led to
increased inspection of all outbound vessels to
Haiti, thus preventing as many as 20 unauthor

ized shipments. Three vessels, large quantities
of motor oil, electronics equipment, and miscellaneous cargo have been seized.
More than 60 cases, some involving ships flying foreign flags-of-convenience of at least 9
countries, have been referred to FAC for investigation during the reporting period. These cases
involve a variety of illegal trade transactions, including third-country transshipments. Among
these is one criminal case involving the shipment
of petroleum products. Enforcement efforts
have identified a number of transshipment
routes utilized by violators throughout the Caribbean. Numerous illegal shipments have been deterred as a result of heightened scrutiny of vessels bound for suspect destinations. One such
route has been successfully terminated as a result of intensified activity and close coordination
among enforcement agencies.
Similarly, enforcement efforts have curtailed
the previously widespread practice of mixing unauthorized goods with licensed or exempted
merchandise. Many shipments, nearly all originating in Miami and fraudulently described as
"humanitarian goods," were found to be commercial in nature. The legitimacy of recipients
of identified donated goods is now verified, and
use of this ruse has been significantly reduced.
This unified enforcement effort on the part of
numerous Federal agencies has been a deterrent
to would-be violators.
To further strengthen the economic sanctions,
on June 4, 1993, FAC issued General Notice
No. 1, announcing the names of 35 entities and
83 individuals who have been determined to
be Specially Designated Nationals of the de
facto regime in Haiti. The persons identified
have been so designated for one or more of
the following reasons: (1) they seized power illegally from the democratically elected government of President Jean-Bertrand Aristide on
September 30, 1991; (2) they are substantially
owned or controlled by the de facto regime in
Haiti; or (3) they have, since 12:23 e.d.t., October 4, 1991, acted or purported to act directly
or indirectly on behalf of the de facto regime
in Haiti or under the asserted authority thereof.
This listing is not all-inclusive and will be updated from time to time.
U.S. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions with these entities and
individuals unless the transactions are authorized
by FAC. Additionally, all assets within U.S. jurisdiction owned or controlled by these entities


1071




July 12 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


or individuals are blocked. U.S. persons are not
prohibited, however, from paying funds owed
to these entities or individuals into the blocked
Government of Haiti account at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, or, pursuant to specific
licenses issued by FAC, into blocked accounts
held in the names of the blocked parties in
domestic U.S. financial institutions.
12. Since the last report, two penalties have
been collected from U.S. banks for violations
involving unlicensed transfers from blocked Government of Haiti accounts or failure to block
payments to the de facto regime, and a penalty
of $40,000 has been assessed and paid by a
corporate entity for other violations of the HTR.
As of March 16, 1993, payments of penalties
assessed against the masters of vessels for unauthorized trade transactions or violations of entry
restrictions totalled about $48,000, bringing total
collections for the period to nearly $93,000.
As an enforcement initiative devised in response to the U.N. oil embargo against Haiti,
FAC's civil penalties staff has developed an expedited procedure for the processing of administrative civil monetary penalties with respect to
Haiti. The primary subject civil penalty actions
under the Haitian Transactions Regulations will
be vessels used in Haitian trade in violation of
the embargo and the Regulations.
13. The expenses incurred by the Federal
Government in the 6-month period from October 4, 1992, through April 3, 1993, that are
directly attributable to the authorities conferred
by the declaration of a national emergency with
respect to Haiti are estimated at about $2.1
million, most of which represent wage and salary
costs for Federal personnel. Personnel costs
were largely centered in the Department of the


Treasury (particularly in FAC, the U.S. Customs
Service, and the Office of the General Counsel),
the Department of State, the U.S. Coast Guard,
and the Department of Commerce.
14. The assault on Haiti's democracy represented by the military's forced exile of President Aristide continues to pose an unusual and
extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States.
The United States remains committed to a multilateral resolution of this crisis through its actions implementing the resolutions of the OAS
with respect to Haiti. We are unequivocally
committed to the early return of constitutional
democracy and President Aristide to Haiti. The
United States has launched an energetic diplomatic campaign to help accelerate the momentum of the ongoing United Nations/OAS negotiations to achieve peaceful restoration of democracy. The United States is prepared to consider additional tougher sanctions should the negotiations stall. These measures include, but are
not limited to, targeted sanctions against particular intransigent groups, a further tightening and
globalization of the trade embargo, and even
more vigorous enforcement measures against
violators. I shall continue to exercise the powers
at my disposal to apply economic sanctions
against Haiti as long as these measures are appropriate, and will continue to report periodically to the Congress on significant developments pursuant to 50 U.S.C. 1703(c).
Sincerely,
WILLIAM J. CLINTON
NOTE: Identical letters were sent to Thomas S.
Foley, Speaker of the House of Representatives,
and Albert Gore, Jr., President of the Senate.


Nomination for Asian Development Bank Executive Director and an
Assistant Secretary of State
July 12, 1993


The President announced his intention today
to nominate Linda Tsao Yang to be Executive
Director of the Asian Development Bank and
Robert Gelbard to be the Assistant Secretary
of State for International Narcotics Matters.
"As I return from my successful trip to Asia,


I am pleased to make these two significant foreign policy nominations," said the President.
"Linda Tsao Yang will bring impressive skills
in capital development and a strong knowledge
of Asia's economy to her post at the Asian Development Bank. Robert Gelbard has the


1072




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 13


strength, skill, and knowledge to make a real NOTE: Biographies of the nominees were made
difference in fighting the international drug  available by the Office of the Press Secretary.
trade. I am proud of both of these choices."
Nomination for Resolution Trust Corporation Chief Executive Officer
July 13, 1993


The President announced today that he will
nominate Florida businessman Stanley Tate to
be the Chief Executive Officer of the Resolution
Trust Corporation.
"Under the leadership of Deputy Treasury
Secretary Roger Altman we have instituted a
program of reforming RTC's operations that is


already beginning to take hold," said the President. "With his deep understanding of real estate markets and abiding commitment to public
service, Stanley Tate will continue that process
of saving the taxpayers money."
NOTE: A biography of the nominee was made
available by the Office of the Press Secretary.


Nomination for Director of the National Science Foundation
July 13, 1993


The President announced his intention today
to nominate Dr. Neal F. Lane, the provost of
Rice University, to be the Director of the National Science Foundation.
"By providing financial support to our Nation's scientists and engineers, the National
Science Foundation fuels the engine of creativity
that helps us to increase our economic potential


and our base of knowledge," said the President.
"Neal Lane, with his considerable experience
as a scientist and administrator, will provide the
leadership necessary to foster the great talent,
ingenuity, and potential of the American research community."
NOTE: A biography of the nominee was made
available by the Office of the Press Secretary.


Nomination for United States Representative to the European Community
July 13, 1993


The President nominated Washington lawyer
Stuart E. Eizenstat today to be the Representative of the United States to the European Community, with the rank of Ambassador.
"Stuart Eizenstat has been an important and
highly respected voice in national and international policy debates for many years, and I
have frequently found his advice to be invalu

able," said the President. "As our country's representative to the European Community, he will
ensure that our interests are well represented
as the process of change continues on that continent."
NOTE: A biography of the nominee was made
available by the Office of the Press Secretary.


1073




July 14 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


Remarks and an Exchange With Reporters at a Water Distribution Site in
Des Moines, Iowa
July 14, 1993


The President. Thank you very much. Let me
just say, first of all, how very appreciative I
am for the incredible work that has been done
here in the last several days by the people of
this State. I'm very proud of the contribution
that has been made by all of the Federal Agencies, working in partnership with the people of
Iowa, and I want to say a special word of appreciation for the Federal Emergency Management
Agency and its Director, James Lee Witt, but
also to the Agriculture Department. Secretary
Espy is here with me for the second time in
only 10 days, and I think his third trip to Iowa,
and Mr. Witt is here. And your Senators and
your congressional delegation, they're all here
with us today. And Governor Branstad and I
took a helicopter flight over the major portions
of Des Moines and the surrounding area that
have been hurt so badly.
Because I come from a State that's not all
that different from Iowa, I have seen whole
towns flooded, I have seen massive amounts of
farmland flooded, but I've never seen anything
on this scale before. And certainly, in my lifetime, anyway, to my knowledge there's never
been an American city without water that was
this large for this long a period of time.
I'm here today to view this damage, to talk
to the members of the congressional delegation,
to talk to the Governor and the other State
officials of the people who are here working,
and to do what I can to assure you that the
victims of this disaster-and insofar as I, as
President, can guarantee it-will be treated just
like the victims of Hurricane Andrew or Hugo
or the terrible devastation in Hawaii that my
wife is visiting today from just several months
ago. This is a very profound problem.
As you know, we have five States now, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, and Missouri, along
with Iowa, that have been declared disasters.
We have our Federal folks in South Dakota,
which has had extensive crop damage, Kansas,
and Nebraska, reviewing those States. We will
present today a bill to the Congress for emergency assistance based on our best estimates
of the damage reports that have been filed to
date. But we know there will be several more


in, in the next few days, and I expect we'll
have to revise all those numbers upward. We
want to get the bill in today just to start movement on the bill. But as the damage reports
come in over the next 4 to 5 days, I expect
you'll see some revision upward in the numbers
that the administration has asked for, both in
the House and the Senate. And I want to say
again, I'm going to do my best to make sure
that the full reach of Federal assistance comes
to the people of Iowa and to all the victims
of this flood, and I'll be working closely with
your congressional delegation to get that done.
But in the end, this is really a triumph of
the spirit of the people of this State. I've been
very moved by what I have seen not only from
the helicopter but here in this parking lot today.
And I want to say a special word of thanks
to all those who have volunteered their time
and who have come forward to help people in
times of need, because that's really what America is all about. We've seen once again that
we are capable of being a very strong family
when we need to be, and it's a great tribute
to your people. Thank you very much.
Q. Mr. President, there's a lot of desperate
people here in Iowa, and Minnesota, Missouri,
throughout the Midwest. What kinds of words
on a personal level, words of encouragement,
can you give them?
The President. Well, I can tell them that I
have seen this sort of thing happen before in
my own State. I've lived through this. I've seen
people wiped out of their homes. And I talked
to a lot of people here today who have lost
everything they had in their homes, their businesses, their crops. And what I would say to
them is we'll do what we can to help. But in
the end, it is the inner strength of people and
the support of the communities and families that
will bring us through. But this will pass, and
we have to keep looking to the future. That's
what I sense in this crowd today, people who
are willing to do that. I will do everything I
can to make sure that this country does not
forget about the people of Iowa and the other
victims of the disaster, but we've just got to
go on. We've got to pick up the pieces and


1074




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 14


go on. That's what Americans do, and that's
what we're going to have to do.
Q. Can you help out, Mr. President, without
busting the budget?
The President. Oh, I think so. Keep in mind
all these emergency appropriations do come as
emergencies, that is, outside the budget. But
you should be encouraged that since January
because of our efforts to reduce the deficit in
the next 5 years, because they've been successful, long-term interest rates have dropped rather
dramatically. And our deficit this year is more
than $20 billion less than it was estimated to
be when I took office.
So while a few billion dollars will add to it
in this year, it will still be lower than everyone
thought it was going to be, and it will not in
any way affect the 5-year deficit reduction program now moving through Congress. So the
people of Iowa don't need to feel guilty about
taking this money; that's what it's there for.
We've always done this. I think there is enormous bipartisan support in the Congress for this.
There is no sense that this is something that
should be held hostage to the budget negotiations. And we're going to do just fine on that,


I think.
Q. Mr. President, you were here 10 days ago.
What are the differences now than 10 days ago
when you were in Davenport?
The President. A lot more water over more
of the State and a lot of residential and business
damage in addition to the agricultural damage.
It is very substantial, and it changes the mix
of what our responsibilities are. It also makes
it a little more difficult to calculate right now,
so we will ask in this bill that will go before
the Congress for a significant amount of money,
several hundreds of millions of dollars in contingency appropriations, over and above anything
we've proved in direct damages, because we
can't know for sure at this moment, and we
won't know next week, although we care for
every last eligible disaster loss. And that's very
different from the way it was before.
Thank you very much.
NOTE: The President spoke at 11:33 a.m. at the
HyVee Food and Drug Store in the South Ridge
Shopping Center. A tape was not available for verification of the content of these remarks.


Interview With Jan Mickelson of WHO Radio in Des Moines
July 14, 1993


Midwest Flooding
Mr. Mickelson. Mr. President, 1040 WHO
Radio, KLYF-FM, and TV-13 welcomes you to
Iowa and the Nation's heartland. Thank you for
coming.
You spent the morning and the midday touring the wreckage and the damage, flood damage.
Give us some of your impressions, sir.
The President. I did have the opportunity to
tour, first of all, by helicopter. I spent about
a half an hour flying over the Des Moines area,
and then I stopped in a supermarket lot where
water was being distributed. I talked to people
who had lost everything in their houses, they've
lost their businesses, people who obviously have
had their farms flooded out. It was a very moving thing. I talked to parents who were worried
about their children and whether they could get
adequate water and how they were going to
do that safely. And some of them had been


able to send their children to relatives in other
communities; some had not.
But the spirit of the people seemed pretty
undaunted. Several people broke down, and they
were very choked up, but they were resolute.
And I think that, as terrible as these things
are, in some ways they bring out the best in
people. I saw an enormous number of people
who had just stopped their lives and come in
to volunteer and help other people deal with
their problems.
I will say this: This is a different sort of emergency than I saw 10 days ago when I came
to Iowa and Illinois. It's gone beyond the flooding of farmland, obviously, to the destruction
of a lot of homes and businesses and the public
safety issue here with the water. Your people
I think have done a very good job working with
the Federal agencies and the State people, and
I was very impressed by that.


1075




July 14 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


I guess we ought to just do a rundown, since
we have people listening to us from other States.
We know now that there have been five States
declared disaster areas: Iowa, Illinois, Missouri,
Wisconsin, and Minnesota. We also have Federal officials in South Dakota, Kansas, and Nebraska reviewing the damage there.
A lot of people here are clearly and justifiably
concerned about these losses. And I want to
make just two or three comments about that.
First of all, just before I came on this program
I talked to the Director of our Office of Management and Budget, Leon Panetta, and authorized him to send today to the Congress a bill
to provide emergency help to the families, the
farmers, the businesses, and the communities
who have been hurt by the rains and the flooding along the Mississippi River and its tributaries.
The bill will initially ask for about $2.5 billion
in disaster funds, based on preliminary estimates
of damages and several hundred million dollars
in what are called contingent appropriations.
That is, if the damages come through, the
money can be released; if not, then it's not
released and doesn't go against the spending.
We expect that the damages, frankly, the compensable damages will be greater than that. And
in the next 4 or 5 days we expect to be modifying that bill some. But we felt it was very important to go ahead and get the bill in, start it
through the congressional process. And over the
next 4 or 5 days we'll be getting more hard
estimates of damages in, and it can be modified,
first in the House and then in the Senate. After
that, if further modifications are needed, we will
be able to go back and ask the Congress to
do more.
The principle, the operative principle here,
ought to be that the people who have been
hit by this disaster should not be treated any
differently than people who were victims of
Hurricane Andrew, Hurricane Hugo, the terrible
devastation on the island of Kauai in the State
of Hawaii. We ought to treat everybody the
same.
Let me just make one other point in addition
to the aid. I want to compliment the work that
has been done at the local level and by the
Federal agencies here. The Secretary of Agriculture, Mike Espy, has been here three times.
The Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, James Lee Witt, has been here
extensively. He was just complimented at the


Hy-Vee parking lot here because the hospital
needed some water purification equipment, and
he produced it within 24 hours.
You've got the Departments of Transportation
and Commerce and Housing and Urban Development, Health and Human Services, the Small
Business Administration, the Corps of Engineers, the Coast Guard, and National Guardsmen from all over working hard here. So I have
been very impressed with that, and we're going
to keep doing that.
I want to say a special word of commendation
to FEMA and to the Director, James Lee Witt,
because they have really worked hard to cut
through the redtape. I got asked a lot of questions in the crowd today at the parking lot,
and there must be people all over this Mississippi River area asking those questions. So
let me say that you can go to a disaster assistance center set up by FEMA, and they'll give
you one-stop shopping. That is, if you have some
problem that is not necessarily covered by the
Federal Emergency Management Act, if you just
show up there, they'll work you through the
system and what's there. We're going to have,
I think, a coordinated and effective as well as
a compassionate effort.
So those are the two things I wanted to say.
For the people here who still have questions
about where they are and what they need, go
to the disaster assistance center. Secondly, I'm
going to send the bill up to the Congress this
afternoon and urge them to move in a speedy
way. When I say $2.5 billion, let me emphasize
there's probably another $1 billion in ongoing
appropriations of the Congress which can be
used to deal with the agricultural and other
losses here, just money that's already out there
that we'll just reprogram for the hard-hit areas.
And as we get more disaster estimates in over
the next couple of days, if it's warranted-and
I think it will be, based on what I've seen and
heard-we will modify the figures upward.
But I want to say, again, I've been very impressed. This has been a particularly moving
experience for me and for the Vice President
and for our families because so many of these
towns that were hit were on the bus tour that
we took last year. And when I've looked at these
towns and I've seen what's happened, so many
of them, you know, particularly along the river,
in East St. Louis and Hannibal and Wayland
and Keokuk and Fort Madison, Burlington in
this State, Muscatine, Davenport, Bettendorf

1076




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 14


we visited all those places. We visited Prairie
du Chien and La Crosse in Wisconsin. So I've
met a lot of the people that have been hurt
by this flood, and I just want you to know that
we're going to do everything we can to be there
and be a good partner. And if there are more
things that should be done. I want the people
to let us know through FEMA.
Mr. Mickelson. I had a chance to speak with
one of Iowa's congressional delegation last night,
Senator Grassley, who was most appreciative
that this has been a bipartisan effort, and he
wanted to have me make certain to pass on
to you how much he appreciated being included
today, as well as the Republican side of the
aisle.
The President. It rains on all of us, you know.
Mr. Mickelson. Yes, on the just and the unjust, I think the Good Book says. [Laughter]
The President. That's right.
Mr. Mickelson. The second thing is, this $2.5
billion you're talking about-and you implied
that it will be left somewhat open-ended-we
won't even know for sure the extent of the damage, especially the crop-related damage, until
fall when we figure out what is left of the
wreckage. Will that also be included as part
of this package?
The President. Well, some of that will be.
Some of the fall's money, I think, will have
to come out of the next fiscal year, maybe. But
keep in mind, that may be a wash on the Federal budget, because the more crop land that's
taken out of production, the more you'll have
some upper pressure on prices, and probably
less crops in the loan program. So while we'll
spend more Federal money in some senses on
these crop losses, we'll spend somewhat less in
other areas. And we're just going to have to
work that through as we go along.
Some of that money will be covered under
existing Federal law. Some of it will be covered
probably by the next fiscal year. Some of it,
we may have to come back in for another supplemental appropriation. We're just going to
have to play it by ear because we literally won't
know. Senator Grassley and Senator Harkin
were both commenting, along with your congressional delegation today and of course Governor Branstad, who is a farmer, they were all
saying we won't know the full extent of the
farm losses until the fall. And so we'll play it
by ear, and as they become evident, we'll do
what's appropriate.


Mr. Mickelson. The way it was handled in
Hurricane Andrew, we'll try to duplicate that?
Some cases, the matching funds, requirements
from the States and localities was waived in the
case of Hurricane Andrew. Will that be the case
here in Iowa?
The President. In some cases they were, on
a case-by-case basis. I've asked the FEMA Director, James Lee Witt, to look at that. FEMA
has gotten some good publicity for a change,
and I'm glad to see that in the course of this.
Part of it is, the Director was not only the
director of emergency assistance in our State,
but before that he was a local official. So I
think we're pretty sensitive about what can and
can't be paid. We're prepared to look at that,
but we should look at it under the law. We
have to look at it on a case-by-case basis, and
we will.
Mr. Mickelson. Mr. President, joining us via
our live line from the scene of more flood damage around and along the Mississippi River is
Anne Keith from KMOX Radio in St. Louis.
Anne, we'd like to welcome you to WHO and
to our listeners.
Anne Keith. Good afternoon, and good afternoon, Mr. President.
The President. Good afternoon, Anne.
[At this point, Ms. Keith asked about flood insurance reform and the length of the response
time. ]
The President. The consensus is that we've
had a more rapid response this time than in
previous ones. And I think the reason is that
we do have a very high level of coordination
here among the agencies. We do have some
problems with flood insurance. We've got some
real problems with crop insurance, and I think
there's a real consensus about the fact that we
have to reform the crop insurance system and
some of what ought to be done about it. On
the flood insurance, I think that's something else
we'll have to look at. But I think that we're
getting pretty good marks this time for getting
out ahead of the curve on the disaster coordination. And if you have any other specific ideas
about what we should do, I'd be glad to have
them.
Mr. Mickelson. Also joining us from our live
line from Minneapolis from radio station WCCO
is Steve Murphy. Steve?
[Mr. Murphy asked for assurance for farmers


1077




July 14 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


that Government relief would be adequate. ]
The President. I think we know enough about
what the size of the problem on the farm side's
going to be that I can clearly give you that
assurance. The real problem we've got is that
the crop insurance program itself has some serious shortcomings. And we're going to have to
move in and reform that and, in the meanwhile,
try to hold as many of these farmers short of
total destruction as we can. We're working on
it very, very hard.
Secretary Espy has used and will continue
to use every bit of flexibility that he has under
the present law to try to save as many farmers
as possible and to try to deal with the individual
situations that we face. As I said earlier, a lot
of the people working on this disaster have dealt
with this kind of thing, flooded farms and flooded towns and these kinds of problems. And
Mike Espy represented a farm district in Mississippi before he became Secretary of Agriculture.
We are determined to do everything we can
to minimize the damage and to try to keep
these farmers farming. And we're going to do
the best we can.
Mr. Mickelson. Do you visualize a formula?
The President. What do you mean?
Mr. Mickelson. Is it possible for the Federal
Government to restore everything 100 percent?
The President. Well, I don't think so. It's not
possible to restore everything 100 percent because some of these programs are loan programs. But there are a lot of things that can
be done. I believe, with the flexibility the Secretary has asked for that will keep these people
farming. And that's our goal now, to try to help
put people's lives back together and keep the
farmers farming. And I think we'll do that.
Mr. Mickelson. We want to include our listeners in this mix, Mr. President, and we have
asked our listeners to call us from all over the
State with questions, flood related. But I'd like
to just use the privilege I have as a talk show
host to ask you a personal question of my own,
if you don't mind. What gives you your greatest
pleasure as a President, flying around in Air
Force One or being able to preempt Rush
Limbaugh, as we're doing right now?
The President. Oh, the latter. That's not even
close. [Laughter]
Mr. Mickelson. I figured it wouldn't. Let's
talk to some of the


The President. Actually, my greatest pleasure
being President is when you do something that
you think affects people's lives in a positive way.
There is so much in public life
Mr. Mickelson. Would you include category
B in that category? [Laughter]
The President. Perhaps only because of the
purpose for which I'm here today.
[At this point, a participant asked how disaster
assistance costs would affect deficit reduction.]
The President. Well, I think this particular
one has a fairly happy answer, but let me give
you the general argument. The thing that has
gotten our budget in trouble are ongoing trends.
Particular disasters that do, frankly, increase
spending on a one-year basis have not contributed in any significant way at all to the Government's deficit problem. And I think that there
is a general feeling in the country, and certainly
in Washington among people of both parties,
that when something like this happens you have
to put the people first.
Now, in this particular case, while I will ask
for $2.5 billion in budget authority, and it may
go up based on the real losses, it's happening
in this budget year where our deficit is more
than $20 billion less than we thought it was
going to be in January. Because there's been
a serious debate in the Congress and an effort
that is progressing to bring the deficit down
dramatically, long-term interest rates have
dropped. And as they have dropped, the cost
of carrying the debt has gone down. And some
other expenses we thought we would have, have
not materialized. We've had about one million
new jobs in the economy, for example, since
January. So our deficit this year is projected
to be over $20 billion less than we thought
it was going to be, so that while this will cut
into that, at least we'll still wind up way short
of where it was projected in January.
Mr. Mickelson. Every county in the State of
Iowa is on your list now, eligible for disaster
relief.
The President. Every one.
Mr. Mickelson. I can't remember that ever
occurring in midwestern history. What about
you, sir? This is justThe President. It's very
Mr. Mickelson. -  devastating.
The President. We've never had a time, for
example, in my State-which has more tornadoes per capita than any State and where we've


1078




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 14


had a lot of flooding-we've never had all our
counties on disaster relief. And this is highly
unusual.
[A participant asked if Federal troops could help
with sandbagging and water relief efforts. ]
The President. Well, if we need them, we
can provide some, certainly. But so far, it's my
understanding that the National Guard and the
other human resources are sufficient for that
at this time. If we need more, we can provide
more. We've made it clear. The FEMA Director, James Lee Witt, knows that basically that's
a high priority, and if they need more bodies,
more help, that we'll try to provide it.
[A participant asked if water levels set by the
Corps of Engineers could be changed to prevent
future floods. ]
The President. Mitzi, let me just say for the
benefit of the listeners, Lake Ouachita and Lake
Hamilton are two of the three lakes around Hot
Springs where I grew up. So she and I are
from the same place more or less.
The answer to your question is, yes, some
more can be done for some of these communities, but a lot of this flooding occurred in
the 100-year flood plan, that is in areas that
are projected to flood only once every 100 years.
And the Governor told me today that some of
this water was 4 feet above the 100-year level.
It is often very difficult and quite expensive
to protect beyond the 100-year flood plain.
But I do believe what should happen is that,
as we get the water down and we manage that
process, all the communities affected need to
look at what their flood protection is and to
analyze whether more needs to be done. There
clearly are some communities that had virtually
no protection at all and that were vulnerable
well below the 100-year flood level. And I think
that just needs to be a community-by-community assessment. And we, of course, will work
with all of them.
So my short answer to you is yes, I think
the Corps can help some of the communities,
but I do not believe that any reasonable effort
would have forestalled all of the damage here.
This was an unusual flood. It will be more than
a century in all probability before anything remotely like this occurs again.
[A participant asked how soon Congress would
act on disaster legislation and suggested an investigation of Corps of Engineers water manage

ment practices.]
The President. Thank you. Let me answer you
the first question first. I think that Congress
will move very quickly on this. As I said, I
authorized the bill to be sent up there today
to start the legislative process. We want it frankly, to take a few days because we want to get
the latest damage estimates. We'll know a lot
more about 6 days from now than we know
today. So if that bill needs to be amended in
any way, we can amend it in the process. But
by starting today, we ought to be able to move
it through, I would say, in just a couple of
weeks, and then the money would be released
virtually immediately.
Also keep in mind, some of the funds which
are emergency funds, like emergency help to
people who have lost everything, been wiped
out of their homes, that come through the
FEMA programs, there's already money associated with that. I want to emphasize that again.
A lot of the money that can be used to deal
with this emergency may be already appropriated and in that sense may not in any way
increase the deficit or cause any problems. But
a lot of the funds will have to be done over
and above that.
Now, with regard to the Corps of Engineers,
let me say that you're the first person who has
mentioned that to me. I'll be happy to look
into it. We had a horrible flood in my State
and lost a couple of little towns completely.
I mean, they were totally underwater, and they
lost a lot of farmland a couple of years ago.
And there were all kinds of questions about
whether the Corps of Engineers back up the
river had managed the dams properly. But I
had
Mr. Mickelson. Same questions are occurring
now.
The President. Same questions. And they're
legitimate questions, and they can be looked
into. But I have to tell you again, I want to
say that when water gets 4 feet higher than
the 100-year flood plain, it's almost impossible
to conclude that some technical decision back
up the river could have made a big difference.
I think that it's worth looking at. I think we
should look at all aspects of this. But I think
that it is unlikely that that made a major contribution to this problem.
[A participant asked about the Red Rock area
and about assistance for people in the restaurant


1079




July 14 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


business. ]
The President. First of all, I didn't go down
that far, but I did talk to some people about
it. There are a couple of problems. One is how
to manage the outflow of water from the dam.
The other is, to the extent we have any control
over it, how to drain all this flooded farmland
between here and the Mississippi River. See,
you've got these tributaries that cause all the
flooding around Des Moines, but you've got
about a-well, from here to the Mississippi
River you've got a whole swath of land that
is totally flooded. So it's like you've got another
big lake here that's 3 miles wide at its widest
point. And to whatever extent we can control
that, that needs to be drained in a way that
doesn't just throw all the water back in at once
and then down on the folks down river. So
all that will have to be managed very carefully
and by people who are expert in doing it.
Secondly, with regard to the restaurant business, for the people who work there and the
people who own it, you should check in at the
disaster assistance centers and ask essentially
about two things. One is what kind of Small
Business Administration programs are there to
help you, because there are some, and they are
pretty significant. I think you'll find them pretty
significant. And secondly, for the people who
work for you who may have lost everything in
terms of their ability to earn any income for
a significant period of time, there are some individual disaster assistance programs that might
be available to help them. And at the disaster
assistance center, they can give you all that information.
Mr. Mickelson. The cliche question is like this,
Mr. President: Could you please cut spending
first right after you send us the $3 billion? Talk
to us about this. How will you be able to justify
this level of expenditure to people who live in
New Jersey?
The President. Because it might happen in
New Jersey someday, Because it happened in
Florida and Louisiana and South Carolina with
Hurricanes Andrew and Hugo. Because you just
can't stop nature from taking its course, and
we can't afford to paralyze the American people
on this.
And let me just back up and say I don't
want to get into a political discussion on the
budget today unless you wish to do so. I'll be
happy to. But let me just point out to the Amer

ican people who are listening to this, over the
next 5 years, if this budget passes, we will have
a hard freeze on non-health-care-related domestic spending. That means every dollar we increase Head Start by or we spend more on
technology or spend to help people in California, for example, to convert from defense cuts
to domestic economy and opportunities, will be
made up for by cuts everyplace else. We have
cut agriculture. We have cut veterans costs.
We've cut all kinds of things in this budget
to actually flatten that spending.
So you've got a decline in defense spending,
flat domestic spending. The only increases in
this whole budget for the next 5 years net are
increases in Social Security and other incomerelated programs and increases in health care
costs, which are still going up at 9 percent a
year while inflation is about 3 or 4. And that's
the next big challenge for our administration.
But believe me, we've got $250 billion plus in
cuts there now, and we ought to keep them
there. But we can't not deal with this disaster
or some other disaster for fear of having it go
up just a little bit.
[A participant requested cooperation from private lending institutions in the coming years to
help farmers recover from their losses.]
The President. Well, let me make two points,
if I might. First of all, you characterized what
happened in the eighties rather well. We had
a lot of droughts in the eighties, but we also
had, as you well know, a huge amount of farm
debt out there which had been taken out when
there was inflation, rising prices, rising land
prices, and high interest rates. And then when
commodity prices collapsed in the eighties, a
lot of farmers couldn't finance that debt. And
it took about 5 years for the Federal Government to agree on a bipartisan basis on a farming
refinancing system, which then the private lending institutions could plug into. I think that provided for forbearance, for example, and other
things.
I think you've got a lot of that out there
now. There are also some real options that every
farming State in this country has to try to help
the lending institutions deal with the farmers.
We won't go through all the details, but we
do.
The next thing I would like to say to you,
however, is that we are working aggressively to
try to change the regulatory environment in


1080




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 14


which small business and agriculture live and  Louis, WCCO  Radio in Minneapolis, WHO
relate to the federally insured financial institu-  Radio here in Des Moines, along with KLYFtions, the private banks. And I think that over  FM and TV-13, thank you for coming and sharthe next year you will see a significant increase  ing your thoughts and visiting the heartland. I
in credit offered to businesses and to agriculture  appreciate it.
because of this changing regulatory environ-  The President. Thank you.
ment.
Mr. Mickelson. Mr. President, we're out of  NOTE: The interview began at 1:30 p.m. at WHO
time here. On behalf of KMOX Radio in St.   Studios.


Interview With Wolf Blitzer of CNN in Des Moines, Iowa
July 14, 1993


Economic Summit
The President. [Inaudible]-revised upward in
about 5 days.
Mr. Blitzer. Significantly?
The President. Could be.
Mr. Blitzer. And tomorrow you're supposed
to go up to Capitol Hill to meet with some
Members of the House and Senate, I take it,
to discuss this issue or the whole G-7 Tokyo
summit?
The President. Well, I will certainly give them
a briefing on this issue, and I want to talk about
what happened on our trip and what happened
at the Tokyo summit and how important it is
for us now to pass this budget. This is our
part of the bargain. We got a new trade agreement with Japan. We got an agreement to lower
tariffs historically with the other major industrialized countries. We're trying to restore growth
to the world economy, but to do it we've got
to bring the American budget deficit down, too.
Mr. Blitzer. You come to this area herehelicopters are flying overhead even as we
speak-to see the devastation. The G-7 summit
must seem like 100 years ago, doesn't it?
The President. It's a long way away, but the
focus of those high-flung summits is to affect
the lives of people like the folks on this street
for the better. So in a way, it's a good way
to come home, and I should be here.
Midwest Flooding
Mr. Blitzer. Now, as a former Governor, you
seem to be so comfortable dealing with these
natural disaster type of situations, and you get
really immersed into it right away. Am I wrong?
Is that just my impression?


The President. No, you're rightMr. Blitzer. In certain areas you seem uncomfortable, but in this kind of area you seem very
comfortable.
The President. Well, I think in every new
job there's a learning curve, but I don't have
much of one here. Most people who would become President, who would come out of the
Congress, for example, might not have anything
like the experience that I've had dealing with
disasters. But my State, on a per capita basis,
suffers from tornadoes more than any other.
We've had major floods. We've had huge
droughts. I've dealt with a lot of these, and
I know what's been wrong in the past. And
I'm glad that a lot of people think we're trying
to put it right here. I feel good about it.
Mr. Blitzer. You're going to go back to Washington tonight. Any plans to come back to this
area, visit other devastated areas in the Midwest?
The President. Well, I don't want to rule it
in or out. I've got to go back and see where
we are, first of all, on the aid package, and
secondly, where we are with the budget negotiations, and thirdly, where we are in dealing with
the States and the localities. That's the big issue.
That's the thing we're trying to do a better
job of, make sure everybody is sort of on board
and we're all doing things together, singing out
of the same hymnal. And I wouldn't rule it
out, but I don't want to commit yet. I've got
to go back and see what the job is, what we
have to do in Washington.
Homosexuals in the Military
Mr. Blitzer. And on top of everything else,
this week the Pentagon is supposed to give you


1081




July 14 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


its recommendations on the whole issue of gays
in the military.
The President. They are.
Mr. Blitzer. What's your sense? Is it falling
into place right now?
The President. My sense is there's still some
difference of opinion even among the service
chiefs about what they want. But I hope they'll
come up with something that everyone can
agree is fair and we can all live with. We'll
just have to see.
Mr. Blitzer. How much after you get that
recommendation do you think you will finally
act on some decision?
The President. Oh, I won't take long, won't
take long at all. No, I won't take long.
Letter to the Speaker of the House on
July 14, 1993
Sir:
I ask Congress to consider expeditiously the
enclosed requests for emergency FY 1993 supplemental appropriations. These requests provide for emergency expenses arising from the
consequences of the recent heavy rains and
flooding along the Mississippi River, particularly
in the Upper Midwest. I ask further that the
legislation in which these funds are provided
be kept free of extraneous matters in order that
there may be a minimum of delay in providing
necessary funds to the disaster areas.
I hereby designate the following requests as
emergency requirements pursuant to the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control
Act of 1985, as amended:
* Department of Agriculture, Commodity
Credit Corporation, Commodity Credit
Corporation fund: $600,000,000;
* Department of Agriculture, Agricultural
Stabilization and Conservation Service,
Emergency     conservation   program:
$20,000,000;
* Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Watershed and flood preven

Mr. Blitzer. Have you basically made up your
mind already?
The President. Well, I want to see what they
say first. I think they're still debating it a little
among themselves, and I want to see what they
say.
Mr. Blitzer. Okay, Mr. President. Thank you
very much once again for joining us.
The President. Thanks, Wolf. Thank you.
Mr. Blitzer. Pretty devastated area.
The President. It is.
NOTE: The interview began at 3:20 p.m. at the
intersection of Fleur and Valley Drives. A tape
was not available for verification of the content
of this interview.
Flood Disaster Assistance
tion operations: $25,000,000;
* Department of Defense-Civil, Corps of
Engineers, Flood control and coastal emergencies: $45,000,000;
* Department of Housing and Urban Development, Community Planning and Development, Community development grants:
$3,000,000;
* Department of Transportation, Federal
Highway Administration, Federal-aid highways: $100,000,000;
* Department of Transportation, United
States Coast Guard, Operating expenses:
$5,000,000;
* Small Business Administration, Disaster
loan program account: $70,000,000; and
* Federal Emergency Management Agency,
Disaster relief: $550,000,000.
The details of these requests are set forth
in the enclosed letter from the Director of the
Office of Management and Budget. I concur
with the Director's comments and observations.
Sincerely,
WILLIAM J. CLINTON


1082




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 14


Statement on the Death of Patrick Lippert
July 14, 1993


I am deeply saddened by the untimely death
of one of America's brightest young leaders, Patrick Lippert. An activist for many years, most
recently Patrick launched Rock the Vote, an organization that reinvigorated an entire generation's interest in our democratic process by rallying them to vote in the past election, many
for the first time. Rock the Vote will continue
to serve as a political forum for countless new
generations of young Americans to come, thanks
in large part to Patrick.
Many remarkable Americans have accomplished far less than Patrick did in his 35 years.


As executive director of Rock the Vote, he
helped to conceive of and then to pass the
motor voter bill, which will make registering
to vote much easier for millions of Americans.
I was honored to have Patrick at my side 6
weeks ago as I signed the bill into law.
Patrick's friends knew him as a tireless and
selfless fighter for the rights of people he never
even knew. His concern for people and for his
country was profound. He will be sorely missed
by all of us who were inspired by his relentless
fight for change. His passing should serve as
a reminder that we must rededicate ourselves
to the ideals he stood for.


Nomination for Posts at the Department of Defense
July 14, 1993


The President announced today that he intends to nominate R. Noel Longuemare to be
the Deputy Under Secretary for Acquisition and
Gilbert F. Casellas to be General Counsel of
the Air Force.
"Today we are naming two more people to
our Pentagon team," said the President, "both


of whom are respected professionals who have
achieved high levels of achievement in the private sector. I am grateful to both of them for
coming into public service."
NOTE: Biographies of the nominees were made
available by the Office of the Press Secretary.


Nomination for Posts at the Department of Labor and the Federal
Mediation and Conciliation Service
July 14, 1993


The President announced his intention today
to nominate Martin Manley to be the Assistant
Secretary of Labor for the Office of the New
American Workplace and John Calhoun Wells
to be Director of the Federal Mediation and
Conciliation Service.
"Martin Manley and John Calhoun Wells have
both spent much of their lives trying to bring
labor and management together in partnerships


for growth," said the President. "That is exactly
the kind of person that we need in these important positions. I am confident that they will
bring that same spirit of cooperation to their
work in my administration."
NOTE: Biographies of the nominees were made
available by the Office of the Press Secretary.


1083




July 15 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


Remarks Announcing the Community
Initiative
July 15, 1993
Thank you very much. I want to say to Joe
and Beverly and Tim, they have stated more
eloquently the case than I ever could for the
work we are here to begin today. I thank them
for their presence here and for their fine presentations.
I want to acknowledge, too, the presence in
the audience of so many people who have been
involved in community development financing
for a long time. I thank all of you for coming
from all over America. We have a remarkable
group of people here from the United States
Government from the executive branch today:
Secretary Bentsen and Under Secretary Newman from the Treasury Department; Secretary
Espy and Under Secretary Bob Nash from the
Agriculture Department; Under Secretary Terry
Duvernay and Assistant Secretary Cuomo from
HUD; the SBA Administrator, Erskine Bowles;
the Comptroller of the Currency, Gene Ludwig;
the Federal Reserve Board Governor George
Lindsey; the Acting Director of the Office of
Thrift Supervision, Jonathan Fiechter; the FDIC
Acting Chair, Andrew Hove, and many, many
others, showing that this administration has
worked together to try to come up with this
proposal.
I'd also like to say that we have some specific
Members of Congress who are here today whom
I will acknowledge, but just for the rest of you
who have been working in this field for a long
time and who have felt left out, I'm going to
do something I don't think I've ever done before. I'm going to ask every Member of Congress who is here to stand so you can see what
support you have in the United States Congress.
Would you all please stand? By my quick count,
there are 41 or 42 Members of the Congress
here, a very significant representation of people
who asked me actually to-they felt so strongly
about coming here-to delay the start of our
ceremony this morning for a few moments so
that they could complete their votes and still
come up here.
I'm particularly pleased that the House and
Senate Banking Committee chairs have agreed
to sponsor this legislation and shepherd its package through Congress. Representative Henry


Development Banking and Finance


Gonzalez and Senator Don Riegle have both
long been champions of reinvesting in our communities.
The Senate Banking Committee will hold its
hearing on this bill this afternoon at 2 p.m.
The subcommittee chairs of the House, Congressmen Neal, Kanjorski, Kennedy, Frank, and
Flake, have all joined to make sure this bill
will receive consideration by the full House
Banking Committee within the next few weeks.
There are four Members of the House I
would like to pay some special recognition to.
First, Representative Joe Kennedy of Massachusetts, who has worked to make the Community
Reinvestment Act a reality for all Americans in
all communities. And I thank you for that. Second, Representative Floyd Flake of New York,
who has worked to provide innovative ways to
spur reinvestment by major financial institutions
in communities and has actually tried to do
something with his ideas in the private sector
as well as with his work in Congress. I thank
him very much for his efforts. Next, Representative Maxine Waters of California, who has been
the conscience that has kept community development banking and strengthening the CRA on
the Nation's legislative agenda. Thank you very
much, Maxine. And finally, Congressman Bobby
Rush of Illinois, who has forged a coalition of
more than 70 cosponsors for a community development financing institutions bill that shares
common ground with my initiative. I look forward to working with him in Congress and
across the country to champion reinvesting in
all of our communities, and I thank him for
mobilizing 70 Members of the House of Representatives in this cause. Thank you, Bobby.
I'd also like to pay some recognition to a
person here who has for many years, more than
I can remember, pointed out to the American
people that most poor folks in this country and
most people who have been left outside of the
mainstream want a hand up, not a handout,
Reverend Jesse Jackson. Thank you for being
here.
Ladies and gentlemen, as you know, I have
just returned from the summit of the world's
seven industrial nations in Tokyo. What I saw


1084




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 15


there indicated to me that, from Harlem to the
south side of Chicago, to south central Los Angeles, there is a feeling shared from Tokyo to
Toronto: People want more control over their
lives, their families, their communities, and their
countries. The movement for political reform
is running in high gear in all these countries
because there is such a demand for economic
opportunity so that people can live up to their
God-given abilities.
This administration has tried to pursue this
demand in two ways: first of all, to have a good
overall economic policy, a policy for bringing
the deficit down, a policy for increasing investment in our country, a policy for broadening
the rules of trade in ways that help Americans
who are working for a living. But secondly, we
have to recognize that there are certain specific
problems that are unique to our country, unique
to our States, unique to our communities. And
they require a specific response. And so we have
developed a technology policy, a policy for defense conversion for communities and people
who have been hurt by cutbacks in defense
spending. We have sent to the Congress a proposal to create empowerment zones which will
complement this effort, to encourage people to
invest in distressed rural and urban communities
in this Nation. And today we take up the community financing issue.
A few days ago when I was in Japan working
to build a new global economy, my hand was
strengthened because of the progress that has
been made in Congress in dealing with these
larger issues, reducing the deficit and investing
more in education and training. It enabled me
to ask our friendly competitors to lower their
trade barriers so that we can increase American
jobs and American exports, to work with us to
increase economic growth, keep interest rates
down, and make common cause to battle high
unemployment, which is a problem in every advanced nation in the world today.
Today I will report to a bipartisan leadership
meeting of the Congress on the achievements
of this summit. But I will also have to tell them
that the challenge remains. We can only enjoy
the fruits of the opportunities created at the
Tokyo meeting if we follow through on the commitment to pass the economic plan now before
the Congress and if we take the initiatives like
the one we're here to celebrate today.
To those who would do nothing or let us
slide back into the status quo, I would say that


we must go forward. We must adopt the largest
deficit reduction plan in our history. Look how
low the long-term interest rates are now because
of the efforts that are being made. We must
adopt these strategies to bring jobs to America.
We must maintain our Nation's leadership in
the global economy. On the issue of whether
there must be economic change in a nation desperate for jobs and growth, there can be no
doubt of the answer.
Today I am sending to Congress an innovative
proposal that will bring new life and new opportunity and new directions to communities all
over America that lack capital and credit, the
kinds of basic banking services that these three
fine people needed so badly and had to look
so long for. This proposal creates a fund to
provide grants to new and existing communitybased lenders. The fund will provide about $400
million over 5 years and will employ a number
of measures to increase significantly the total
money provided to communities through these
community institutions.
Under this plan every dollar the fund provides
to a community development bank must be
matched at least by another dollar of private
capital. Other community development financial
institutions will also be required to match assistance as well. The Treasury Department predicts
that this matching requirement and the leverage
provided by the institutions will produce at least
$2 billion in additional investment.
If you look at the size of the average loan
in these kinds of institutions leading to the number of jobs created that are represented by the
three fine people on this platform today, the
potential for creating new jobs in America
through this initiative is absolutely enormous.
And they can be created in places where people
have long given up on the free enterprise system
simply by making the free enterprise system
work for a change for those people.
These institutions come in a wide variety of
sizes and shapes. They are banks with a special
commitment to community development. They
are community development banks set up for
that purpose only. They are credit unions. They
are microenterprise loan funds. I can tell you
this, most of the enterprises that we are talking
about helping, that were in existence in the
1980's that made loans to poor people who lived
in their community or to struggling small business people had a lot lower failure rate than
some of the high-flown financial schemes that


1085




July 15 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


were subsidized by other Government policies
in the last decade.
Because of the commitment and understanding of people in all different kinds of financial
institutions, every type of community development financial institution will be eligible for assistance under our program. The existing network of community lenders have demonstrated
that when there is a constant commitment to
this kind of development you can produce
growth and jobs.
Many of you with us today, from Chicago's
Shore Bank to North Carolina's Self-Help Credit
Union to Arkansas' Elkhorn Bank-which Mack
McLarty and the First Lady served on the board
of, and which I helped to raise funds for when
I was in a previous position-understand how
economic growth is built from the grassroots.
It works in urban areas. It works in rural areas.
We were wondering when we set up this bank
in Arkansas whether small towns and rural areas
really could benefit from the kind of strategy
that had worked so brilliantly for the South
Shore Bank in Chicago, and the answer turned
out to be a resounding yes.
The Government's role in this is crucial, but
limited. The real solutions must come from the
community, from the people who live there who
know their neighbors. It is our job to empower
those communities with the tools they need to
generate growth and jobs, and then let the hard
work and the determination of the people pay
off.
At the same time, I recognize that without
the involvement and investment of major banks,
low and moderate income communities will still
be deprived of a full range of economic opportunity. The Community Reinvestment Act of
1977 requires that banks and thrifts meet the
credit needs of the entire community in which
they do business. And while the CRA has played
an important role in making credit available to
underserved urban and rural communities, I
think we would all admit that it hasn't lived
up to its potential. The current enforcement system relies too much on public relations documentation and not enough on real lending performance.
This has been a pain for everybody involved:
too much paperwork for the banks and not
enough investment for the communities. That's
why I am sending a memorandum to the four
Federal banking regulators that requires them
to implement a series of reforms around CRA,


designed to increase investment in communities
that need it, while simultaneously streamlining
and clarifying the regulatory process. The policy
will be good for banks, good for communities,
good for borrowers, and it represents real
change.
These actions today fulfill a commitment I
made during the last campaign when I promised
that we would work hard to unlock the energy
and the entrepreneurship that lies latent in the
hearts and souls of men and women in this
country in every community. This proposal will
enable them to take a small loan and start a
business, to turn their dreams into storefronts
and then expand those storefronts into chains,
creating jobs for their neighbors and bringing
opportunities to their neighborhoods. It will
make them a part of the movement for democratic capitalism and growth that is reshaping
the entire world but has left too many Americans behind.
Now, I'd like to introduce three people who
are going to help us carry out these commitments: Hugh McColl, the CEO of NationsBank;
Irving Henderson, the chair of the National
Community Reinvestment Coalition; and Ron
Grzywinski, the chairman of Shore Bank in Chicago.
[At this point, Mr. McColl, Mr. Henderson, and
Mr. Grzywinski spoke on community development banking. ]
I'd like to conclude this morning's ceremony
just by saying again, as I did when I opened,
that I know that every one of you who's worked
in this field for any length of time has a story
or personal stories that you could tell. And I
just want you to know that I am grateful for
the work that you have done and the role that
each of you have played in bringing this bill
to its present point.
I got on this issue as Governor when I saw
so many needs that were unmet, and when the
now Under Secretary of Agriculture for Community Development, Bob Nash, and I worked
hard to use our existing authorities to help people who couldn't have access to credit. I learned
about the South Shore Development Bank. And
through them I met a remarkable man named
Mohammed Yunis, who told me how he,
through the Grameen Bank, had made market
rate interest loans to poor village women in Bangladesh, and over 95 percent of them had actually paid the loans back.


1086




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 15


And then, this became part of our reinventing
Government initiative of the Democratic Leadership Council and then an idea that the Vice
President championed in his efforts to examine
what we're doing here. A lot of you have helped
me in my understanding of this. Floyd Flake
showed me the businesses around his church.
Hugh McColl stayed up half the night one night
talking with me about the Community Reinvestment Act and how we could make it work. My
friend, Charles Stith there, from Boston, has
spent years on this.
To all of you who have played any role on
this, I thank you very much. And I ask you
now to work with this wonderful representation


from Congress to make sure we get the job
done and do it in a hurry. Thank you. We're
adjourned.
NOTE: The President spoke at 12:12 p.m. on the
South Lawn at the White House. In his remarks,
he referred to Timothy Bazemore, founder and
president, Workers Owned Sewing Co.; Beverly
Ross, owner, Lakeview Stables; Joseph Holland,
owner, Ben and Jerry's Ice Cream Franchise of
Harlem, New York, NY; Lawrence B. Lindsey,
Federal Reserve Board Governor; and Rev.
Charles R. Stith, national president, Organization
for a New Equality (ONE).


Message to the Congress Transmitting Community Development Banking
and Finance Legislation
July 15, 1993


To the Congress of the United States:
I am pleased to submit to the Congress the
"Community Development Banking and Financial Institutions Act of 1993". This legislative
initiative will promote the creation of community development financial institutions that will
empower individuals and communities and provide for greater economic opportunity. Also
transmitted are a statement of the Administration's principles embodied in this proposal and
a section-by-section analysis.
In too many urban and rural communities,
there is a lack of capital and credit. Lending
in distressed communities, particularly to small
businesses, can be complicated. It may require
special expertise and knowledge of the borrower
and the community, credit products, subsidies,
and secondary markets. Community development financial institutions-including community development banks like South Shore Bank
in Chicago, community credit unions such as
Self-Help in North Carolina, community development corporations, micro-enterprise loan
funds, and revolving loan funds-have demonstrated that they can provide capital, credit,
and development services in distressed areas and
to targeted populations.
The bill proposes establishment of a Community Development Banking and Financial Institu

tions Fund that would support a program of
investment in community development financial
institutions. The Fund would provide financial
and technical assistance to, and serve as a national information clearinghouse for, community
development financial institutions.
This initiative reaffirms my commitment to
helping communities help themselves. By ensuring greater access to capital and credit, we will
tap the entrepreneurial energy of America's
poorest communities and enable individuals and
communities to become self-sufficient.
My Administration is also committed to enhancing the role of traditional financial institutions with respect to community reinvestment.
As a complement to the community development financial institutions initiative, we will
adopt regulatory changes to more effectively implement the Community Reinvestment Act of
1977. These changes will replace paperwork
with performance-oriented standards and will include tougher enforcement measures for noncompliance.
In order to secure early enactment of legislation in this crucial area, I urge the Congress
to consider the Community Development Banking and Financial Institutions Act of 1993 as
a discrete bill, separate from general issues of


1087




July 15 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


financial services reform and any other nongermane amendments.


The White House,
July 15, 1993


WILLIAM J. CLINTON
Remarks and an Exchange With Reporters Following a Meeting With
Congressional Leaders
July 15, 1993


The President. I wanted to just make a brief
opening statement and then take a couple of
questions. I had the opportunity today to brief
the bipartisan leadership group in Congress
about the trip to Japan and Korea in terms
of what was achieved at the G-7 meeting and
what was achieved in the new breakthrough on
our trade relations with Japan and the national
security issues, reaffirming America's role as a
Pacific power and our commitment to the security of Japan, Korea, and our other allies in
the region.
I have just come from a bipartisan meeting
of House Members and Senators from the States
affected by the floods. And I was grateful to
see the committee leaders there, even though
many were from States not affected by the
flood. I think it's fair to say that based on the
leadership luncheon, or meeting, and the meeting I just came from, that there is a bipartisan
commitment in the Congress to aggressively
push the flood relief package. And for that I
am grateful to Senator Mitchell and to Senator
Dole and to the Speaker and Mr. Gephardt
and Mr. Michel and the others. I think there's
a real feeling that this is something we ought
to do together as a nation. And I appreciate
that.
I want to reiterate that we will be aggressively
working in the next few days with the Governors
and the others in the respective States to work
through the practical problems, as well as to
get the most up-to-date damage estimates in
the event that the bill moving through the Congress needs to be modified in its appropriations
amounts.
If there are any questions, I'd be glad to
take them.
Disaster Assistance
Q. Mr. President, you've asked Congress for
$2.5 billion in disaster relief. And yesterday the


Director of FEMA and others have put that
figure-[inaudible].
The President. First of all, let me emphasize
a couple of things. The Federal Government
does not reimburse 100 percent of the losses
of these programs. Some of that has to be done
from private sources; some of it has to be done
from local match. Secondly, the ongoing budgets
of many of these Departments, the Agriculture
Department, for example, and FEMA, for another, contain funds which will be in the ordinary course of business directed to the area
where it's most needed. So some of the ongoing
budget will take care of this.
Now, in answer to your specific question, I
have consulted with the leadership about that.
The 1990 budget bill plainly concede of genuine
emergencies being funded outside the budgetary
process. And I think it's almost universally acknowledged now that even though we don't have
the specific figure, this year's deficit will be
quite a bit lower than it was estimated to be
in January because we're working so hard at
reducing the deficit that interest rates are down
and therefore the cost of servicing our debt
is down. So I think we can handle this.
I have heard the general principle advanced,
it would be nice if we paid for it all with offsets,
but I haven't seen any specific suggestions. And
in the absence of those, I think we should just
take the '90 law and proceed as is. If Senator
Mitchell or the Speaker or Mr. Gephardt or
anyone else has a different idea, of course, I'd
be glad to hear it. The most important thing
is that we get the aid out to those folks as
quickly as possible.
Economic Program
Q. [Inaudible]-and what advice are you giving to the leaders about how to resolve theThe President. What was that last question?
Q. What advice are you giving to the leader

1088




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 15


ship aboutThe President. Well, first of all, there is a
general consensus that we ought to make this
the biggest deficit reduction package the country's had, and that means hard numbers and
good figures. The number that was adopted in
1990, I think, is now generally conceded was
not as firm as it might have been. And also
there was a big economic slowdown, and the
health care cost increases were greater than
originally thought. But I think this is going to
be a more solid plan.
How it's resolved is something that the conference will have to work out. I'm going to
be giving them some advice, but it won't be
inconsistent with what I've said before. I want
a very progressive plan. I want the deficit reduction. I want people who can afford to pay, whose
taxes went down in the eighties, to pay their
fair share now. I very much want some of the
incentives in this plan that were in the House
bill. I hope some of them can be put back
in the Senate bill. I think that it's important
that people who work 40 hours a week and
have children in the home be able to be lifted
out of poverty rather than taxed into it. I think
it is very important that we have incentives to
grow the high-technology sector of our economy,
that's the R&D and the new venture capitalgains tax that Senator Bumpers has long championed, along with others. There are several
things in there. The empowerment zone issue
is very important to me. It goes very closely
with the community development bank proposal
we made today to generate jobs and growth.
Keep in mind the ultimate purpose of deficit
reduction is to improve the economy by getting
interest rates down, freeing up tax funds that
we would otherwise have to spend on serving
the debt, and improving the climate for new
jobs. It's also clear that we have to have some
investment incentives. People have to take this
money that we're going to save through reducing
the deficit, turn around and invest it in the
economy. And if you raise tax rates on upper
income people and then you provide only a very
targeted way to in effect lower their tax burden
by having them create jobs, then you win either
way, because either way you reduce the deficit
and you improve the economy. That's what
we're going to try to do.
Q. [Inaudible]-part of the reason you supported obviously is for the-[inaudible]. You
haven't talked very much about other reasons


why you might want-[inaudible]. What are the
other reasons
The President. Well, I think it's sound policy.
We have the world's lowest energy levies. And
we're trying to promote conservation and a pure
and cleaner environment, which is the reason
we proposed it in the first place. But it was
proposed, obviously, to help close the gap to
meet our deficit reduction targets also. And the
conferees know how I feel about it.
But the number one thing is we have got
to produce a growing economy. And the deficit
reduction package is absolutely critical to that.
Let me back up and say this is the first time
in 10 years plus, the first time since 1981 an
American President has gone to a meeting of
the world's seven great industrial powers and
not been criticized because of the American
budget deficit. This time the statement complimented the United States for taking aggressive action to bring down the deficit and acknowledged the responsibility of other nations
to try to help us grow the global economy. That
would not have happened if the House and the
Senate hadn't passed versions of this deficit reduction package.
And that is the central message out there.
People think, who have observed things for
years, that we are doing something serious to
change the climate in Washington, to improve
the economy, and to move us off dead center.
I don't want to say too much to prejudge the
enormously difficult work the conferees have to
do to reconcile the differences between the Senate and the House version. I want to see how
they can do. And I will give them my advice,
but I think the more, right now, they can be
left free to do their work and consult with me,
the better off we'll be.
Disaster Assistance
Q. Mr. President, a followup on both the
numbers. On the flood bill, you all sent up
a package of $2.5 billion but concede it will
go much higher. Now, the new numbers are
$5 billion, as high as $10 billion. Are you all
working with a new number?
The President. Those numbers are numbers
for estimated aggregate damage in the area. Let
me say again, point one, the Federal Government has never compensated natural disasters
a dollar-for-dollar for every kind of disaster loss.
There are some personal losses, for example,
that you can only have low-interest loans for,


1089




July 15 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


the actual out-of-pocket costs of which are less
than the loan. There are other costs that have
to be matched by State and local government,
although the Federal Government has the power
under certain extreme circumstances to waive
some or all of it. There are other losses that
simply aren't covered by any Federal law. So
there is a big distinction to be drawn between
the aggregate loss and what is normally compensable by our Federal programs. The second
thing I want to emphasize in this, that some
of these losses can be covered by the ongoing


programs in the Federal Government. And I
guess I should add a final point, which is that
we won't know the total dimensions of the Federal excuse me, the agricultural losses, until
very near the beginning of the next fiscal year.
So some of them may come in the next fiscal
year as well.
Thank you very much.
NOTE: The President spoke at 5:20 p.m. at the
Capitol. A tape was not available for verification
of the content of these remarks.


Nomination for Posts at the Environmental Protection Agency
July 15, 1993


The President announced his choices for five
key positions at the Environmental Protection
Agency today, declaring his intention to nominate Jonathan Cannon to be the Assistant Administrator for Administration and Resources
Management and the Chief Financial Officer;
Elliot Laws to be Assistant Administrator for
Solid Waste and Emergency Response; Mary
Nichols to be Assistant Administrator for Air
and Radiation; Robert Perciasepe to be Assistant
Administrator for Water; and Shelly Metzenbaum to be Associate Administrator for Regional


Operations and State/Local Relations.
"This outstanding group of people, added to
the already strong team at EPA, will work together with Administrator Carol Browner to
continue building a stronger and more vibrant
Agency," said the President. "Each of these five
individuals has expertise in environmental issues,
meaningful Government experience, and most
importantly, a strong commitment to protecting
our Nation's precious natural resources."
NOTE: Biographies of the nominees were made
available by the Office of the Press Secretary.


Nomination for Posts at the Department of Energy
July 15, 1993


The President announced today that he intends to nominate Martha Krebs and Corlis
Moody to senior positions at the Department
of Energy. Krebs will be Director of the Office
of Energy Research, and Moody will be the
Director of the Office of Minority Economic
Impact.
"It gives me great pleasure to announce these
nominations today," said the President. "Martha
Krebs has demonstrated tremendous leadership


capacity as an administrator of one of our country's most important research facilities and a
senior congressional aide. As for Corlis Moody,
Secretary O'Leary knows better than anyone the
high quality of work that she has done in the
past and is capable of doing at the Department
of Energy. I welcome both of their service."
NOTE: Biographies of the nominees were made
available by the Office of the Press Secretary.


1090




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 17


Nomination for Posts at the Agency for International Development
July 15, 1993
The President today announced his intention  foreign affairs and understanding of the good
to nominate Margaret Carpenter, Assistant Ad-  global assistance can do, I am certain both Marministrator for Asia and Douglas Stafford, Assist-  garet and Doug will work hard to fulfill AID's
ant Administrator for Food and Humanitarian  mission of providing economic and humanitarian
Assistance at the Agency for International De-  assistance to the developing world," the Presivelopment, U.S. International Development Co-  dent said.
operation Agency.
"With their dual experience in the field of  NOTE: Biographies of the nominees were made
available by the Office of the Press Secretary.
Nomination for Inspector General of the United States Information Agency
July 16, 1993
The President today announced his intention  said. "I am certain she will work hard to ensure
to nominate attorney Marian Bennett as Inspec-  USIA is a tight-run operation up to the task
tor General at the United States Information  of its mission to promote democracy and freeAgency.                                      dom abroad."
"I am pleased today to name Marian Bennett
to this important post at USIA," the President  NOTE: A biography of the nominee was made
available by the Office of the Press Secretary.
Interview With WGEM Radio, Quincy, Illinois
July 17, 1993


Disaster Assistance
Q. Good morning, Mr. President.
The President. Good morning.
Q. How are you, sir?
The President. I'm fine. As you know, I'm
now on Air Force One, on my way to St. Louis
to a meeting with the Governors of all the affected States and a number of Cabinet-level officials. I think we have about seven or eight going
down today, as well as a number of Members
of Congress who have jurisdiction over the committees that are writing the relief legislation.
I wanted to call you, because your radio station has done such a remarkable job of kind
of coordinating the information and keeping
people in touch and keeping them up in the
middle of this. I really respect what you've done,
and I appreciate it very much.
Q. Mr. President, this is Steve Cramblit. The


people that have really done the work are the
people who have been at the levees slinging
the sandbags on the Mississippi River water out
of their homes and out of their agricultural
lands. They're really the heroes in all of this.
The President. Yes, I've seen a lot of them
working, as you know, on my two previous trips.
It's been an amazing effort. And of course we're
not out of the woods yet. I know you lost a
dam there last night, and a lot of people on
the other side of the river had to evacuate.
And then the county down from that, Pike
County, I think the name of it is, is really concerned. So we've got a few anxious days left
to go.
Q. Mr. President, this is Jeff Dorsey with
you now, and I was down in the Pike County
area yesterday. Are there any words that you
can give them, something to pick up their spirits


1091




July 17 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


at this point after 3 weeks of fighting the Mississippi off? Can you tell them anything? They're
all listening out there to you right now, sir.
The President. Well, first of all, let me say
that I think, you know, we may have a few
more days of this, but I think in a few days
it will be over. And as tough as things are,
we are doing everything we can to make sure
that we've got in place emergency relief help
and that we are planning for the long run to
stay with this process, the long run, to help
people get back on their feet and go on with
their lives. I've seen an awful lot of brave people
in the Midwest in the last 21/2 weeks, and I
just would urge the folks to hang in there and
not expect the worst but to prepare for it, and
then we'll deal with whatever comes.
Q. Mr. President, this is Bob Turek. You have
already asked for $2.5 billion, and we understand that Senator Paul Simon and some of the
others are saying that damage might be a lot
higher. Are you going to try and seek-allow
for emergency relief?
The President. Yes. As the evidence comes
in to support it, we decided that we really needed to get a bill up to the Congress and start
moving it through. Now can you hear me? We
decided we needed to get a bill up to the Congress and start moving it through. But as we
get new damage estimates, we'll be giving them
to the congressional committees, and the bill
can be amended in the House and in the Senate
to reflect the new damage estimates. And then
if something comes in later, we can take new
legislation up there.
But we felt very strongly that we needed to
start getting the help out there just as quickly
as possible and that we ought not to wait another month or so to present a bill. So that's
why we're doing what we're doing. And I think
it's the right thing to do. But it's not the end
of the road. The bill we presented will be modified, I think, in the Congress, if the evidence
comes in to support the need for more aid.
And I think we'll fulfill our responsibilities. We
just want to be quick about it so that we can
really give people help, and they don't get
caught in the bureaucratic delay.
Q. Mr. President, this is Rich Cain. We've
had a number of listeners who are very concerned over the National Guard troops who
have been in the area for quite some time now
who are becoming somewhat fatigued and have
been, in battling this fight, as well as a number


of volunteers. The question is, Mr. President,
is there any consideration towards possible activation of troops on the Federal level?
The President. That's one of the issues that
I want to talk to the Governors about today.
I'm concerned that in some of the States involved, they have used all their available
Guardspeople and they may be exhausted. Some
of them have been working virtually around the
clock. And I think that we need to look at
either bringing in Guard folks from other States
or maybe activating some Federal troops if, in
fact, all of the State resources have been exhausted. And I'm going to take that up with
the Governors today.
I know you're going to carry the meeting live
on your radio station, which is something I very
much appreciate, and so we'll get some answers
from them and then I'll give an appropriate
response. But I appreciate your bringing that
up and I will check into it-in particular, in
your area.
Q. Mr. President, we appreciate taking your
valuable time, and I know that you are preparing
for that meeting today. We thank you very
much. And would you give us one final word
to the people of this area from the President
of the United States?
The President. I just want you to know that
we're thinking of you, we're praying for you,
we're pulling for you, and we're working. All
of us are working as hard as we can with your
Governors and your local representatives to try
to make this crisis pass as quickly as possible.
We're not in control of this situation entirely,
because Mother Nature is having its way with
us, as periodically happens. But I do believe
that we're going to be able to get our way
through this, and the courage and the good
humor of the people of the Midwest has been
the key element, if we can keep people thinking
positively, looking toward the future, preparing
for whatever might happen. We'll do our best
to be there as your partners. And the rest of
the country is thinking about you and really
is determined, I think, to have the National
Government do what it takes to help you put
your lives back together and get back on track
here.
Thank you so much. Goodbye.
[At this point, the telephone interview ended,
and the President then took questions from reporters aboard Air Force One.]


1092




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 17


Q. What are the chances of Federal troops?
The President. I need to ask. It's something
I thought about in Iowa the other day, where
the Guardsmen there obviously have been working around the clock. What we need to doof course the folks there, we have no way of
knowing whether they are-have they mobilized
the entire State Guard, can they send other
Guardsmen there? You know, I need to ask
about the facts, but I will, because they brought
it up and because they also brought it up in
Des Moines last week. We will raise that with


the Governors today in the meeting. But I don't
think it's appropriate for me to make that decision. They may have a lot of other Guard troops
within the States that can be mobilized.
Q. What's the-[inaudible]-decisions?
The President. I have nothing to add to what's
been said or speculated about. I think the Attorney General-I would refer you to her on that.
NOTE: The President spoke at 9:30 a.m. from Air
Force One en route to St. Louis, MO. A tape
was not available for verification of the content
of this interview.


The President's Radio Address
July 17, 1993
Good morning. These past 2 weeks as I've
traveled across our Nation and our world, I've
been reminded that Americans can rise to any
challenge. The Vice President and I have visited
communities in the Midwest where floodwaters
have destroyed farms and businesses and homes,
reaching historic levels. We've seen much that
is heartbreaking but also a lot that is heartlifting.
The natural disaster is bringing out the best
in our people. I saw that when I visited Des
Moines on Wednesday. People there have been
going without tapwater, but they still remember
what it means to be Americans. Volunteers from
all over the State and around the country are
there distributing food and water, filling sandbags, and helping older people, the sick, and
neighbors whose livelihoods have been washed
away.
Already I've declared disaster areas in Iowa,
Illinois, Missouri, Wisconsin, and Minnesota.
And Federal officials are now in South Dakota,
North Dakota, Kansas, and Nebraska, reviewing
the extensive flood damage in those States. I've
directed all the appropriate Federal agencies to
work together as a team to help the victims
of these floods. And I've been especially pleased
with the work of Secretary Espy and the Agriculture Department and the sterling efforts of
the Federal Emergency Management Agency
and its Director, James Lee Witt.
Now I'm asking Congress to approve emergency assistance to help the families, farmers,
businesses, and communities who've been hurt.


And today I'll be heading back to St. Louis
to meet with Governors from the Midwest and
several Members of the Congress to plan shortterm disaster relief and long-term economic recovery. At a time like this, people who have
worked hard all of their lives deserve a helping
hand. With that helping hand, the people of
the Midwest will get back on their feet. After
all, they're Americans. They're facing this crisis
with grit and courage and generosity.
That indomitable American spirit is recognized as far away as Tokyo and Korea. In Tokyo,
I attended a summit of the world's seven leading
industrial nations. In Korea, I visited our service
men and women serving along the Demilitarized
Zone and standing up to the nuclear threats
that the North Koreans have presented to us
in the last several weeks.
In Tokyo, at the economic summit, my hand
was strengthened because of everything the
American people have been doing, working to
change our economic policies and pushing to
cut our deficit and increase investment in American jobs. For the first time in more than a
dozen years, an American President was able
to go to one of these summits and look at the
leaders of the other great economic powers and
say, "We are putting our own house in order."
Your commitment to change has helped me to
come home with job-creating agreements to
lower trade barriers worldwide and to reduce
our trade deficit with Japan. These agreements
will make life better for America's workers,


1093




July 17 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


America's businesses, and our families.
After years of deadlocked talks with the
world's leading trading powers, we negotiated
a plan that will dramatically reduce tariffs on
manufactured products, from chemicals to electronics, from pharmaceuticals to farm equipment. When other countries lower their tariffs,
more consumers all across the world will buy
our products. That means more manufacturing
jobs here in America, high-skill, high-wage jobs
with a future, and jobs that create other jobs
back home.
I could not have persuaded our trading partners to reach these agreements without having
made the progress we've made at home on our
economic plan. For years other nations have
come to these meetings and said the same
things to an American President: We can't have
a healthy economy in the United States or the
world until America cuts the deficit, invests in
education and technology, and is able to compete and win again.
Well, from the bargaining table at Tokyo to
our factory floors here at home, we are on the
move again, stepping up to the plate, taking
responsibility, making the tough choices, and
building our economic strength, not borrowing
from it. America is now the high-quality, lowcost producer of many products and services
that can compete in any market in the world.
And our economic plan answers the call that
other world leaders have made for years, and
now that the American people are making, for
historic change. It has the largest deficit reduction in history, $500 billion over 5 years. It
has historic spending cuts, more than 200 specific cuts that save more than $250 billion from
this budget. And it makes an historic shift from
trickle-down economics, where taxes were lowered on the wealthy and raised on the middle
class, because more than three-quarters of the
new taxes in this plan will be paid by the
wealthiest 6 percent of Americans. In fact, for
every $10 that we cut the deficit, $5 comes
from spending cuts, $4 comes from taxes on
the wealthiest 6 percent, and only a dollar
comes from the middle class. Working families
with incomes under $30,000 are held harmless.
The working poor, those who work 40 hours
a week, have children in the home, and are
still in poverty, will get tax relief so that no
American who's working full time with children
in the home will live in poverty.
A majority of our small businesses, where the


jobs are mostly created in America these days,
will actually get a tax cut because of the jobcreating incentives in this plan. The plan is fair,
it's balanced, and it will create new jobs, permanent, productive, private-sector jobs. With this
plan in place, the American economy can
produce 8 million jobs over the next 4 years,
8 million new jobs.
As the economic plan has progressed through
Congress, the financial markets where long-term
interest rates are set have responded. Long-term
interest rates have declined to historic lows;
mortgage rates are at 20-year lows. Now, if we
can keep interest rates at this low level for the
rest of the year, people refinancing their home
loans or taking out new business loans will pump
$100 billion of new capital back into the economy, because they'll have lower interest payments and then they'll have money to consume
or to invest.
On top of that, the new business incentives,
especially those for small businesses, will create
new jobs. There will be new incentives for people to move from welfare rolls to payrolls. That
means more jobs and new opportunities for
young people to serve their communities while
they finance their college education and become
more employable in a tough global economy.
The House and the Senate have both passed
versions of this plan, and now they're meeting
to write a final proposal. With your help we
can make sure that Congress says no to gridlock
and yes to growth, yes to change, and yes to
what is best in the American spirit.
Throughout the natural disaster in the Midwest I've been profoundly impressed by how
our people have pulled together as a family.
From the Congress to the Governors, to the
community leaders in our cities and towns, to
the volunteers, and to the people who have been
dispossessed, Americans have risen above their
divisions and their personal concerns to help
people in trouble. In times of crisis we're not
Democrats or Republicans, we are Americans.
Today I ask all of you to show that same
spirit in responding to our economic problems.
To those who would do nothing or slide back
into the status quo of the last several years,
I say we must go forward with a plan that grows
the economy, reduces the deficit, creates jobs,
and restores fairness.
I say to my friends in the other party in
Congress, just as you have worked with me and
the people of the Midwest together to help the


1094




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 17


people dig themselves out of a natural disaster,
so should you join us in digging America out
of the legacy of two decades of declining
growth, declining productivity, growing deficits,
and economic crisis. We are Americans; we can
pull together. And together we can make the
historic decisions to build a new generation of


prosperity for ourselves, our children, and our
children's children.
Thank you for listening.
NOTE: This address was recorded at 5:27 p.m. on
July 16 in the Roosevelt Room at the White House
for broadcast at 10:06 a.m. on July 17.


Remarks at a Roundtable Discussion on Flood Relief in Arnold, Missouri
July 17, 1993


The President. Thank you all for coming. As
you know, we're starting just a bit late because
we all had to come down from the airport, and
we came in different ways. I do want to thank
everyone for being here and say this is a rather
extraordinary meeting of Federal, State, local,
and private sector emergency response people.
We're going to try to get through a very busy
agenda today, and it will be my job to try to
keep us more or less on schedule. So I hope
we can, because there are an awful lot of issues
that have to be dealt with.
I'd like to thank the Governors who are here:
Our host, Mel Carnahan, of Missouri. Terry
Branstad of Iowa I think is here-there he is;
I missed him when I went around-who hosted
me on a trip to Iowa, two trips to Iowa recently.
Is Governor Thompson of Wisconsin here? I
think he's coming. Governor Edgar of Illinois,
Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Ed Schafer of North
Dakota, Arne Carlson of Minnesota, and Walter
Miller of South Dakota. I think that is all the
Governors who are here.
I'd also like to thank the Members of Congress who are here or who are scheduled to
come. We have Senator Barbara Mikulski at the
table, whose committee has jurisdiction over the
operations of emergency management; Senator
Kit Bond from Missouri, our host; Senator Bill
Bradley is here somewhere or on the way,
whose family farm in Missouri is apparently
under water. He may be here in his private
capacity rather than as United States Senator.
We're delighted to be in the host district of
the majority leader of the United States House
of Representatives, Dick Gephardt, and I want
him to say a word in a moment, since we're
camped out here in his backyard. Congressman
Bruce Vento from Minnesota; Congressman


Peter Hoagland from Nebraska; Congressman
Minge; Congressman Volkmer is coming, I
think; and Congressman Pomeroy is here. And
I think Senator Wellstone from Minnesota is
scheduled to come.
Let me also tell you, all of you from all these
States, that the Vice President and I and our
administration team had an extensive meeting
yesterday in Washington with the congressional
delegations from all the affected States. And
you would be very interested to know that not
only did virtually every Member of Congress
from every State here represented show up, but
there was also a rather substantial representation
from interested Members of Congress from
other States who just wanted to be there, get
a briefing, and know what they could do to
help. It was a very, very large and very impressive turnout. And I told them all we were coming here today. I invited them here, but most
of them did their work on this issue yesterday
at that meeting. Did I recognize Congressman
Wheat? I don't know if I did, but he's here.
Thank you.
I also want to say that the heads and Secretaries of 10 Federal Departments or Agencies in
our administration are here working together.
And I'd like to briefly acknowledge them so
you'll know who they are and ask them to at
least raise their hands: James Lee Witt, the Director of FEMA; the Secretary of Agriculture,
Mike   Espy;  Secretary  of  Transportation,
Federico Pefia; Secretary of Commerce, Ron
Brown, who just became a grandfather to twins.
He's only 35 years old. We can't figure out
how it happened. [Laughter] The Secretary of
Health and Human Services, Donna Shalala;
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development,
Henry Cisneros; Secretary of Labor, Bob Reich;


1095




July 17 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


head of the Corps of Engineers, General Williams; the Commandant of the Coast Guard,
Admiral Kime; and the head of the National
Weather Service, Dr. Joe Friday, is also here.
And he and the Vice President had a very interesting conversation about what caused this flood.
They're going to talk a little in a minute. The
Director of the Office of Management and
Budget, Leon Panetta. And I'd also like to recognize in the audience the head of the American
Red Cross, Elizabeth Dole, who flew down with
us. And the Red Cross has done wonderful
work, and we thank you for being here.
Now, I'd like to ask Congressman Gephardt
if he'd like to say anything on behalf of his
district. And then I want to recognize the Vice
President for opening remarks.
[At this point, Representative Gephardt thanked
the President and members of the administration
for their visit.]
The President. Thank you very much. I would
just like to say in response to that, I think it's
fair to say that all of us in the administration
who have been to this region have been very
moved by what we have seen, both the pain
that people have experienced and their enormous courage and often their great good humor
in dealing with this crisis.
I also want to thank the people in the rest
of the United States who have sent help of
all kinds. We even have seen help coming in
from South Florida, which suffered so much
from Hurricane Andrew last year.
I do want to say, too, we are here to deal
with basically two great issues. One is, what
are we going to do right now, while everybody
is up to their ears in alligators? And the second
is, how are we going to keep this effort going
over the long run, so that we can see these
areas through to full recovery? There has been
a disjuncture in the past, I think, between what
happens in the short run-there's all kind of
questions about whether we've had enough coordination or not; I think we've really worked
through that this time-but also whether the
Federal Government can stay in the long run.
And there is an almost collective emotional
process that people go through when it first
hits. Folks are brave and good humored and
courageous, but then the reality of the losses
that sink in, and a grief takes over. And then,
if everyone is not at least doing their best, a
lot of anger can come in the wake of that.


And our goal is to just be a good partner
and to sensitively know that people will have
to go through an emotional cycle, and the whole
States will go through an emotional cycle. But
we don't want people to think that they have
been abandoned when the immediate emergency is over. So we're going to start this meeting with a discussion of the present conditions
and what we can do in the short run. Then
we're going to go to a discussion of long-term
relief. And then at the end of the discussion,
we're going to move to the legislation that is
now moving through Congress, what it means
and where we go from here.
Let me just introduce the Vice President with
this thought. I read the other day that a 61 -year-old retired State police officer in Quincy,
Illinois, was fighting to save that bridge up
there. And as you know, unfortunately the
Fabius Levee broke in spite of their best efforts,
and the bridge has now been closed. So there's
no link for about 200 miles now across the Mississippi River. But this police officer said it's
a shame the rest of the country can't come
together like this to solve its problems. I thought
that was such a simple and yet brilliant statement. I hope that we can come away from this
with a sense that we've all done our very best
to work together to solve this problem and that
we will take the powerful example of human
courage that we have seen in countless places
across these States to follow that.
Again, I want to say to all of you, I thank
you for taking your time to come today. We
will run through a rather brisk schedule. And
I want to begin with the Vice President, who
has been to this region twice and who I think
has done a very good job, especially when I
was away on the G-7 meeting. And I'm very
grateful to him. But he has a little insight on
exactly what the scope of the damage is and
how it all came about. And I think it would
be good to sort of set the stage with his remarks.
Mr. Vice President.
[The Vice President, using satellite images, discussed the unusual weather patterns that led
to the flooding. ]
The President. Thank you very much. I'd like
to now call on the White House Chief of Staff
Mack McLarty to make a few remarks. I have
asked Mack to oversee the White House coordination of this to ensure that it receives the best
possible attention within the White House and


1096




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 17


that we continue the very close coordination
we've had with all these Government Departments represented here today.
Mack.
[Mr. McLarty discussed the administration's
commitment to provide adequate and effective
assistance. ]
The President. Thank you very much. Before
we begin to call on the Governors, I'd like to
ask Secretary Espy and our FEMA Director,
James Lee Witt, to just briefly, for about 5
minutes each, review the current situation in
the region and an overview of the present Federal response. They have spent more time here
personally by quite a long ways than anyone
else in our administration. And I think it's important that their views get out and that they
have a chance just to make a few introductory
remarks.
So I'd like Mr. Witt and Secretary Espy to
talk in whatever order they have decided to
speak.
[Director Witt explained FEMA's efforts to assist
flood victims. Secretary Espy then described the
damage to the agricultural community and discussed USDA assistance efforts, including offices
in FEMA disaster centers.]
The President. Thank you very much, Mr.
Secretary.
With regard to the co-location of offices, I
also want to point out that FEMA has brought
in 20 SBA specialists into the tele-registration
center, and there are small business people who
are now filling out the applications for aid by
telephone. This is also something that has really
been without precedent, particularly between
the SBA and FEMA.
I neglected to introduce earlier, in that regard, the Director of the Small Business Administration, Erskine Bowles, from North Carolina,
and also Congressman Talent. I apologize for
that. And Governor Thompson, I introduced you
before you got here, but we're glad to see you.
I'd like to now ask our host Governor, Governor Carnahan-we're going through a whole
series of issues here. And if you don't feel something is adequately discussed, feel free to interject. But I think it's important that we try to
stay on the agenda. And I'd like to ask Governor
Carnahan to begin by discussing short-term
emergency response and public assistance delivery.


[Governor Carnahan discussed the damage and
assistance needs in Missouri.]
The President. Thank you very much, Governor. A little later in the program, I'm going
to ask the Secretary of Labor, Bob Reich, to
talk about the dislocated worker issue. It is a
major issue.
But before we move this topic, I'd like to
ask General Williams from the Corps of Engineers if you have anything you want to say about
the emergency work, work to repair the public
and private facilities and what you're doing to
try to minimize the damage.
[General Williams discussed Corps of Engineers
disaster relief and water management efforts.]
The President. Let me ask you one quick followup question. When Governor Branstad and
I were in Iowa the other day and we saw this
vast lake that essentially went from Des Moines
all the way to the Mississippi River-the kind
of thing the Vice President was talking about
there-and one of the people who was there
with us said that we had to be very careful
how we drained off this water in order not to
aggravate the problems of the rivers being too
high. Is that a serious issue?
[General Williams said the Corps will continue
efforts to coordinate water levels in both tributaries and main rivers to prevent further damage. ]
The President. With regard to the issue that
Governor Carnahan raised, this is not exactly
responsive, because you talked about farm
losses. But I do think it's important to point
out that FEMA does have a modest program
to deal with personal losses of families. And
I thought I'd let Mr. Witt just briefly state that
again so people who have been wiped out of
their homes or jobs and don't have anything
would know about it. Would you just briefly
say what it is.
[Director Witt said flood victims might be eligible for grants to cover personal losses.]
The President. I'd like to, if I might, move
on to another issue, which affects more people
in Iowa than any other place, but that's the
lack of potable water. And I'd like to ask Governor Branstad to talk to us a little about that.
I live in a State where I've seen whole little
towns flooded out and gone. I don't believe
there's been another time in my lifetime when


1097




July 17 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


so many Americans in one place have been without drinking water, bathing water, any kind of
water as are the people who live in and around
Des Moines. And I'd like for Governor Branstad
to discuss how they're managing that and how
they're dealing with the public health risks that
are posed by that.
[Governor Branstad described water distribution
efforts and infrastructure damage in Iowa.]
The President. I just want to throw out something; I don't need a response now, but I invite
any of the Governors who choose to respond.
I spoke this morning to the people who are
constantly on the air at that wonderful radio
station in Quincy, Illinois, that's served as sort
of the informal headquarters and information
source for people on both sides of the river,
on this part of the flooding. They're, by the
way, broadcasting this whole hearing live. But
one of the things that I was asked on the radio
was whether or not the National Guard resources of the States were being stretched too
thin, whether or not the Guardsmen and women
were in need of some relief, and whether I
had thought of sending in any regular personnel.
Let me just say to all of the Governors, we
have no way of knowing what percentage of
your National Guard force you have deployed
to do this. But if you do feel you need some
relief from resources outside the State Guard,
I hope you will feel free to let me know, and
we'll try to deal with that.
General Williams, did you have a question?
[General Williams and the Vice President commented on the National Guard's role in relief
efforts. Governor Branstad then commented on
State, local, Federal, and private sector cooperation in Iowa.]
The President. Thank you. Before we move
off the public health issues, I'd like to ask Secretary Shalala to comment about a number of
issues. The obvious one is the water situation
and with regard to potable water. But there
are some other issues here: Are there any risks
of disease from other flooded facilities, water
facilities or treatment facilities or flooded fields
washing pesticides? Are there environmental
risks there? What about the damage sustained
that we are aware of by Federally supported
public health facilities? And so a lot of public
health issues here, and I'd like for Secretary
Shalala to just make whatever comments she'd


like to make about that.
[Secretary Shalala discussed cooperative public
health efforts concerning infectious diseases and
mental health.]
The President. Thank you very much. If I
might just respond to two other issues Governor
Branstad raised, first with regard to the National
Guard. I don't know what this country would
do without them. Anybody who has ever served
as a Governor knows that you literally couldn't
function, the Governor's office could not function in most major problem areas, without them.
The second thing, with regard to your request
for a waiver of the local match, I have asked
James Lee Witt, since he obviously had experience in his former life as the director of emergency services at the State level in our home
State, to work with the Governors on that and
to try to make a reasoned judgment about what
can and can't be done. There is some precedent,
as you know, for waiving all or part of the
match. There's also a big precedent for the
match. And we have to be very careful about
how we handle this. Where there is a genuine
problem, we want to be responsive. But we want
everybody to kind of work with us and work
through the facts on it, and we will try to make
a humane as well as a clearheaded decision.
I'd like to ask Governor Edgar from Illinois
now to talk about the current situation in terms
of its impact on the farmers. We've heard Mike
Espy talk about it, but I think it would be helpful to have a Governor of a great farm State
just to start and discuss a little about how the
impact is in Illinois.
[Governor Edgar requested that the National
Guard postpone other duties in order to help
damaged areas rebuild. He then discussed the
damage and assistance needs in Illinois. Secretary Espy then stated that financial assistance
would be provided as quickly and in as flexible
a manner as possible and promised to work on
crop insurance reform.]
The President. Let me say, if you have any
other specific suggestions on this, this is an important issue that Governor Edgar has raised
and that the Secretary has responded to. As
we look at the crop insurance reformation issue,
if there are other areas of flexibility you believe
ought to be given to the Secretary of Agriculture
to help deal with this and subsequent crises,
it's very important that you get them to us now


1098




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 17


while the Congress is focused on this issue.
Yes?
[Governor Branstad expressed concern that the
amount of disaster assistance allocated for farmers would not be adequate.]
The President. Senator Bond and Congressman Gephardt, the administration, I think, in
1992 presented a revised downward formula. It
used to be two-thirds of two-thirds, didn't it,
something like that? And it was revised downward because of the magnitude of the losses
in Andrew and the side problem with the deficit,
is that right? I wasn't here so I don't know.
Senator Bond. Mr. President, in the 1990
farm bill we authorized a very complicated formula for people with crop insurance. It was
essentially 65 percent of 65 percent. As a result
of OMB actions during some of the disasters,
they cut what is effectively 42 percent by a
half, and thus the proposal is about 21 cents
on the dollar. We had a chance to discuss and
several of the Members of Congress discussed
with you our strong desire and our hope that
OMB and you will support, and we can encourage Congress not to cut that 42 percent in half,
because for most farmers that represents their
out-of-pocket costs of feed, fertilizer, and fuel
to put the crop in.
The President. We're going to review that.
We presented that under the terms of-the
same thing that happened with Hurricane Andrew. And I frankly was not even aware of it
being a problem until the Congressmen from
the affected States brought it up to me in large
numbers and on a bipartisan basis yesterday at
our big meeting. And so we're going to review
that.
[Governor Branstad thanked the President for
agreeing to review assistance for farmers.]
The President. I think it's very important that,
even under the formula adopted in 1990, everyone understands it's not a question of whether
you're holding people harmless but whether
you're at least giving them enough help to have
a fair chance so that they'll be able to continue
in farming.
Let me just mention two other things quite
quickly. I got a note on this local match issue.
Secretary Shalala sent up a note that said we
need to get rid of the State match on VETRA
control so we can quickly put in a multistate
strategy on mosquitoes. If we have time I'll tell


you a story one time when I gave a speech
when a swarm of mosquitoes came up in a rice
field. The speech lasted 20 seconds, and I never
lost the county again. [Laughter] I could have
used that swarm of mosquitoes in later points
in my life. [Laughter]
I want to say one other thing. Yesterday Congressman Harold Volkmer, who is not here
today, told me about an incident involving
FEMA and State emergency people that affects
environmental and health issues that I thought
I should repeat in the event that it happens
to any of you, so you know that this capacity
is there.
There was a pesticide and herbicide storage
area at Hannibal, Missouri, that was threatened.
And immediately FEMA and the State emergency people were able to put divers into the
area, and the divers actually helped to shore
up the area and keep that from being threatened. If that storage area had been overrun,
obviously you would have had a huge amount
of very toxic materials, not very much diluted,
to which people would have been exposed. So
I think it's important that we try to identify
that. Every time I fly over one of these sewage
treatment facilities or something else where
there's water all around it, I just get the willies
thinking about what could happen. And I think
that it's important to know that we do have
this dive capability. And if something like that
you think might happen, you need to call FEMA
to try to put together a dive team and a reinforcement team so that we avert those kinds
of possibilities.
I'd like now to talk about individual assistance
and small business assistance. And I'd like to
ask Governor Thompson of Wisconsin to talk
about it. The worst of his flooding, we hope,
is behind us, although after the Vice President's
weather forecast today, I'm not sure. But we
hope that it's true. And as people begin to look
about getting back on their feet, I'd be interested in knowing how you think this assistance
program is working, how adequate is it, what's
your assessment of both the individual and the
SBA programs.
[Governor Thompson discussed the damage and
assistance needs in Wisconsin.]
The President. Thank you very much. I'd like
to ask the SBA Director, Erskine Bowles, to
comment briefly on the SBA programs and how
they're being implemented here. Erskine.


1099




July 17 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


[Administrator Bowles discussed SBA disaster
assistance programs and promised the Agency's
cooperation. Mr. McLarty mentioned USDA loan
programs to complement those of SBA. Administrator Bowles then stated that some checks had
already been delivered.]
The President. Believe it or not, we're almost
back on schedule. Before I move away from
the short-term to the long-term issues, I think
it would be a mistake not to at least acknowledge the efforts of the private volunteers, the
people who came on their own, the people from
the Salvation Army. I saw a lot of Salvation
Army people in Iowa, and I was deeply moved
by them. They even showed up, some of them,
in their uniforms. I couldn't believe they could
bear to work in their uniforms, as hot and difficult as it was. And of course, the Red Cross,
where I think, Governor Branstad, the largest
employer in your State gave, I think, $100,000
to the Red Cross while I was there to do their
work.
Since Mrs. Dole is here, I thought, if there's
any comment you'd like to make about the volunteer efforts, what we're doing, where we're
going, we'd be glad to hear from you. And I
think it might be nice if you came down and
sat in Senator Wellstone's chair, and then we'll
take a picture of you there with his name and
send it to the Senate minority leader for his[laughter]. There's a certain sweet irony theremy photographer to take a picture of Senator
Wellstone as she speaks.
[Mrs. Dole praised the spirit of the volunteers.]
The President. Thank you. I also think it's
fair to say, though, that all those volunteers have
to be coordinated. And we really appreciate the
work that's been done there.
James Lee, did you want to say something
about that?
[Mr. Witt praised the Red Cross and other volunteers. The Vice President and Governor
Branstad then discussed FEMA's coordination of
the distribution of donated goods.]
The President. Since we're talking about this,
I want to get in a plug for my pet project.
Some of our national service volunteers this
summer have come to the flooding areas and
are working as volunteers. And Senator Durenberger and Congressman Vento from Minnesota
have suggested that we actually have a little
modest appropriation to get some more of these


young people who are in the national service
program just physically to the affected States.
Bruce, you might want to say a word about
that, but I really[Representative Vento encouraged the involvement of youth in relief efforts. Representative
Minge then requested flexibility in banking and
crop insurance requirements.]
The President. Thank you very much. As I
said, we do intend to review the agricultural
rules. Let me comment very briefly on the bank
loan issue. Along with a number of other farm
State Governors, back in the mid-eighties we
had a meeting in Chicago-I never will forget
this-Governor Edgar's predecessor hosted it,
and we tried to work through reform in the
farm financing system. Congress acted on that,
substantially what we recommended, but it was
4 years later and 255,000 farmers later. I believe
that the regulators have the authority to give
the banks the flexibility to do what you suggest,
but I will check to make sure.
[Representative Minge expressed congressional
support for the administration's efforts.]
The President. Let me make one other comment on the crop insurance issue. There are
deficiencies in the crop insurance program all
right for the catastrophic losses. The main problem we've got in this instance is that this flood
occurred a heck of lot further north on the
Mississippi than floods normally occur. And by
the time the land drains off, it'll be too late
to plant soybeans. I mean, that's the main problem we've got. So unless you sort of threw the
beans in the ground to create a fiction, you
know, a falsehood, to claim your crop insurance,
you can't cover it. That does not mean that,
at least I could, in good conscience, to ever
advise any farmer not to ever buy crop insurance. It does do some good, and I do think
that, in effect, the preference in the law for
people who have some insurance is a pretty
good thing, still, but we do need to drastically
reform the crop insurance program.
[Representative Minge predicted long-term reductions in the cost offarm programs.]
The President. Thank you very much. I want
to move on, if I might, and talk about-he
meant 10 cents, Jim-I want to move on to
discuss, if I might, some of the long-term issues
here and ask Governor Miller of South Dakota


1100




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 17


to begin by just discussing the impact of the
flood on jobs. That will take us back to the
job training remark made by Governor Carnahan
at the end of his remarks. But I'd like for Governor Miller to talk a little bit about the job
impact on this flood.
[Governor Miller discussed the damage and assistance needs in South Dakota.]
The President. Thank you. Mr. Bowles has
already discussed the SBA programs which
would be relevant here. And the Secretary of
Agriculture has talked about the farm programs
a little. I'd like to ask the Secretary of Labor,
Bob Reich, to talk about the job training elements of this issue.
[Secretary Reich discussed the availability of disaster unemployment insurance and funding for
jobs in the cleanup effort. He then gave checks
to some of the Governors present.]
The President. You're the only guy in my administration with any money. How can you do
that?
Yes, Governor Schafer.
[Governor Schafer asked for information on the
disaster unemployment assistance program, and
Secretary Reich gave a brief explanation.]
The President. I think that's important. Terry's
going to say something, but when I was in Iowa
the other day, it's very interesting that you discussed this because there are more people than
you would think affected by this who aren't in
the normal unemployment insurance pool. And
I had two or three people come up to me just
when I was in Des Moines to talk about it.
Terry, what were you going to say?
[Governor Branstad expressed concern for the
rebuilding needs of small businesses.]
The President. Given the-no one has ever
mentioned this to me. You know, when you
get to be President, you're supposed to never
say anything off the top of your head. But given
the problems we've got with the budget and
the difficulty of dealing with that issue, I think
it would be virtually impossible that the Congress would adopt any new program in that regard.
The one thing I would ask the Governors
to consider among yourselves about this is
whether or not you would want to ask us, the
Federal Government and the Congress, for


some sort of modification of the law affecting
how you can invest your community development block grant funds for a year or so because
that's something that-I mean, I know that that
program is not real popular with every Member
of Congress, but it's real popular with me because I was a Governor. And I know how much
good it can do, and I think there's very littleat least in my State there was very little waste
in it. But I think that if you have the flexibility
to allocate some of that money to job creation
or job preservation under emergency situations
for a year or two, that might make a significant
difference. So let me just suggest that that's
something you all might want to put your heads
together about and get back to us on.
Ron, what were you going to say? Secretary
Brown.
[Secretary Brown discussed the need for a longterm economic development plan.]
The President. Let me just follow up on that
very briefly and say that I think that that is
very good. I'd like to ask you to examine, given
the specific questions you've heard today, what
you think the EDA could do and the Department of Commerce. And at the end of the session here, I want to talk a little about longterm planning. And I think that you should really work with the Secretary of Agriculture to
make sure that every State knows that they have
available the resources of Commerce to develop
this kind of economic plan.
And meanwhile, I think the Governors ought
to look at this community development block
grant option. I think it's got some legs. And
I don't know, but Des Moines may get CDBG
directly; does it? It may be of sufficient size
to get it. So that would also be quite helpful
there.
I'll call on Bruce Vento, and then we've got
to go. We're getting behind.
[Representative Vento expressed concern about
long-term unemployment among agriculture-related workers in urban areas and among migrant
workers. ]
The President. Thank you.
We have a few other topics I think it's really
important that we cover today: shipping and
commerce, housing, and infrastructure for sure.
I'd like to ask Governor Carlson and Governor
Schafer to comment on the issues of shipping
and commerce, the impact of the flood on ship

1101




July 17 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


ping and commerce over the long run.
[Governor Carlson expressed his support for
crop insurance reform and more flexibility in
banking regulation and his concerns regarding
insurance for development on flood plains. He
also commended efforts to open global markets
to U.S. agricultural products. Governor Schafer
then discussed long-term difficulties in storage
and shipment of agricultural products as a result
offlood damage.]
The President. Thank you. I'd like to ask Secretary Pefia to comment on this issue, as well
as on the infrastructure damage generally.
[Secretary Peia discussed the extraordinary impact of the flooding on both regional and national transportation systems.]
The President. Thank you very much. Before
we move on to discussing the actual aid legislation, I'd like to talk about one or two other
issues. I'd like to ask Governor Nelson of Nebraska to talk about the question that many of
the Governors are facing, which is what happens
to people who are displaced from their houses,
and then I want to ask Secretary Cisneros to
comment on that. And you might feel free to
comment on any of the other long-term economic issues of concern to your people. Thank
you.
[Governor Nelson discussed wind losses in Nebraska, suggested the use of community development block grants for housing assistance, cautioned against downsizing the National Guard
to the point of limiting its emergency response
capability, and questioned the relocation of
homes out of proximity to cropland and agricultural jobs. ]
The President. Thank you.
Secretary Cisneros, we flew over a lot of people that don't have their homes anymore today.
[Secretary Cisneros discussed use of community
development block grants for immediate cleanup
and reconstruction work including waivers to
permit use for public facilities and services,
elimination of matching fund requirements for
the home program, easing of FHA and HUD
mortgage foreclosure practices, and assistance
through other FHA and HUD programs.]
The President. Thank you very much. That's
very encouraging. And I know all the Governors
listened closely to it. I'm going to wait to hear


from you, from the Governors, about exactly
how you would advise me to proceed on the
CDBG issue and the waivers. You can be in
touch directly with us or Secretary Cisneros.
But I thank him for that very comprehensive
discussion.
We need now to have a brief presentation
from Mr. Panetta about the legislation now
pending in the Congress. We are running about
30 minutes behind. We're actually only about
10 minutes behind because we started 20 minutes late because of the transportation. I think
that's remarkable. But I would like to ask Leon
just to run briefly through a summary of where
we are right now and what the sort of timetable
is for the movement through Congress as well.
[Director Panetta said he expected a House vote
on disaster assistance legislation by July 22 and
rapid Senate action as well. He then listed specific elements of the package.]
The President. Thank you very much.
Before we close out this section, and there
are a couple of other things that we need to
do, but I would like to thank and recognize
and give an opportunity to speak to Senator
Mikulski. She has come all the way from Maryland-this is not in her district or State-because of her profound and longstanding concern
about the operations of FEMA which fall within
the jurisdiction of her committee. I thank her
for coming, and I hope she will be graceful
enough, Governor Carlson, not to mention the
Orioles' victory over the Twins last night. It
was a very exciting game that I watched at the
end.
[Senator Mikulski said Congress would act
quickly on the legislation. She then praised
State, local, and volunteer disaster workers and
congratulated the President for leading a quick
and comprehensive Federal response. ]
The President. Thank you. I like that line.
I don't know about being "Commander in Chief
of disasters." I'm afraid I may live to hear that
again before long. [Laughter] But thank you
very much, Senator Mikulski. That was a wonderful statement, and thank you for your work.
We have to wrap up, but Governor Edgar
has asked for the floor.
[Governor Edgar expressed concern that the
$2.5 billion requested would not be enough.]
The President. I want to make two points


1102




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 17


here. First, as we get more information in over
this legislative process, we will ask that the bill
be amended, wherever it is, if it's in the House
or in the Senate. But in order to keep faith
with the Members from all the other States,
all of whom themselves might have disasters
someday-many of whom do-but who are also
charged along with me with, you know, maintaining the discipline of the budget, it's very
important that when we plug a number in we
have some research basis, some factual basis for
it. But we intend to modify this as the information comes in on the losses. If the bill passes
and there's still things that aren't dealt with
that should be dealt with under Federal law,
we will go forward with seeking more assistance.
I want to make that absolutely clear.
Let me make one final comment about the
substance here. Many of you have made the
same observation that Senator Mikulski did
about the importance of the ongoing effort, and
that's really where I began my remarks.
In other contexts I have asked a member of
the Cabinet to supervise. I asked Secretary
Cisneros, for example, almost the week after
we took office, to go down to Florida and supervise the long-term effort in the aftermath of
Hurricane Andrew so that they would know that
we were still in there. I asked Secretary Brown
to go to California and to try to supervise a
long-term effort to deal with the collapse of
the economy of that State rooted very largely
in the dramatic reductions in defense spending
without any kind of off-setting plan for defense
conversion.
And I think we ought to do that here. And
so, because so many of these States are farming
States and because so much of this is agricultural loss, I've asked Secretary Espy to coordinate the long-term Federal response in the
flooded area here, and he has agreed to do
that. So he will be working with all the suggestions made by the Governors today and by the
suggestion made by Secretary Brown for economic development plans and others as well as
with the FEMA Director, James Lee Witt, who
may well have another emergency to deal with


before we work our way out of the long-term
problems here, which is why I've asked Secretary Espy to do that.
Let me also thank all of our hosts from Missouri: Mr. Wheat, Mr. Talent, Senator Bond,
Majority Leader Gephardt, and Governor
Carnahan. And before we break from here, I
want to talk about the very important sessions
coming up. I want to ask Mr. McLarty to describe very briefly what happens now.
[Mr. McLarty gave instructions to the participants for the afternoon session. ]
The President. I want to give our hosts here,
Mr. Gephardt and Mr. Carnahan, a chance to
wrap up if they like, or Senator Bond. But before I do, let me say that Governor Finney
from Kansas could not be here today, but she
is ably represented by her Chief of Staff, who
also happens to be her daughter, and we're glad
to see you here. And I thank all the rest of
you from around the room for being here. I
hope the afternoon sessions are valuable. I think
this has been quite important.
Not long after I became President I met with
the Governors, and I asked the Governors on
a bipartisan basis to make sure that we kept
our administration rooted in the real problems
of real people. This is not exactly what I had
in mind, but it certainly does qualify. And I
thank you all for being here and for the contribution you've all made.
[Governor Carnahan, Representative Gephardt,
and Governor Bond expressed their appreciation
to the President.]
The President. Governor Branstad wants a last
word. He's earned it, since he's down to taking
a shower every other day.
[Governor Branstad presented the President
with a T-shirt.]
The President. Thank you.
NOTE: The President spoke at 10:22 a.m. at Fox
Senior High School. A portion of this item could
not be verified because the tape was incomplete.


1103




July 19 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


Teleconference Remarks to the National Association of County Officials
July 19, 1993


The President. Good morning. I'm honored
to address the National Association of County
Officials today and very, very grateful for the
strong support you've given to our economic
plan. It's good for the counties of this country;
it's good for America; it's good for the working
people of this country.
I very much appreciate that nice introduction
by your president and my long-time friend, John
Stroger. He's been a valuable part of our team
and a very effective advocate for county government. As Cook County Commissioner, he also
represents one of the legendary counties in
America. That was true even before my wife
was born there. [Laughter]
Let me say just a few words about the terrible
flooding throughout the Midwest. There's been
extraordinary damage done to crops and homes
and businesses, but not to the spirit of our people or to our commitment to join them as neighbors to help them to rebuild each of those communities.
As county leaders, you know more than most
about the hopes and problems of families. For
many, the efforts of local government represent
the best ideals of America. But for too many
years, since Washington has spent too much and
invested too little and refused to make the tough
decisions necessary to keep our economy
healthy, the only clear message local leaders got
from Washington was, "You're on your own.
And by the way, here are a few more burdens."
Washington gave you make-believe budgets and
mandates with no money. They drove up the
debt from $1 trillion to $4 trillion and still invested less in the things that make our communities stronger.
Well, you've been at the forefront of trying
to change this. You know that we must create
high-wage, high-skill jobs again so there will be
less crime, fewer transfer payments, and more
revenues to support businesses and institutions
that are the foundation of all stable communities.
I wish I could be with you in person today,
and I'm looking forward to doing so when you
have future meetings. But as you know, my first
obligation to you and to our Nation is to keep
fighting for change right here in Washington


and for an economic plan that creates jobs and
raises incomes, that invests in a stronger tomorrow and brings this terrible deficit down.
This economic plan is good for the country
and the economy and good for the forgotten
middle class. It contains the largest Federal reduction of the deficit in history, with over $250
billion of dramatic cuts in spending. It finally
begins paying down the deficit and shifting the
budget away from waste and toward sound investments in job creation and entrepreneurship,
in new technologies, and in the health and education of our people. There couldn't be a more
profound change from the old ways and the
failed policies of the past to a new direction
that will make our economy work again.
For starters, we make more than 200 specific
cuts that slash over $250 billion from this budget. For the first time, we secure the savings
from both tax increases and spending cuts in
a trust fund so they can't be touched. While
the old ways favor those at the very top income
brackets, our plan asks the most from those
who are most able to give. At least 70 percent
of the new taxes in this plan will fall on those
making over $200,000 a year, while millions of
families earning below $30,000 will actually get
a tax break. And those who work full-time and
have children at home will be lifted out of poverty. Over 90 percent of the small business who
are unincorporated will have the opportunity for
a reduction in their taxes through increasing
their expensing provisions. So working families
and the middle class, after 12 long years of
being ignored, win in our program.
The old ways ignored the business incentives
and the investments in technology and infrastructure that will allow our economy to create
growth in a tough global economy. And while
my plan does cut the deficit dramatically, it also
empowers families and businesses to build better lives and stronger communities.
This plan reforms the student loan program,
saving billions of dollars and making it easier
for millions of our young people to pay for college. It creates a program of national service
to allow young people to pay for college by
serving their Nation in communities like yours.
And for the majority who don't attend college,


1104




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 19


we've funded the boldest national apprenticeship
program ever. Educating and training young
people is the best investment we can make,
and it's time we committed ourselves to doing
that.
We empower communities to protect themselves by providing more funds for police officers. It empowers creditworthy small businesses
to a new network of community development
banks and creates empowerment zones to bring
to bear the full power of free enterprise on
our poorest large and small areas. And because
I believe new environmental technologies and
improved water systems and better roads and
incentives for the private sector will mean more
jobs and more growth, our plan creates a greater
commitment to each.
I'm excited about our future. I know this plan
will work. It's already beginning to work. In
the last 5 months, as we have moved to reduce
this deficit and to increase business incentives,
interest rates have hit record lows. That will
add billions to our economy as millions of Americans, including many in your audience, I bet,
refinance their homes or their business loans
or buy cars or borrow for college or consumer
loans at much lower rates. In the last 5 months,
the economy has been creating private sector
jobs at 7 times the rate of the last 4 years.
And inflation is flat.
Now, make no mistake about it, we still have
a lot to do. Economic growth is still way too
slow and too uneven. But putting our economic
house in order is beginning to bring prosperity
here at home and helping America to gain a
new competitive edge in the global economy,
as I learned at the Tokyo talks among the large
seven industrial powers last week.
Because the American people are having the
courage to change and because Congress is really moving to reduce the deficit and to invest
in jobs, my hand was greatly strengthened at
that meeting in Tokyo. Negotiations that had
gone extremely slowly for years suddenly opened
up, and we struck a new agreement to dramatically lower and in some cases to completely
eliminate tariffs on a variety of manufactured
products. That can mean hundreds of thousands
more jobs for American workers in manufacturing areas with high wages and more growth for
American companies, if we can now move to
get that agreement accepted by all the other
countries in a general agreement before the end
of the year. I'm very excited about the prospect.


Our commitment to a balanced plan of deficit
reduction and economic growth simply has
raised our stature among the community of nations. This, combined with a pledge to fundamentally reform health care, which will be
extremely significant for our counties in reducing our deficit and in helping our economy to
recover, gave us the right to demand that the
world's major trading countries take new steps
themselves to create jobs and growth and to
open their markets to our products.
After the meeting in Tokyo I am more confident than ever that we can make the world's
new economy work for us. But we can only
enjoy the opportunities created in Tokyo if we
follow through on our own responsibilities to
bring our deficit down, to invest in our people,
to be more competitive. There is still a lot of
work ahead of us. This economy has been in
the doldrums for years. We have been following
the wrong policies for more than a decade. We
have to have the patience and discipline and
conviction it takes, all of us, to do our fair share
to move this thing forward.
If you haven't said anything to your Member
of Congress to let them know how you feel,
now is the time. Without regard to party, I
ask for your help and your active involvement.
There are some who are standing on the sidelines who must be convinced to join with us.
This is bigger than party or politics. Bringing
down America's deficit, investing in America's
future, helping us to open new trade opportunities and new investment opportunities and new
job-creating opportunities at home and abroad,
these things should be beyond politics.
So please pick up the phone and lend your
voice to the call for change and jobs and growth
that is beginning to make life better in America.
Together we can build prosperity and hope
again. Let's capture the spirit of our mighty
Midwesterners, who for 2 weeks have refused
to relinquish their dreams in the face of this
terrible flooding and who have proven that nothing is impossible when we all pull together. In
a few weeks, let's give ourselves a vote we can
look back on with pride because together we
helped to create a new era of American greatness.
Thank you very much.
Asia-U.S. Trade
Q. Good morning, Mr. President.
The President. Good morning.


1105




July 19 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


Q. We're really glad that you could join us
today. I'm from Florida, and we recently opened
a trade office in Singapore, so I was particularly
interested in your remarks relating to opportunities to participate aggressively in the global
economy. What types of changes do you think
we should have in our international policy so
that we as a nation can expand our opportunities
in all the countries in the Pacific Rim?
The President. Let me, first of all, say to all
of you present that your county has done a
smart thing, and I think that other counties
should consider following suit. Forty percent of
American trade is now with the Pacific region.
It's the fastest-growing part of the economy in
the world. About 2.5 million American jobs now
depend upon trade with the Pacific. It's very,
very important.
I would say there are three things that we
should be doing at the national level. First, we
need to complete an agreement before the end
of the year on the General Agreement on Tariffs
and Trade, the new world trade agreement. The
meeting of the G-7 in Tokyo made that much
more possible by having the big countries agree
to reduce tariffs and to eliminate them entirely.
A good study here in this country says that
we could add $6 trillion to the world economy
by the next decade if we would simply conclude
this agreement. That will open a lot of new
jobs for Americans in manufacturing and in agriculture and in services.
The second thing we need to do is to build
stronger ties to these countries. I'm very proud
that in the fall of this year I will host a meeting
in Seattle, Washington, for the Organization of
Asian Pacific Economic Cooperation. All these
nations are coming here, and after the ministers
meet, the next day many heads of state will
meet with me.
The third thing we need to do is to redefine
our trading relationship with Japan. And as I'm
sure you know, at the very end of the G-7
meeting, the Prime Minister of Japan and I
agreed to and announced a framework for a
new trade relationship in which Japan pledged
for the first time to substantially reduce its trade
surplus with the United States and to have
measurable objective measures of progress in
several important areas of our trading relationship.
Now, even if we do all that, we still need
more local governmental units and especially
more American business men and women who


are willing to aggressively exploit opportunities
in the Pacific area. Americans have got to be
better traders and more interested in selling
their products and their services around the
world. Even small businesses have to do a better
job of that.
So we're going to do those big three things,
but we need more folks like you who are interested in taking advantage of the global economy.
Over half of our jobs in the last 5 years have
been related in some way to trade and a lot
of them to the Pacific. So that's what I think
we should do in the Pacific region.
Unfunded Federal Mandates
Q. [Inaudible]-Texas, one of the poorest
counties in the Nation. I also am a member
of NACO board of directors and serve as-[inaudible]. We need your help, Mr. President.
Every year Congress passes new laws that require us to provide new services or to meet
new standards. But rarely does Congress appropriate the dollars to meet this mandate. We
have to raise our county local taxes to meet
these costs and these new mandates. What can
your administration do to help us?
The President. Well, first of all, you've asked
a great question. As a Governor for 12 years
in one of the poorer States in America, I understood the burden of unfunded mandates very
well. And I'm familiar with your county in
Texas, and I hear your message loud and clear.
The first thing we can do is to do no harm.
The first thing we can do is to be the first
administration in a long time not to load any
more unfunded mandates on you. And that is
a commitment I will do my best to keep. The
second thing we can do is to review the present
pattern of Federal regulation and requirements
as it affects local government. Vice President
Gore, at my request, is heading a commission
on reinventing the role of the Federal Government and we are examining everything we do
from top to bottom to see how we can better
serve the American people, either with greater
efficiency or with lower costs or both.
And if there are some things that NACO specifically feels ought to be changed in terms of
giving the counties greater flexibility in the way
certain rules and regulations are applied, I want
to invite you as an organization to make those
recommendations known to the Vice President.
I know you've been consulted on this. But those
are the two things I think you can do and I


1106




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 19


hope that we can do, and we're going to do
our best to do them.
Health Care Reform
Q. Mr. President, counties spend over $30
billion a year on health care. We own and operate more than 4,500 health facilities. We, in
essence, take care of the uninsured in this country. What role do you see for county officials
in your proposed health reform plan?
The President. I think the counties that are
providing health care services may well continue
to do so and will do so much more happily
than they do now if our health reform plan
passes, for a couple of reasons. First of all, we
are looking for ways now, and I think we've
found some, to provide basic health insurance
to the uninsured, unemployed. If we do that,
then as you provide those health services to
those folks, you'll get a more reliable stream
of income. And the only monies that will have
to be matched at the State and local level are
those that are now matched under the Medicaid
program.
Secondly, the proposal that we will make will
cut out a lot of the redtape, a lot of the regulation coming from the Government, coming from
the way the insurance markets are now organized. And local public health units will be able
to do much more with the money that they've
got to serve people in ways that are more flexible and more creative.
So I would think that you will like this very
much. People will be able to do this. If any
of the counties want to get out of the business
because there won't be anybody without basic
insurance and think they can be handled in
some other way, the counties will also have that
option. But the counties that want to stay in
the business will be able to do it with a much
more reliable funding stream, in more innovative
and comprehensive ways.
Welfare Reform
Q. Now Mr. President, when you've discussed
the Nation's welfare system, you have pledged
to end welfare as we know it. And as you know,
many county governments contribute to AFDC
programs, and many also administer their own
general assistance programs. We have supported
the welfare reform for years and actively supported the creation of the 1988 Family Support
Act. My question is, Mr. President, what guiding
principles will your working group operate under


to ensure the end to welfare as we know it,
that reform will in fact achieve the desired results?
The President. Thank you very much, Mr.
Williams, and thank you, too, for the special
leadership role that San Diego County has
played for years in the whole area of welfare
reform. As you know, San Diego is repeatedly
cited in every study as one of the places that's
proved that we can move people from welfare
to work. So you have a lot of credentials to
ask that question. And I also appreciate the support you gave to the Family Support Act of
1988, which I as a Governor had a big hand
in trying to fashion.
Let me tell you what the principles that animate us are and what we're doing about them.
Number one, we need to make work pay. We
need to make work pay. That means that as
a starting point we should adopt the provision
in the economic plan I presented to Congress
which will use the earned-income tax credit to
lift the working poor out of poverty if they have
children in the home. Eighteen percent of
America's workers today are working and still
living below the Federal poverty line. An enormous number of working parents go home at
night to children, having worked a full day and
a full week, and still live below the poverty
line. I believe we should change the tax system
so that anybody who works 40 hours a week
and has children in the home is lifted out of
poverty. That rewards work and not welfare.
It removes a dramatic incentive to stay on welfare and gives people an incentive to go to work
and stay there.
Second, we need to have tougher child support enforcement. We are losing billions of dollars a year because people who can afford to
pay something for their children do not do it.
And we need to have a much stronger system.
We have proposed that, and some of that program is now working its way through Congress.
Third, we need to fully implement the education and training aspects of the Family Support Act of 1988. As you know, that act has
never been adequately funded in its education
and training provisions so that we empower people to move off welfare.
Fourth, we need to pass a health care reform
bill so that people are not without health insurance when they lose their jobs, or if they take
jobs where the employer presently doesn't provide health insurance. The welfare check itself


1107




July 19 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


is no longer an incentive to stay on welfare.
The real value of a welfare check in almost
every place in America is far lower than it was
20 years ago. What keeps people on welfare
is the cost of health care and child care for
their kids and the inability to get a good job
because of a lack of education and training. So
we've got to have health care reform.
Finally, having put all that in place, I think
we should move to a system in which if there's
no incentive not to work, if people get education
and training, if the children are covered with
health insurance, if you have tough child support
enforcement system, you shouldn't be able to
stay on welfare without working for more than
a couple of years. After that, you should have
to work and earn income just like everybody
else. And if you put the building blocks in, you
can have a 2-year limit on welfare as we know
it. You would end the system as it now exists.
It would be temporary for everybody who is
able-bodied.
Improved FEMA Performance
Q. First, on behalf of Iowans everywhere, I'd
like to thank you for your efforts and your encouragement during the devastating floods that
are occurring across Iowa and other midwestern
States. The outpouring of help and support from
our county colleagues and people throughout
the U.S. is deeply appreciated, and we really
do thank you.
My question relates to one of prevention. In
the past, NACO has called for increased professionalism at FEMA, making it comparable to
other Federal public safety agencies such as the
FAA and the Centers for Disease Control. Your
new Director, Lee Witt, has acted quickly in
this crisis. But I'm wondering if you are going
to propose any statutory changes that would
allow FEMA to become more proactive and to
increase that level of service.
The President. First, let me thank you for
what you said about the work done by Mr. Witt
and FEMA. And let me also say again how
very sorry I am about what's happened and
pledge our best efforts to stay in touch and
keep working with you in the aftermath. As you
know, Iowa's got a big clean-up job to do now.
We still don't have-we don't have water back
in Des Moines; we've got a lot of continuing
problems.
With regard to the specific question you
asked, we're going to review FEMA's operations


to see what needs to be done to strengthen
them. From the point of view of the Governors
and the people at the local level, one of the
biggest criticisms has been that FEMA has to
go through this long approval process with the
Governor asking for emergency aid. And we're
looking at what can be done to maybe preposition people and move this whole process
faster.
With   regard  to  the  question  of the
professionalization of the Agency, Senator Mikulski has a bill now in the Senate that she's
been working on. We are discussing it with her,
we are working with her, and I want to evaluate
it as we go along, as I'm sure you do.
This is very important to me. I live in a State,
or I did before I became President, lived in
a State that had the highest tornado occurrences
per capita in America, that regularly had floods
and ice storms and drought. I've been through
a lot of experience with FEMA. And I think
the American people are entitled to an emergency management agency that is as good and
quick and competent and professional as possible.
Let me just mention one other issue that we
have to really think through, and that is that
FEMA is essentially set up to act quickly with
problems that are immediate. But these disasters
often leave a long rebuilding period in their
wake. You can't just turn these things around
overnight. Now, one of the things that we've
tried to do is to set up a set of de facto solutions
to this. For example, when I became President,
I asked Henry Cisneros, the HUD Secretary,
to take over coordinating the long-term response
to Hurricane Andrew in Florida. I have asked
Secretary Espy, the Agriculture Secretary now,
to take over the long-term management of our
commitment in the Midwest in the aftermath
of the flood. But that also needs to be thought
through because a lot of these problems we're
going to be dealing with in the fall and the
winter and next year as well. Senator Mikulski
came to St. Louis with me last Saturday when
we met with the Governors and other emergency personnel from all the States affected by
the flood. And we're going to be talking about
what else we need to do legally.
Thank you.
John Stroger. Thank you, Mr. President. And
frankly, as a fellow Arkansan, I can't think of
a better time to be president of the National
Association of Counties and have this oppor

1108




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 19


tunity to work with you. And I know that you're
very sensitive, concerned. You're imbued with
a sense of fairness for all Americans. And working with us here at NACO and with other
groups of Americans like us, you're going to
help us make America really, really great. So
we stand here with you ready to face the challenges together and build on America's already
greatness. Thank you very much, and God bless


you. And I hope he continues to allow you to
be strong to carry forth your charge.
The President. Thank you, John. God bless
you. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.
NOTE: The President spoke at 11:34 a.m. via satellite from Room 459 of the Old Executive Office
Building. A tape was not available for verification
of the content of these remarks.


Remarks Announcing the New Policy on Homosexuals in the Military
July 19. 1993


Thank you very much. Secretary Aspin, General Powell, members of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Kime, to our host, Admiral Smith, ladies
and gentlemen, I have come here today to discuss a difficult challenge and one which has
received an enormous amount of publicity and
public and private debate over the last several
months: our Nation's policy toward homosexuals
in the military.
I believe the policy I am announcing today
represents a real step forward, but I know it
will raise concerns in some of your minds. So
I wanted you to hear my thinking and my decision directly and in person because I respect
you, and because you are among the elite who
will lead our Armed Forces into the next century, and because you will have to put this policy
into effect and I expect your help in doing it.
The policy I am announcing today is, in my
judgment, the right thing to do and the best
way to do it. It is right because it provides
greater protection to those who happen to be
homosexual and want to serve their country honorably in uniform, obeying all the military's rules
against sexual misconduct. It is the best way
to proceed because it provides a sensible balance between the rights of the individual and
the needs of our military to remain the world's
number one fighting force. As President of all
the American people, I am pledged to protect
and to promote individual rights. As Commander in Chief, I am pledged to protect and
advance our security. In this policy, I believe
we have come close to meeting both objectives.
Let me start with this clear fact: Our military
is one of our greatest accomplishments and our
most valuable assets. It is the world's most effec

tive and powerful fighting force, bar none. I
have seen proof of this fact almost every day
since I became President. I saw it last week
when I visited Camp Casey, along the DMZ
in Korea. I witnessed it at our military academies at Annapolis and West Point when I visited there. And I certainly relied on it 3 weeks
ago when I ordered an attack on Iraq after
that country's leadership attempted to assassinate President Bush.
We owe a great deal to the men and women
who protect us through their service, their sacrifice, and their dedication. And we owe it to
our own security to listen hard to them and
act carefully as we consider any changes in the
military. A force ready to fight must maintain
the highest priority under all circumstances.
Let me review the events which bring us here
today. Before I ran for President, this issue was
already upon us. Some of the members of the
military returning from the Gulf war announced
their homosexuality in order to protest the ban.
The military's policy has been questioned in college ROTC programs. Legal challenges have
been filed in court, including one that has since
succeeded. In 1991, the Secretary of Defense,
Dick Cheney, was asked about reports that the
Defense Department spent an alleged $500 million to separate and replace about 17,000 homosexuals from the military service during the
1980's, in spite of the findings of a Government
report saying there was no reason to believe
that they could not serve effectively and with
distinction. Shortly thereafter, while giving a
speech at the Kennedy School of Government
at Harvard, I was asked by one of the students
what I thought of this report and what I thought


1109




July 19 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


of lifting the ban. This question had never before been presented to me, and I had never
had the opportunity to discuss it with anyone.
I stated then what I still believe, that I thought
there ought to be a presumption that people
who wish to do so should be able to serve their
country if they are willing to conform to the
high standards of the military and that the emphasis should be always on people's conduct,
not their status.
For me, and this is very important, this issue
has never been one of group rights but rather
of individual ones, of the individual opportunity
to serve and the individual responsibility to conform to the highest standards of military conduct. For people who are willing to play by
the rules, able to serve and make a contribution,
I believed then and I believe now we should
give them the chance to do so.
The central facts of this issue are not much
in dispute. First, notwithstanding the ban, there
have been and are homosexuals in the military
service who serve with distinction. I have had
the privilege of meeting some of these men
and women, and I have been deeply impressed
by their devotion to duty and to country.
Second, there is no study showing them to
be less capable or more prone to misconduct
than heterosexual soldiers. Indeed, all the information we have indicates that they are not less
capable or more prone to misbehavior.
Third, misconduct is already covered by the
laws and rules which also cover activities that
are improper by heterosexual members of the
military.
Fourth, the ban has been lifted in other nations and in police and fire departments in our
country with no discernible negative impact on
unit cohesion or capacity to do the job, though
there is admittedly no absolute analogy to the
situation we face and no study bearing on this
specific issue.
Fifth, even if the ban were lifted entirely,
the experience of other nations and police and
fire departments in the United States indicates
that most homosexuals would probably not declare their sexual orientation openly, thereby
making an already hard life even more difficult
in some circumstances.
But as the sociologist Charles Moskos noted
after spending many years studying the American military, the issue may be tougher to resolve here in the United States than in Canada,
Australia, and in some other nations because


of the presence in our country of both vocal
gay rights groups and equally vocal antigay rights
groups, including some religious groups who believe that lifting the ban amounts to endorsing
a lifestyle they strongly disapprove of.
Clearly the American people are deeply divided on this issue, with most military people
opposed to lifting the ban because of the feared
impact on unit cohesion, rooted in disapproval
of homosexual lifestyles and the fear of invasion
of privacy of heterosexual soldiers who must live
and work in close quarters with homosexual
military people. However, those who have studied this issue extensively have discovered an interesting fact. People in this country who are
aware of having known homosexuals are far
more likely to support lifting the ban. In other
words, they are likely to see this issue in terms
of individual conduct and individual capacity instead of the claims of a group with which they
do not agree and also to be able to imagine
how this ban could be lifted without a destructive impact on group cohesion and morale.
Shortly after I took office and reaffirmed my
position, the foes of lifting the ban in the Congress moved to enshrine the ban in law. I asked
that congressional action be delayed for 6
months while the Secretary of Defense worked
with the Joint Chiefs to come up with a proposal
for changing our current policy. I then met with
the Joint Chiefs to hear their concerns and
asked them to try to work through the issue
with Secretary Aspin. I wanted to handle the
matter in this way on grounds of both principle
and practicality.
As a matter of principle, it is my duty as
Commander in Chief to uphold the high standards of combat readiness and unit cohesion of
the world's finest fighting force, while doing my
duty as President to protect the rights of individual Americans and to put to use the abilities
of all the American people. And I was determined to serve this principle as fully as possible
through practical action, knowing this fact about
our system of government: While the Commander in Chief and the Secretary of Defense
can change military personnel policies, Congress
can reverse those changes by law in ways that
are difficult, if not impossible, to veto.
For months now, the Secretary of Defense
and the Service Chiefs have worked through
this issue in a highly charged, deeply emotional
environment, struggling to come to terms with
the competing consideration and pressures and,


1110




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 19


frankly, to work through their own ideas and
deep feelings.
During this time many dedicated Americans
have come forward to state their own views on
this issue. Most, but not all, of the military testimony has been against lifting the ban. But support for changing the policy has come from distinguished combat veterans, including Senators
Bob Kerrey, Chuck Robb, and John Kerry in
the United States Congress. It has come from
Lawrence Korb, who enforced the gay ban during the Reagan administration, and from former
Senator Barry Goldwater, a distinguished veteran, former chairman of the Senate Armed
Services Committee, founder of the Arizona National Guard, and patron saint of the conservative wing of the Republican Party.
Senator Goldwater's statement, published in
the Washington Post recently, made it crystal
clear that when this matter is viewed as an issue
of individual opportunity and responsibility rather than one of alleged group rights, this is not
a call for cultural license but rather a reaffirmation of the American value of extending opportunity to responsible individuals and of limiting
the role of Government over citizens' private
lives.
On the other hand, those who oppose lifting
the ban are clearly focused not on the conduct
of individual gay service members but on how
nongay service members feel about gays in general and in particular those in the military service.
These past few days I have been in contact
with the Secretary of Defense as he has worked
through the final stages of this policy with the
Joint Chiefs. We now have a policy that is a
substantial advance over the one in place when
I took office. I have ordered Secretary Aspin
to issue a directive consisting of these essential
elements: One, service men and women will be
judged based on their conduct, not their sexual
orientation. Two, therefore the practice, now 6
months old, of not asking about sexual orientation in the enlistment procedure will continue.
Three, an open statement by a service member
that he or she is a homosexual will create a
rebuttable presumption that he or she intends
to engage in prohibited conduct, but the service
member will be given an opportunity to refute
that presumption; in other words, to demonstrate that he or she intends to live by the
rules of conduct that apply in the military service. And four, all provisions of the Uniform


Code of Military Justice will be enforced in an
even-handed   manner    as  regards   both
heterosexuals and homosexuals. And thanks to
the policy provisions agreed to by the Joint
Chiefs, there will be a decent regard to the
legitimate privacy and associational rights of all
service members.
Just as is the case under current policy, unacceptable conduct, either heterosexual or homosexual, will be unacceptable 24 hours a day,
7 days a week from the time a recruit joins
the service until the day he or she is discharged.
Now, as in the past, every member of our military will be required to comply with the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which is Federal
law, and military regulations at all times and
in all places.
Let me say a few words now about this policy.
It is not a perfect solution. It is not identical
with some of my own goals. And it certainly
will not please everyone, perhaps not anyone,
and clearly not those who hold the most adamant opinions on either side of this issue.
But those who wish to ignore the issue must
understand that it is already tearing at the cohesion of the military and it is today being considered by the Federal courts in ways that may
not be to the liking of those who oppose any
change. And those who want the ban to be
lifted completely on both status and conduct
must understand that such action would have
faced certain and decisive reversal by the Congress and the cause for which many have fought
for years would be delayed, probably for years.
Thus, on grounds of both principle and practicality, this is a major step forward. It is, in
my judgment, consistent with my responsibilities
as President and Commander in Chief to meet
the need to change current policy. It is an honorable compromise that advances the cause of
people who are called to serve our country by
their patriotism, the cause of our national security, and our national interest in resolving an
issue that has divided our military and our Nation and diverted our attention from other matters for too long.
The time has come for us to move forward.
As your Commander in Chief, I charge all of
you to carry out this policy with fairness, with
balance, and with due regard for the privacy
of individuals. We must and will protect unit
cohesion and troop morale. We must and will
continue to have the best fighting force in the
world. But this is an end to witch hunts that


1111




July 19 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


spend millions of taxpayer dollars to ferret out
individuals who have served their country well.
Improper conduct, on or off base, should remain
grounds for discharge. But we will proceed with
an even hand against everyone, regardless of
sexual orientation.
Such controversies as this have divided us before. But our Nation and our military have always risen to the challenge before. That was
true of racial integration of the military and
changes in the role of women in the military.
Each of these was an issue, because it was an
issue for society as well as for the military. And
in each case our military was a leader in figuring
out how to respond most effectively.
In the early 1970's, when President Nixon
decided to transform our military into an allvolunteer force, many argued that it could not
work. They said it would ruin our forces. But
the leaders of our military not only made it
work, they used the concept of an all-volunteer
force to build the very finest fighting force our
Nation and the world have ever known.
Ultimately, the success of this policy will depend in large measure on the commitment it
receives from the leaders of the military services. I very much respect and commend the
Joint Chiefs for the good-faith effort they have
made through this whole endeavor. And I thank
General Powell, the Joint Chiefs, and the Commandant of the Coast Guard for joining me
here today and for their support of this policy.
I would also like to thank those who lobbied
aggressively in behalf of changing the policy,
including Congressman Barney Frank; Congressman Gerry Studds; and the Campaign for Military Service, who worked with us and who clearly will not agree with every aspect of the policy
announced today, but who should take some
solace in knowing that their efforts have helped


to produce a strong advance for the cause they
seek to serve.
I must now look to General Powell, to the
Joint Chiefs, to all the other leaders in our military to carry out this policy through effective
training and leadership. Every officer will be
expected to exert the necessary effort to make
this policy work. That has been the key every
time the military has successfully addressed a
new challenge, and it will be key in this effort,
too.
Our military is a conservative institution, and
I say that in the very best sense, for its purpose
is to conserve the fighting spirit of our troops,
to conserve the resources and the capacity of
our troops, to conserve the military lessons acquired during our Nation's existence, to conserve our very security, and yes, to conserve
the liberties of the American people. Because
it is a conservative institution, it is right for
the military to be wary of sudden changes. Because it is an institution that embodies the best
of America and must reflect the society in which
it operates, it is also right for the military to
make changes when the time for change is at
hand.
I strongly believe that our military, like our
society, needs the talents of every person who
wants to make a contribution and who is ready
to live by the rules. That is the heart of the
policy that I have announced today. I hope in
your heart you will find the will and the desire
to support it and to lead our military in incorporating it into our Nation's great asset and the
world's best fighting force.
Thank you very much.
NOTE: The President spoke at 2:36 p.m. at the
National Defense University at Fort McNair.


Remarks on the Dismissal of FBI Director William Sessions and an
Exchange With Reporters
July 19, 1993
The President. Good afternoon. In recent   fessional Responsibility has issued a report on
months, serious questions have been raised   certain conduct by the Director. I asked the
about the conduct and the leadership of the  Attorney General, Janet Reno, to assess the DiDirector of the FBI William Sessions. Among  rector's tenure and the proper response to the
other matters, the Department's Office of Pro-  turmoil now in the Bureau. After a thorough


1112




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 19


review by the Attorney General of Mr. Sessions'
leadership of the FBI, she has reported to me
in no uncertain terms that he can no longer
effectively lead the Bureau and law enforcement
community.
I had hoped very much that this matter could
be resolved within the Justice Department. The
Attorney General met with Judge Sessions over
the weekend and asked him to resign, but he
refused. In accord with the recommendation of
the Attorney General, with which I fully agree,
I called Director Sessions a few moments ago
and informed him that I was dismissing him,
effective immediately, as the Director of the
FBI.
We cannot have a leadership vacuum at an
agency as important to the United States as the
FBI. It is time that this difficult chapter in
the Agency's history is brought to a close. The
FBI is the Nation's premier investigative and
enforcement agency. Law-abiding citizens rely
on the FBI to handle a wide array of complex
and sensitive matters, to protect our shores
against terrorism, our neighborhoods against the
scourge of drugs and guns, our public life
against white-collar crime, corruption, and
crimes of violence. The Agency's brilliant detective work in the wake of the World Trade Center bombing has shown even in a time of difficulty the men and women on the street and
in the labs have continued to give their country
their best. With a change in management in
the FBI, we can now give the crimefighters
the leadership they deserve.
Tomorrow I expect to make an announcement
about my nominee to be the next Director of
the FBI. In the meanwhile, the Attorney General and I have asked Floyd Clark to serve as
Acting Director of the Bureau.
Q. Mr. President, are you-what did he do
wrong? And are you confident that there was
not an internal vendetta against Judge Sessions
because he wanted to broaden the look of the
FBI, take in more Hispanics, blacks, and
women?
The President. Well, let me answer the second
question first. I think that will be remembered
as the best thing about his tenure. And he deserves the support and thanks of the American
people for trying to broaden the membership
of the FBI to make it look more like America
and to follow the lead of some other agencies
and the United States military.
Now, but beyond that, if you read the report


of the Office of Professional Responsibility and
you do what the Attorney General did, if you
look at that and all of the other circumstances
and you assess the capacity of the present Director to lead or the incapacity of the Director
to lead, she reached the judgment, which she
communicated to me, that he ought to resign.
And I fully agreed with that judgment. There
are lots of reasons for it.
Q. Mr. President, do you think that this will
in any way create the impression that the FBI
is being politicized and hurt the longstanding
tradition that the FBI not be subject to political
pressure?
The President. Absolutely not. As a matter
of fact, that's one of the reasons we have taken
the amount of time that we have. The Attorney
General, when she took office, was asked by
me to review this matter. Both of us agreed
that in the normal course of events, the Director
of the FBI should not be changed just because
administrations changed, even when, perhaps
even especially when, there's a change of political party in the White House. So the Attorney
General was very deliberate, very thorough in
this, and I think has gone out of her way to
avoid the appearance of political impropriety.
Homosexuals in the Military
Q. Mr. President, won't your new policy on
homosexuals in the military require gays in the
military to stay in the closet? And do you hope
that the courts will take this policy further?
The President. No, it will not necessarily require them to stay in the closet. The policy
as written gives people a limited right, obviously,
to express their sexual orientation. But if they
do so, they are at risk of having to demonstrate
in some credible way that they are observing
the rules of conduct applied in the military service. That is much more than they had before.
Over and above that, the investigative rules,
which are part of the policy, go far beyond
anything that was written in law before in terms
of respecting the privacy and associational rights
of homosexuals in the military service and others, and nonhomosexuals, heterosexuals, in the
military.
9. Mr. President, you said in your speech
that you thought you had done what was right.
You had earlier said that what was right was
lifting the ban. How did you reach the decision
not to stick with your guns, go ahead, lift the
ban, take the heat? This is going to be decided


1113




July 19 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


in the courts anyway. Why not stand by your
principles?
The President. First of all, I think I did stand
by my principles. Under this policy, a person
can say, "I am a homosexual, but I am going
to strictly adhere to the Code of Conduct." If
you go back through every statement I have
made, I never said that I would be in favor
of changing any of the rules of conduct. I said
I did not agree with the whole policy. The only
part of this policy with which I do not agree
is that the rebuttable presumption, in effect,
puts the burden on the service member to demonstrate credibly that he or she understands the
rules of conduct and is going to adhere to them.
That is the only part of it with which I do
not agree.
On the investigative rules governing conduct,
there is more protection for privacy rights and
for associational rights than I ever discussed in
the campaign, than I have ever discussed as
President. And it is a significant change, significant in the policy operations of the United
States military. So from the point of view of
homosexuals who wish to serve honorably, I
think it was a substantial advance. That's one
answer.
The second point is, I think it is very important for the President, whenever possible, to
work with the military services who will have
to carry out the policy in a way that maintains
the kind of cooperation manifested today. I
think all of you who know anything about this
issue know that the Joint Chiefs moved a very
long way from where they were today, compared
to where they were when I first met with them
after I became President.
The third issue-there's one last issue-the
third issue is that had I done that, that position
would have faced certain swift and immediate
defeat in the United States Congress because
of the opposition of the Joint Chiefs, which they
are by law required to give if asked in congressional testimony.
Q. Do you have a sense now that Senator
Nunn will not bring about that result by virtue
of what he tries to enact? Have you talked to
him?
The President. Well, I hope he doesn't. We
have been in regular contact with him. Since
I basically was not involved in the negotiations
of the policy until just a couple of days ago,
the Secretary of Defense, at my instruction, was
in regular and almost constant contact with Sen

ator Nunn and with some others. And I hope
very much that he won't.
There were some changes, a few minor
changes and one that was important to me,
made in the last few days at my suggestion.
But the Joint Chiefs signed off on them. It
seems to me that their judgment, given the fact
that they were all opposed to the changes which
we are now making-they've worked through
these things; they've looked at the legal, at the
practical, at the factual situations that we faceit seems to me that their judgment ought to
count for a great deal and that we should not
get in the business of legislating every personnel
policy. I would hope that Senator Nunn would
support this policy.
One more.
Q. Mr. President, how does what people do
in private, whether they're gay or straight, have
any bearing on their fitness to serve in the military?
The President. Well, you know that I don't
believe it does, but today-now, wait a minute,
go back and read the policy. Read the policy.
Today the Joint Chiefs took the position that
any violation of the Code of Conduct must be
applied in an even-handed way as it reflects
heterosexuals and homosexuals. And you have
to go back and read the whole Military Code
to understand the significance of that, but it
is quite a significant statement by them.
Thank you very much.
FBI Director
Q. One for the Attorney General?
Q. Attorney General Reno, there have been
sort of two tracks in terms of the allegations
against the FBI Director: one, the ethical problems that were in the original report that was
carried over from the Bush administration. The
other is that in the months since, he has lost
the confidence of his Agency and, therefore,
the ability to do his job effectively. For which
of those two things is he being dismissed?
[At this point, Attorney General Reno read the
letter she sent to the President recommending
the dismissal of Mr. Sessions.]
9. Mr. PresidentQ. Does that mean it was both?
Q. Mr. PresidentQ. Let me follow up for just a second, Sarah
[Sarah McClendon, McClendon News Service].
Did you find that he did violate any laws or


1114




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 20


Government regulations as charged in the original report? And where did that fall in terms
of the confidence that members
Attorney General Reno. I concluded that,
based on the report and the responses to the
report, that the Director had exhibited a serious
deficiency in judgment regarding matters in the
report.
Q. Mr. President, we have seen here an Agency maneuvering the White House, the press,
the public, and getting their own head of the
Agency that they want. We have seen them push
out a man here, and let me tell you-don't
you think it's about time to protect American


people from any actions, operations of the FBI,
that we should write a charter for them in Congress? They only exist by an Executive order
which Teddy Roosevelt wrote in 1908.
The President. Well, I don't agree with the
characterization you made of what has occurred.
So I can't comment on it. I flat disagree.
Q. Would you look into that, because you
obviously have not looked into that?
The President. No, I just disagree.
NOTE: The President spoke at 4:15 p.m. in the
Briefing Room at the White House.


Exchange With Reporters Prior to a Meeting With Congressional Leaders
July 19, 1993


Q. Mr. President, have you given up on a
utility tax, and how much of an increase would
you take on a gas tax? And besides thatThe President. Well, I'm just sitting here
meeting with the chairmen, and I'm going to
also, you know, keep working through this with
the conferees. And we're going to see what we
can do. But we're just beginning our conversa

tions, so I can't answer those questions.
Q. Sir, what qualifications will the new FBI
Director have?
The President. Good ones.
NOTE: The exchange began at 5:06 p.m. in the
Oval Office at the White House. A tape was not
available for verification of the content of this exchange.


Nomination for General Counsel of the Environmental Protection Agency
July 19, 1993


The President announced today that he intends to nominate Jean Nelson to be General
Counsel of the Environmental Protection Agency.
"Through her service as a law enforcement
official and environmental activist, Jean Nelson
has been consistently recognized for her


achievements," said the President. "I am confident that her service at the EPA will be
marked by the same level of excellence as her
previous work."
NOTE: A biography of the nominee was made
available by the Office of the Press Secretary.


Remarks Announcing the Nomination of Louis Freeh To Be FBI Director
July 20, 1993
Good morning. Please sit down. Mr. Vice FBI Director, Floyd Clark; former Director of
President; Attorney General Reno; the Acting the FBI, Judge William Webster, we're de

1115




July 20 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


lighted to have you here. Senator D'Amato;
Judge Robert Bonner, the DEA Administrator;
the representatives of all the law enforcement
agencies who are here and the friends and family of the nominee to be the next Director of
the FBI.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation is the
Federal Government's cutting edge in the fight
against crime. Its agents are the best trained
in the world. Its sophisticated technology enables law enforcement agents to catch criminals
with a fragment of a fingerprint. As we saw
only recently in the remarkably swift arrest in
the World Trade Center bombing, the Agency
continues its preeminent place in the law enforcement world. The Agency itself must clearly
adapt to new times. It must continue the
progress of opening its ranks to minorities and
to women that began in recent years. It must
work cooperatively with other agencies in the
United States and in international partnerships
against crime with police forces of other nations.
Yesterday I announced my intention to appoint a new Director of the FBI. Today I am
pleased to nominate a law enforcement legend
to be the Director of the FBI, Judge Louis
Freeh. Judge Freeh knows the FBI. He is a
highly decorated former agent and supervisor.
He has investigated and prosecuted some of the
most notorious and complex crimes of our time.
He is experienced, energetic, and independent.
He will be both good and tough, good for the
FBI and tough on criminals.
It can truly be said that Louis Freeh is the
best possible person to head the FBI as it faces
new challenges and a new century. He has spent
his career in the Federal justice system. After
working his way through law school, he became
an FBI agent. He knows the Agency as only
an agent can, working the dangerous streets.
He helped lead the waterfront investigations that
led to the criminal convictions of 125 people,
including leading organized crime figures.
From the FBI, Judge Freeh became a Federal prosecutor in New York City. He prosecuted and won convictions against the leaders
of what was then the largest heroin importation
case in our history, the legendary "Pizza Connection" case. The trial lasted over a year.
Among other defendants, Judge Freeh sent the
head of the Sicilian mafia to jail. Observers were
dazzled. He was called, and I quote, "one of
the Government's toughest investigators, a ram

rod-straight and ferocious crusader against the
mob, an investigative genius."
Three years ago, as Judge Freeh neared the
end of his work as a prosecutor, the Department
of Justice selected him to head a special task
force in one of the most notorious and difficult
criminal cases of our day. A mysterious bomber
was at work in the South, mailing parcels that
killed Federal Judge Robert Vance near Birmingham, Alabama, and civil rights leader
Robbie Robinson in Savannah, Georgia. Many
predicted that the case would never be solved.
But led by Louis Freeh, the task force tracked
down the bomber, and Freeh himself prosecuted the case and obtained convictions. The
bomber is now serving seven life terms in prison. In recognition of his service to the law,
President Bush appointed Louis Freeh to the
Federal bench. Now Judge Freeh has agreed
to leave that lifetime post to serve his Nation
once again in a difficult new job. There are
few jobs in our Government that are more important.
Our Federal law enforcement agencies face
an ever-changing array of threats. Drugs continue to ravage our young people and our
streets. Law-abiding citizens can be caught in
the crossfire between gangs, today equipped like
armies. White-collar swindlers practice inventive
forms of what Al Capone once called "the legitimate rackets." And our Nation, so long immune
from the terrorism that has plagued the world,
now faces that threat, too.
With Attorney General Janet Reno, Drug Policy Coordinator Lee Brown, and now, we hope,
FBI Director Louis Freeh, our administration
has a street-smart front line against crime. These
law enforcers did not learn about crime in theory books, they learned about it on the streets
and in the courtroom. And they have learned
the best lessons of State and local enforcers.
With all of their hard-won experience, this
crimefighting team can work hard every day to
protect the American people's right to safety
in their homes and in their communities.
I must tell you that I am very proud and
very grateful that Judge Freeh was willing to
leave his lifetime appointment on the Federal
bench for the somewhat less secure work that
the rest of us find in the executive branch.
[Laughter] I hope the American people will be


1116




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 20


grateful as well, and I look forward to his speedy NOTE: The President spoke at 9:27 a.m. in the
confirmation.                              Rose Garden at the White House.
Exchange With Reporters Prior to a Meeting With Congressional Leaders
July 20, 1993


Representative Dan Rostenkowski
Q. Mr. President, do you think that Chairman
Rostenkowski's legal problems will have any effect on the budget process?
The President. No. We've got a lot of work
to do. Chairman Rostenkowski's done a great
job with this budget so far, and we've worked
very closely together. And we're going to work
today. I don't know anything about the rest of
it. I just know that we're going to work. That's
what we all got hired to do, and we're going
to do our job.
Energy Tax
Q. Are you ready to give up on an energy


tax?
The President. No.
Q. Does an energy tax have to be part of
the program? There's a lot of move on Capitol
Hill against it.
The President. I know it. But if you look at
all the numbers, it's hard to get there without
it. So, I think we ought toNOTE: The exchange began at 12:41 p.m. in the
Old Family Dining Room at the White House.
A tape was not available for verification of the
content of this exchange.


Remarks to Democratic Members of the House of Representatives
July 20, 1993


Thank you very much, Mr. Vice President,
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Leader. Ladies and gentlemen, as all of you know I have just spent several
days away from Washington, stopping along the
way to look at the floods in Iowa and going
through California to meet with the National
Education Association and then on to Japan
where I met with the leaders of the seven large
industrial nations of the world, which included
an agreement to reduce tariffs by historic rates,
agreed to continue our common efforts to promote democracy and economic progress in Russia, and reached an agreement with Japan that,
for the first time, convinced the Japanese explicitly to reduce dramatically their trade surplus
with us and to work with us with specific numerical objective criteria to deal with that problem. Then I went to Korea to see our young
men and women in uniform there defending
freedom at a distant outpost. I got within about
10 yards of the dividing line between North
and South Korea, the Bridge of No Return,


then flew back through Hawaii to see the many,
many thousands of sailors there at Pearl Harbor
along with the leaders of our military in the
Pacific Command. And then I came back with
Leader Gephardt on Saturday to go to St. Louis
to visit the Governors who have been victimized
by the floods, and their people have.
All these trips have a common thread, as disparate as they were. I had an opportunity to
see people who were serving this country and
people who are living here and working hard,
making our jobs possible. And I was immensely
moved, as I always am, by the incredible character and courage and good common sense of
the American people.
Now, we come here at a difficult time for
the country and for the world. The world is
in a significant economic crisis. All the wealthier
countries of the world are facing difficulties in
creating new jobs. For a very long time there
has been a kind of political paralysis in this
country where we always knew what we had


1117




July 20 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


to do, but we could never quite bring ourselves
to do it. And because we had divided Government, it was always possible for one branch to
blame the other one for what did not get done.
And the worse the problem got, the more painful their solutions became. That is always the
way in human life, not just in Government but
in every part of our lives.
Now, because of your help and the leadership
and the raw courage many of you have demonstrated, we've brought our country to the
verge of fundamental economic change. In just
6 months we have certainly changed the nature
of the economic debate here in our Nation's
Capital. The new direction that I discussed with
you in February in the State of the Union Address is at hand. Once, a President joked that
the deficit he created was big enough to take
care of itself. Now no one jokes about it, and
no one doubts that we are about the serious
business of reducing that deficit and the stranglehold it has on our ability to create better
times now and to provide a better future for
our children.
Rather than debating whether to ignore the
deficit, we have now begun a serious discussion
about how to really bring it down. That is leading change, not going along with events. Where
once Presidents sent you budgets that were not
worth the paper they were printed on, now we
have a real economic plan that, for all the controversy, is moving through Congress at a record
pace.
I am amused now when I read that the difficult tough choices that I have asked the Congress to make are passing with narrow margins
in our majority party when last year 75 percent
of the House Members of the other party voted
against their own President's budget and for
years Presidential budgets have been political
documents, not serious attempts to turn this
country around.
Now we are involved in a serious attempt
to do that, you and I leading the change. Where
once the other party taxed middle class people
so that those in upper income groups would
not have to pay even their fair share, we have
a plan that asks those that benefited most in
the 1980's and whose taxes went down then
to pay their fair share, not because we want
to punish success but because it is the American
way to ask everyone to pay according to their
ability to do so. That is what the middle class
demands, and that is a change we are making.


Where once National Government had slogans
for small business, we now have an economic
plan that actually provides target incentives to
business to create real jobs, something we have
needed for a long time. And this effort to pass
this plan as it has moved through the Congress
has clearly, as the Chairman of the Federal Reserve said not very long ago, been the major
force in driving interest rates to their lowest
level in 20 years, something that is leading to
a huge amount of refinancing of home loans,
business loans, something that clearly will act
in a positive way that will manifest itself in new
investment today and new jobs in the near future. Where once Government spending soared
even as investment in the future decreased, we
now have an economic plan that dramatically
shifts spending priorities away from wasteful
cuts and still with some prudent, wise investments.
Once, our economic planners in the White
House focused on quick fixes for the next election. Every budget document that came up to
this Hill for years was discarded by serious people in both parties. You know it as well as I
do. It's just a political document to make sure
that the President can stay in good graces with
the American people, instead of telling the truth
and making the tough choices.
Now there is an economic plan before you
that looks at the long term, not the next election. We look at the next generation, hoping
that by the next election the American people
will see that as exactly what has been done.
Where once the other party used welfare as
a whipping boy without doing anything to move
a single person from welfare to work, we now
have an economic plan that is step one of a
long-term strategy to end welfare as we know
it. The earned-income tax credit in this plan
will save everybody who works 40 hours a week
with children in the home. If you do that, that's
work, we're going to reward it, and we will
lift you out of poverty. It's one of the most
significant social reforms enacted in this country
in a generation. And we do it through the tax
system, rewarding work.
Where once a President had to go to international economic conferences like the one I
just attended with their hats in their hand and
sit there while people from other countries criticized the United States relentlessly, saying,
"How can you expect us to grow the world
economy when you have a big deficit and you,


1118




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 20


a wealthy country, soak up savings from all over
the world, financing half of your public and
private debt, or one-third of it, anyway, from
foreign sources?", I had the privilege of going
to a C-7 meeting which, for the first time in
a decade, did not criticize the United States
but complimented the United States for a serious attempt to reduce the deficit. And make
no mistake about it, that is what gave me the
leverage, your action to reduce this deficit gave
me the leverage to argue that the time had
come to reduce these tariffs and to take it back
and make it part of an international agreement
on trade that will create hundreds of thousands
of manufacturing jobs in this country in the
next few years.
This is an agreement that we made that will
create manufacturing jobs in America. There is
no doubt about it. Everyone can see it, everybody who has ever studied it. It is not like
many of the issues we have around here where
there's a lot of debate and argument. Everyone
knows that this is a good deal for America. We
have to make it part of the global trade agreement by the end of the year, and we have
a good chance to do it now because the agreement at the C-7 would never have happened
if you hadn't passed the budget in the Senate
and the House and given me the leverage to
say we're doing our part, now you do yours.
Make no mistake about it, we would never,
never have reached this agreement with Japan
to change the nature of our trading relationships
had I not had the leverage to say, I know that
during the 1980's you took the trade surplus
you had and turned it into an investment deficit
by sending a lot of your money back to this
country to help us to finance our deficit and
keep our interest rates from absolutely exploding, but we are taking care of that. We're doing
what you asked us to do. We're bringing our
deficit down, investing more in our economy,
our productivity is going up. We can compete
again. Now we have to change the trade rules.
If you hadn't passed, each House, a version of
that budget, we would not have been able to
do that. That is what is happening today.
Yes, it is painful. Yes, it is difficult. But it
is progress. It is change. It will make a difference. And it is focused on the long-run interests of the people of this country. We have
come this far. This is no time to turn back.
We have been bold. This is no time to be timid.
We have faced this crisis squarely. This is no


time to blink.
We can come out of this conference with
a plan that can pass the Congress and, most
importantly, can pass the critical judgment of
the American people if we make sure they know
what is in it. As you work through the myriad
of important details in this massive economic
conference, we would do well to keep in mind
that history will not note who wins in the technical detailed arcana that may consume much
of the debate. But our children and our grandchildren will remember whether we were bashful or bold. They will remember whether we
showed courage or whether we turned away
from this challenge. They will remember whether we gave in to gridlock in the kind of easy
rhetoric that has come to dominate our politics
of the last few years or whether we govern.
I understand and appreciate the fact that
compromise and consensus and conciliation will
have to be the order of the day. Nothing this
difficult and complex can be accomplished without listening to different voices and different
ideas. But I have no illusions about the challenges that lie before us.
Of course, this is politically difficult and institutionally demanding. But that, again, makes it
a challenge worth accepting. Remember this:
None of it will be worth anything if at the
end of the day, we provide something less than
fundamental change. From the beginning of this
process, that is what I have tried to argue. Yes,
there will be changes around the edges. Yes,
there have been already changes around the
edges. But we must provide fundamental
change. What are elements of that change?
First, we have to seize control of our economic
destiny, put our fiscal house in order.
This deficit is the bone in the throat of America. And we ought to deal with it by passing
a plan that reduces it by $500 billion, putting
it in a trust fund so the American people know,
because they don't trust anyone in politics, that
the money will be used to reduce the deficit
and having an enforcement mechanism that says
if we miss the targets, because no one is smart
enough to foresee everything that will occur
over the next 5 years, the President does have
to come forward with a plan to set it right
every year. That is the first thing we ought to
do to establish credibility with the American
people.
Second, we ought to return to the fundamental notion of fairness. Those who have the most


1119




July 20 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


should pay the most. We did the reverse in
the 1980's, and it didn't work out very well.
Every serious study shows that most of the economic gains of the last decade went to the top
one percent. The people who put those policies
forward said you ought to do that because then
they will create more jobs. But we created jobs
at a slower pace, at a slower pace. We are
over 3 million jobs behind where we ought to
be today at this point in a so-called economic
recovery. Why? Because the policy doesn't work.
Because of the changes that have been made
in this program, that have been moved through
the Congress with some more spending cuts and
some less tax increases that were originally proposed, I can now say to you that we ought
to require that at least 70 percent of the tax
burden of this plan fall on people with incomes
above $200,000-that is now possible because
of the changes which have been made-and that
there will be no increases on working families
unless their incomes are well above $100,000
a year.
Third, we must keep faith with the hard-working middle class families who have worked hard
and paid more for the last 12 years. They are
the backbone in the country, and the economy
is not working for them. Many of them work
harder every year for less, and many of them
are afraid of losing their health insurance. Many
of them are afraid that the Government will
never again do anything that really makes a difference. But if we take action to remove the
uncertainty that they have and to clear the cloud
of rhetoric that they've heard with our adversaries who don't want to do anything, trying to
convince them that they're going to pay the
lion's share of the tax load, we can again not
only gain their confidence but, even more important, do something that is very much in their
interest by passing this program.
Because you have been pressing, you especially in the leadership, for deeper spending cuts
and for different tax proposals that, in the aggregate are less, we can now say, looking at the
proposals on the table, that we will not need
to ask the average working family to pay more
than about $50 a year to contribute to this plan.
That is a reasonable thing.
You cannot make me believe, once you get
out there and tell the truth to the people in
any district represented in this room, that the
average middle class family with incomes above
$30,000 a year and below the income tax in

crease threshold wouldn't pay a buck a week
to get this deficit down. I don't believe it. I
think they would. And I think they expect to
do something to contribute to the future of this
country as long as they know it's fair and we're
not going to squander the money. And that's
the opportunity we're going to be given, to demonstrate to them that fact during this conference
and in the weeks ahead.
Fourth, we cannot ignore the fundamental
economic reality that a lot of Americans are
still left out and left behind in this weak economy. We have got to have incentives in the
final bill to spur growth, to create jobs, to deal
with the fact that no industrial country is now
able, even in times of economic growth, to generate very many new jobs. We have got to try
some new things. That's why I'd like, for example-I don't want to start listing them, because
you may think I've left something out I'd want
in-but just for example, that's why I think we
ought to try that venture capital gains tax that
is in the House bill that was, by parliamentary
accident, taken out of the Senate bill. We've
got to try some different things to create new
jobs. And while I feel very strongly that we
ought to create the empowerment zones in the
inner cities and the small towns and the poor
rural areas to see if we can make free enterprise
work in these places, there's not enough Government money to go in and recover the fortunes and the futures of the people who live
there. We've heard our adversaries on the other
side talk about this concept for years. Why don't
we do it and do it right and see if it works?
This is a good proposal. Let's try it.
While we're at it, let me say one other thing.
In the plans adopted by both the Senate and
the House, without respect to all this hot air
and rhetoric I've heard about how tough it is
on small business, the hard, cold truth is that
both these plans will give a tax cut to 90 percent
of the small businesses in the United States
of America that spent one red cent reinvesting
in their business, because we doubled or more
the expensing provision without raising their income tax. How can the small business associations of this country come out against this proposal when we are lowering taxes on 90 percent
of their members? And the Wall Street Journal
has got an article today documenting that fact.
That ought to stay in the plan, even if the leadership opposes it.
Finally, I am for the cuts that have been


1120




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 20


made. But we have to recognize that there is
a limit to how much, particularly in this reconciliation process, we can cut beyond where
we are without hurting the elderly, the working
poor, and the middle class. There is a limit
to what we can do.
As you know, almost all the increases left
in this budget are in health care. And I am
committed to coming up with a solution to this
process which brings the problem-it gets
health care costs in line with inflation. That's
the way to deal with that. But you cannot just
arbitrarily cut it out. I do not believe we should
cut Medicare more, at least than the Senate
number. I just don't believe we should. There
is a limit to how much we should cut it unless
we are solving the problem. We can cut it more
when we solve the problem. We have to do
this first, and then we can do that. Let's fix
the budget first.
Now, if we meet these requirements, we will
have produced a plan that delivers on economic
renewal, that looks to the long run, not just
the short term, that gives the American people
a sense that we are rewarding and honoring
the values and the vision of the people who
work hard and play by the rules: work, family,
education.
I believe these requirements can unite this
conference. Of course, in some ways, even
though our opponents have had some near-term
rhetorical success, I think they have done something to unite us as well by serving as the implacable guardians of an indefensible status quo,
against governing, in the favor of gridlock or
the short-term fears that keep us from facing
our problems instead of courage to seize control
of our destiny and our future. Their policies
ought to give us courage. After all, they had
the ball for 12 years, and look what they did
with it.
Now, I said on February the 18th in the State
of the Union Address that I was not interested
in blame, and I'm still not. And there's enough
blame to go around, and there still is, not just
among people in both parties of the Congress
but among people who were Governors, mayors,
and judges back then. That's fine. But there
is blame to go around if you don't take responsibility now towards the future.
Just a few days ago there was a remarkable
article in the Wall Street Journal, hardly an
organ of the national Democratic Party-[laughter]-which said that Republicans' response to


the budget crisis and the economic crisis of the
country represented, and I quote, "no new anything." That should unite us. On every important test, their alternatives have come up short.
In both the House and the Senate, they offered
much less deficit reduction and yet more pain
to the average people in this country. They
didn't lock their savings into a trust fund or
have a real mechanism to enforce it. They
weren't willing to stand up and ask their powerful and privileged and well-to-do and successful
to pay even their fair share. In fact, they weren't
willing to ask those people to pay anything at
all. But they were more than happy to ask people on Medicare and the veterans and others
to pay even more after we had already cut all
those programs, again, saying the burden ought
to be borne by the elderly, the working poor,
and the middle class.
Our plan supports growth and fairness, and
theirs is another victory for special interests.
They refuse to even close loopholes for threemartini lunches or CEO salaries out of line with
performance or the loophole that subsidizes the
very lobbyists who write the loopholes. I read
their plan. They didn't want to do that. They
have no targeted incentives for businesses to
create jobs in a global economy where plainly
new strategies are called for, no targeted investments for growth; just taking more from health
care, from veterans, from everything else that
helps the average people in this country, just
so the well off don't have to pay one red cent
in new taxes.
Frankly, folks, I'm tired of what is sort of
cold-blooded being passed off as courageous,
just because of the sloganeering. The slogans
are easy: "tax and spend," "cut spending first,"
"it's spending, stupid." They all sound so good,
so that they mask the reality. The reality is,
this budget cuts $250 billion in spending, over
200 specific spending cuts, not the general we'lltake-care-of-it-later of our opponents, the Vice
President talked about, over hundreds of specific
budget cuts in excess of $100 million apiece.
That's what it does. There is nothing to be
ashamed of here except somehow we haven't
found a way to take a big old knife and cut
through the rhetorical fog that has been blanketing our efforts in this town for the last several
months. But I assure you, we're going to do
it in the days ahead.
You know, in the Senate Finance Committee,
there was an interesting little drama that played


1121




July 20 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


itself out after we heard all this stuff about
"tax and spend" and "it's spending, stupid" and
"we're going to cut spending". When the bill
got down to the lick-log in the Senate Finance
Committee, how many spending cuts do you
think were offered by the other side, over and
above the tough ones we had already put in
place? Zero. Not one. Not one red cent. When
it came down to getting away from this general
stuff and to the specifics, nothing. Why? Because nobody wants to say anything hard. Because, sure, it is always the best thing in the
heat of the moment to tell everybody just what
they want to hear, but all of the easy things
have been done. That's why we're in the fix
we're in. And we have to do some things that
are difficult.
Let me say, it grieves me in some ways that
this has become a partisan fight. I did not seek
that. I still have some hope that some of the
genuinely conscientious and responsible Members on the other side, when this conference
report emerges, will vote for it. I know many
of them think there are many good things in
it. And we have done some changes, frankly,
that moved this bill in the direction that the
more moderate and responsible Members have
asked for on the other side. But I will not shrink
from defending what I know in my heart will
help the economy when it is subjected to untrue
and unfair attacks. This is the nature of our
profession, I guess, but somewhere along the
line, what's really in the interest of the American
people ought to count, too.
The last thing I want to say is that if you
know you have to go this alone, and we don't
get much help from the other side, there's an
awful temptation, I guess, to do nothing, or at
least to do nothing for a while. And I can tell
you the cost of doing nothing is far higher in
both political and economic terms than paying
the price of progress today. We were elected
to govern. We were elected to end gridlock.
I don't know how many people I heard last
year tell me, "Even if you make me mad, do
something. Do something. Move this thing.
Break us out. Get something going." If we flinch
or fail to get our mandate for a moment, the
reaction to that would be far greater than any
particular unpopularity of this effort.
When we succeed and set our Nation on a
new direction, and it will begin the day after
both Houses vote for a combined plan-there
will be a surge in conference-people will then


see the facts, not the fog but the facts of what
was in this program. The reality will take over.
Then we will be on our way to building an
economy which once again restores the American dream. We have been seeing it slip away
for literally 20 years now. The peak of middle
class prosperity in this country occurred 20 years
ago in 1973. Ever since then, all new additions
to earnings have come from people working
longer hours or more people in the same family
working. Ever since then, for 20 years, we have
had different but inadequate responses to the
challenges of the global economy. And then for
the last 12 years, we tried trickle-down economics, which was shove it all up and hope it gets
invested back down and it will work out fine.
Now, I believe that the truth is somewhere
between and beyond, more importantly, the old
paradigms of Government. We cannot spend our
way out of this crisis. The Government cannot
work the American people, alone, out of this
crisis. But neither can we ignore our fundamental responsibilities to put our house in order,
invest in our people, and have the kind of program that will move us into the 21st century.
This country is doing a lot of good things
that often get lost because of the momentary
insecurities. There has been a huge increase in
productivity in the private sector. Your country
is the high-quality, low-cost producer of hundreds, indeed thousands of goods and services
that can help us if we can open markets and
if we can get our house in order here and if
we can continue to improve the skills of our
people and if we can deal with the particular
problems of various areas of the country and
various parts of our economy. We can move
this thing. We do not need to stay in the rut
we're in. But we have been on this path in
one way or the other for two decades. We cannot expect to move out of it in 6 months. But
we will never move out of it unless we move.
We can't just sit around and pray for rain. It
doesn't work that way.
Let me close with just this personal indulgence, if I might. Thirty years ago today, I visited Washington, DC, for the first time in a
now rather well-known encounter I had with
President Kennedy in the Rose Garden. I had
hardly ever been out of Arkansas, and I wasn't
sure where I was or what I was seeing. But
I knew one thing in the week I spent here:
I had no doubt whatever that the Congress of
the United States and the President of the Unit

1122




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 20


ed States could solve whatever problem and
could meet whatever challenge we were facing.
Now people all over America don't believe that
anymore. Thirty years ago when I was here,
I didn't have an instant of a doubt. And it was
an incredible honor to be in this place, because
this is where my country's business was done.
Four months after I was here, of course, President Kennedy was assassinated, and the pain
of that still lives on in this country and perhaps
was the beginning of the slow undoing of our
collective confidence in ourselves and our institutions. But you know, if you remember all the
wonderful things that John Kennedy said, I
think in some ways my favorite line was that
"We must always remember that here on Earth,
God's work is truly our own." The only way
to ever honor any memory of something gone
is to do something today which reinforces the
validity of that memory in our hearts.
This day, it's far more important in our Nation's history for another reason, not because
of my first trip here but because it was on
this day in 1969 that an astronaut fulfilled one
of President Kennedy's greatest dreams, when
Neil Armstrong became the first person ever
to walk on the Moon. When John Kennedy directed our attention to the heavens and inspired
our notion of expanding knowledge, he saw it
not as a test of our capacity, if you will remember, but of our character. He said, and I quote,
'"We choose to go to the Moon in this decade
Interview With the Wisconsin Media
July 20, 1993
The President. I'd like to make just a brief
opening statement, and then I'll be happy to
answer your questions. As you know, the designated committees from the Senate and the
House are about to take up the conference process on the economic program I have presented
to the Congress. I'd like to make a few comments about it and then answer your questions.
I have just returned from a meeting of the
world's seven large industrial nations in Tokyo.
At that meeting, two significant decisions were
made that could dramatically improve the economy of the United States in the years ahead
and obviously will be very good for Wisconsin.


and to do the other things not because they're
easy but because they're hard. Because the challenges are one we are willing to accept, one
we are unwilling to postpone, and one we intend
to win."
So I say to you: I ask for your support, your
unfailing efforts, your courage, your energy, because it is time to meet that kind of challenge.
I know this is hard, more than anything else
because it's been so hard in the last 2 months
to get the facts out to the people. Every single
piece of evidence shows that when people know
what we're trying to do and what the details
of this plan is, whether it's a Senate plan, a
House plan, or something in between, a majority
of the American people will see it as fair, sensible, and progressive. We are being not by the
specifics, but by the rhetoric that has enveloped
the fog of this town. I am telling you, once
we act, we can make it go away because then
the reality will begin to hit people's lives.
And so I ask you in this place in time to
remember the challenge that John Kennedy laid
down in deciding to go to the Moon. This
should be one we are willing to accept, one
we are unwilling to postpone, and one we intend
to win. Thank you, and God bless you.
NOTE: The President spoke at 3:02 p.m. at the
Cannon House Office Building. A tape was not
available for verification of the content of these
remarks.


The first decision was an agreement among the
seven nations to lead an effort to dramatically
reduce tariffs on manufactured goods across a
whole range of services. It is estimated that if
we can put this into a world trade agreement
by the end of the year, it would add hundreds
of thousands of jobs to the manufacturing economy in the United States over the next decade.
The second agreement was an historic agreement with Japan in which, for the first time,
the Japanese agreed to reduce their trade surplus with the United States and to be accountable in specific ways for reducing that trade
surplus in specific areas. Again, that means more


1123




July 20 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


jobs for Americans.
Neither of these agreements would have been
possible were it not for the progress we are
making toward enacting the economic plan
which reduces the deficit by $500 billion over
the next 5 years. For 10 years American Presidents have gone to these meetings and been
criticized because the United States would not
assume any discipline over its budget. This is
the first time leaders of other nations have complimented instead of criticized the United
States. None of it would have happened had
it not been for the Congress making progress
on this plan.
Now, there is a great deal of misinformation
in the minds of many Americans about what
is actually in this plan, thanks largely to the
rhetorical attacks on the plan by its opponents,
most of them in the other party. I'd just like
to point out five critical facts about this plan
which, to me, make it fair and good for the
people of the United States and the people of
Wisconsin.
Number one, it has about $500 billion in deficit reduction locked in a trust fund so that over
the next 5 years all the spending cuts and all
the new taxes are saved for deficit reduction.
It has a mechanism of enforcement so that if,
because of economic developments, we miss the
deficit reduction target in any given year, the
President must come right back to the Congress
and give adjusted suggestions for how to meet
that target, and the Congress has to vote on
them. The spending cuts have to equal or outweigh the tax increases. So that's the first thing,
the $500 billion cut.
Secondly, for the first time in more than a
decade, the plan asks the wealthiest Americans
to pay their fair share. Thanks to the changes
which have been made in the last couple of
weeks in the area of more spending cuts, I can
now say to you that the plan which comes out
will have at least 70 percent of the new taxes
paid for by people with incomes above $200,000.
That's about the top 1.2 percent of the American people.
Thirdly, it is fair to working Americans, to
the middle class. It asks people with incomes
of between $30,000 and $180,000 in family incomes now to pay an energy tax which amounts
to about $50 a year. That is about $1 a week
for families of four with incomes in the $30,000
to $180,000 range. For working families with
incomes below $30,000, there is no tax increase.


Fourth, the plan really supports economic
growth. And this is very important. And this
will be a matter of contention between the Senate and the House because the House plan has
more incentives for economic growth. But I
think they are very important: a new business
capital gains tax, an expensing provision for
small businesses which will give-and I want
to say this very clearly so everyone understands
it-which will give over 90 percent of the small
businesses in America a tax break under this
bill, not a tax increase but a tax break if they
invest more money in their business.
And finally, the plan is fair to the elderly,
to the middle class, to the working poor in contrast to the Republican alternatives which refuse
to tax the wealthy but have less deficit reduction
and take more out of the hides of people who
are most vulnerable.
So I hope we can get the facts out. I hope
it will pass. I think it will make a big difference.
I know it will make a difference in terms of
seizing control of our economic destiny and promoting economic growth for the United States.
And so I wanted to give you in Wisconsin and
I'll be giving people from other States a chance
to ask me questions directly about this and other
issues of concern to the folks back home.
Midwest Disaster Assistance
Q. Good afternoon, Mr. President. Thank you
for being with us this afternoon. As you know,
flooding continues to be a problem here in Wisconsin and throughout the Midwest. Tens of
thousands of people have suffered some very
real damages. And we're wondering what assurance you can give those people that they'll be
receiving some real assistance from the Federal
Government, and what form might that take,
sir?
The President. Well, it will take several forms.
First let me say that, as you know I think, I
have made three trips to the Midwest since the
flooding began and last Saturday met for about
21/2 hours with the Governors of eight of the
nine affected States, including Governor Thompson.
We have asked, last night actually, for another
substantial increase in flood relief aid. The package that we're asking for the Congress to adopt
is now up to about $2.9 billion. And let me
just run through some of the kinds of relief
available.
For individuals who have been thrown out


1124




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 20


of work and who don't have enough money to
live on-and there are many hundreds of them
that are flooded out that badly in the MidwestFEMA takes disaster applications and can provide cash funds for living expenses as well as
emergency unemployment, even for self-employed people and other contractors who are
not eligible for unemployment normally.
Secondly, for small businesses, they are available for small business disaster loans, and the
SBA is working now with FEMA to handle a
lot of those applications even over the phone.
Of course, the agriculture programs are, I think,
quite well-known by the farmers, and they understand them. There are some operational
problems with those agriculture programs based
on the way they were handled, I think, after
Hurricane Andrew that we're trying to work out.
And finally, there will be some direct aid to
communities who have been hurt, who have lost
public facilities and roads and bridges and things
of that kind. The Federal programs cannot and
are not designed to absolutely make whole every
loss from every individual business or community. But they will make a big difference. And
I think that the general consensus is that our
administration has been more aggressive and
more coordinated and more prompt in dealing
with this than has been the experience in the
past. And we're going to continue to try to do
that.
Defense Cuts
Q. Mr. President, I attended a make-believe
budget-cutting public hearing Monday night in
Madison in which some 80 Madison area citizens were asked to write their own Federal
budget. Some of the trimmers favored President
Bush's defense cuts because they dealt with
some specific high-profile weapons: a cap on
B-2 bombers, cancellation of the Seawolf submarine, and a new air defense system-forego
a new air system. While your defense budget
requests go far beyond the $97 billion that Mr.
Bush recommended, I wonder if you could spell
out some of the specific cuts that you propose
to make in the defense budget.
The President. Yes, sir, I can. First of all,
we kept the B-2 bombers at the level recommended last year, so that is something we
did. The Seawolf program is phased out, and
other weapons systems are scaled down, including Star Wars, rather dramatically. Over and
above that, we plan to reduce the aggregate


size of the armed services by about 200,000
more than in the last Bush budget, and we
asked the employees of the Department of Defense, both military and civilian, to take the
same reductions in pay that other Federal employees are going to take.
Those are the three areas which we make
up the basic difference between the budget we
presented and the last budget presented by
President Bush. Let me say, we do not reduce
our presence in Asia at this time, and I do
not think we should because of the ongoing
controversy we're having over North Korea and
whether they're going to withdraw from the regime which commits them never to develop nuclear weapons. Until that is resolved, I think
we have to maintain a strong presence in Asia.
But otherwise, we're having substantial cuts in
troop levels in Europe and some in the United
States.
Welfare Reform
Q. I'd like to ask you about welfare reform.
When you were in Milwaukee on June 1st, you
made a passing favorable reference to the notion
of eliminating welfare benefits after 2 years, limiting the time on welfare to 2 years. It was
something you had talked about in the campaign
last fall. Now Governor Thompson of Wisconsin,
a Republican as you know, has suggested a pilot
program of that sort in Wisconsin, and he has
asked for waivers from your Department of
Health and Human Services. I have a twofold
question: Are you in favor of the waiver to start
the Wisconsin pilot program, and as a concept,
do you really, Federally or in Wisconsin, intend
to kick people off welfare after 2 years, even
if they are able-bodied and refuse to work? If
you do that, what happens to them?
The President. Let me answer the second
question first. Yes, I want to end welfare as
we know it, and if people are able-bodied, able
to work and there's a job available for them,
and they refuse to work, I think they should
live with the consequences. I don't think many
people will refuse to work. The evidence is that
most people on welfare, once their children are
taken care of, are eager to go to work if they
have the skills necessary to succeed in the work
force.
I want to back up in a minute and tell you
the sequence of events that we intend to follow
here to put us in a position to end welfare
as we know it. But let me answer your specific


1125




July 20 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


question now on the Wisconsin program. I
talked with Governor Thompson about this
briefly, not when I saw him on Saturday but
the last time I saw him when I was in Wisconsin. And I urged him to put the plan together
and get it through and send it to us. And I
assured him that we would give it quick consideration. I can't commit to support something
the details of which I have not reviewed, but
in general I've been very favorable to pilot
projects in the welfare reform and in the health
care reform area.
Now, let me back up very briefly and tell
you what I think we have to do to end welfare
as we know it, if I might. Number one, you've
got to make work pay. That's one of the most
important parts of this economic program.
Under our economic program, we use something
called the earned-income tax credit which basically is a tax credit which can even lead to
a refund to people. If they work 40 hours a
week and have children in the home, we don't
believe people should live in poverty. This is
a dramatic improvement in promoting work over
welfare. So if the budget passes, you'll have
a principle that has to be established: If you
work 40 hours a week, you have children in
the home, you won't be in poverty. Number
two, we have to toughen child support enforcement dramatically. Wisconsin has done a lot of
good work on that, and we're going to build
on that and the work of other States to do
that. Number three, we have to pass a health
reform plan that guarantees that the children
in this country will have health care. A lot of
people don't leave welfare for work because they
think their kids will lose their health care coverage. Number four, we've got to make sure
we educate and train workers. And then, five,
if we're going to call an end to welfare after
2 years, we have to know that there will be
work available. So if there is not a private sector
job we're going to have to offer work as an
alternative to welfare. Those things will be done
in order, and as they are done, we literally will
change the whole focus of this social program
from welfare to work, from dependence to independence.
NAFTA
Q. Mr. President, the North American Free
Trade Agreement is on the minds of every union
member. And Milwaukee has lost thousands of
good-paying jobs to Mexico. Recently, the manu

facturing policy project, which was funded by
U.S. businesses, did a study that said Wisconsin
can expect to lose 178,000 more manufacturing
jobs. How do you reconcile these facts with
your support of NAFTA, and what happens to
these people?
The President. Well, first of all, I just don't
agree that NAFTA is going to cost us a lot
of jobs if we do it right. Secondly, if we don't
conclude the trade agreement, anybody who
wants to move their manufacturing facility to
Mexico to get lower wages can do it now. There
is absolutely no restriction at this moment on
moving a plant to Mexico. The purpose of
NAFTA is to lower Mexican and United States
tariffs-the Mexican tariffs are even higherso we can sell more products to Mexico from
the United States.
And let me just make two points, if I might.
Point number one, 5 years ago we had a $500
billion trade deficit with Mexico. Now we have
a $6 billion trade surplus because we have lowered tariffs. So that even though we've lost jobs
in America, we've gained more jobs than we've
lost because our trade has gone from a deficit
to a surplus position. Secondly, people are going
to find out, who want to go to Mexico just
for low wages, that good transportation, welltrained and skilled workers, and high productivity are more important. General Motors just the
other day announced that they were going to
close a plant in Mexico and move it back to
the United States and put 1,000 Americans to
work because they weren't having the success
they needed in Mexico. When I was Governor
of Arkansas, we had one or two small plantsI can't remember whether it was one or twoclose down and do the same thing, because
they'd had an unsuccessful move.
Now, there are some problems with this trade
agreement which I am trying to fix right now
through negotiations to get the Mexican Government to agree to higher labor standards, tougher
environmental standards, and to work with us
on dealing with these common problems, and
a consequence if the standards they agree to
are not observed. But my own view is that
America has to have more exports in order to
create more manufacturing jobs.
As I said, if we make this deal with the world
trading powers to lower tariffs all across the
world on manufacturing products, it will create
U.S. manufacturing jobs. So my opinion is if
we don't have NAFTA, people who want to


1126




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 20


chase low-wage jobs, will still move their jobs
to Mexico, just like they're doing today. If we
do have it, we'll create more jobs than we'll
lose. And for those who lose their jobs, let me
say, I do have a plan. I have a plan to improve
education and training and community economic
development, and that's a big part of this program. That's part of what I've been criticized
for. While I have cut spending dramatically in
some areas, I recommend spending more in
education and training, on defense conversion
and new technologies so we can deal with people who lose their jobs.
Economic Program
Q. Mr. President, thanks for making yourself
available. As to why we're here, though, today,
how worried are you about losing support in
the Wisconsin congressional delegation for the
deficit reduction package you're talking about?
Is it Senator Kohl in the Senate, Representative
Barca? Who are you trying to get us to jawbone,
so to speak?
The President. Well, you don't have to jawbone anybody. I want the people of Wisconsin
to know directly from me what I think is good
about this program and why I think it's important. And I think it's support that I owe to
any Member of Congress that I would ask to
vote for this.
But let me just say, Senator Feingold has
made it clear to me that he supports our objectives and in general that he is very supportive
of the program. Senator Kohl has said he is
generally supportive of the program, but is worried about the fuel tax at any level. And my
view is that when you tell working families with
incomes between $30,000 and $180,000 that
you're asking them to pay $50 a year, but that
70 percent of this program will be paid for
by people with incomes above $200,000 and that
over half the money will come from spending
cuts, that folks will think it's fair and will want
to make a contribution to bringing this terrible
deficit down.
Welfare Reform
Q. Mr. President, if I could, I'd like to return
just a moment to a question that was asked
earlier and drive a little closer to the answer,
perhaps.
I had lunch today with a man from Milwaukee you've just hired to come into Washington
to work with Donna Shalala. He has a lifetime


of experience in community service work, and
he said that he is concerned that in the process
of welfare reform what's going to happen is
500,000 or so people are going to drop off the
bottom of the page because they are not going
to have jobs no matter what happens at the
end of 2 years, they are just going to be out
there. And I suggested to him, well, maybe
they'll turn to crime or maybe they'll just quietly
starve to death. And he said, "Well, I'll tell
you they won't quietly starve to death." So just
to reiterate a question asked earlier, what happens to those people who don't have jobs? You
have said-if there aren't jobs for them, well,
what happens to them then?
The President. I think we have to provide
community service type jobs if there are no private sector jobs available in order to justify cutting off the benefits. I don't think you can do
it in any other way. You can't tell people they
have to work if there are no jobs. Once they
get into the work force, then if they lose their
jobs and get them back, they'll be like other
people, they'll have access to unemployment.
But for people who have not been in the work
force, I think there has to be some sort of
access to community service jobs if the private
sector jobs aren't there.
Economic Program
Q. Mr. President, many of our readers are
the people you are addressing, the middle class.
But a good number of them are what many
people call upper middle class, and it's a group
that is-it's just not fashionable right now in
Washington, or maybe among this group here,
to speak in any way in favor of them. But they
tell us in letters to the editor, in stories to
reporters, that they are very concerned about,
well, taxes.
Their point is this: They've put in the hours
to get where they are now. They've worked the
70, 80, sometimes 90 hours a week. You understand those hours, sir. Why should they be singled out? And I don't know the ceiling you're
putting on, your definition of upper middle class
or wealthy. We're speaking about people who
make maybe $90,000 to $100,000 combined,
have a house, have a family, paying off the mortgages, paying off the cars and the bills and the
property taxes which in this area are going up.
Why should they be singled out after putting
in those many hours for so many years to see
it taken away so easily?


1127




July 20 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


The President. First of all, if it's a family with
a joint income of $100,000, they won't have
an income tax increase. Under this plan they
would pay the fuel tax, which will be about
$50 a year for normal fuel usage for a family
of four. The income taxes trigger in at adjusted
gross income of roughly $180,000 per couple
and about $40,000 less than that for individual.
Taxable income is somewhat lower, but even
taxable income for individuals is above $100,000
and about $140,000 per couple. But in terms
of salary, net income, the way people think of
their incomes, it's about $180,000 when the
taxes trigger in.
Why should they pay? A lot of those people
work hard and got themselves to a point of
success. We do not seek to punish success, we
just seek to balance the scales. If you go back
through the 1980's you will see that what happened in the eighties was that middle class incomes-that is, people with incomes from, let's
say, $20,000 to $90,000 or $70,000-basically
were stagnant, but their taxes were raised at
the national, State, and local level. Upper income people, who got most of the gains of the
1980's, actually had their taxes lowered by the
National Government.
So I'm not trying to punish anybody, even
people with incomes above $200,000 who will
pay 70 percent of the cost of this program and
virtually 100 percent of the income taxes. I'm
not trying to punish them, I'm just trying to
balance the scales to get a little back to where
we were a few years ago when we were generating plenty of jobs and growing. No one seriously
disputes the fact that a major cause of the Federal deficit being as big as it is, is that there
was a huge cut in income taxes on upper income
people, which has to be addressed if we're going
to get this deficit down. Even then, I think
those folks are entitled to know that there will
be spending cuts at least equal to if not greater
than the tax increases.
Let me make one last point. Since we started
working to bring the deficit down, long-term
interest rates have dropped. Alan Greenspan,
the Republican Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, has acknowledged that the primary
reason that long-term interest rates have
dropped is the administration's serious attempt
to cut the deficit. And many of these same people have refinanced their homes or their business loans or taken advantage of low-interest
rates in ways that will give them more gains


from lower interest rates than they will pay in
higher taxes. And that's a very important point,
I think, that has to be driven home.
Presidential Leadership
Q. Mr. President, rightly or wrongly, public
opinion polls have suggested that a number of
people see you as not being a strong leader.
They also see your position on gays in the military as having been a bit of a compromise.
Would you expect to continue to compromise
on important issues in the future, or do you
see yourself as becoming a stronger leader on
those key issues?
The President. Let me tell you, I regret those
opinion polls. I think they have something to
do, frankly, with the way you folks discuss these
issues. Now, let me just run through this. I
am the first President in a decade who has
had his budget considered seriously by Congress. After Ronald Reagan's first budget, every
budget that he and George Bush presented was
laughed off as a political document. Seventyfive percent of the Republicans in the House
of Representatives-the Republicans in the
House of Representatives-voted against the last
Bush budget. This one is being taken seriously.
I am the first President in a decade that was
complimented, not criticized, at the recent
meeting of the world's great industrial countries,
because we're doing something serious about
our economy. I immediately organized the G7 nations to support Boris Yeltsin when he was
in the ropes last spring. That's not a sign of
weakness. And we had a major role in the preservation of democracy in Russia. We passed the
family leave bill, the motor voter bill through
Congress quickly. We have three major pieces
of political reform moving through Congress, already passed one House: campaign finance reform, lobby reform, and the line-item veto. I
don't think that is a sign of weakness.
When you live in a democratic society and
you're elected President, you are not a dictator.
The resolution we had on the gays in the military, which was worked out by Les Aspin from
Wisconsin, was a slight compromise from my
position in this way: If it were up to me alone,
I would say that a person could acknowledge
being gay openly, clearly, but say that he or
she was completely conforming to the Military
Code of Conduct and be able to serve. In this
policy, if a person does that, that raises the
presumption that the person intends to do


1128




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 20


something that the Code of Conduct forbids.
But then the service man or woman is given
the opportunity to demonstrate that he or she
will abide by the code. That's the rule. The
second thing this policy does, which goes well
beyond anything I discussed in the campaign,
is to provide very explicit, explicit, protections
for privacy and associational rights by service
members without regard to their sexual orientation, going well beyond anything I ever discussed in the election.
I am the first President who ever took on
this issue. Is that a sign of weakness? It may
be a sign of madness, sir, but it is not a sign
of weakness. And I think that we need to get
our heads on straight about what is strong and
what is weak. When a President takes on tough
issues, takes tough stands, tries to get things
done in a democracy, you may not get 100 percent. Was I wrong to take 85? What would
have happened if I had just put my campaign
pledge into play? What would have happened?
Interview With the Louisiana Media
July 20, 1993
The President. Good afternoon. I understand
that I can't see you because you're having a
rainstorm down there, and I'm sorry that we
can't have a two-way, at least visual communication. But I'm glad that you can hear and see
me.
First, let me thank you for giving me the
opportunity to speak through you directly to the
people of Louisiana. I want to say a few words
in opening about the economic program that
I have presented to Congress, which is now
being debated between the Senate and the
House. There are some differences between the
two plans, but the essential features are common, and I'd like to review them and what
they could mean to Louisiana.
First of all, the plan has $500 billion in deficit
reduction over the next 5 years. That is equally
divided between spending cuts and tax increases.
It's in a trust fund so that the money cannot
be squandered on anything else. And if we don't
make our targets, the President has a legal obligation to come forward and do some more cutting to make sure we do bring this deficit down.


You know and I know and Les Aspin will tell
you, the United States Congress would immediately have reversed it. So I would have the
great good fortune of being able to say I'm
"Simon Pure," and the people in the military
who are serving well and honorably who happen
to be homosexual would not be one step further
ahead than they were when I got elected.
They're much better off today because we took
an honorable compromise.
That's what democracy is about. Read the
United States Constitution. It's about honorable
compromise. And that is not weakness if you're
making progress.
Q. Mr. President, thank you for answering
questions from reporters from Wisconsin.
The President. Thank you.
NOTE: The President spoke at 5:05 p.m. via satellite from Room 459 of the Old Executive Office
Building.


Secondly, the plan asks the wealthiest Americans, whose taxes went down as their incomes
went up in the 1980's, to pay most of the load.
And let me be quite specific. The income taxes
of Americans do not go up until they have adjusted gross income of $180,000 per family,
$140,000 per individual. That means that 70 percent of this tax load will be paid by people
with incomes above $200,000, the top 1.2 percent of the American people.
Thirdly, the plan is fair to the middle class
and to the working poor. I want to emphasize
that. The fuel tax in the plan, now at about
4.3 cents, amounts to about a $50-a-year tax
to a family of four with an income of $40,000
to $50,000. That's less than $1 a week directed
and dedicated to bringing down your country's
enormous deficit. For families with incomes of
$30,000 or less-I think that's right at a majority
in Louisiana-they will be held harmless or actually get a tax reduction from this plan.
Fourthly, the plan has important incentives
for business growth: incentives for people to invest in new businesses and other small busi

1129




July 20 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


nesses; incentives for larger companies to buy
new plants and equipment, to put people to
work; incentives for research and development
in new technologies to help to create new jobs
for the 21st century. And perhaps most importantly, it doubles the expensing provision for
small business, which means that 94 percent,
let me say that again, 94 percent of the small
businesses in the entire United States of America will not only get no income taxes increase
from this plan but will be eligible for a tax
break if they invest in their businesses.
Finally, unlike the Republican alternatives,
this plan cuts the deficit more but does it in
a way that is fairer to the elderly, to the working
poor, and to the middle class. The Republican
alternative cuts the deficit less but takes more
out of the hides of the folks on Medicare, takes
more from the veterans, takes more from agriculture, cuts things that have already been reduced dramatically.
So this plan, once the details are known, I
think, clearly is good for America and good for
Louisiana. It has already brought interest rates
down dramatically. It is leading many, many
people to refinance their homes and their cars
and their businesses in ways that are putting
money in Americans' pockets, not taking them
out. And there's no question that without the
progress this budget plan has made through the
Congress, I would not have been able to lead
an effort by the industrialized nations of the
world in Tokyo to agree to reduce tariffs on
manufactured products, to agree to reduce the
Japanese trade imbalance with the United States
in ways that will mean hundreds of thousands
of manufacturing jobs to America.
So I believe if we can get the facts out there,
I can persuade the Congress to adopt the plan,
and we can put it behind us, seize control of
our destiny, stop letting the deficit eat us alive,
and start putting America back to work. That's
the key thing.
Approval Ratings and Accomplishments
Q. Mr. President, recent polls nationally and
here in Louisiana have indicated that a lot of
Americans have already lost enthusiasm with
your administration, a perception of indecisiveness if you will, a perception of someone who
may be a little bit more tax and spend, the
traditional liberal Democrat, than the moderate
image he sold the American electorate. Why
do you think you've suffered so much in the


public opinion arena in so short a period of
time? And considering you've got Democratic
majorities in both the House and Senate, Mr.
Clinton, why do you think you've gotten so little
accomplished in terms of what people expected
of the Clinton era?
The President. Well, first of all, let me say
I think the public opinion polls are obvious.
And that's because the only news coverage we
get out of this town is over the fight over taxes,
so that the American people, literally by huge
majorities, do not have any idea what is in this
program. They don't know there's any deficit
reduction. They are not aware that there are
any spending cuts. They are certainly not aware
that 70 percent of the new taxes fall on people
with incomes above $200,000. In Louisiana, I'm
certain they're not aware that families of incomes of $30,000 or less pay no tax and, in
fact, many will get a tax break under this, and
that all the working poor, people who work with
children in the home still below the poverty
line, will get a significant tax relief under this
program. They don't know the facts because the
only coverage is over where the fight is, and
that's been over the taxes. So the Republicans
can scream "tax and spend" and all this label
stuff, and if the people don't have the facts
before them, all they can do is operate on what
they know.
Now, secondly, I just want to take issue with
you. I, frankly, think that one of the reasons
the American people are disappointed aboutyou said the slow pace of progress-is because
they haven't been told the truth about that. Do
you know that if the Congress passes this budget
on or before August the 5th when they go on
recess, it will be the fastest they have acted
in a very long time?
And in terms of the difficulty I'm having getting this through, this is tough stuff. You've been
sold syrup and sugar for years. But let me give
you an example. Most of the Democrats voted
for my program. In the last year of President
Bush's administration, 75 percent of the Republicans in the House of Representatives-not the
Democrats, the Republicans-voted against his
budget. Why? Because no President has tried
since 1981 to seriously engage the Congress in
a budget that will turn the economic fortunes
of the country around. Presidents don't want
to be criticized for failing or for compromising,
so they have played these political games, sent
budgets up to the Hill that they knew had no


1130




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 20


chance of passing the Congress, and made
speeches to the American people. I have gone
to work.
Now, I ask you to compare what has actually
been done in the first 6 months of this administration with what any previous administration
has done in 6 months. We have put a serious
budget on the table which will bring the deficit
down and which has already brought interest
rates down. We led an effort in the world's
nations to save democracy in Russia, which will
help America by enabling us to reduce defense
and define new markets for our goods. We
passed the family leave bill to protect families
when their jobs require them to leave because
they've got somebody sick in the family. We
passed the motor voter bill, which will make
it easier for people to register and vote. We
have passed in one House of the Congress campaign finance reform, lobbying restrictions, and
the line-item veto.
We are moving forward with a welfare reform
proposal. We are moving forward with a national
service plan, which I talked about repeatedly
in Louisiana-it's going to be passed in one
House this week, and it's going to be law very
soon-which will open the doors of college education to millions and millions of young people
who can't afford to go now with lower interest
loans, and allow many of them to work that
off with community service. Now, that is the
record of this administration.
I just came back from the most successful
meeting of the world's great industrial powers
in years, because the United States, for the first
time in 10 years, was not attacked at that meeting for its outrageous Government deficit. Instead we were complimented, and we got the
other nations to agree to bring down tariffs and
open up markets for American manufactured
products, which means more jobs for Louisiana.
I would like for you to go back and analyze
the first 6 months of the previous administrations and tell me who got more done in 6
months. If you can tell me, I'll be glad to hear
it. If there isn't anybody you can find who's
done more, then we need to examine why the
American people don't know that.
Gridlock
Q. Mr. President, you came to Washington
promising to get things moving, and you hit
a brick wall of entrenched interests from all
sides. Were you surprised by the intensity of


the resistance? And what needs to be done so
Government can respond quicker and better?
The President. Excuse me. My microphone
fell.
Well, first of all, I want to say again, changes
don't happen overnight. This country has been
losing its economic position for 20 years. We've
been with trickle-down economics for 12 years.
It's been a great deal. The idea was: Give special
interests and the wealthiest Americans whatever
they want. Don't do too much to the middle
class. Tell everybody what they want to hear,
and hope nobody notices that we're running up
a deficit that is keeping interest rates high,
weakening the country, and not generating jobs.
Now, that's been going on for a long time. So
when you try to make tough decisions, it's not
going to be easy to change.
I knew it would not be easy to change. No
one can turn a country around overnight. I'm,
frankly, reasonably pleased with the pace of
change, but the one thing that has surprised
me and deeply disappointed me is that the people in the other party have been so bitterly
partisan about this. Many of them have come
to me privately and said, "You're doing a good
job. We agree with a lot of these things, but
you know, our party just is going to oppose
you." And so I'm hoping that we'll have more
bipartisan support when we try to provide affordable health care to all American families
and open the doors of college education than
we have on this budget. And on welfare reform
I think we'll get some Republican support.
Now, you asked me specifically what needs
to be done. Congress needs to pass three bills
that have only passed one House. One, campaign finance reform: Lower the costs of campaigns for Congress, reduce the influence of
special interests through political action committees, open the airwaves to honest debate. Two,
restrict the influence of lobbyists-do for people
who lobby Congress what I've already done in
my administration: Say that anybody who spends
any money on a Member of Congress has to
report what they spend and what it's for, eliminate the tax deduction for lobbying, and open
the process more so that people know what is
being done. The third thing that ought to be
done is that the Senate should pass the modified
line-item veto that the House has already
passed, which gives the President the power to
cut extra unnecessary spending.
Those three things would go a long way to

1131




July 20 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


ward reforming the political process. I have already restricted by Executive order the ability
of people in my administration to become lobbyists, especially those in high positions, to ever
lobby for foreign governments. So if you deal
with lobbyists, campaign finance, and the lineitem veto, those things I think would help the
system to move along faster. But keep in mind,
any time you have to make tough decisions after
people have been fed sugar for a long time,
it's not going to be easy.
Energy Tax
Q. Mr. President, on the chance that congressional negotiators cannot agree on either a Btu
tax or motor fuel tax, do you have any alternative measures that you would try to push to
fill the resulting revenue gap?
The President. Well, let me say right now
what I want to do is to stick with my program,
and that's what I expect to do to the end. I
expect to pass this program. I don't think that
there will be a Btu tax, although the Btu tax
alternative that the Secretary of the Treasury
had ready to go would have exempted everything that the people in Louisiana I talked to
were concerned about, agriculture, industry.
Nonetheless, I think that that is unlikely. I think
we'll be much closer to the fuel option that
the Senate adopted.
But as I said, I think if we put a ceiling
of $50 a year on it for the average family of
four, that is, somebody with an income of
$40,000 to $50,000, and if we hold working families under $30,000 a year harmless, and we
don't kick the income taxes in on families with
incomes of less than $180,000 or individuals
under $140,000, I think that's pretty fair. And
I think, again, it's a question of perception over
reality. If we can cut through all this heavy
rhetoric fog, I think we can get something done.
Now, let me just mention one other thing.
I want to say again, over the previous budget
adopted by President Bush and the Congress,
there are $250 billion in spending cuts, 100 cuts
of over $100 million apiece, over 200 specific
ones. When my bill came up in the Senate Finance Committee, the Republicans in the Senate Finance Committee offered all kinds of arguments about why we should cut taxes, mostly
on the wealthy. They had a chance to say, "Well,
we're for spending cuts." You know, that's what
they've been saying: "The President wants to
raise taxes; we're for spending cuts." Do you


know how many spending cuts were offered by
the Republicans in the Senate Finance Committee? Zero. Not one. Not one. And the spending
cuts put in their bill in the Senate included
over $60 billion of unspecified we'll-figure-itout-later cuts. So that we are the ones who
are cutting spending. But I do think it is reasonable to ask people who are going to benefit
from lower interest rates and more jobs to pay
something that amounts to less than $1 a week
to help to bring this deficit down.
Economic Program
Q. Mr. President, why proceed with higher
consumer taxes in your deficit reduction package
when the growth of the economy appears to
be flattening out? Won't that worsen things?
The President. I think that the worst thing
that could happen that could really flatten this
economy is if we weaken the deficit reduction
package and interest rates went back up. There
is a general consensus, even reinforced by Alan
Greenspan, the Republican who heads the Federal Reserve Board, that the efforts we have
made to bring this deficit down are mostly responsible for bringing long-term interest rates
down. There are lots of folks in Louisiana who
will be listening to this or who will read what
you say who have refinanced their homes or
refinanced their business loans or gotten lower
interest car loans or consumer loans since the
first of the year because interest rates are at
a 20-year low. If we were to dramatically reduce
the amount of deficit reduction, it would be
fine if it had no other economic impact, but
it will have an economic impact. It will lead
to higher interest rates. And if the interest rates
go back up, then people will lose more on interest rates than they would pay on this modest
fuel tax.
Let me say one other thing: We want to add
something to what the Senate did, though. We
want to put back some incentives for people
to pay lower taxes if they invest in jobs and
growth. And this is a very important point. A
lot of these taxes can be avoided by people
if they invest in jobs and growth. That is, if
you increase the small business expensing provision, if you have opportunities for big companies
to invest in new plant and equipment, if you
have opportunities for individuals to put their
savings into new businesses, and if you don't
tax activities of that kind, in fact, you give a
big tax break to it, then that will mean that


1132




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 20


people will say, "Hey, I don't have to pay more
taxes if I invest in things that will generate jobs
for people in my State and my country." That
is the really key thing. We've got to get the
job incentives that I originally proposed back
into the final bill. And if we do, most folks
are going to come out well ahead and this economy is going to grow more.
Q. Hi, Mr. President. Could you repeat again
exactly how your plan will affect lower income
families, particularly those who aren't working
now? Will enough jobs be created for them to
get into the job market, have more money to
spend in the economy?
The President. Absolutely. There are two
kinds of low-income people in the economy.
There are those that are working and those that
aren't. Believe it or not, about 18 percent of
all working people are still below the Federal
poverty line. And I want to emphasize how they
will both be affected.
Number one, people who are working but
are still in poverty will benefit from a change
in this law called the earned-income tax credit.
It will be increased to the point that we'll be
able to say to a working person in a family
of four, let's say, that if you work for a living
and you have children in your home and you're
still in poverty, you will get a tax credit, a refundable tax credit from the Federal Government which will lift you out of poverty. That
will mean more money in their pockets, they'll
spend more, they'll boost the consumer economy, and that will be very good. It will also
be a real incentive for people to move from
welfare to work.
For people on welfare, that is, people who
want to work but aren't working or people on
unemployment, we estimate that this plan will
create another 89,000 jobs in Louisiana, which
will mean more jobs for unemployed people.
For people on welfare, we will have a welfare
reform program which will emphasize education
and training and will eventually require people
who can work to take jobs instead of staying
on welfare. So this whole program is designed
to help low income people whether they're
working or not working. But it's important, especially in a place like Louisiana or my home
State to your north, Arkansas, to note that most
low income people work.
The last point I want to make is people with
family incomes under $30,000 are held harmless
in this program because they'll be eligible for


an income tax cut to offset the gas tax increase.
So most people in Louisiana will come out the
same or ahead on the tax side, but they'll win
big time when we reduce the deficit, invest
some more in education and training, in jobs
and new technologies, and grow this economy.
Energy Tax
Q. Mr. President, the Btu tax is something
that everybody is watching very closely here.
You read one day that the thing's dead and
one day that it's getting resurrected. What is
the status with the Btu tax at this point?
The President. I think there is virtually no
chance that the committee will report out a
Btu tax. Let me back up and say everyone had
decided earlier that the tax ought to be modified
so as not to affect any kind of manufacturing
and agricultural operation. But I think now that
is gone, basically because of the work that Senator Breaux did in the Senate Finance Committee in his efforts to try to have a different sort
of tax that was more focused on transportation.
So that's where we are now.
I think there is virtually no chance that the
transportation tax will be raised much above
what would be-it may be raised a tad above
where it is now in the Senate. But as I said,
I think the goal we're all shooting for is about
a $50 bill for a family with an income of between $40,000 and $50,000 a year. So $50 a
year would be about a buck a week. I think
that's about what you're looking at.
Louisiana Democratic Party
Q. Mr. President, one question I would like
to ask is what is your opinion of the Louisiana
Democrats here who supported you so wholeheartedly during your Presidential election, John
Breaux and J. Bennett Johnston, yet those individuals who, in essence, left the flock of the
Democratic Party when it came time to the
energy bill that was in your package that you
brought before the Congress. I'd like to know
what you think of the Democratic Party here
in Louisiana. And a followup question, if I may:
Is this perhaps the reason why we haven't seen
any of Louisiana natives appointed to high positions in your administration?
The President. Well, the answer to the second
question is no. And I expect you will see some
distinguished Louisianians appointed before
long. That has nothing to do with it.
Let me say first, Senator Breaux, in my judg

1133




July 20 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


ment, played a very constructive role in this
whole process. He wanted to pass a budget that
was fair to Louisiana and also fair to the United
States. And he voted for the passage of the
Senate budget. So I have absolutely nothing
negative to say about him. You've got to give
him credit for trying to work out a program
that he thought was better for Louisiana than
the original proposal I had made but would also
meet our objectives. And the budget that he
worked on and that he voted for plainly does
that.
Senator Johnston was very candid. You know,
he went through a tough campaign, and he's
very worried about the ability of the facts of
this budget to be misrepresented. I mean, John
Breaux told me the other day that he cannot
believe that people in Louisiana have bought
all the negative rhetoric about the budget when
most Louisianians either would get no tax increase or would actually get a tax decrease because this program emphasizes help to the working poor and the small businesses. Let me just
give you one example, once again. Ninety-four
percent of the small businesses in the United
States will not have income tax increase under
this plan. And every one of them will be eligible
for a tax cut if they invest more money in their
own business. Now, that is a stunning statistic.
I'll bet you not 5 percent of the people in Louisiana know that. Why? Because it hasn't been
a source of controversy.
So I think Senator Johnston, if he knew for
sure that the people in Louisiana knew what
was in this program, would feel more comfortable about voting for it. He's getting a lot
of negative feedback. I understand that. But the
facts are that this is a very good program for
Louisiana and Louisianians, and I don't think
people know the facts. We find that over and
over again, that not since I laid out the program
on February 17th, when over 60 percent of the
American people said they were for it, had they
been given the details of the program. All they
have heard since February the 17th is a endless
litany on the part of people who are against
it, largely Republicans, about taxes that they say
are damaging to the people and to the economy.
If you look at the facts, it's good for Louisiana,
and it will be good for the future of the State.
Super Collider
Q. Mr. President, in my neck of the woods,
the superconducting super collider project


would mean more than 1,000 jobs in our immediate vicinity. Yet, on the two most recent occasions, the Senate has all but killed the matter.
Are you still supporting it, number one? And
number two, do you believe it's going to come
out of Washington intact as proposed now?
The President. Yes, I do support it, and I
support it strongly. And I'm very glad you asked
me about it. The superconducting super collider
was defeated soundly in the House, and its fate
is in danger in the Senate. But I want you
to know why. You know, it's been in some trouble in the last few years, but I want you to
know why. You know, most of the project is
in Texas. The people of Texas just voted in
the Senate race overwhelmingly for a new Senator who basically said that the issue was
"spending, stupid," and accused the Congress
of making no spending cuts. When the House
of Representatives was voting just a couple of
weeks ago on the superconducting super
collider, which benefits overwhelmingly the
State of Texas, the two United States Senators
from Texas were outside on the steps with Ross
Perot telling the House they ought to cut spending and attacking them for not doing it. In fact,
it wasn't true. We've cut spending $250 billion
below the last Bush budget. We've cut over
100 things over $100 million apiece.
But I, frankly, think a lot of people got sick
and tired of hearing that. And I hate to say
it, because I am for the superconducting super
collider. It is a good science project. It is good
for America's high-tech employment. It is good
for our future. And I strongly support it. But
it is difficult to get these other Members of
Congress from other States that do not benefit
from it to vote for it when the people from
the States that do benefit from it will not stand
up and take the same kind of votes, and instead
engage in rhetoric which is simply not true.
Now, if you want to know the truth, that's
why it's in so much trouble up here. I hope
I can save it. I'm doing what I can to save
it. I'll keep doing what I can to save it. But
it would certainly help if the people who are
going to benefit immediately from it would stop
saying things which drive the rest of the Congress up the wall, because they're not true.
Q. Mr. President, thank you for being with
us.
The President. Thank you. I've enjoyed it.


1134




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 20


NOTE: The President spoke at 5:30 p.m. via sat- Building. A tape was not available for verification
ellite from Room 459 of the Old Executive Office of the content of these remarks.
Statement on the Anniversary of the Arrest of Aung San Suu Kyi of Burma
July 20, 1993


Today, July 20, marks the 4th anniversary of
the arrest and detention of Aung San Suu Kyi,
the courageous Burmese opposition leader and
Nobel Peace Prize laureate. The overwhelming
mandate won by her party in the 1990 elections
remains unfulfilled. This is a tragedy for Burma
and a cause for outrage in the international community.
Despite her isolation, Aung San Suu Kyi is
not forgotten. An authentic voice of Burmese
democracy, she remains a symbol of hope to
the people of her country who yearn for rep

resentative government and an inspiration to all
who are striving for freedom and democracy
elsewhere in Asia and throughout the world.
Today I renew my call to Burma's military
rulers to release unconditionally Aung San Suu
Kyi and all other prisoners of conscience, to
respect the results of the 1990 elections, and
to undertake genuine democratic reforms. History is on the side of freedom throughout the
world, and I remain confident that the aspirations of all Burmese people for basic human
rights and representative government will ultimately be fulfilled.


Message to the Congress Transmitting the Notice on Continuation of Iraqi
Emergency
July 20, 1993


To the Congress of the United States:
Section 202(d) of the National Emergencies
Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)) provides for the automatic termination of a national emergency unless, prior to the anniversary date of its declaration, the President publishes in the Federal Register and transmits to the Congress a notice stating that the emergency is to continue in effect
beyond the anniversary date. In accordance with
this provision, I have sent the enclosed notice,
stating that the Iraqi emergency is to continue
in effect beyond August 2, 1993, to the Federal
Register for publication.
The crisis between the United States and Iraq
that led to the declaration on August 2, 1990,
of a national emergency has not been resolved.


The Government of Iraq continues to engage
in activities inimical to stability in the Middle
East and hostile to U.S. interests in the region.
Such Iraqi actions pose a continuing unusual
and extraordinary threat to the national security
and vital foreign policy interests of the United
States. For these reasons, I have determined
that it is necessary to maintain in force the
broad authorities necessary to apply economic
pressure to the Government of Iraq.
WILLIAM J. CLINTON
The White House,
July 20, 1993.
NOTE: The notice is listed in Appendix D at the
end of this volume.


1135




July 20 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


Message to the Congress Transmitting
Trade Status for Bulgaria
July 20, 1993
To the Congress of the United States:
On June 3, 1993, I determined and reported
to the Congress that Bulgaria is in full compliance with emigration criteria of the JacksonVanik amendment to, and Section 409 of, the
Trade Act of 1974. This determination allowed
for the continuation of most favored nation
(MFN) status for Bulgaria without the requirement of an annual waiver.
As required by law, I am submitting an updated formal Report to Congress concerning
emigration laws and policies of the Republic


a Report on Most-Favored-Nation
of Bulgaria. You will find that the report indicates continued Bulgarian compliance with U.S.
and international standards in the areas of emigration and human rights policy.
The Administration intends to propose legislation, which would let me terminate the application of Title IV of the Trade Act of 1974 to
Bulgaria.
WILLIAM J. CLINTON
The White House,
July 20, 1993.


Message to the Senate Transmitting the Amendment to the Montreal
Protocol on Ozone-Depleting Substances
July 20, 1993


To the Senate of the United States:
I transmit herewith, for the advice and consent of the Senate to ratification, the Amendment to the Montreal Protocol on Substances
That Deplete the Ozone Layer ("Montreal Protocol"), adopted at Copenhagen on November
23-25, 1992, by the Fourth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol. I am also enclosing, for the information of the Senate: the adjustments, also adopted November 23-25, 1992,
that accelerate the respective phaseout schedules
for substances already controlled under the Protocol (chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), halons, other
fully halogenated CFCs, methyl chloroform, and
carbon tetrachloride); and the report of the Department of State.
The principal feature of the Amendment that
was negotiated under the auspices of the United
Nations Environment Program (UNEP), is the
addition of new controlled substances, namely
hydrochlorofluorocarbons  (HCFCs),  hydrobromofluorocarbons (HBFCs), and methyl bro

mide. The Amendment, coupled with the adjustments, will constitute a major step forward in
protecting public health and the environment
from potential adverse effects of stratospheric
ozone depletion.
The Amendment will enter into force on January 1, 1994, provided that 20 Parties to the
Montreal Protocol have deposited their instruments of ratification, acceptance, or approval.
Early ratification by the United States is important to demonstrate to the rest of the world
our commitment to protection and preservation
of the stratospheric ozone layer and will encourage the wide participation necessary for full realization of the Amendment's goals.
I recommend that the Senate give early and
favorable consideration to the Amendment and
give its advice and consent to ratification.
WILLIAM J. CLINTON
The White House,
July 20, 1993.


1136




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 20


Message to the Congress Transmitting the 1990 Report of the Commodity
Credit Corporation
July 20, 1993


To the Congress of the United States:
In accordance with the provisions of section
13, Public Law 806, 80th Congress (15 U.S.C.
714k), I transmit herewith the report of the
Commodity Credit Corporation for fiscal year


1990.


WILLIAM J. CLINTON


The White House,
July 20, 1993.


Message to the Congress Transmitting the 1991 Report of the Commodity
Credit Corporation
July 20, 1993


To the Congress of the United States:
In accordance with the provisions of section
13, Public Law 806, 80th Congress (15 U.S.C.
714k), I transmit herewith the report of the
Commodity Credit Corporation for fiscal year


1991.


WILLIAM J. CLINTON


The White House,
July 20, 1993.


Interview With Larry King
July 20, 1993


The Presidency
Mr. King. Good evening. Back in Louisville,
about 3 days before the election, President Clinton said on this program, "I'll come on every
6 months." This is the 6-month anniversary. The
timing is perfect. Tonight is 6 months in office
for Clinton-Gore.
Before we get into some-what we'll do is
cover some current issues, talk about the budget, take calls. OK? But first, there's no way
you could plan for this job, so what about it
surprises you the most?
The President. It's hard to say. I've learned
a lot in the last 6 months, and as much as
I have followed this over 20 years, I think there
are some things that you could not have anticipated. I think the thing that has surprised me
most is how difficult it is, even for the President,
if you're going to take on big changes and try
to make big things happen, to really keep communicating exactly what you're about to the
American people.


Mr. King. And why is that hard?
The President. I think because there's so
much else in the atmosphere, first; and secondly,
because when you do something like this big
economic plan we're pushing, only the controversy is newsworthy at a time when there's
so much else to cover. So I'm trying always
to remind people, look, we've got as many
spending cuts, or more, than tax increases; that
the upper income people, people over $200,000,
are paying 70 percent of the burden, and that
the middle class is paying very little; the working
poor are paying nothing. All the details I try
to get into.
But it's very difficult. And we found that the
American people knew the most on February
17th, the night I announced the plan and went
through it point by point, and that since then,
the sort of yelling and rhetoric and screaming
and back and forth, that I have lost the ability
to make sure everybody knows the things I want
them to know. And I feel very badly about that.
Mr. King. Is that everybody's fault? I mean,


1137




July 20 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


is it your fault? Media fault?
The President. I think certainly so. I mean,
I'm not trying to shift responsibility away from
myself. But you asked me. That's been a real
surprise to me because when I was a Governor
in a smaller place where lots of people knew
me, even if I were doing something that was
quite unpopular with the media, say, and they
were criticizing me, I could always get my side
out there, my points. The essential facts would
be out there. And that, to me, has been the
most frustrating thing.
And also when you're President, you have to
make a lot of tough decisions. You just have
to keep lining them up and making them,
whether it's base closings or the very difficult
problems in the Pacific Northwest with the forests or the whole litany of things that we've
done here: the POW/MIA issue and how we're
going to deal with Vietnam, the FBI, the gays
in the military, you name it. And they keep
coming in quick succession. You can't just say,
"Okay, stop the world. I'm going to just work
on this. I'm not going to make these other decisions." You have to keep going.
Mr. King. We were talking before we went
on about Elvis Presley and isolation. And I was
saying that I thought he had a more isolated
life than you do. But this is an isolated life
in here, isn't it?
The President. It can be very isolating.
Mr. King. Do you have to fight it?
The President. I fight it all the time. And
it can be isolating for two reasons. One is there
is so much to do that you have to be very
disciplined about your time. And I think the
more I've been in this office, the more conscious
I've become of it and, I think, the more disciplined I've become about my time. But discipline means deciding things you won't do, people you won't see, calls you won't make.
The second problem is, frankly, the security
problem. TheMr. King. How so?
The President. Well, I think the Secret Service
do a very, very good job. But if your job is
to keep the President from being harmed in
a world full of people who may have some reason to do it, may have the means to do it,
obviously the best thing would be if you put
him in a bulletproof room and walked out, if
you see what I mean.
Mr. King. You couldn't stand that.
The President. No, I couldn't stand that. So


they do a terrific job. But we've worked out
our accommodations so that I can at least run
every day. I run different routes, and we do
different things. And I try to get out and see
the people when I can.
Mr. King. Is it hard to understand their job
for you?
The President. It's much easier now. I really
respect them; they've got a very tough job. And
I make it harder because I'm a real people
person, you know. I like to be out there. But
I think it's an important job. But if you don't
spend some time with just ordinary people who
tell you what they think, hey, you almost forget
how to hear and how to listen and how to speak
and the way that most people live.
Mr. King. By the way, have you seen "In
the Line of Fire"?
The President. Yes, I watched it last night.
Mr. King. What did you think?
The President. I thought Eastwood was terrific. I thought he was good in "Unforgiven."
I think he's good in this. I think he's making
the best movies he's ever made.
Mr. King. Did you like the movie?
The President. I liked the movie very much.
Mr. King. Was it realistic?
The President. I think it was as realistic as
it could be and still be a real rip-roaring thriller,
you know. [Laughter]
Homosexuals in the Military
Mr. King. We helped their business a lot.
Let's touch some other bases. Okay. First, today
Secretary of Defense Aspin appears with what
looked like the entire military in the world before Senator Nunn's committee. And Senator
Nunn finishes by saying he still wants to go
to Congress, but he's inclined to support it. Is
this a plus for you today?
The President. I think it is a plus. The Joint
Chiefs came a long way on this policy from
where they were back in January when we
talked.
Mr. King. When they were almost totally
against it, period.
The President. Completely against changing it
at all; grudgingly said, 'Well, we'll stop asking,"
and none of the things that were in this policy
except for that. And I commend them. They
really tried hard to come to grips with this.
And they know that there are and always have
been homosexuals in the service who served
with real distinction. They and the Secretary


1138




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 20


of Defense deserve a lot of credit. But also,
frankly, the people who argued for an even
broader policy deserve a lot of credit: the Campaign for Military Service, Congressman Studds,
Congressman Frank. They worked hard to try
to come to grips with this. I don't think anyone
was fully satisfied with the result, but I believe
it's the best we can do right now.
Mr. King. Were you in a no-win?
The President. Well, I don't know. I don't
view it that way. It depends on what the standard is. I was in a no-win if the only way I
win is to do exactly what I think is right andMr. King. Which would have been, sign them
and let them in, right?
The President. Yes. But I think it's very important when you hear the criticism of it from
the left, if you will. What I said was that I
thought that status should be the judge-should
not be the judge. It ought to be conduct, not
your orientation. That's what the policy is now.
I further said that I thought a person ought
to be able to say, "I'm gay." And as long as
they didn't do anything that violated the rules,
they should be able to stay.
Mr. King. That's now true.
The President. That's only true in a restricted
way. Now if you say it, it creates a presumption
that you're going to do something wrong while
you're in the military, but you are given the
opportunity to present evidence that you won't,
to convince, in effect, your commander that you
will observe the rules. But I never promised
to change the rules of conduct. That's in the
Uniform Code of Military Justice. That's the
way it is.
Now, to be fair to the Joint Chiefs, they
agreed to go further on matters of privacy and
association than I ever discussed in the campaign. So this provides dramatically increased
protection and a range of privacy for present
and future soldiers who happen to be homosexuals but happen to be good military people.
Mr. King. So in other words, you filled your
promise.
The President. I did, except for the fact that
we were not able to do precisely what I wanted,
which was to give people the freedom to acknowledge their sexual orientation as long as
they were following the rules of conduct. Today
if you do that, it can get you in trouble, but
you have the option to convince your commander that you really are following the rules.
So I don't think it goes quite as far as I wanted


on statements. On the other hand, it goes quite
a bit further to protect private conduct on the
rules of investigation than I anticipated.
Mr. King. What do you make of Senator
Nunn in all of this?
The President. I think first of all, he doesn't
agree with my position, but I think he's worked
hard, too, to try to come to grips with the reality
of this, to open his mind and heart to the arguments on both sides. And I think he feels a
special stewardship for the military. He's been
chairman of the Armed Services Committee for
a long time. He wants to make sure that if
this is going to be the policy and he's going
to support it, that it is legally defensible. And
I think he's doing what he thinks is his job.
Mr. King. Do you think it will pass in the
Senate?
The President. I do. I think if I had done
what I wanted to do, the Senate and the House
would have reversed it.
Reaction to Criticism
Mr. King. How do you take-before we take
a break, and then we're going to get to the
economy-bashing? You know, the heat that a
President takes, and you've been taking a lot
of it. How do you deal with that?
The President. Well, it's all part of it.
Mr. King. It rolls off you?
The President. Most of it rolls off of me;
not all of it. If I think something is particularly
unfair-the only thing that really bothers me,
if you want to know the truth, is when I think
that the bashing is in some area that prevents
the American people from focusing on what
we're doing about the things they care about
that are most important, or if it undermines
my ability to get things done.
The criticism is a part of the job, and, frankly-you know Benjamin Franklin said a long
time ago, "Our critics can be our friends, for
they show us our faults." Sometimes our critics
show us our faults, and I try to listen and learn
from my critics. But if I think they're diverting
the attention of the American people from the
real issues or the whole thing is undermining
my ability to do what I was elected to do, that
bothers me. But just to be criticized, shoot,
that's part of it.
[At this point, the stations took a commercial
break.]


1139




July 20 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


Midwest Disaster Assistance
Mr. King. We're back with President Clinton.
A couple of other bases, then the economy.
Where do you get your money for the floods?
Where does that come from?
The President. It comes from emergency appropriations. That is, we just add it to our
spending this year. That's the way we've traditionally handled emergencies in America. And
this year, thankfully, our deficit is well down
because the interest rates have come down so
much that we expect a big drop in the deficit
over and above what we thought it would be.
Mr. King. So it's going to be $2.5 billion almost in some States
The President. Well, we have upped our request to almost $3 billion now, and it may have
to be revised upward again. Keep in mind, we
can't hold harmless everybody from every loss,
but there are programs to help businesses,
farms, communities, and individuals who are out
of work and who have no means of support.
Mr. King. Can you waive the State matching
funds?
The President. I can do it. I can waive it,
or we can write it down some.
Mr. King. What are you going to do?
The President. It depends on what the facts
of each State are, how much problem they've
got, how much of a burden it would be.
Mr. King. It'll be State by State?
The President. Yes, we'll have to look at it
on a State-by-State basis, I think. I think that's
the only fair way to do it.
FBI Director
Mr. King. Was it hard to fire Mr. Sessions?
The President. It was not hard, but it was
sad for me. I admire the FBI greatly. I had
a lot of contact with former FBI officers, had
several of them in my administration. My criminal justice adviser was once the number two
man in the FBI. My chief of staff for some
time was a retired FBI agent. I love the FBI,
and I hated to be the first President ever to
have to fire a Director. But he said that that's
the way he wanted it. He refused to resign,
and I felt I had no choice.
I do think that Louis Freeh, the Federal
judge whom I appointed today, will be a sterling
FBI Director.
Mr. King. The word is, this guy, where's he
been? This guy is, like, flawless.
The President. Well, he's an amazing man.


I mean, he grew up in a working-class family
in Jersey City. He married a wonderful girl from
Pittsburgh, whose dad was a steel worker. He
worked his way through law school. He's my
kind of guy, you know, just from the heartland.
Mr. King. That "flawless" is the quote from
the guy who did the investigation.
The President. Absolutely. Well, then he was
a great FBI agent, and then he was a prosecutor. He did the Pizza Connection case which
was then the biggest heroin ring ever broken
in the United States. He investigated a seafront
corruption and brought indictments against 125
people. And then that awful mail bombingtwo murders in the South, the Federal judge,
the civil rights leader-he broke that case when
people thought it could never be broken, and
then he prosecuted it himself. He has really
been an amazing success, and as you know,
President Bush made him a Federal judge. And
I think it's really a testimony to his character
that he was willing to leave a lifetime job to
be Director of the FBI, because he knew the
Agency needed him.
Mr. King. He's also very big in the area of
civil rights, is he not?
The President. That's right. That was a big
thing with me. I wanted somebody who was
tough on crime, but who knew the FBI had
to bring in more women and minorities. They've
been behind on that. And they're moving, and
I want to give Judge Sessions credit for that.
He did a good job on that, trying to open the
Bureau, and Judge Freeh said he'd continue
it.
Supreme Court Nominee
Mr. King. Do you expect Judge Ginsburg to
be approved easily?
The President. Yes. I'm very proud of her,
and she did real well today, I think. She's an
extraordinary woman, as a real pioneer in women's rights, but also, I think, has been a judge
in the best sense. She's very hard to categorize
as liberal or conservative, but she'll take a tough
decision when she thinks it's right.
Mr. King. On your key issue, though, which
you said in the campaign, of freedom of choice,
you think she'll come through?
The President. Yes. Well, she's got a real
record of statement there. I didn't give her any
kind of litmus test in the interview; I didn't
think it was right.
Mr. King. You didn't?


1140




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 20


The President. No. But I was familiar enough
with her rulings and her speeches and her statements to know how she felt about that issue.
Surgeon General Nominee
Mr. King. And Dr. Elders-standing with
her?
The President. Absolutely.
Mr. King. Were you at all dismayed by some
of the things she said, "enemy of the fetus"
andThe President. Well, she's a very passionate
woman. But I think you have to understand
where she came from. I mean, Joycelyn Elders
grew up as one of seven children in a cotton
field in South Arkansas. She came from nowhere, economically anyway. Her brothers and
sisters worked hard to help her get through
medical school. She married a man who later
became the most successful high school basketball coach in our State, very much a beloved
man. And she was a doctor, a professor in the
medical school when I finally, after three times,
talked her into becoming the health department
director.
And she said, "What do you want me to do?"
I said, "I want you to fight teen pregnancy,
I want you to fight AIDS, I want you to do
something about environmental health, and I
want us to get infant mortality down." And she
found that her passion, in effect, drove her.
I mean, she's a very passionate woman. And
sometimes she says things in stark and blunt
terms that make people draw up. But I think
it's fair to say that in our State, which is a
pretty old-fashioned, conservative place, she was
very popular because people believed she was
fighting for children, she was fighting to reduce
infant mortality, she was fighting to reduce teen
pregnancy. She was not pro-abortion. And, as
a matter of fact, in many years I was Governor,
the number of abortions performed dropped
over the previous years.
Mr. King. So you're not-are you surprised
that the far right has kind of taken off on her?
The President. No, because she is a lightning
rod. They sort of took off on her in Arkansas
for a while. But in the end she prevailed because people believed she cared about people.
She was trying to save these kids from having
babies. She was trying to reduce the infant mortality rate. She was trying to force people to
do things-to change their behavior so AIDS
wouldn't be communicated.


Mr. King. Will she prevail here, too? Will
she be confirmed?
The President. I think she's an extraordinary
woman. I'll be very surprised if she's not confirmed.
Representative Dan Rostenkowski
Mr. King. Dan Rostenkowski gets into trouble
on the eve of maybe the most important time
for him in your administration, because he's the
spear carrier for the House side for the economic plan. How do you feel about that? What
happens if he is indicted? That's a fair question
because there's the possibility he could be indicted.
The President. Well, first, about that, of
course, I can't comment. I'm not involved, and
I shouldn't be, and I can't comment. I can only
tell you that I've worked very closely with him
and with Senator Moynihan. And he was here
today continuing to work. I think, like every
other American, he should be given the presumption of innocence.
Mr. King. But what happens if thisThe President. But all I can tell you is his
backbone has been a mile wide and awful stiff
in this whole thing. He's been a major force
in pushing for changes that will finally get this
deficit under control and help us to turn our
economy around. And I'm going to keep working with him as long as he's here.
Mr. King. Have you asked him about this
incident at the post office?
The President. No.
Mr. King. If something were to happen, do
you have another point man in mind? I mean,
will this hurt the chances of a compromise if
Rostenkowski's stature is limited?
The President. Well, I don't even know how
to comment on that. All I can tell you is that
if he keeps working at it like he has, he's going
to make a positive difference.
Mr. King. We'll be right back with President
Clinton.
[The stations took a commercial break.]
Mr. King. Our guest is President Clinton.
We're in the Library. We're ready to go to your
phone calls. We ask that you get right to the
point so we can reach as many people as possible.
Orlando, Florida, hello.


1141




July 20 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


Defense Base Closings
[A participant asked why the Orlando Training
Center was selected for closure.]
The President. I understand. Let me say, first
of all, I think it is a good training center. For
all of our listeners, the Orlando Training Center
in Florida was one of the bases recommended
by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and by the Secretary
of Defense for the base closing, and the Commission voted to do that, to close the Orlando
Center.
One of the biggest problems when you close
a big military base is that many military bases
have people retired around them who used to
be in the military who use the medical facilities,
and therefore, in the aftermath, that's often one
of the toughest issues.
Let me answer those two things separately,
if I might. First of all, I can't answer why the
Orlando Training Center was picked by the Joint
Chiefs. That process began before I became
President. They sent the recommendation to the
Secretary of Defense, who sent it to the Base
Closing Commission. They thought that it
should be closed, and they approved it. They
sent the whole list to me, and I either had
to sign on or off. And I concluded that I had
no basis to reject the whole package, so I approved it, and it went to the Congress.
Now, let me make just one important point
about that. It's very tough when you close these
bases. I know it. But we have taken the military
down from about 2.5 million people, going down
toward 1.6, then 1.5, then 1.4. You can't reduce
the military by 40 percent and only reduce the
base structure by nine. Most of the bases that
are recommended for closure are in Europe,
some in the United States. But we have to reduce the base structure because otherwise we
won't have enough money to train the personnel
and to keep developing the smart weapons and
the important technology that keep our people
the best fighting force in the world and keep
them safe.
Now secondly, let me just say on the health
issue, when the First Lady agreed to take up
the health issue and her task force began to
work, one of the things I asked her to do is
to look into health care for military retirees
around military bases and look into those facilities. That is one of the things that that task
force has done. They are looking at those facilities, asking: Can they be open, can they be


reopened, should they be reopened, should they
be military facilities, should they be available
for military and civilian personnel, what's going
to happen in terms of the availability of health
care? So that's something that the commission
is looking on, and I expect that I'll get some
recommendations on that that we'll know about
pretty soon when we announce the health care
plan.
Mr. King. To St. Louis, Missouri, with President Clinton. Hello.
National Lottery
[A participant asked if the President had considered a national lottery to reduce the deficit.]
Mr. King. It's been proposed for years.
The President. Yes. Let me say, it has been
proposed, a national lottery to reduce the deficit.
And every time I have seen anybody talk about
it, the conclusion has been that we probably
shouldn't do it for two reasons. Number one,
it would probably not raise an enormous amount
of money. And number two, it might dramatically eat into the proceeds that are now going
to the States who have lotteries. Most States
have lotteries now, and that money generally
goes to the education of our children or, in
the case of Pennsylvania, the care of elderly
citizens. And the Federal Government, I think,
would get a lot of opposition from the States
if it appeared that we were going to take away
their efforts to educate people to pay down the
debt.
I have to say, finally, I personally have always
had some reservation about the lotteries because, disproportionately, the people who play
them tend to be on the lower income scale.
But even if you put that to the side, for the
other two reasons I think it is probably not
a very good idea.
Mr. King. It is voluntary taxation.
The President. It is absolutely voluntary. And
that's the best argument for it. The best argument for it is it's absolutely voluntary. And if
it raised $1 billion, it's $1 billion we wouldn't
have otherwise. So there are some arguments
for it. But the two I mention are the reasons
I think that it's never been adopted.
Economic Program
Mr. King. We have to take a break, but quickly, why did you have to change your mind on
the tax rates for middle income?
The President. Because after the election was


1142




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 20


over, the government of the previous administration revised upward the deficit by, oh, about
$50 billion a year in each of the next 3 years.
Mr. King. So you had no idea of that when
you were running?
The President. No, I didn't know it would
be revised upward. So the decision I had to
make was, well, are you going to live with a
bigger deficit and less deficit reduction, or
should you ask the middle class to pay a little?
I also, frankly, did something else I didn't
like. I revised upward the tax burden on the
wealthiest Americans, and I think there's a limit
beyond which you don't want to go on them
either.
Mr. King. We're going to break. We'll pick
up on that.
[The stations took a commercial break.]
Mr. King. We're back in the Library with
President Clinton, and before we take our next
call we want to pick up where we left off on,
because he's taken a lot of shots on this, and
it would be interesting to hear it in this setting,
the other side.
The President. I just want to say that when
I became President and the deficit had been
estimated upward since the election quite a bit,
over $125, $130 billion, I decided that we were
going to have to cut more spending and raise
more revenues than I had thought to get the
deficit down to a point that it was manageable
and to keep long-term interest rates coming
down.
I think that it's very important to hammer
home that there's a real connection between
an effort to reduce the deficit and getting these
long-term interest rates down. Before the election, basically you had short-term interest rates
brought way down by the Federal Reserve
Board but a big gap between them and the
long-term rates. And that's what determines
mortgage rates, business loans, and a lot of other
things. So we decided that it would be worth
it to really take a tough stand to raise some
more money, most of it from upper-income people but a modest amount from middle-class people, and cut more spending.
And let me show you what the difference
is. If you look at this chart here, if I had just
stayed with the budget that I found when I
took office, that is, the one adopted in the last
year of President Bush's term, here's what happens to the deficit.


Mr. King. That's the inherited deficit?
The President. This is the inherited deficit.
With our plan, here's what happens to it over
5 years. Now, what you see down here is the
real hitch-we can come back to this laterand that is that with all of our cuts and with
the revenue increases, health care is still going
up at 9 percent a year. Until we bring health
care costs in line with inflation, we can't go
down to zero. When we do, we can get down
to zero and balance this budget. That's why
health care reform is so important.
But look at the difference here. Now, let me
just show you one other thing. Even though
I did decide to ask for a modest tax increase
on the middle class, let me just say exactly what
this is.
Here is a deficit reduction plan. For every
$10, $5 comes in spending cuts, $4 comes from
people with incomes above $100,000; that's the
top 6 percent. Of this $4, seven-eighths of that
comes from people with incomes above
$200,000. And then $1, 1 in 10, comes from
people with incomes between $30,000 and
$100,000. Families with incomes below $30,000
are held harmless.
So I think it is a fair and balanced package.
Now, this portion, the portion the middle class
pays, if anything near what the Senate bill does
passes, will be about $50 a year for a family
of four with an income of, let's say, between
$40,000 and $50,000 a year, or about a buck
a week. And all this money-all this money goes
into a trust fund for 5 years to pay down the
deficit. It has to be used for that. And if we
miss our targets of paying down the deficit, that
is, if we miss my line back here any year, I
have to come back in and give new cuts, new
ways to meet the deficit reduction.
Now, what does this mean for the average
American? It means that, as we have made
progress on this, we've got the lowest interest
rates in 20 years. So millions of people are refinancing their homes, refinancing their business
loans. They're going to take out lower college
loans, car loans, consumer loans. Millions of
Americans will save far more in interest rates
than they will pay in this modest tax package,
even upper income people.
Let me just make a couple more points. Ninety-four percent of the small businesses in this
country will pay no income tax increase and
will have the opportunity to get a tax cut if
they simply invest more money back in their


1143




July 20 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


business and create jobs, because we more than
double the expensing provision for small business.
One final thing that's important. I just got
back from this G-7 meeting, the meeting of
the world's great industrial powers. For 10 years,
at every meeting the United States didn't have
much influence because we were attacked over
having such a big deficit and being greedy, taking money from all around the world to pay
for it. This year, for the first time in a decade,
we were complimented, not criticized, and that's
why-the progress of this economic plan is why
at this meeting we were able to get an agreement to lower tariffs on our manufactured products. It means hundreds of thousands of jobs
for Americans if we can get all the countries
in the world to agree to change the trade agreement, like the big countries have. And we've
got a new trade deal with Japan where the Japanese for the first time agreed to dramatically
reduce the trade deficit.
Economic Summit
Mr. King. By the way, did you expect that
going there?
The President. No, but I hoped for it. I had
an instinct that both those things could happen.
Everybody said nothing is going to happen at
this meeting because all of these countries are
in terrible economic shape, all their leaders are
unpopular. Well, they are. We've got a global
economic crisis, and when people can't make
a living, when they're insecure, they're worried
about losing their health care, their benefits,
the ability to raise and educate their children,
leaders aren't going to be popular.
But what happened was, there was a sense
that we owed it to the people we represent
to do something, to try to move this economy
and create jobs and get some things going. And
that spirit sort of overtook the meeting. I called
several of them before we met, and I said, "Everybody says we're not going to do anything,
but why is that? Why don't we go and do something? We're actors; we want to get something
done." And I was very pleased with it.
Mr. King. Los Angeles, as we go back to
calls for President Clinton. Hello.
Economic Program
[A participant asked about tax increases.]
The President. Well, the deficit has dropped
this year about $25 billion or so below where


it was estimated to be when I took office because interest rates have dropped. Therefore,
what we have to pay on the accumulated debt
of the country has gone down. The only reason
interest rates have dropped is because we've
got a serious attempt to reduce the deficit.
And, again, let me just reiterate what the facts
are: Seventy percent of the new taxes will be
paid by people who make incomes above
$200,000. No income tax increases will be paid
by people who have adjusted gross incomesindividuals below $140,000, couples below
$180,000. There will be no tax increase at all
for people with incomes below $30,000. And
this modest fuel tax will amount to about $50
a year for families with incomes of about
$50,000. Now, I think that is a very modest
price to pay, especially when we have spending
cuts that are equal to-in fact, they'll be slightly
greater than, I believe, the tax increase.
Q. What kind of fuel are you going to tax?
Which are we going to go with, the House or
Senate, do you think?
The President. I think something closer to the
Senate version. They haven't been finally settled
on butMr. King. Gas tax?
The President. Closer to that. There's less opposition to it.
Mr. King. Copenhagen, Denmark. Hello.
Bosnia
[A participant asked about U.S. troop participation in peacekeeping efforts.]
The President. Well, let me remind you, sir,
that we have had several thousand troops in
Somalia. We have contributed hundreds of millions of dollars in humanitarian aid to the former
Yugoslavia. We have done airdrops of supplies.
We have always been committed to use our
air power to protect your troops and any other
troops. We have not wanted to get the Untied
States involved in the conflict there unless there
was a settlement. I have always said that we
would send appropriate military personnel to be
part of a United Nations enforcement of the
settlement.
Let me also say that the closest we ever were
to settling that was when the Serbs and the
Croats thought that the Europeans were going
to go along with my proposal to lift the arms
embargo and to make available standby air
power to enforce no use of the Serbian artillery


1144




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 20


against the Muslim, the Bosnian government
there while the arms embargo was being lifted.
When it became obvious that I could not prevail
in the United Nations because of the opposition
of some of the European nations, that's when
things began to deteriorate again instead of
move toward peace.
So I had a policy. I'm disappointed that it
was rejected by some of the European countries.
I'm grateful that the Germans and some others
supported it. But we are prepared to do our
part to try to resolve this. We are working weekly on it. I feel terrible about it. But I do not
believe the United States needs to send a lot
of troops there which might get involved in a
civil war on the ground when we had a planwhich would have led, I'm convinced, to a settlement-which was not accepted. If we get a
settlement, as we might now under other conditions, we are prepared to do our part through
the U.N. to help to enforce it.
Mr. King. We'll be back with President Clinton.
[The stations took a commercial break.]
Mr. King. This is funny, folks, what happens
behind the scenes, so we'll make it public for
you. We had arranged with President Clinton's
staff that we would finish at 10 p.m. Eastern
time, one hour, and the staff had arranged it
with our producers. And then President Clinton
just said to me, "Could we go a little longer?"
And I said, "Sure, if you want to go a little
longer, we can go another half hour." And he
said he'd be happy to.
So we didn't do it, and I just want the staff
to know that we didn't do it. If you would
like to do it, we would be happy to accommodate you.
The President. You offered us the opportunity
this afternoon and I think at that time we didn't
know whether we could or not. But I'd like
to do it.
Mr. King. You're feeling refreshed?
The President. Yes, and I like answering the
questions. I think that's important.
Mr. King. By the way, before we take our
next call, he did give credit to Mr. Eastwood.
We did add on the break that he also wanted
to give credit to John Malkovich in "In the
Line of Fire."
The President. He's a great villain, isn't he?
I mean, he was fabulous.
Mr. King. I haven't seen it yet, but they tell


me it's unbelievable.
The President. Unbelievable. Rene Russo was
good, too, and I'd only seen her in that Mel
Gibson movie.
Mr. King. You are a movie buff, right?
The President. I love the movies. I love the
movies.
Mr. King. What's it like when you order them
here in the White House?
The President. Well, you know, they send in
movies on a regular basis, so I get to see a
lot of movies here. Normally, what we do is
on Friday night-I normally work pretty late
on Friday night, till 7, 7:30 p.m. Last Friday
I worked till 8:30 p.m. And then we gather
up whoever is still working late in the White
House, and Hillary and I and, when Chelsea's
here, Chelsea would come down and watch the
movie. We like that.
Economic Program
Mr. King. We're ready to go back to more
phone calls for President Clinton. Again, when
you come on the line, please make the question
or comment right to the point. And before we
take our next call, I also want to give him a
chance to expound on the lady who did call.
I think he looked a little-when the lady who
said —
The President. She said, well, if the deficit
is down, why do you need to raise any taxes.
Keep in mind, we went from a $1 to a $4
trillion national debt-that's the annual deficits
added up-in only 12 years, from 1980 to 1992.
And we need to get that deficit down to zero
as quickly as we can without collapsing the economy. You can't do it overnight, but we have
to do it over a period of years.
And as we do it, that's less money we have
to spend on interest on the debt and more
money we can invest in creating jobs, business
incentives, and education and training and new
technologies, and building roads and bridges and
airports and things that make a country rich
and competitive in this world. So even though
we're getting a break on the deficit, we're getting a break on the deficit because the financial
markets are responding to our efforts to bring
the deficit down. And so we can't back up.
We don't want to overdo it because that will
slow the economy down, if you take too much
money out at one time. But if we do it too
little, then the interest rates will go up and
we'll be in trouble on that score again.


1145




July 20 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


Mr. King. Montreal, Quebec, Canada. Hello.
Homosexuals in the Military
[A participant asked why the President did not
act on the issue of homosexuals in the military
the same way President Truman had concerning
desegregation of the military.]
The President. Well, first of all, let's talk about
what I did do, and then I'll tell you why the
argument you made is not analogous.
What I did do was to give instructions to
the Secretary of Defense to promulgate a policy
which permits gays to serve for the first time
and judges them like other service men and
women on their conduct, not their sexual orientation. That is a big change. They're not going
to be asked about their sexual orientation. Their
privacy, including their rights of association, are
going to be protected. That is, if they are seen
going into a gay bar, that will not lead to an
investigation of their sexual orientation. The laws
against sexual misconduct will be enforced clearly and unambiguously in an even-handed way
against heterosexuals and homosexuals. And if
a gay person says that he or she is homosexual,
while that can create a presumption that they
are doing something that is prohibited and lead
to their separation from service, they will be
given an explicit opportunity to argue that they
are honoring the code of conduct. Now that
is a big change.
Now, how is that different from the situation
with President Truman? The real thing you
ought to ask is how long did it take before
African-Americans, in this case, were treated
fully equally in the service? It didn't just happen
snap with Truman's order. It didn't happen after
Truman's order, and it developed a long time
before Truman's order. There was an explicit
open involvement of the military culture with
blacks in a segregated way for a very long time
before this order was issued.
The same thing happened with women. One
of the things that's achieved almost no notice
is that during my administration the Pentagon
has voted to dramatically expand the role of
women in the military services, make available
far more roles for them than were available before. But it didn't happen overnight. It happened over a period of years as the military
culture adapted to it.
Now, if I had done what you suggest, if I
had just said that gays could serve and whatever


they do in private is their own business-which
I never committed to do in the campaignI'll tell you exactly what would have happened.
Congress would have overturned it immediately
and done it on the defense bill and in ways
that would have been difficult, if not impossible,
for me to veto.
So the situations simply aren't analogous.
Congress has no intention of overturning President Truman's position, and it's something that
had built up over a long period of time, not
something that just entered the public debate,
in effect, about a year ago.
Mr. King. St. Thomas, the Virgin Islands.
Hello.
Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia
[A participant asked about voting rights for residents of Puerto Rico.]
The President. Well, it would take a legal
change. I'm embarrassed to tell you I don't
know if it would take a change in the Constitution. I'd like to invite you to write me about
it, and I'll commit to you I'll look into it. I
know that in the case of Puerto Rico, they did
have a Presidential primary, which I was very
active in. And the people there were very good
to me, and I'm grateful for that.
I have strongly supported, in the case of Puerto Rico, self-determination. That is, if they have
a referendum there and they vote to continue
their commonwealth status or to become independent or to become a State, whatever they
decide I will support.
Mr. King. You also support statehood for
Washington, DC?
The President. I do. And I didn't, frankly,
until about a year and a half ago when a number
of people, including Jesse Jackson, who is one
of the shadow Senators for DC, pointed out
to me that this community, which was once a
Federal preserve entirely, now has more people
than 5 States, pays more taxes than 10, and
sent more soldiers into harm's way in the Persian Gulf than 20. So I think there are ways
you can carve out a Federal enclave here that's
still separate and apart and let the rest of those
folks become a State. There are some complicated issues there. I think there's a lot ofif you had the first city-state, they try to tax
people from other states, and we'd have to work
though all that. And if
Mr. King. And if Puerto Rico wants statehood,


1146




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 20


you'd be happy to welcome them as number
51?
The President. If that's what they vote for.
I think they, the people of Puerto Rico, should
decide.
Mr. King. We'll be back with President Clinton.
[The stations took a commercial break.]
Mr. King. We're back on "Larry King Live."
Now, you would think these are two pretty powerful-the President of the United States. We're
doing all right. The President had another commitment he didn't know about, right? So he'll
be with us until the top of the hour. However,
every 6 months we have a kind of rotating date,
right, as promised during the campaign?
The President. And I owe you a half an hour
now.
Mr. King. And he'll owe us a half an hour,
so the next appearance will be 90 minutes in
6 months. Or 2 hours, as pointed out by Atlanta-they never stop-2 hours, OK. But we
do thank-there was another appointment which
he was unaware of and we were unaware of.
So we'll get to some calls quickly, and he will
be returning every 6 months. He promised it
during the campaign; this is the 6-month anniversary.
Arlington, Virginia, with President Clinton.
Hello.
President's Domestic Priorities
[A participant asked what the President would
like his legacy to be.]
Mr. King. Is it too early to have a legacy?
The President. No, I'd be happy to tell you
that. Number one, I'd like to get this economy
moving again, get the deficit down and start
creating jobs and seeing working Americans
have their incomes go up.
Number two, I'd like to provide health security for all Americans. I'd like for us to join
all the other advanced countries in the world
and provide a system of affordable health care
to all of our people.
Number three, I want my national service
plan to pass. It will open the doors of college
education to millions of Americans for lower
interest loans and give many, many of them
the chance to work those loans off through service at their communities.
Number four, I strongly want to pass a welfare reform bill that will move people from wel

fare to work and end welfare as we know it.
And five, I want to reform the political system. We have already passed the motor voter
bill that makes it easier for people to register
and vote. Three other bills that I care very
deeply about have passed one House of Congress, but not both: one, a campaign finance
reform bill to lower the cost of political campaigns, reduce the influence of PAC's, and open
the airwaves to debate; two, a bill that drastically
opens up lobbying behavior, restricting some
lobbying behavior and requiring them to report
what they spend on members of Congress; and
three, the modified line-item veto, which I think
will help discipline spending. So those are the
things; I would like those things to be my legacy.
NAFTA
Mr. King. Want NAFTA to pass, too?
The President. Very much. I strongly support-I think it means more jobs, not less. Let
me just make
Mr. King. You disagree with Mr. Perot?
The President. I do, because keep in mind,
anybody who wants to go to Mexico because
they have low wages and send the products back
here can do that today. Mexican tariffs on American products on average are higher than American tariffs on Mexican. Because of what President Salinas has done in lowering those tariffs
in the last few years, we've gone from a $5
billion trade deficit to a $6 billion trade surplus
with Mexico. They now have displaced Japan
as the second biggest purchaser of American
manufactured products. So I think a wealthier
Mexico means more products going down there
and more jobs for America.
Mr. King. A quick call, last call. Paris, France,
hello.
Terrorism
[A participant questioned U.S. policy toward
Iran.]
The President. The answer is we are doing
everything we can to impose restrictions on
trade with Iran. We are pressuring our allies
and friends all the time not to support any government, including Iran, that supports terrorism
and assassination.
I'm glad you brought it up. I think it's a
very significant problem. I hope you will press
this hard in Paris as you are pressing Washington, because that is something that all the West


1147




July 20 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


should be sensitive to. We must not allow Iraq,  Mr. King. Thanks very much, Mr. President.
Iran, and other agents of terrorism and assas-  The President. Thank you.
sination to dominate the world politically and
to terrorize innocent people. I think you're abso-  NOTE: The interview began at 9 p.m. The Presilutely right.                                dent spoke from the Library at the White House.
Statement on the Death of Deputy White House Counsel Vincent Foster,
Jr.
July 20, 1993


It was with deep sadness that I learned of
the death of Vincent Foster, who served ably
and with distinction as Deputy White House
Counsel and was my friend for over 40 years.
Hillary and I love his wife Lisa and their three
children, and we want to draw them close to
our hearts and keep them in our prayers in
this painful moment of grief. His family has
lost a loving husband and father, America has


lost a gifted and loyal public servant, and Hillary
and I have lost a true and trusted friend. My
deepest hope is that whatever drew Vince away
from us this evening, his soul will receive the
grace and salvation that his good life and good
works earned.
NOTE: Information regarding the circumstances
of Mr. Foster's death was included with this statement.


Excerpts of Remarks in a Meeting With White House Staff on the Death
of Deputy White House Counsel Vincent Foster, Jr.
July 21, 1993


First of all, I want to tell you how very glad
I am to see all of you here today. I thought
it was important that we come together for a
few minutes. Forty-two years ago, when I met
Mr. McLarty in kindergarten, I lived with my
grandparents in a modest little house around
the corer from Vince Foster's nice, big, white
brick house. And our backyards touched. Yesterday, last night when I finished the Larry King
show and I was told what happened, I just kept
thinking in my mind of when we were so young,
sitting on the ground in the backyard, throwing
knives into the ground and seeing if we were
adroit enough to make them stick.
When I started my career in Arkansas politics,
he was there to help me. When I decided to
run for attorney general, he was the first lawyer
in Little Rock I talked to about supporting me.
When the Rose law firm hired Hillary after I
moved to Little Rock, Vince Foster and Webb
Hubbell became her closest friends. I have two
things to say about that: One is, he was a per

fectly wonderful man on whom I relied and
on whom I put a lot for a very long time.
The second thing is, for all of you who are
especially younger, you will find the longer you
live, the more you mark the shape of your life
by the people you have truly loved who, for
whatever reason, aren't around anymore.
And so, I want you to think about the following: In the first place, no one can ever know
why this happened. Even if you had a whole
set of objective reasons, that wouldn't be why
it happened, because you could get a different,
bigger, more burdensome set of objective reasons that are on someone else even in this room.
So what happened was a mystery about something inside of him. And I hope all of you will
always understand that.
And the last thing I want to say is that all
of us who loved him also did a little bit of
laughing last night. Just as it is wrong to try


1148




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 21


to explain or understand something that cannot
be grasped, it is very wrong to define a life
like his in terms only of how it ended. And
anybody in this room could be proud to have
raised the children, done the work, been the


friend that he was. God bless you.
NOTE: These remarks follow the text as released
by the Office of the Press Secretary. A tape was
not available for verification of the content of
these remarks.


Remarks on the Death of Deputy White House Counsel Vincent Foster,
Jr.
July 21, 1993


The President. Good afternoon. I have just
met with the White House staff to basically talk
with them a little bit about the death of my
friend of 42 years, Vince Foster. It is an immense personal loss to me and to Hillary and
to many of his close friends here and a great
loss to the White House and to the country.
As I tried to explain, especially to the young
people on the staff, there is really no way to
know why these things happen, and it is very
important that his life not be judged simply
by how it ended, because Vince Foster was a
wonderful man in every way and because no
one can know why things like this happen.
I also encouraged the staff to remember that
we're all people and that we have to pay maybe
a little more attention to our friends and our
families and our coworkers and try to remember
that work can never be the only thing in life
and a little humility in the face of this is very,
very important.
I also pointed out that we have to go on.
We have the country's business to do. I am
keeping my schedule today except for the public
events. I'm keeping all my appointments, and
I expect to resume my normal schedule tomorrow. And then, of course, when the funeral is
held, Hillary and I will go home and be a part
of that. But otherwise, we will go on with our
Interview With the Alabama Media
July 21, 1993
The President. First of all, let me thank you
for coming, and thank you for understanding
why we didn't do the entire hour today. I'll


schedule and keep doing our work.
Q. Mr. President, do you have any idea why
he might have taken his life? There's no
indicationThe President. No. I really don't. And frankly,
none of us do. His closest friends sat around
discussing it last night at some length. None
of us do. For more years than most of us would
like to admit, in times of difficulty he was normally the Rock of Gibraltar while other people
were having trouble. No one could ever remember the reverse being the case. So I don't know
that we'll ever know. But for me, it's just important that that not be the only measure of his
life. He did too much good as a father, as a
husband, as a friend, as a lawyer, as a citizen.
And we'll just have to live with something else
we can't understand, I think.
Q. There's some feeling that he might have
felt the guilt or blame for things that went
wrong in the White House during the first 6
months.
The President. I don't think so. I certainly
don't think that can explain it, and I certainly
don't think it's accurate.
Thank you.
NOTE: The President spoke at 12:50 p.m. in the
Rose Garden at the White House.


be happy to answer any questions you have.
And I have reviewed your schedule. I hope you
found it helpful coming here, and I'm very glad


1149




July 21 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


to see you. I saw some of you walking across
the street today.
Go ahead, sir.
Economic Program
Q. The Vice President was just talking about
Senator Dole's alternative plan, and your administration's spokesman has been very critical and
much more so of Republicans in recent days,
what they've put forward. He used the phrase
that the Republicans didn't have the guts to
make the tough choices. I was just curious
whether you would extend that characterization
to Senator Shelby, the cosponsor of that Republican plan.
The President. Well, let me characterize the
plan. I mean, what bothered me about the plan
was that it seemed to me to run the riskI thought there were two things wrong with
it. First of all, it had a lot less deficit reduction
in it than our plan does. Secondly, under the
guides of not taxing the middle class, it imposed
no new revenues on the people who were paying
70 percent of our load, that is, people with
incomes over $200,000 a year. That group of
people, the top one percent of Americans, derived, according to all serious, studies, about
70 percent of the gains, economic gains of the
1980's, and their taxes were reduced while middle class Americans had their incomes stagnant
and their taxes increased in the aggregate in
the 1980's. The third problem that I saw with
it was that even the deficit reduction figure that
they alleged was actually quite a bit smaller because they had what we call a plug in it. And
I think that must be what the Vice President
must have referred to. That is, there was, I
don't know, $65 billion, $70 billion, something
like that where they said, "Well, we'll cut this,
but we'll tell you later how we're going to do
it. We'll figure that out somewhere down the
road."
Our plan really from the beginning was dedicated toward being taken seriously by the experts in this field who very often have almost
made fun of Presidential budgets, so that it
could really make a contribution to lowering interest rates as well as lowering the deficit. The
budget expert for Price Waterhouse, for example, was quoted recently in a Philadelphia
Enquirer piece as saying I had the much better
side of the argument on deficit reduction as
compared with Senator Dole and that it was
the first genuinely honest, credible budget to


be presented by a Chief Executive in a decade,
and that, in fact, the only thing that I have
understated was the amount of deficit reduction
in it, that it would probably reduce the deficit
considerably more than we had claimed.
So that's all I can say. I don't want to get
into characterizing Senator Dole or Senator
Shelby except to say I know these are difficult
decisions. But this is not a narrow dispute over
whether we should have some sort of energy
tax, which I think we should because the energy
tax, let me say, essentially permits us to fund
some mechanisms for people to avoid paying
the higher taxes through tax incentives but only
if they're trying to create jobs.
And I'd like to just make that point, if I
might, very quickly. This bill also has-I think
it will have in its final form, it did in the House
version and I think will in the final form in
the Senate, an increase in the expensing provisions for small businesses. It will more than
double under either provision. And what that
means is-and I want to hammer this home,
because this affects Alabama-this means over
90 percent of the small businesses in the country, the Subchapter S corporations, that is, that's
in the small businesses in the Tax Codes, over
90 percent of them will not only pay no tax
increase under the income tax provisions but,
in fact, will get a tax break if they simply reinvest more in their companies because of this
Code. Now, no one has been saying that except
me. But it's a fact. The Wall Street Journal
yesterday had a great article on that issue.
Secondly, the new business and small business
capital gains provision enables people to cut the
tax they would pay on their gains from investments in companies with a capitalization of $50
million or less when those investments are held
for 5 years or more. That is a huge tax break
designed to create jobs. Similarly, we do much
more for research and development tax credit,
for the education and training workers by employers, for investments to get the real estate
and home building market going again, all those
things. So that even those Americans, that top
one and a half percent or so that will be affected
by these income tax raises, the substantial income tax raises, they can lower those rates if
they'll just simply turn around and invest their
money in creating jobs in America. So that's
why I wanted this plan and why I still think
it's way the best.
Yes?


1150




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 21


Q. We have heard the figure all day of 82,000
new jobs for Alabama. When you're talking
about a State, though, that has in some counties
people with less than a seventh grade education,
they're not trained to do the type of technical
jobs that you're talking about. What kind of
jobs-and I've been trying to pin this down all
day-what kind of jobs are Alabamans trained
to handle that would bring in these 82,000 new
jobs for our people?
The President. Well, first of all, I would make
two observations to that. You're asking me a
Governor's question now. It's something I know
a little bit about. And I guess I need to back
up and tell you a story. Let me just give you
a two or three-sentence story about my State.
When I became Governor of Arkansas in January of 1983, we had an unemployment rate
3 percentage points above the national average.
We had a State that, compared with what was
working for America in the eighties, was too
poor, too undereducated, too rural, too oriented
toward production as opposed to services. We
just didn't fit very well. And we embarked upon
a long-term strategy to make ourselves fit with
the global economy.
During the entire term of my service, our
unemployment rate dropped below the national
average only one time for 1 month until 1992,
when it dropped well below it. And today it's
about a point below the national average, even
though for 5 years running we created jobs at
a more rapid rate than the national average.
In other words, we had to change the job mix
of the State and the skill mix of our people.
And you can't do that overnight.
But the point I want to make is it can be
done. And we have seen it. So the President
and the Congress cannot do everything. We
have to have a partnership. Your new Governor,
Governor Folsom, was up here the other day
going around and visiting people in our Government who might be in a position to help change
both the job mix and the skill mix of the Alabama economy. And we can be partners there,
but a lot of that work has to be done at the
State and local level.
Now, let me give you the two examples to
get to your point. Don't forget that Alabama
today has an enormous technological base
around, let's say, your medical facilities, your
distinguished medical school and your medical
facilities in the Birmingham area, or in terms
of the space operations in the northern part


of your State, where a cousin of mine for many
years was a career NASA scientist. You have,
in addition to that, a lot of industries that have
gone through all the things the American industry went through in the 1980's to become far
more competitive in the global economy in traditional industries, which may not require people with college educations but almost certainly
require people who can read at the high-schoolgraduate level and who can have up to 2 years
of further training.
So I would say, therefore, that what you
should be looking to us for is help in the whole
area of defense and military conversion and help
in the whole area of trying to get more private
sector dollars into distressed areas and then
hooking into the efforts that we're going to try
to establish to have a national system of training,
which includes more aggressive efforts in the
literacy area and in development apprenticeship
programs that are partnerships with the private
sector. All of the small town and rural south
has been involved in an aggressive effort, in
effect, to be a better fit with the global economy.
But I would say that there are lots of jobs.
First of all, not all the jobs that will be created-if you create a manufacturing job, let me
just give you another example, if you create
a few thousand more manufacturing jobs, there
will be about one and a half other jobs created,
many of which don't require many skills at all,
for every manufacturing job you create, because
that's the way that works. I would be looking
at a State strategy to hook into the national
strategy, which would take advantage of lower
interest rates, the specific programs of the administration, and which would focus on those
two areas: changing the skill mix, changing the
job mix.
Yes?
Space Station
Q. Mr. President, we've talked about the
space station funding with several people today.
A lot of people in north Alabama depend on
the space station program and, of course, NASA
for their livelihood. This administration is committed to funding right now. Is it committed,
say, next year? The following year?
The President. Absolutely.
Q. Or should those NASA workers look for
other jobs?
The President. No. I feel passionately myself,


1151




July 21 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


as does the Vice President, about the space program and about this project as redesigned. I
want to have a very candid conversation with
you about this. I mean, I want to say things,
and I don't want you to overdraw the political
implications. But I want to just try to describe
to you the situation I found. When I was elected
President, I was elected saying that we were
going to have to cut the deficit and cut a lot
of spending but that a lot of the targets for
spending cuts I did not agree with. In other
words, there was a big constituency in the Congress last year for eliminating the space station
and eliminating the superconducting super
collider. I thought the space station was very
important technology, and I thought the super
collider was very important science, and I still
do.
I also think that with regard to the space
station, you have to see the validity of the space
station not only in terms of its own merits but
in terms of what we have already done to the
science and technology base of the country by
cutting the defense budget since 1987-which
is not just closing bases, it's shutting down contracts-without aggressively implementing a defense conversion strategy until about 4 months
ago when we started in earnest to spend funds
that had lain dormant up here in Washington
for a year almost. So there are two reasons,
I think, to go forward.
It was obvious to me that the space station
was in trouble on management grounds, design
grounds, and because the political constituency
for it had gotten too narrow, that it was too
narrowly focused around Alabama and Florida
and Texas and California where the jobs were.
We can't afford to start voting in the Congress
based on that alone. If it's in the national interest, we should continue it. So we got this eminent body, as you know, to review the whole
space station project, to look at the budget constraints, and to design a program that we could
continue in good faith.
As you know, the program only survived by
one vote the first time in the House. And two
friends of mine, who were part of a group that
had voted to kill it, stayed until the end and
changed their votes and voted to put it over.
And I was immensely gratified by that. I think
we have the votes in the Senate to continue
it, and I am passionately committed to it. I
believe in it very strongly. So I can tell you,
I'll be there.


I also want to say to you, though, that one
of the problems is that when people who advocate the space station at the same time say
things like, "Well, it's just spending, stupid. If
we just cut more spending, we wouldn't have
to raise any revenues," and try to falsely give
the impression that all these taxes are going
to come on the middle class and that it's not
going to go to deficit reduction, and imply that
there is no spending cut in the program as it
is when that's not true, that creates a problem.
I'll give you an example in the case of the super
collider just so you'll see how sharply it is. At
the very moment the super collider, which I
was strongly supporting, came up for a vote
in the House of Representatives, on the steps
of the Capitol were standing-and the super
collider is in Texas, you know, primarily, a little
bit in Louisiana-the two Republican Senators
from Texas and Mr. Perot from Texas, saying,
"We've got to cut more spending." So they send
the message to the House, and the thing loses
by 70 votes more in the House than it did
last year. They just-"Well let's just lob them
one then."
In other words, it is very difficult, when all
these other people from other States are getting
nothing out of this budget, if the people from
the States that have massive Federal projects
won't help to bring the deficit down and make
the tough choices. It makes it harder to keep
it alive. Now, that's just a fact. Consider how
you'd feel if you were a Member of Congress
from Iowa where we've cut farm programs, from
the Rocky Mountain West where we have restrained the Government subsidies of a lot of
the resources in the West, and you're being
asked to keep alive the space station or the
super collider, and the people who represent
those States are screaming at you that if only
you'd cut more spending you wouldn't have to
raise these taxes. Now, that's really the political
problem.
I can do a couple more. Go ahead.
Military Base Closings
Q. Mr. President, in our area in southern
Alabama, in Mobile, people have said, the economic plan-we'd like to support it, but, on
the other hand, we see the Federal Government
do things like build a brand new home port
and then within a couple of years decide to
close something that hasn't really had a chance
to even rust. How do you instill confidence in

1152




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 21


The President. You mean because of the base
closing operation?
Q. Yes, exactly.
The President. Well, let me say, first of all,
I can't either defend or criticize every particular
decision of the base closing commission. I have
to tell you that they have a very difficult job.
The Joint Chiefs of Staff made recommendations to them, passed on by the Secretary of
Defense. They reviewed it, and they modified
it to some extent to try to ease the unemployment impact in some areas. But here is the
fundamental problem, and I'll come back to
your specific case.
The fundamental problem is that we are going
in rather rapid succession from a military with
about 2.5 million people in 1987 to one with
somewhere between 1.6 million and 1.4 million
people at the end of this decade. Now, as we
do tat, we were looking at projected downsizing
of the military force by 40 percent, with a base
structure downsized by only 9. If you do that,
that means you're going to have a lot of base
structure and capacity you can't use. And what
will happen is you will have to cut contracts
for these weapons that are so important to us.
For example, in the attack on Iraq where we
sent the cruise missiles in, it's very important
that we continue to modernize those things,
make them more accurate, continue to develop
weaponry. You have to cut more of that if you
don't cut bases and structure appropriately. So,
in general, I had to approve that.
Now, my argument to the people in Mobile
is that there are long lead times in defense
expenditures. The decision to build that facility,
to modernize it, was made probably in the early
eighties before we could have anticipated the
end of the cold war, the collapse of the Soviet
Union, the need to redesign this whole national
security system. And that should not be viewed
as a waste.
On the other hand, what ought to be done
is the Government should have a significant burden to work with the people of Alabama to
figure out what can be done to turn that to
a valuable commercial use. How can this be
used to create jobs and opportunity for Alabama? How can this be turned into a real asset
for your State? That is my commitment. My
problem with this whole defense downsizing all
along is there are all these economic studies
which show that you can create about as many
jobs in civilian life as you can in defense for


about half the money. But if you don't spend
any of the money and if you don't work at
it, then you'll never get that done. So that's
the only answer I can give you.
I'll take another couple. Go ahead.
NASA and Senator Richard Shelby
Q. I've been getting shrugs all day to this
question, Mr. President. Let's try once more.
It was the biggest story in Alabama politically
all year. About 5 months ago, Mr. Panetta gave
a directive to NASA to transfer the external
tank project out of Huntsville. The press was
told this was done to punish Mr. Shelby for
his criticisms of your economic program. NASA
has written back to you 2 months ago saying
this is a dumb idea, it's not safe, it doesn't
make economic sense, and we can't guarantee
the safety of future shuttle flights if you separate
the management team from the engineers they
manage. What is the status of what we call the
"Shelby sanction"?
The President. Well, first of all, you just told
me something I didn't know. I had no idea
that NASA had written to me about that, and
I will take it up immediately.
Secondly, let me tell you, you can go back
through my whole career as Governor, which
was a pretty successful one, and I got a lot
done, and I went through a whole lot of tough
decisions, usually with the same sort of criticism
I've been getting early on here. When you start
something tough and you start pushing rocks
up a hill, you know, sometimes you have to
settle for 85 percent of what you ask for. But
if you advance the ball, that's the game.
I have to tell you, I have not had any personal
criticism of anyone for their opposition to my
plans. The thing that I thought was wrong about
what Senator Shelby did was that he launched
his criticism in a very personal way against the
Vice President after the television cameras
showed up, and I thought that was wrong. I
thought it was insensitive to a new Vice President and President. I didn't like that.
I have tried to have, and I want to have,
a good relationship with Senator Shelby. I have
a very good relationship with several Republican
Senators who rarely vote with me. But there
are all kinds of other issues. This is not the
end of the world. This economic plan-after
we finish this, we've got to pass national service,
which is being debated, which was one of the
heartland provisions of my campaign. We've got


1153




July 21 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


to deal with the health care crisis, and we're
going to have some bipartisan support on that.
We've got to take up a crime bill in an environment which is very troubling in America today.
We've got a whole lot of other fish to fry for
the American people. And I do not want to
have any kind of bad relationship with any
Member of Congress I can avoid. So I want
to have a good relationship with Senator Shelby.
And I have to tell you, that was my only personal regret. The fact that he stood up against
my program is a decision for him to make. But
I did not know what you just told me about
that letter, and I will get it and review it and
get a report back from the NASA Director.
Yes?
Unfunded Federal Mandates
Q. Mr. President, one of the questions that
we raised earlier-being from Montgomery,
we're very sensitive to the fact that over the
years the Federal Government has mandated
programs and then has asked the States to pay
more along the way, something that you can
relate to from your days in Arkansas. Is there
any encouragement from your administration toward the new administration of Governor
FolsomThe President. Absolutely. Absolutely. I just
talked to the National Association of Counties
this week, and I reiterated what I said in my
3-hour work session with the Governors earlier
this year. We are going to do everything we
can to stop this practice of nonfunded mandates.


One of the charges I gave the Vice President
when he undertook this reinventing Government
project, which I think will be very exciting to
you and to the people of Alabama when we
recommend some pretty fundamental changes
in the way the Federal Government operates,
is to try to get out of this business of rulemaking
against the States and the local governments
that cost money without paying for it.
Now, I have to say, I want to give just this
little window here. There are times when the
Congress passes laws that the President is not
in a position to veto. For example, sometimes
the Congress will put a little mandate in a huge
budget bill that you simply cannot veto, because
you have to let the agencies go forward. But
the Congress, the Democrats who have been
involved in this in the past clearly know of my
position on this and my strong conviction. I
think it's wrong.
I'll take one last question. Go ahead.
Q. Mr. President, I've been told I can't return
to Alabama until I ask you: Who's going to win
the next Alabama and Arkansas game?
The President. Well, all I can say is after
I went to the last one I predicted that Alabama
would win the national championship. And I
hope we'll be more competitive next year. I
think we probably will be.
Thank you.
NOTE: The President spoke at 4:55 p.m. in the
Roosevelt Room at the White House.


Remarks Prior to Discussions With President Jean-Bertrand Aristide of
Haiti and an Exchange With Reporters
July 22, 1993


The President. Let me make a brief statement,
and then I can answer some questions.
First of all, it's a good pleasure for me to
have President Aristide back here in the White
House. I want to commend him on the progress
that has been made and the courage he showed
in signing the Governor's Island agreement
which set a process and a timetable for his return as President of Haiti by October 30th and
for the parliamentary agreement. We're here to
talk about what our next steps are.


I want to compliment, again, the United Nations envoy, Mr. Caputo, and our Ambassador,
Mr. Pezzullo, for the wonderful work they have
done in trying to restore democracy and Father
Aristide to the Presidency. So we're going to
have a good meeting this morning and talk
about the next steps, naming the Prime Minister, getting the international police force in
place, and going forward. I'm excited about this
process. It's a major potential for a victory for
democracy.


1154




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 22


Haiti
Q. Is President Aristide ready to accept 300
American troops to train his military force and
carry out all the provisions of the agreement?
President Aristide. We are doing our best to
do that and also to have what we call the four
points      of-[inaudible]-plan:      professionalization of the army, a new police force,
reform of the judicial system, and the economic
package for having something for every single
citizen of the country.
Economic Program
Q. Mr. President, on the budget, Senator
Boren wants more cuts; Congressman Rangel
wants more taxes for more investment programs.
How do you bridge this kind of gap?
The President. I don't know. That's what
they're working on now. Senator Boren voted
with some enthusiasm for the bill when it came
out of the Senate. We'll be glad to work with
him. But we'll just have to see what happens.
Q. And are you leaning toward a higher gasoline tax than the 4.3 percent? There are indications from your people on the Hill that you
are.
The President. Let's see what happens there
in the budget process. I went up there and
talked to the conferees, and I told them what
I thought the principles and the guideposts
ought to be, and they're working on it.


Q. How aboutThe President. They may discuss a lot of different things. Let's just see what happens.
Q. Are you thinking of 5 cents, 5 cents a
gallon?
Bosnia
Q. Have you given up on Bosnia?
The President. No. That's not true. Those stories are not accurate.
Q. That's the way Secretary Christopher's remarks were interpreted.
The President. I disagree that that's what they
said. I realize that that's how one or two sentences were interpreted, but that's not so. We
have aggressively committed ourselves to the
process in Geneva. And if the Bosnian Government voluntarily signs an agreement, we have
made it clear that we were prepared to participate in the enforcement of it. And we are continuing to work with the Europeans on other
options. So you know what the United States
believes, that an opportunity was lost shortly
after Athens because our position did not prevail
with the Europeans. But that is not true that
we have given up on it. We are continuing to
work.
NOTE: The exchange began at 9:40 a.m. in the
Oval Office at the White House. A tape was not
available for verification of the content of this exchange.


Statement by the Press Secretary on the President's Meeting With
President Jean-Bertrand Aristide of Haiti
July 22, 1993


President Clinton held a cordial and constructive meeting this morning with President JeanBertrand Aristide of Haiti. The meeting lasted
about 30 minutes. This was their first meeting
since the signing of the so-called Governors Island agreement on July 3, although they spoke
by telephone on July 4.
The President commended President Aristide
on his signing of the agreement, which establishes a sound timetable for the restoration of
democracy and for Aristide's return to Haiti on
October 30, just 100 days from now. The Presi

dent described the agreement as an historic step
forward for democracy, economic prosperity,
and freedom for Haiti. He reaffirmed that the
United States will continue to play a leadership
role with the international community in helping
foster a better life for the Haitian people.
The President and President Aristide discussed the steps that need to be taken to fulfill
the terms of the agreement, including the naming of a new Prime Minister by President
Aristide in consultation with members of the
Haitian Parliament.


1155




July 22 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


Remarks at a Communications Technology Demonstration
July 22, 1993


Thank you very much. Distinguished Members of Congress, FCC Commissioners, Mrs.
Graham, distinguished members of the hightech community and communications industry
who are here today, I thank all of you for coming, and I appreciate your sitting through my
education here. I hope it isn't too warm. We've
gotten a little bit of break in the weather. I
got to send the Vice President that message
over there, and it's nice to know he'll be able
to stop the rains in the Midwest within a few
moments, remote control. [Laughter]
Just beginning by building on what the Vice
President said, it is perfectly clear that in our
Nation we need an economic strategy that deals
with a lot of our larger structural issues, particularly the deficit, but also recognizes that creating
jobs today in a global economy requires us to
make the most of the assets we have and to
find a way once again to make sure that technology continues to be a net generator, not a
net reducer, of jobs. We are here today to celebrate one of those opportunities. In recent years,
we haven't done enough to control our larger
economic issues, nor have we done enough to
seize these particular opportunities. We want to
reverse both these trends and ignite growth.
The economic plan that I have presented to
the Congress, as all of you know, offers $500
billion worth of deficit reduction divided equally
between spending cuts and revenue increases,
with most of the revenue increases coming from
people with incomes well above $200,000 and
the spending cuts coming across the board in
virtually every area of our national life.
The Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Alan
Greenspan, in testimony to the House Banking
Committee on Tuesday said that the reason
long-term interest rates were at a 20-year low
is because, and I quote, "of the expectations
of a significant, credible decline in the budget
deficit." And he pointed out that if we did not
act now and significantly, those good trends and
long-term interest rates being down-which are
leading millions of Americans to refinance their
homes, I would imagine including some people
here in this audience today, refinance business
loans, and otherwise move in ways that are advantageous to themselves and the economy

that if we did not do that, we would be in
trouble. He further pointed out that if we resolved the budget issue and dealt with our
health care cost problems, the United States
economy could, quote, "emerge healthier and
more vibrant than in decades." That is what
we're talking about, the future of this country.
And I think that is what we must focus on.
Part of this economic plan is the "Emerging
Telecommunications Technology Act" introduced by Senators Hollings, Inouye, Stevens of
Alaska, Congressman Dingell of Michigan, Congressman Markey of Massachusetts, who is here
with us. It's been called the information equivalent of the Alaskan oil strike or the California
gold rush. It offers great opportunities for people to create new jobs, start new businesses,
invest in people. And it will reduce the deficit,
according to Congressional Budget Office estimates, by something over $7 billion. It's a great
deal for all of us.
In this plan we allow for 200 megahertz of
the electromagnetic spectrum now used by Federal Agencies to be licensed to the private sector
by the Federal Com- munications Commission.
For the few nonphysicists in the audience, the
spectrum is the airwaves that transmit communication signals. The additional 200 megahertz
of the spectrum would be capable of adding
the equivalent of 33 television channels in every
market in the United States. A decade ago, as
the Vice President said, the U.S. cellular telephone industry was launched on only 50 megahertz of the spectrum. At that time, experts said
the industry would have slightly less than a million subscribers by the year 2002. Well, those
initial licenses leveraged $11 billion in private
investment that grew into more than 11 million
subscribers, $3 billion in exports, and 100,000
jobs in 1992. When the FCC reallocates the
spectrum for personal communication services
alone, it is estimated that another 300,000 jobs
could be added to the American economy in
the next 10 to 15 years. And that doesn't take
into account what will be done with the remainder of this 200 megahertz allocation.
This plan creates the infrastructure to develop
the most advanced commercial wireless communication networks the world has ever known.


1156




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 22


It will allow an industry to grow by tens of
billions of dollars by the end of the decade,
producing hundreds of thousands of new highskill, high-wage jobs. It will close our Federal
budget deficit, or certainly help to, while correcting America's investment deficit at the same
time, a win-win scenario for our taxpayers, our
workers, our Government, and our entrepreneurs, an investment of historic proportions.
We have entered a new era of human communications where wireless technologies become
information skyways, a new avenue to send ideas
and masses of information to remote locations
in ways most of us would never have imagined,
and as we've just seen in all these demonstrations, also provides new ways to improve people's lives in very practical ways, and perhaps
to save lives in remote areas or emergency circumstances where once that was simply impossible. Wireless hand-held computers and phones
will deliver the world to our fingertips, wherever
we may be, with speed and flexibility.
Only last week the FCC reallocated emerging
technology spectrum for the kinds of services
and benefits we've seen here today. When a
natural disaster hits, this technology can come
to the rescue. When an emergency medical ve

hicle has a patient and the only hospital is a
long way away, it can mean the difference between life and death, as we've seen this morning. In schools where wires may be too costly
to run, this technology can link students with
other students, with libraries in other schools.
In manufacturing, this technology can give our
companies the extra speed and production that
today may make all the difference between staying ahead of the competition and going under.
When the race toward innovation knows no
boundaries, this economic plan can keep America ahead of our competitors with information
highways and skyways second to none and the
best educated, best trained, and best equipped
work force in the world. That's what this economic growth strategy is all about: historic
change, more growth, more free enterprise,
more innovation to put the American people
to work and give them the future they deserve.
Thank you very much.
NOTE: The President spoke at 11:13 a.m. on the
South Lawn at the White House. In his remarks,
he referred to Katharine Graham, chairman of the
board, Washington Post Co.


Interview With the New York and New Jersey Media
July 22, 1993


The President. Thank you very much, Mr.
Vice President.
I'm sorry we are a little bit late. We had
an unavoidable problem come up in the office
a few minutes ago that we had to deal with.
But I do want to echo a couple of things the
Vice President said and make one or two specific points.
On Tuesday, the Chairman of the Federal
Reserve Board, Alan Greenspan, appeared before the House Banking Committee. And in his
testimony he said the most important thing we
could do would be to urgently pass this plan
for deficit reduction because there's no question
that it is the primary thing driving down longterm interest rates and that the economy could
absorb $500 billion in deficit reduction. And
that plus trying to do something about the everincreasing costs of health care to the Govern

ment budget and to the American people generally were two things which could give us a
very vibrant economy. And I think he used the
phrase, something like we could have more
prosperity than we'd had in decades.
But I just want to emphasize that when you
get outside of the political arena and you analyze
this thing, there are Republicans as well as
Democrats; there are small-, medium-, and
large-sized businesses. Yesterday I had lunch
with a significant number of small business people from around America, because most of the
vocal support we had gotten for the economic
plan had come from bigger businesses. And they
were supporting the plan because of the capital
gains incentives for investment in new businesses, enterprises that are capitalized at $50
million a year or less. They were supporting
it because of the emphasis on research and de

1157




July 22 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


velopment. They were supporting it because,
frankly, over 90 percent of the small businesses
in the country are in a position to get a tax
cut under this bill with the expensing provisions,
which says that if you invest more you pay less
tax. They pay no income tax increase, and they
can reduce their tax burden if they invest more.
Now, you never get any of that in the rhetoric
of our opponent, but that is the fact.
Let me make one other point. There's a lot
of talk about spending cuts and people saying,
well, there ought to be more spending cuts.
Well, there are 200 specific spending cuts in
this program, over 100 of them in excess of
$100 million apiece. And when the Senate Finance Committee took up this economic plan
and dealt with the spending cuts that were on
the table, the Republicans on the committee
did not offer one single spending cut in addition
to the ones that we had put on the table. Not
one, not one red cent. So it is very easy to
talk in general terms about cutting spending and
capping this and "We'll figure out something
else later," and quite another thing to say, "This
is where we're going to cut the spending." And
that's what we have done. And therefore, I think
we put together a good and balanced plan.
I'm encouraged by the progress of the conference so far. There are still some difficult issues ahead and a lot of vote-getting to do, but
the main thing is we have to resolve the uncertainty, keep the interest rates down, bring the
deficit down, and get this economy moving
again.
And that's why we're doing a whole series
of these, and I'm glad to have so many of you
from New York and New Jersey here. And if
you have questions, I'll try to answer them.
Economic Program
Q. This scenario, as we heard today, to paint
the picture of not passing this an economic catastrophe, is that your strategy for the next couple of critical days or critical weeks?
The President. No, I think we are going to
pass it. But I think that if you look-there was
an article in either the Times or the Wall Street
Journal today, I can't remember which, which
said there was a little bump up in the longterm interest rates yesterday because the bond
markets, the people who set these interest rates
were afraid that maybe the Congress wasn't serious. I think they are serious. I think they will
pass it. There is not a serious alternative. And


there is no question that the failure to pass
the budget would be a destabilizing effect on
the economy. It would lead to an increase in
long-term interest rates, there's no question
about that. But I'm not trying to talk in terms
of Armageddon. I want the Congress to do
something that will move the country forward,
that'll get energy back in.
I feel, frankly, quite good about what's happening. These are tough decisions. You know,
the easy decisions had all been made by the
time we got here. Anybody can write you a
check and run the deficit up. It's quite another
thing to try to have a disciplined plan to cut
spending, increase revenues in a very fair way,
and have a very targeted increase in investments
in areas that will generate jobs. That's a much
tougher thing to do.
Q. In our briefings today we were led to
believe that you are moving towards the Senate
version of this plan. Is that accurate?
The President. No, not quite. I think what
is fair to say is, I think that any energy tax
that comes out will be closer to the Senate
version, not only in form but in dollars. It will
be closer to the Senate version. But the House
version has a lot of very important economic
initiatives in it and one very important pro-work,
pro-family provision that I believe should be
in the final bill. And if I might, I'd like to
just mention them very quickly, the things in
the House bill which I believe should be either
in the final bill, or the final bill should be more
like the House bill than the Senate bill.
Number one, both bills dramatically increase
the earned-income tax credit, which is, in effect,
a tax reduction for people of middle incomes
and lower incomes who work and therefore earn
income and pay income taxes. It was appropriate
for the Senate to lower the earned-income tax
credit a little bit, because the energy tax was
lower and it was really designed to make sure
that nobody with a family income of $30,000
a year or less would pay any new taxes under
this program. But the other major thing is that
we want to be able to say that anybody who
works 40 hours a week and has children in the
home will not be in poverty after this plan
passes, that we're going to reward work, we're
going to encourage people to get off welfare.
And the way it starts is by saying if you do
work 40 hours a week, if you have a child in
the house, you won't be in poverty. Let me
give you an idea of why that's so significant.


1158




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 22


Eighteen percent of the American people in the
work force today are living below the Federal
poverty line. So I want some adjustment in the
number that came out of the Senate so we'll
be able to achieve that goal.
The second thing is, I think the House bill
had a lot of economic incentives that ought to
be in there. By the way, the ones I mentioned,
you shouldn't infer from that that anything I
forget to mention, I don't care about whether
it gets in. I can't remember every issue, but
let me just give you a few. I'm confident that
the conference report will include the new business, small business capital gains tax. It's been
pioneered by the chairman of the Senate Small
Business Committee, Senator Bumpers, from my
home State, and others. It is not particularly
expensive, but it gives a very significant incentive for people to invest in enterprises capitalized at less than $50 million a year. I think
they will take the surcharge off capital gains,
which I hope will be done. I think they will
do more on the research and development tax
credit and more to revitalize the real estate markets than the Senate bill does. I think all those
changes will come in, and I think that will give
more of a pro-growth, pro-investment, pro-business, and pro-jobs shape to the final bill.
After all, keep in mind, the way the bill was
structured was not simply to impose virtually
all of the taxes on people with incomes above
very high levels-now, the bill will clearly have
70 percent or more of the tax burden on people
with incomes above $200,000-the bill also was
designed to say to those people, "But you can
ease that tax burden if, but only if, you turn
around and invest in job-generating activities in
the American economy."
Yes, sir. You had a question back there.
Energy Tax
Q. There's a report out this morning from
the Heritage Foundation that says the gas tax
would affect eight or so States, in particular,
New Jersey among the hardest. There are other
statistics that a Senator like Frank Lautenberg
looks at and saysThe President. How could the gas tax affect
New Jersey hardest? It's the most densely populated State in the country.
Q. If you drive between Philadelphia and
New York, I guess.
The President. More single-car commuters?
Q. I haven't seen the report myself. But at


any rate, Senator Lautenberg takes this and says
that this plan is a bad deal for New Jersey.
Is there any response that you have to that?
The President. Yes, I do have a response to
that. Let me say, first of all, Senator Lautenberg's position is premised on two arguments.
One is that New Jersey has a high per capita
income. The second is that New Jersey gets
a low per capita return in Federal aid. But the
point I want to make to you is that those two
things are inextricably related. That is, if New
Jersey is the second highest State in the country
in per capita income, obviously you will pay
more taxes to the Federal Government, and you
will get less Federal money in the income-based
programs. Keep in mind, an awful lot of Federal
money is spent on Social Security, Medicare,
Medicaid, food stamps, and a lot of other things
that are tied to income. So the richer you are,
the lower you're going to be on the Federal
payroll unless you happen to have a huge defense establishment. And even that, of course,
is now ratcheting down.
But look at it the other way. New Jersey
also has a lot of high-tech companies, a lot of
entrepreneurs, a lot of people who are trying
to make the future. Frank Lautenberg himself
created a high-tech company and became a very
successful person financially by creating a company with an idea and with technology. This
is the most protechnology economic plan I think
our country has ever adopted. We just had a
press conference out here this morning with
people in the communications industry on the
plan that's in this economic program to auction
200 megahertz of communications in the spectrum, to open that up to commercial development. It's going to generate $7 billion to reduce
the deficit and create up to 300,000 jobs in
the next 10 years. The new business capital gains
tax, the expensing provision for small business,
more on research and development, the
probusiness, pro-job growth aspects of this program, I think, have been largely lost. And to
the extent that New Jersey has a better economic infrastructure than other places and an
artificially high unemployment rate-both of
which are true now, right?-historically low unemployment now high, strong economic infrastructure, New Jersey should do quite well from
these economic incentives.
So I don't believe in terms of private sector
job growth that the State will be hurt. But I
understand the force of his argument, and I


1159




July 22 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


understand that it has a lot of appeal to voters,
too, the first time they hear it.
Drug Policy Director
Q. Mr. Clinton, I wonder whether we could
move to another subject on the minds of a great
deal of New Yorkers just for a moment.
The President. We'll answer any questions.
Let's let the plane go over. Thank you.
Q. That's best for us because we're television.
The State report on the Crown Heights riots
was released earlier this week, which greatly
criticized the performance of your now drug
czar, Lee Brown. And we were wondering, first,
whether you were worried that it may have damaged his credibility as drug czar. And also, as
a secondary question, I was wondering what
your general feelings are on the issue of the
riots in New York and whether you might be
paying a visit to perhaps help your embattled
friend, Mayor Dinkins, there.
The President. Well, I haven't had any conversations about that issue one way or the other.
I'll tell you about the Lee Brown issue. The
report obviously came in an extended period
of time after the riots themselves occurred. And
I have not read it or reviewed it. I know generally what its conclusions were. If you read
it in the light most unfavorable to Lee Brown,
in other words if you say, "Well, they said that
he didn't do a good job managing a riot with
a police force," that wouldn't be the first police
chief about whom you could say that. And it
would do absolutely nothing to undermine the
irrefutable facts that he did a good job as police
chief in Atlanta and Houston and in New York
and that because of the intense and increased
neighborhood policing systems that were inaugurated during his tenure, the statistics show that
there was a drop in crime in many major categories for the first time in more than three
decades during the time that he served. So I
think, on balance, the people of New York were
still much better off having had him as police
chief, even if you read the report in the light
most unfavorable to him. Whether the report
is accurate or not, I just have no way of knowing.
Yes, sir.
Energy Tax
9. Two questions, if you will, back on the
economic subject. One is, by saying a moment
ago that you think that any energy tax that


comes out of this conference will be closer to
a Senate version, are you saying that you're now
ready to accept a gasoline tax?
The President. I'm saying just exactly what
I said. I think that the dollar value and perhaps
the form, but certainly the dollar value, of the
tax that comes out of that conference will, I
believe, be closer to the Senate version. And
I think it should be now, because we've got
some more spending cuts that we've put into
the bill.
Yes, go ahead.
Terrorism in the U.S.
9. The World Trade Center bombing brought
a lot of attention to our political asylum laws.
That was several months back. Since then
there's been a lot of speeches made. But still,
if someone arrives at JFK this afternoon, the
situation is the same. What can you say to the
people of the metropolitan area that are worried
about this?
The President. That they are right to be worried. We need to change. And just in the next
few days we will have an announcement on that.
We've had some people working on it for several
weeks now. When I went to the C-7 summit
in Tokyo, I asked the Vice President to try to
coordinate their efforts a little better to make
sure that we speeded up the process. And we'll
have an announcement on that quite soon. That
was a very good-it's very important.
I'll take a couple more. Go ahead, and then
we'll do a couple more.
Campaign Promises
9. Mr. President, one of the issues that's
come up with gays in the military resolution
and on this issue of the gas tax or Btu tax
is when is a compromise appropriate and prudent? When is it a broken promise? And I'm
curious to hear you talk a little bit about, in
terms of judging your Presidency, should it be
judged anymore on "Putting People First" and
on all 232 pages there, what you fulfilled? When
is a compromise, in your mind, on those issues
legitimate? When is it a broken promise? And
how does one judge a Presidency like your own?
The President. Well, the only commitment
that I have myself abandoned on my own initiative was the one that I went before the American people and told them about on February
17th, and that was the commitment not to have
any sort of tax burden on the middle class.


1160




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 22


We're now down to about $50 a year. And I
explained to the American people why I did
that: because the deficit was written up so much
bigger after I got elected, and because I thought
it was important to get the deficit down, and
I thought they'd be better off over the long
run, and that I still believe that the tax system
ought to be changed to be more fair to middle
class families, especially those with children, and
I had a 4-year term to try to get it done. And
I think when a President has to break a campaign commitment, the best way to do it is
to go before the American people and say,
"Here's what I had to do and why."
Now, we also, frankly, clearly delayed what
I said I would do on immigration of Haitians.
And I've already explained why on that. But
we are working through this whole immigration
policy in a way that I think will allow us to
return to the policy I advocated in the campaign.
When you compromise, I think the question
is almost always: What are your alternatives, and
are the people you're trying to help and the
objectives you're seeking to further better off?
I can hardly add anything to what Barney Frank
said in his op-ed piece on the gays in the military, for example, in the Washington Post, I
mean, the idea that no President in the history
of this country has ever tried to take on this
issue, no candidate running for President had
ever really spoken to the issue before I did.
I don't ask for any kudos for that, that's just
a fact. I think the consciousness of the American
people is different and broader as a result, and
I think that the question of the compromise
here is a pretty clear one.
If you look at it in words, the compromise
is more restrictive than what I wanted and what
I would like to do today. I think people ought
to be able to say they're gay and serve and
obey all the rules. But I couldn't get that past
the Joint Chiefs, who are bound to follow my
orders, but they're also bound by law to tell
the Congress the truth about what they think
when asked by Congress. That's also the law
of the land, and that would have led to a certain
reversal of the policy by the Congress. Everyone
who lives in this town knows that. So-let me
finish-on the other hand, as a practical matter,
the Joint Chiefs and the Secretary of Defense,
working together and then with me, agreed to
provide much more practical protection for the
privacy and associational rights of all members


of the armed services, without regard to their
sexual orientation, than existed before in ways
that will clearly advance the cause that we all
know is a fact: that there are homosexuals who
serve in the Armed Forces with great distinction.
So the question is: Was it a good compromise
or an abandonment of principle? Should I have
made everybody feel better for a day and then
watch their hopes dashed and see Congress
maybe even return to the status quo ante, which
was-the first battle we won on that was getting
the Joint Chiefs to stop asking at the beginning
of the year. Is it better off? I have nothing
to add to what Barney Frank said. I think that
it was an honorable compromise by honorable
people, and we did the best we could.
And on the economic plan, what I said about
that in the campaign, and the only thing I ever
said about that with regard to the gas tax, was
that I thought raising the gas tax a nickel a
year in a 5-year budget plan was too much.
And I still believe that. The gas tax now being
debated is a lower tax on fuel than the Btu
tax which passed the House. It is a lower tax
on fuel than the Btu tax that passed the House.
Therefore, there is nothing dishonorable or dishonest about what would happen.
I think if you look at what this administration
has done-we've taken on the deficit; we're taking on health care; we're taking on welfare reform. We're about to get national service, being
debated in both Houses today. We passed a
campaign finance reform bill, a lobby bill, and
the line-item veto, all things I advocated,
through one of the two Houses of Congress.
If you go back to the last several years, it would
be hard to find a 6-month period early in a
Presidency in which more had been done on
more issues to fulfill the specific commitments
I made in the campaign and to actually get
things done that will change the lives of the
American people.
So I think it is indeed a strange measure
of the progress of our administration that these
negative comments would come out. I mean,
my predecessor had been Vice President for 8
years and didn't announce a foreign policy until
August. You know, I got out here, and I got
up here every day and went to work, and that's
what I'm going to keep doing. But anyway, that
would be my distinction between those two
things.


1161




July 22 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


Business Entertainment Deduction
Q. Some may think the business reduction
tax is elitist. But in New York City, that is the
heart and soul of New York. Some analysts say
that over 1,000 jobs may be lost, and these
are middle class jobs.
The President. The business entertainment
tax, you mean?
Q. Yes. And these are middle class jobs.
The President. Absolutely they are.
Q. Busboys, dishwashers, waiters. How can
you do something in such a town that really
needs this? We're in the middle of a recession
in New York. We're not slipping into one; we
are in a recession.
The President. First of all, New York needs
a lot of things. And my own judgment is-not
just New York, New Jersey, Arkansas, you name
it. California is in terrible shape. We've got a
lot of things to do in this country.
My response would be twofold. Number one,
I think that New York will gain far more from
a stable, credible deficit reduction plan and the
other business incentives that we are putting
into the law than you will lose by a restriction
on the entertainment deduction. Number two,
when the entertainment deduction was reduced
before from 100 to 80 percent, the same claims
were made against the reduction. And afterward
a study concluded there was no loss of jobs.
I believe the American people will continue to
travel, and I believe more and more American
people will continue to eat out as more families
have two income earners and work longer hours.
I think there are large social forces at work
here which make it highly unlikely that a job
loss will occur.
Yes, sir.
Deficit Reduction
Q. Chairman Greenspan the other day said
that $500 billion of deficit reduction was about
the right size as a first installment, that you
have to revisit this issue. Do you expect to be
proposing another deficit reduction plan of this
magnitude in your first term here?
The President. Well, I think that we will point
the way toward eliminating it altogether. And
let me explain what I mean by that. Chairman
Greenspan and I have discussed this at great
length, and we discussed whether there was an
analogy here to what Japan did from the midseventies to the mid-eighties when they had a
comparable operating deficit to ours. And they


took it down to zero and actually began to run
a surplus. But they took, as I recall, somewhere
between 9 and 11 years to do it. I can't remember exactly. But I saw a chart in one of the
papers here represented, I just can't remember
which one, which showed how long they took.
I believe that in order to move the deficit
down beyond where it is now, if you look at
it, it's clear what you have to do. You have
to pass a health reform plan that brings health
care costs in line with inflation plus population
growth. That's what you have to do. If you go
back and look at this budget, if you look at
discretionary domestic spending, it's flat for 5
years now. That is, everything we increase in
education, in technology, in defense conversion,
we cut in some other area. Defense goes down.
The only thing that's really going up in this
budget besides cost-of-living increases for Social
Security and much more modest pay increases
for military and civilian employees, is a 9 percent increase in health care costs, which is down
from the projected 12 percent per year increase
in the budget before I took office. So Greenspan
is right. If you want to get this deficit down,
the next thing is to bring health care costs down
to inflation plus population.
The other point I would make is there is
the chance that this deficit reduction will be
greater than we think because of lower interest
rates, if we can keep them down long and if
we can have good economic growth. I noticed
the other day in an article in the Philadelphia
Inquirer, a lot of budget analysts were interviewed on the validity of this plan, and the one
for Price Waterhouse said that this was the most
honest budget plan presented to the Congress
in more than a decade, and the only thing I
might be off on is it might well produce more
deficit reduction. So we just don't know.
Deputy Counsel Vincent Foster, Jr.
Q. Can we just ask you about Mr. Foster?
Is there anything moreThe President. No.
Q. Have you learned anything at all?
The President. No, and I don't think there
is anything more to know. His family, his
friends, his coworkers, we've been up real late
two nights in a row now, remembering and crying and laughing and talking about him. I don't
think there is anything else.


1162




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 22


NOTE: The President spoke at 3:54 p.m. in the duced by the Vice President.
East Garden at the White House. He was introRemarks to the American Legion Girls Nation
July 22, 1993


The President. Thank you very much. Thank
you. Please be seated. It's wonderful to have
you in the Rose Garden today. As I think all
of you probably know, I, myself, owe a great
deal to the American Legion for sponsoring this
wonderful program that teaches our young people so much about our country and the responsibilities of citizenship. Boys Nation made a
major impact on my life and very much inspired
the career that I subsequently pursued in public
service. Like many of you, I was just a high
school student from a fairly small town-I had
never been to Washington before, and I never
knew whether I'd ever get to come-when I
stood here, right over there in that corner 30
years ago this week and had the opportunity
to hear President Kennedy speak.
I was reviewing an article in a paper from
that week before I came out here to speak with
you, and I noted that when President Kennedy
spoke to our group, he actually got into some
hot water by saying that our group, in adopting
a civil rights resolution in the early sixties, had
acted more responsibly than the Nation's Governors who were meeting at the same time.
He said we had shown more initiative than the
Governors. Well, we loved it, but somehow the
Governors didn't.
And so I would say to you, I don't want
to make any other group mad, but I hope you
today will leave here with a real sense of initiative. It's very important not only that we have
convictions and feelings and concerns but that
we act on them. Every program that I have
pursued, every challenge I have laid down has
been animated by a desire to get the American
people to assume more responsibility for themselves and their neighbors, to offer more opportunity to all people, and to rebuild a sense of
community, a sense that we are all in this together, that we share a common destiny, and
that we will be more likely to achieve our individual capacities if we work together.


With the help of young people all across the
country, we were able to pass and we had a
wonderful signing ceremony on the motor voter
bill, which many of you will be familiar with,
which makes it much easier for people to register and vote. Together with other groups of
young people, again from all over America, we
are on the verge of passing an historic bill for
national service that will make it possible for
millions of young people to get much lower
interest college loans and pay them back on
more favorable terms and, over the next few
years, for hundreds of thousands of them to
work off a portion of their loans by giving some
service to their community, either before, during, or after college. This will help to build
America by strengthening the bonds of community, offering people the chance to take more
responsibility for their own lives, and really creating opportunity that wasn't there before.
We're also trying to improve your future by
cutting the Federal deficit by $500 billion over
the next 5 years. In 1980, the entire debt of
our country amassed since George Washington
became President was $1 trillion. From 1980
to 1992, that debt grew to about $4 trillion,
quadrupling in only 12 years. Now, when a
problem like this gets that severe, you can't
solve it all at once. The spending cuts and tax
increases it would take just to do away with
the deficit in 4 years would be so severe as
to undermine our economic recovery. But we're
in a box. If we don't move on the deficit now,
we can't have any economic recovery, either.
And because of the progress which has been
made, interest rates are coming down, and we're
moving forward.
You should know that you're not only moving
into a time when the global economy offers you
unparalleled, exciting opportunities but where
it also presents some mysteries to us that no
one quite understands. For example, almost all
of the wealthy countries are having difficulty


1163




July 22 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


creating new jobs, even when their economy
is growing and certainly when the economy is
not. And so this economic program that I have
offered not only seeks to reduce the deficit by
cutting spending and raising taxes, 70 percent
of which will fall on people with incomes above
$200,000, it also seeks to help people to create
jobs. Ninety percent of the small businesses in
America will be eligible for a tax cut in this
plan if they invest more money in their businesses to create jobs-new opportunities for
people to avoid higher income taxes, but only
if they invest in companies that will create jobs.
We have got to find a way to make sure that
if all of you go to college and all your classmates
go to college and everybody plays by the rules,
there will be something for them to do when
the effort is over.
Thirty years ago, when the delegates from
Girls Nation came to the White House in the
same summer that I was here, my next-door
neighbor represented our State at Girls Nation.
It was a great thrill for me, and she's still one
of my closest friends. Just last week when I
went home, she got some of our high school
friends together, and they and all their children,
there must have been 30 of us in her home
having dinner together. And when she was here
where you are, President Kennedy told the
young women there assembled that it might be
possible for one of them to become President,
but it was not likely. And almost as a consolation
prize, he said, "At least I'm sure I'm talking
to a future First Lady." Well, today a lot of
things have changed. First of all, I think that
it is a very honorable thing to be the First
Lady. Some day there will be a First Man. And
I think it is not unlikely that 30 years from
now the delegates from Girls Nation may well
be in the Rose Garden being addressed by a
woman President who is in this crowd today.
Again, let me wish you well, and thank you
for coming here. Let me tell you that the 30
years that have passed since I sat where you
are today have passed in the flash of an eye,
that I hope for all of you a rich and full life,
and I would encourage you to focus on the
point I made earlier: You came here to learn
about your country, your history, your opportunities, and your responsibilities as citizens. None
of it matters very much unless you not only
think and feel but also act.


Good luck, and God bless you.
Let me also say, I'm going to embarrass somebody who's here maybe a little bit. There are
other things in life after a Girls Nation or Boys
Nation than being President. I just learned that
my military aide came to Girls Nation. Raise
your hand. This is Major Michelle Johnson, the
United States Air Force. She is from Iowa, graduate of the Air Force Academy, Rhodes scholar,
terrific athlete. I told her someday I was sure
I'd be saluting her and calling her General. So
that also is something that you might do with
your life that you couldn't have done perhaps
a few years ago.
I'd like to now ask Joann Cronin to come
up and take over the program.
[At this point, the President was presented with
gifts, including bills and resolutions passed by
Girls Nation.]
I saw the first resolution was the sex education one. That's one I said I was for. You
may know that tomorrow the hearing begins on
the appointment I made of an African-American
doctor, the director of the department of health
in my home State, to be the Surgeon General
of the United States. And we caused a lot of
controversy because we tried to promote comprehensive family education, parenting education, and we did our best to reduce the
scourge of teenage pregnancy in our State, not
by denying it but by embracing the challenge.
And I appreciate the resolution that you sent.
I will also review the other resolutions.
On Saturday-you mentioned 30 years from
now-Saturday your counterparts from Boys Nation will be here, and we're going to have a
30-year reunion of my class Saturday at noon
when they're here. So I'm looking forward to
it. One of the things that happens when you
run for President is that the people you haven't
seen in a long time show up, and that's mostly
good. So I'm looking forward to it.
Now are we going to take a picture? Is that
the way we're going to do it? And then aren't
we going to take a group photo also? Okay,
great.
NOTE: The President spoke at 4:47 p.m. in the
Rose Garden at the White House. In his remarks,
he referred to Joann Cronin, national Girls State
director.


1164




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 22


Exchange With Reporters Prior to a Meeting With Chairman Stanislav
Shushkevich of Belarus
July 22, 1993


Surgeon General Nominee
Q. Mr. President, are you confident that Dr.
Elders has the answers to the questions she'll
be asked tomorrow?
The President. I think she'll do very well.
Let me also say while Chairman Shushkevich
is here that I am very honored to have him
here in the White House. And I want to thank
him publicly for the support his country has
given to the nonproliferation regime and to
START I. We're going to have a good partnership. I look forward to its development. And
I very much appreciate the fact that he has


come here off of a successful commitment by
his nation to be nonnuclear. And it means a
lot to the United States and to the world.
Midwest Disaster Assistance
Q. Are you concerned about getting the flood
money from the House, sir?
The President. No, not from what I heard
about that. I think it's okay.
NOTE: The exchange began at 5:40 p.m. in the
Oval Office at the White House. A tape was not
available for verification of the content of this exchange.


Statement by the Press Secretary on the President's Meeting With
Chairman Stanislav Shushkevich of Belarus
July 22, 1993


In an Oval Office meeting, President Clinton
today congratulated the head of state of Belarus,
Stanislav Shushkevich, for the historic decision
his country has taken to join the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The President praised Chairman Shushkevich for the support Belarus has
given to the cause of nonproliferation.
The President noted that Belarus is the first
of the newly independent states of the former
Soviet Union to fully honor its commitments
under the Lisbon Protocol to ratify START and
accede to the NPT. He applauded this courageous step, stating that under the leadership
of Chairman Shushkevich, Belarus has been in
the forefront of the global effort to safeguard
mankind from the threat of nuclear destruction.
The President announced that this week our
countries have signed three agreements provid

ing for $59 million in assistance under the
Nunn-Lugar legislation for projects aimed at
dealing with the legacy of nuclear weapons in
Belarus. We expect to be working closely with
Belarus in the near term to develop additional
projects.
President Clinton also stressed the strong interest of the U.S. in expanding economic ties
with Belarus, particularly in trade and investment opportunities for American and Belarusian
firms. He expressed his hope that the U.S. and
Belarus will conclude soon a bilateral investment
treaty, a tax treaty, and a Peace Corps agreement.
Chairman Shushkevich's visit to Washington
represents the President's first official meeting
in the United States with the head of state of
one of the newly independent states.


1165




July 22 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


Letter to Congressional Leaders Reporting on Iraq's Compliance With
United Nations Security Council Resolutions
July 22, 1993


Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)
Consistent with the Authorization for Use of
Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public
Law 102-1), and as part of my effort to keep
the Congress fully informed, I am reporting on
the status of efforts to obtain Iraq's compliance
with the resolutions adopted by the U.N. Security Council.
Over the last several months, we have seen
more examples of the Iraqi Government's refusal to comply with relevant Security Council
resolutions and international law. In May I reported on our investigation of allegations that
Iraq attempted to assassinate former President
Bush during his recent trip to Kuwait. We uncovered compelling evidence that the Iraqi Intelligence Service directed the attempt. I concluded that there was no reasonable prospect
that new diplomatic initiatives or economic
measures could influence the current Government of Iraq to cease planning future attacks
against the United States and that a continuing
threat was posed to the United States. Accordingly, I ordered a precise and limited strike
against the headquarters of the Iraqi Intelligence
Service in the exercise of our inherent right
of self-defense under international law. In accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, we reported our actions to the Security
Council immediately.
We will strive to use law enforcement and
international cooperation to prevent the Iraqi
regime from once again killing innocent people
in pursuit of its ends. It should be clear, however, that we will strike directly at those who
direct and pursue Iraqi policies when it is necessary to do so in our self-defense.
Also, on June 19, a U.S. aircraft fired a missile
at an Iraqi anti-aircraft site that had displayed
hostile intent. The site has not been active since
the attack.
Inspections by the U.N. Special Commission
on Iraq (UNSCOM) and the International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to date have
forced Iraq to disclose, destroy, or render harmless all the major nuclear weapons facilities and
equipment of which we are aware. Along with
damage inflicted in combat, these inspections


have effectively put the Iraqi nuclear weapons
program out of business in the near-term and
have substantially impaired Iraq's other weapons
of mass destruction (WMD) programs.
Over the long-term, however, we believe that
Saddam Hussein is committed to rebuilding his
WMD capability, especially nuclear weapons.
UNSCOM and the IAEA are therefore developing a program of long-term monitoring in accordance with Security Council Resolution 715.
Iraq has refused to accept that Resolution,
blocking UNSCOM from installing cameras to
monitor Iraq's compliance with restrictions on
long-range missiles and from sealing missile
sites. The Security Council has declared these
actions, along with Iraq's failure to comply with
demands related to its chemical weapons program, to be a material and unacceptable breach
of Resolution 687 and has warned Iraq of "serious consequences" if it fails to comply. Discussions between UNSCOM and Iraq on these issues are currently underway.
Iraq depicts itself as seeking consultations,
rather than confrontation, in complying with Security Council resolutions. Iraq, however, has
attempted to obstruct even the clearest Security
Council requirements. In June, Iraq missed two
deadlines to deliver equipment for producing
chemical weapon precursors to UNSCOM for
supervised destruction. UNSCOM has reported
the matter to the Security Council, which has
the matter under consideration. Iraq still refuses
to divulge information indicating the foreign
companies from which it purchased equipment
and materials. Accurate information is integral
to a workable and realistic mechanism for import control, as required by Security Council
Resolution 715.
Iraq has also tried to restrict the exercise of
UNSCOM's aerial inspection rights, impose limits on the duration of inspections and the size
and composition of inspection teams, required
advance notice of inspection activities, and limit
inspectors' rights to take photographs. Vandalism, harassment, and theft have continued
against inspectors and U.N. property. Iraq is
responsible for improving this hostile environment.


1166




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 22


We have received reports of Iraqi forces
shooting at Saudi border guards across the IraqSaudi border. These acts appear to violate paragraph 3(a) of Security Council Resolution 686,
which demanded that Iraq cease hostile or provocative acts against other states. These incidents are the first of their kind since the
ceasefire and further call into question Iraq's
intention to live in peace with its neighbors.
The "no-fly zones" over northern and southern Iraq permit the monitoring of Iraq's compliance with Security Council Resolutions 687 and
688. Over the last two years, the northern nofly zone has deterred Iraq from a major military
offensive in the region. Since the no-fly zone
was established in southern Iraq, Iraq's use of
aircraft against its population in the region has
stopped, as have large-scale troop movements.
However, the no-fly zone has not prevented the
Iraqi army from conducting an ongoing campaign against Iraqi Shias in the southern
marshes, involving the recent burning of several
villages. We are continuing to work toward the
placement of human rights monitors throughout
Iraq as proposed by Max van der Stoel, Special
Rapporteur to the U.N. Human Rights Commission, and to work for the establishment of a
U.N. Commission to investigate and publicize
Iraqi war crimes and other violations of international humanitarian law.
The international community has continued
its efforts, consistent with Security Council resolutions, to alleviate suffering in Iraq. The United
States is working closely with the U.N. and
other organizations to provide humanitarian relief to the people of northern Iraq, in the face
of Iraqi Government efforts to disrupt this assistance. We continue to support new U.N. efforts to mount a relief program for persons in
Baghdad and the South and will ensure that
the U.N. will be able to prevent the Iraqi Government from diverting supplies.
The U.N. sanctions regime exempts medicine
and requires only that the U.N. Sanctions Committee be notified of food shipments. In accordance with paragraph 20 of Resolution 687, the
Committee received notices of 20 million tons
of foodstuffs to be shipped to Iraq through June
1993. The Sanctions Committee also continues
to consider and, when appropriate, approve requests to send to Iraq materials and supplies
for essential civilian needs. The Iraqi Government, in contrast, has maintained a full embargo
against its northern provinces and has acted to


distribute humanitarian supplies only to its supporters and to the military.
The Iraqi Government has so far refused to
accept U.N. conditions for selling $1.6 billion
in oil as previously authorized by the Security
Council in Resolutions 706 and 712, although
talks between Iraq and the United Nations on
implementing these resolutions were resumed
in New York on July 7 for the third time in
two years. Iraq could use proceeds from such
sales to purchase foodstuffs, medicines, materials, and supplies for essential civilian needs
of its population, subject to strict U.N. monitoring of sales and the equitable distribution of
humanitarian supplies (including to its northern
provinces).
Proceeds from oil sales also would be used
to compensate persons injured by Iraq's unlawful invasion and occupation of Kuwait. The U.N.
Compensation Commission has received about
800,000 claims so far, with a total of roughly
two million expected. The U.S. Government has
filed a fourth set of individual claims with the
Commission, bringing U.S. claims filed to about
1,100. The Commission's efforts will facilitate
the compensation of those injured by Iraq once
sufficient funds become available.
Security Council Resolution 778 permits the
use of a portion of frozen Iraqi oil assets to
fund crucial U.N. activities concerning Iraq, including humanitarian relief, UNSCOM, and the
Compensation Commission. (The funds will be
repaid, with interest, from Iraqi oil revenues
as soon as Iraqi oil exports resume.) The United
States is prepared to transfer up to $200 million
in frozen Iraqi oil assets held in U.S. financial
institutions, provided that U.S. contributions do
not exceed 50 percent of the total amount contributed. We have arranged a total of over $51
million in such matching contributions thus far
and anticipate making another matching contribution of just over $40 million.
Iraq still has not met its obligations concerning Kuwaitis and third-country nationals it detained during the war. Iraq has taken no substantive steps to cooperate fully with the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC),
as required by Security Council Resolution 687,
although it has received over 600 files on missing individuals. Regional organizations have also
been engaged-thus far to no avail-in trying
to obtain Iraqi compliance on the issue of detainees. We continue to work for Iraqi compliance.


1167




July 22 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


The United Nations has completed its technical task of demarcating the previously agreed
Iraq-Kuwait border, and the President of the
Security Council accepted its work. Iraqi Government officials have refused to recognize the
boundary, despite the requirement to do so
under Security Council Resolution 687. In accordance with Security Council Resolution 806,
which responded to Iraqi disruptions on the border, the U.N. continues to seek the identification and deployment of an armored battalion
to the United Nations Iraq-Kuwait Observer
Mission (UNIKOM), so that UNIKOM has sufficient force to take necessary actions to prevent
violations of the border and the demilitarized
zone. The United States and our allies also continue to press the Government of Iraq to return
all property and equipment removed from Kuwait by Iraq.
Iraq can rejoin the community of civilized


nations only through democratic processes, respect for human rights, equal treatment of its
people, and adherence to basic norms of international behavior. A government representing all
the people of Iraq, which is committed to the
territorial integrity and unity of Iraq, would be
a stabilizing force in the Gulf region. The Iraqi
National Congress (INC) espouses these goals
and our support for the INC is a signal of the
future we seek for Iraq.
I am grateful for the support of the Congress
of our efforts.
Sincerely,
WILLIAM J. CLINTON
NOTE: Identical letters were sent to Thomas S.
Foley, Speaker of the House of Representatives,
and Robert C. Byrd, President pro tempore of
the Senate.


Remarks on National Service Legislation and an Exchange With Reporters
July 23, 1993


The President. Good morning, everybody. Before I leave I'd like to make a couple of comments, if I might.
First of all, I was frankly somewhat disappointed yesterday at the delay in the progress
of the national service legislation in the Senate.
This is one idea that all Americans should be
able to agree on. We know we have broad bipartisan support. Several Republican Senators have
told us that they like the bill and intend to
support it. And I very much hope that next
week whatever considerations were moving the
Republican Senate toward filibuster will evaporate.
Mr. Segal and all the people supporting national service have worked hard with Republicans and Democrats from the inception of this
legislation. We have a very large number of Republican supporters in the House of Representatives, as well as the Democrats, and significant
support in the Senate. And this is not the bill
to delay. America needs this. It's a very important part of our efforts to open the doors of
college education to all Americans and give hundreds of thousands of young Americans over
the next few years a chance to serve their coun

try while earning credit against their college
costs. I think it's very important that we move
on it.
The next thing I would like to say is I'm
very encouraged and I have very positive feelings about the progress made in the conference
on the budget plan. The conferees are obviously
determined to move toward the largest deficit
reduction package in history and to do it in
a way that promotes growth and jobs. I was
quite encouraged that some of the provisions
that were agreed on yesterday were those that
I think are important to encourage people to
invest in new jobs in this country, including
the provision long championed by Senator
Bumpers to give a significant tax break to people
who make investments of 5 years or longer in
new businesses and smaller businesses in this
country. So I think we're off to a good start
on that, and I'm very hopeful about the spirit
that is prevailing in the conference today.
Deputy Counsel Vincent Foster, Jr.
Q. Mr. President, do you have any update
on the Park Police or the Justice Department
on Vince Foster and the investigation?
The President. No. It's just a normal, routine


1168




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 23


thing that would be done. I don't think anything's going to come out other than what you
already know.
Q. What will you say about your friend in
Arkansas?
The President. That he was a wonderful person. That I don't think that any of us will ever
know exactly why his life ended the way it did.
But today I think that we should all determine
not to judge his life by the way it ended solely.
He was a terrific friend, a great father, a great
husband, a great lawyer. He was one of the
ablest and best people I ever knew in my life.
That's what makes this day the more painful.
But we have to accept the fact that there are
many things we're not in control of, many things
we don't understand, and we have to be grateful
for what his life was.
Thank you.
Midwest Disaster Assistance
Q. The floods-what about the funds, and


are they playing politics on the flood issue?
The President. Who?
Q. The House?
The President. I don't think we should read
too much into that. Let's wait and see what
happens next week. There are people in the
House that have very strong feelings about the
procedures by which matters should be brought
to vote and debated, and I think that's what's
going on. I wouldn't read too much into that
one way or the other. Let's wait and see what
they do. I think they'll work through it next
week.
Thank you.
NOTE: The President spoke at 8:15 a.m. on the
South Lawn at the White House prior to his departure for Little Rock, AR. A tape was not available for verification of the content of these remarks.


Exchange With Reporters in Hope, Arkansas
July 23, 1993


Q. How are you feeling?
Q. Can you tell us-what are these watermelons?
The President. They're the best. It's a little
early yet. They'll be big in about a month. Four
weeks from now we're going to have the watermelon festival here. And I used to come down
here every year and run in the 5K run and
enter the cow chip throwing contest, which I
won one year, I'm embarrassed to say. The year
I won it they said I shouldn't be rewarded because I have an unfair advantage, since politicians do it for a living. [Laughter] That's what
they said.
But anyway, they're pretty good yet, but it's
a little early in the season, and we need a little
more rain.
Q. Is this your first trip back to Hope since
the Inauguration?
The President. Yes. Yeah.
Q. How is Mrs. Foster doing, Mr. President?
The President. I think they're doing pretty
well. You can see they've got a very wide circle
of friends here in this State, up in Little Rock
and here. I think it will really help them a


lot.
Q. How are you doing?
The President. I'm all right. I'm pretty sad,
but I'm all right.
Q. Does it help you to come home?
The President. Oh, a lot. We were all standing
out there at the cemetery today, and all these
people showed up we went to kindergarten and
first grade with and people that all of us have
shared the last 20 or 30 years with. It helped
them a lot, I think, and it helped me. And
then getting to go by and see my uncle meant
a lot to me. He'll be 89 in December. Yes,
he's a remarkable man, remarkable man.
Q. He's 89?
The President. December. He's 88; he'll be
89 in December. He had lung cancer like 15
years ago, had a lung taken out, and just rolled
right on. He lost his wife a couple of years
ago.
Q. Your mother wasn't in that picture?
The President. Yes, she had to go back. She's
doing something now.
Q. Did he have any advice for you?
The President. He said, "You remember at


1169




July 23 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


Christmas," he said, "I told you you were grabbing hold of a big hog by the tail." He said,
"The problem with grabbing hold of a big hog
by the tail is a hog's tail gets smaller and smaller
and smaller. You just can't let one start to get
away from you." [Laughter]
Q. What does that mean?
The President. It means hold tight, I think.
Q. You're not really going to have a haircut
on Air Force One, are you?
The President. No. No, but my barber, he's
going to cut my hair.
Q. You're going to him? What time?
The President. I'm going to meet him somewhere, wherever he says to meet. I told him
I'd either come there, or he could come to
me. He's going to decide. He's closing up at
6 p.m. He ends at 6 p.m. on Saturday. He
works all day Saturday because it's convenient
for working people to go in there. So when
we get back, he'll have been down about 30
minutes, so we're just going to go wherever
he says go.
Q. Were you surprised the limo was down
when you went out to the house today? Did
you expect to spend 15 minutes in the street
there?
The President. Oh, I didn't know whether
they were back or not, but I knew I'd have
to spend a little time with the neighborhood
kids anyway, so it was fine. And then a lot
of people came up that don't live in the neighborhood that I knew. That was Win Rockefeller,
you know, came upQ. I saw, yes.
The President. He's an alltime, longtime
friend of mine and Hillary's. I reappointed him
the State police commissioner. Senator Pryor
put him on the State police commission.
Q. It's the only Corvette police car in the
country.
The President. Yes. He loves the State police.
He did when I first met him in 1969, when
his father was the Governor and he and I were
students. And I was fixin' to go-I had been
in England, and he was fixin' to go. He was
already in love with the State police. It was
his number one passion even when he was a
young boy. So it was nice to see him.
Q. Are we going to get some of these
watermelonsThe President. You bet.
Q.     back to Washington?
The President. Everybody on the plane. You're


on the plane, aren't you?
9. Oh, absolutely.
Q. I didn't realize they had yellow meat. I
think of watermelons as just red.
The President. Yes, you can breed them for
yellow, too. The seeds-yeah.
Q. Are they sweeter?
The President. They're sweeter. You'll see.
They're going to load up. I'm going to ask Jack
how many yellow-meated ones he put on. But
I had him put one or two on.
Q. They just filled the van up right behind
you.
The President. I had him put one or two
yellow-meated ones on so everybody could get
a chance to taste them.
Q. Yes, I've never had one.
The President. Now, in August, when they
start having the contest for the biggest melon,
they're really not much. They don't taste very
good after they get about 65 pounds or bigger
than that, they've got so much water in them.
But you can almost literally watch them grow.
I mean, they get up to 50, 60, 70 pounds. And
you just have to keep pouring water-and they
grow in real sandy soil-and pour water in
them. The stalk is there, and it just sucks the
water out of the ground, literally, like a vacuum
cleaner. The water will go in and just suck it
back out into the melon. It is amazing.
Q. It looks kind of dry here, Mr. President.
The President. Yes, it's been dry. We may
not get many big melons this year. A lot of
it is the seeds and the sand, the seeds and
the soil and just proper care. It's really interesting to watch them get into the contest the last
week or two because if the skin splits at all,
if there's the tiniest rend in the fabric of the
skin, then the melon is disqualified from the
contest. It doesn't matter how much it weighs.
It has to have a uniformly smooth skin, and
yet the water is just bursting at it, you know.
So they get down-it's really scientific-you
thump it, you just have to have a-you have
to know when to quit. General rule of life.
Q. I guess that's it.
9. I still like your uncle's advice about the
hog by the tail.
The President. He said a lot of smart things
to me. When I was in my first term as Governor, the one I lost, he told me I was in a
world of trouble. He called me one day, the
only time he ever called me the whole time
I was in public life. He said, "People are mad


1170




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 23


at you for raising car licenses." I said, "They
said they wanted the road fixed." He said, 'They
didn't mean it." He said, "Most people like me,"
he said, "I don't give a rip about politics, as
long as I can go hunting, fishing, rivers are
clean." He said, "They did want it, but not"he said, "It just didn't work." He said, "You
need to undo it." He's really smart. He's a very
smart guy.
Q. Has he figured out the deficit?
Q. Are you sure you don't need him in Washington?
The President. He's like a lot of people down
here. He's got a high IQ and not a lot of formal
education but a world of horse sense. I mean,
he's really a smart man. And when I was a
child living down here and then after I moved
to Hot Springs when I was 6, I used to get
on a bus, a Trailways bus, and take the bus
back down here-stop at every little town along
the way, you know-and come down and spend
a weekend with him. He and his wife, they
would feed me. And Chelsea wasn't in that
house 10 minutes till he had her in the back
giving her peanut brittle.
Q. See, that's what the world is all about.
The President. Yes. But I loved to go down
here.
Q. We passed the house they said you were
born in.
The President. Well, I was actually born in
a hospital, which, funny, was torn down before
the election. Somebody of little faith put an
office building up there. Now they wish they
didn't. But that's where I lived. And my mother,
of course, was widowed by then, so my grandparents lived in that house. And my grandmother was a private-duty nurse. She lived down
the block, and my granddaddy had a little country store out across from the other cemetery
where Mack's father and my father are buried.
It's parallel to the road we're taking now. I
think Mack went over there today-and where
my grandparents are buried. But anyway, my
granddaddy had a store out there, and my
grandmother walked down the street to work
every day. And Mother and I lived there. And
then when I was 2, she went away to get her
nurse's training finished.
But Vince Foster's house was around the corner. It was that sort of nice brick house around


the comer. I don't know if you noticed, but
it had two-tone brick. It's kind of ugly now,
but when he lived there they painted it white
and it was perfectly beautiful. And for some
reason-I never have understood why they took
the white paint off, because it's not near as
pretty now. But anyway, that's where Vince
lived, around the comer.
Q. But that white house that's being worked
on is the one where you lived when you were
little?
The President. Yes. When my mother left the
hospital with me, we went there. We lived there
until I was 4. When I was 4, my mother remarried Roger Clinton, and we moved out on the
other side of town, a little bitty house on 13th
Street. And I understand they've got a sign out
front of that, too.
Q. I want to know why she let you play with
knives at the age of 4, Mr. President. [Laughter]
The President. I don't think they knew. I'm
not sure they knew. It was a dull knife. It was
a dull knife.
Q. Mr. President, what have you learned
about life this week?
The President. I think what I said in the service and what I said to my staff: There are a
lot of things that we're not in control of and
a lot of mysteries we don't understand. And
I think all of us need to work a lot harder
not to be so pressured by whatever we're doing
that we don't pay enough attention to ourselves,
our families, and our friends, people we work
with. I think we all need to not deaden our
sensitivities by working too hard. It undermines
how well you work for the people, and it obviously undermines the quality of life.
No one will ever know whether there was
anything any of us could have done to avoid
this, but it certainly gave me a lot of renewed
sense of humility about how we should all conduct ourselves and what we should do.
But Vince Foster had a lot of friends. You
can see that today. A whole lot of people really
cared a lot about him.
Ready to go? We got it? Let's roll.
NOTE: The exchange took place in the late afternoon at Jack Still's watermelon stand. A tape was
not available for verification of the content of this
exchange.


1171




July 24 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


The President's Radio Address
July 24, 1993
Good morning. Six months ago this week, I
took office as your President. And together we
dedicated ourselves to fulfilling a vision of
change for our country, change that would set
us firmly on the path to growth, to progress
and prosperity based on some old-fashioned
principles and some new ideas.
The principles are that we all ought to be
able to take more responsibility for ourselves,
our families, and our neighbors; that we ought
to have more opportunity in this country; and
that together we can make a stronger American
community so that all of us as individuals can
do better.
We decided to begin with an economic plan
which puts aside trickle-down economics and
emphasizes bringing down this deficit and investing in our people and our economy; to be
followed by an effort to control health care costs
and provide affordable health care to all Americans; a welfare reform plan to move people from
welfare to work; the national service program
to open the doors of college education to millions of young people and give many, many of
them a chance to pay their college loans back
through service to their communities; a tougher
crime bill; and a bill to reform the political
system itself, to reduce the influence of big
money and lobbyists and to open the process
to the influence of ordinary people.
We're making progress on all these efforts,
but for the centerpiece, the economic plan, the
moment of truth is almost at hand. Lawmakers
on Capitol Hill are working on a final version
of our budget plan, and in the next couple of
weeks when your Senators and Representatives
vote on this plan, they will determine whether
we will reduce the deficit, rebuild our economy,
and recharge our job-creating machine.
This morning I want to talk to you again
about that plan and the new jobs it will create.
This is our historic opportunity for getting our
economic house in order. If we pass the plan,
we'll be on the way to reducing the deficit by
$500 billion over the next 5 years, to putting
millions more Americans to work, and providing
middle class Americans and businesses with the
tools they need to compete and win in the global economy.


This plan represents fundamental change, and
that's why we're not without our critics in Washington. The problem is that most of what the
critics have told you about the plan, that there
are no budget cuts, there's no deficit reduction,
it's all a big tax increase on the middle class,
all those things are absolutely untrue. The fact
is, we're cutting $250 billion in spending, and
a lot of those spending cuts are not popular.
Over 100 of those cuts exceed $100 million
each.
The second thing is that there are as many
spending cuts as tax increases in the plan, and
all the cuts and the tax increases will be put
into a deficit reduction trust fund so they can't
be touched for any other purpose but bringing
down our debt.
And another thing you won't hear from the
critics of the deficit reduction plan is that 70
percent-that's right, 70 percent-of the new
taxes will be paid by the richest Americans, the
1.2 percent of us with incomes of $200,000 a
year or more.
Now, these things are very important. But
it's also important what you will have to do,
if you're a member of the middle class or the
working poor. The middle class will be asked
to make a contribution but a very modest one.
A family of four with an average income of
$50,000 will be asked to pay about $50 a year
in an energy tax, that's less than $1 a week,
to help ensure the future of our children and
our grandchildren. Working families with incomes of under $30,000 will be held harmless.
And the working poor, for the first time in the
history of this country, will be helped through
the tax system to move out of poverty. That's
right. We'll be able to say for the first time
if you work full time and you have children
in your home, you won't be poor any more.
That's the biggest incentive to ending welfare
as we know it that I can imagine. At the same
time, this plan helps businesses with special incentives to create new jobs.
Over 90 percent of the small businesses in
this country will be eligible for a tax cut if
they invest in their businesses to improve their
productivity and to make it possible for them
to grow. That's right. There is no income tax


1172






Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 24


on over 90 percent of the small businesses in
this country, and all of them will be eligible
for a tax reduction if they invest more money
in their businesses. There are special incentives
to get people to invest in new businesses, to
support research and development, to encourage
our bigger companies to employ their resources
for new plant and equipment so they can hire
new people, to revitalize the real estate industry.
There is a provision here that in new communication technology alone can create 300,000
jobs in the next 10 years.
Yesterday the Treasury Department issued a
new State-by-State study of the jobs the economy has projected to create over the next 4
years if the Congress passes the economic plan.
Based on projections from several leading independent analysts, this report says that over the
next 4 years the economy will create 8 million
jobs. The Treasury also reports that in the first
5 months of this administration, there have been
740,000 private sector jobs created, about
150,000 a month. That's over seven times the
rate of job creation during the previous administration.
These forecasts indicate that individual States
should show dramatic improvements compared
to the previous 4 years. For example, California's projected to create nearly 2 million new
jobs, more than 10 times the number created
during the last administration; Georgia, about
400,000 jobs, more than 10 times the number
created during the previous years; and Massachusetts projected to create about 100,000 jobs.
That's very important there, because in the late
1980's and early 1990's, Massachusetts actually
lost over 180,000 jobs. We can help these States
with our economic plan and all the others as
well, helping to get America moving again, generating permanent, productive private sector
jobs.
In the meantime, we're already seeing the
dividends from our commitment to fix the economy. As the Chairman of the Federal Reserve
Board, Alan Greenspan, reported to the House
last week, confidence that we're going to reduce
the deficit through this budget plan has inspired
those people who determine what the interest
rates in our country are, so that now we have
the lowest long-term interest rates in 22 years.
As a result, many of you listening today may
be thinking of refinancing your home, or maybe
you're one of the millions of homeowners who
have already done it or all the people who are


refinancing their business loans. If you do that,
you can save a whole lot more on lower interest
rates than you'll be asked to pay in higher taxes
to make this plan work.
None of this would have been possible without the determination of our administration to
reduce the deficit and to rebuild the economy.
We've all gotten an earful from our opponents
who would really rather just leave things the
way they are. They've misrepresented who is
paying the taxes and how much the budget cuts
are and the fact that small businesses by and
large are getting a tax cut, not a tax increase.
You may recall that I've asked those critics
to come up with an alternative. Because let's
face it, if there's a better way than the way
I've proposed to fix the mess I inherited, I'm
sure I want to hear it and you do too. So our
critics came up with a plan. And if you have
a problem remembering the details, there's a
good reason. There weren't a lot of details in
the last Senate Republican plan on reducing the
deficit. You see, it reduced the deficit a lot
less than our plan; $66 billion of the so-called
spending cuts weren't even specified. They said,
"Well, trust us. We'll come up with that for
later." And as for burden-sharing, they didn't
ask the wealthiest Americans, whose taxes went
down while their incomes went up in the 1980's,
to pay one red cent. They just wanted to cut
more in Medicare for the elderly, in programs
for the working poor and the middle class. It
was burden-shirking, not burden-sharing.
In sum, our opponents' plan was a rerun of
the same old trickle-down economics we tried
in the 1980's. We've all seen that movie before.
They said, "It's spending, stupid." But when
they had their chance, when our budget was
before the Senate Finance Committee, the Republicans on the committee did not offer one
red cent in specific spending cuts.
Someone once said that the truth is like a
torch that glows in the fog. Well, I want that
torch to burn brightly, to burn away all the
fog that's surrounded the debate on this economic program and let the real picture of positive change for America shine through. Make
no mistake about it, we're on the verge of doing
something historic for our country. It'll be a
challenge, but we always welcome a challenge.
This week, on the 24th anniversary of the
first walk by an American on the Moon, we
should remember the challenge laid down by
President Kennedy. He said, and I quote, "We


1173




July 24 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


choose to go to the Moon and to do other    unwilling to postpone it, and let's intend to win.
things not because they're easy but because   Thanks for listening, and God bless you all.
they're hard, because the challenges are ones
we are willing to accept, unwilling to postpone,  NOTE: The address was recorded at 8 p.m. on
and ones we intend to win."                July 22 in the Oval Office at the White House
We should be willing to accept this challenge,  for broadcast at 10:06 a.m. on July 24.
Remarks to the American Legion Boys Nation
July 24, 1993


The President. Thank you very much, and
please be seated. I told the Vice President what
I was about to do, and he wanted to come
out and say hello to you. But he has another
meeting; he's trying to pass our economic plan,
so he has to go. He just wanted to say hello.
So I'm going to let him come up here and
say a few words to you, so he can go back
to work while I have a good time with you.
The Vice President. Thanks very much. I know
this is a very exciting day for all of you. And
I want to wish you well. And if there is anyone
here who has in the back of his mind any notion
at all of going into public service or politics,
I only have one word of advice. If you can
manage somehow to get a picture of you shaking
hands with President Clinton here today, it
might come in handy later on. [Laughter]
The President. Thank you very much, and welcome. I want to acknowledge the presence here
of the national commander of the American Legion, Roger Munson; and the national chaplain,
James Wagner; the executive director, John
Sommer; and the director of activities, Jack
Mercier, who was at Boys Nation 30 years ago
when I was here-he started I think 31 years
ago; George Blume, the legislative director; and
a number of people here from my time of involvement, including one Member of Congress,
a Republican from Minnesota, Congressman Jim
Ramstad. Where are you? Stand up there. I
think all of you know that we're also having
a 30-year reunion here this weekend, those of
us who were here with me. And the organizer
of that was Judge Pete Johnson from Alabama.
Pete, where are you? Stand up over there. Gary
Sammons, the chair of the National Americanism Commission, is here, the policymaking body
that oversees Boys Nation. He was a Michigan
Boys Stater in 1963. And I'm just curious.


Would all the people who are here from our
reunion class of '63 please stand up. See, they
look pretty good, don't they? None the worse
for the wear. [Applause] Thank you.
Let me say to all of them, we're going to
have this ceremony, I'm going to take pictures
with the young men who are here as delegates,
and then afterward I hope all of you here for
the reunion will hang around a little and we'll
have a chance to visit, too.
For those of you who are here, I say welcome,
and those of you who were here 30 years ago,
I say welcome back. All of us share a common
bond. We owe a great deal of gratitude to the
American Legion for the exceptional chance
they have given us and so many others over
the last many, many years to learn so much
about the responsibilities as well as the rights
we have as American citizens.
Three decades to the day have passed since
my group and I were here in the Rose Garden
to meet President Kennedy. But I think that
all of us probably remember exactly how we
felt then. It was a very different time for America. There was virtually no cynicism. None of
us had any doubt that our country could solve
its problems, meet its challenges, bridge its gaps.
Nor did we have any doubt that our President,
our Congress, the people whom we elected,
could faithfully and fully represent us in meeting
the great challenges of that day.
One of the most important moments at Boys
Nation is the debate about resolutions. And 30
years ago when we were here, believe it or
not, we always assumed that President Kennedy
would be running for reelection, that Senator
Goldwater would probably be his opponent, although there was a lot of turmoil within the
Republican Party at that time about who the
nominee would be, and that the great issue


1174




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 24


would be civil rights. Our Boys Nation group
passed a resolution against racial discrimination.
Many of us had grown up in segregated societies. We understood the pain, the cost, the
incredible waste in human potential that that
had caused. And so we voted for it.
I was very proud to be one of the southerners
that voted for it, and I think that two others
that I remember were my two colleagues from
Louisiana. I think they're both here today, and
they both voted for it. I remember clearly the
discussions we had late at night in the dorms
discussing it.
The Nation's Governors had just met that
week, and they broke up their resolution conference so they wouldn't have to deal with civil
rights. So when we showed up here, President
Kennedy said that we had shown more initiative
than the Nation's Governors. Now, we loved
it, but the Governors didn't like it very much.
And it got him in a lot of hot water with them.
Sixteen weeks later, President Kennedy was
taken from us before he was able to fulfill his
commitments in civil rights. But when President
Johnson and the civil rights movement carried
it through, it was the greatest domestic achievement of my lifetime, and it helped to make
possible so many good things for so many people
over the last 30 years, even though, to be sure,
the work is nowhere near over.
Most of you now attending Boys Nation were
born in 1976, the bicentennial year of our independence. And you will live your entire lives
in the third century of America's life. I think
about that often because my daughter will soon
be your age, and everything that we are working
on that really matters is designed as much to
help you and your tomorrows as to improve
the lives of Americans today.
We have a covenant with you which requires
us to make some very tough choices. We have
some of the same problems we had in 1963
but some very different ones as well. From the
time we became a nation until 1980, we had
amassed over that entire life of this country
a national debt of only $1 trillion. As a percentage of our income, it seemed to be quite manageable, and we were still free to invest in those
things we ought to invest in. In the last 12
years, partly because of misguided policies, partly because of gridlock, partly because of people
trying to outbid one another, we have gone from
$1 to $4 trillion in national debt. The estimated
annual deficit when I took office was well over


$300 billion, although we've gotten it down
some this year. And clearly, we have unmet
needs that we don't have the money to invest
in.
As compared with many other nations, just
for example, we spend too little money on new
technologies for the 21st century which will
shape the jobs that you and your colleagues
will have. We spend too little money on the
continued education and training of our work
force. We have all kinds of other challenges
occasioned by the builddown of the reduction
in defense spending. We owe it to the people
who worked hard to help us win the cold war
not to leave them out in the cold, and yet we
don't have all the funds we need to spend on
that. And yet, we have this enormous debt. It
is a terrible dilemma for this country.
We have whole sections of America where
unemployment is too high and poverty is too
high and the major source of income is drugs
and the major organizations that works in society
are gangs. We have to change all that. But we
have to also free ourselves economically of the
paralysis that this enormous annual deficit and
the accumulated debt impose. And so we are
trying to do that here for you as well as for
your parents and your grandparents.
In your lifetime, communism, the great threat
of my childhood, has been defeated. I can still
remember going to high school assemblies and
junior high school assemblies and sitting there
being given instructions about how to find the
nearest bomb shelter and what we would do
if a nuclear war occurred. I can still remember
hearing people speak about what communism
was like in the Soviet Union and how there
would be a lifelong struggle between the forces
of freedom and the forces of communism. Well,
in 1989 when the Berlin Wall fell, it was a
stunning reaffirmation of America's commitment
to freedom and democracy and to free market
economics and the right of individuals to seek
their own way as long as they didn't hurt their
communities. That is an incredible achievement.
In all probability, you will be able to raise your
children without any threat of the annihilation
of this society or this globe on which we live.
On the other hand, as we have learned from
every source of wisdom beginning with the
Scriptures, there will never be an end to problems, never be an end to challenges. It is part
of human nature that as new opportunities develop, new problems do, too. We have to do


1175




July 24 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


something about our debt here. We have to
invest. We have to compete. We have to create
opportunities for your future. We also have to
recognize that the world remains a dangerous
place, and there are people running governments who desperately want to develop weapons
of mass destruction and have very little concern
what is done in retaliation to their own citizens.
That is a deeply troubling thing. We still face
the threat of terrorism from people who honestly believe that the best way to achieve their
political objectives is to kill, even if they kill
innocent people. And we still have the terrible,
terrible burden of knowing that in spite of all
the progress we have made, there are millions
of Americans who do not have the chance to
grow up to live to their God-given potential.
And until that happens, we will never be as
secure, as strong, as full as we need to be.
We are trying, among other things in this
administration, to make people believe again
that their collective efforts can make a difference. Until the American people can overcome their cynicism and believe that if they
act, it can matter, it is going to be very difficult
for us to solve the problems of this country.
I believe that every Member of Congress, without regard to party, would admit that the National Government has a responsibility to set
up a framework within which opportunity can
be seized, but that many of our problems have
to be dealt with person to person, family to
family, school to school, job to job, community
to community, at the grassroots level. We have
to create a climate in which people are challenged to take responsibility for themselves,
their families, and their communities; given as
many opportunities to do so as possible. But
the nature of the problems we have today require the concerted action of millions of Americans.
The good news about that is that all of you
can make a difference. That's why I have
worked so hard since becoming President to
create this program of national service, which
would open the doors of college education on
better terms to millions of Americans and then
give hundreds of thousands of them-hundreds
of thousands of people like you, I hope-the
opportunity to pay all or a portion of their college loans back with work for their country,
in their communities or in other communities
here at home, rebuilding America from the
grassroots up and doing it either before, during,


or after college. This national service program
can make a fundamental difference to the way
we view ourselves and our country. It can make
more and more people have the same kind of
enthusiasm I saw on your face when the Vice
President and I walked in here today. We know
you're connected to America. We need to connect everyone else to America, as well.
Right now there's a little bit of political maneuvering going on in the Congress about national service. It's sad to me because we have
good Republican and Democratic support for
this bill. And I earnestly hope that this whole
idea will be saved from becoming a political
football. It is too important to America. It has
nothing to do with partisan politics and everything to do with giving people a chance to serve
their country and, in so doing, to help to build
a belief in their country again.
People my age remember President Kennedy
starting the Peace Corps. Our fathers and mothers remember when President Roosevelt
launched the Civilian Conservation Corps during
the Great Depression and gave people a chance
to build their way out of that depression. In
my State I could take you to community after
community after community where there are
still CCC projects that older people today point
to with pride, their hearts swelling, because
they, with their own hands, at a time when
25 percent of the American people were unemployed, were given a chance to rebuild their
country. We just had a big reunion out in California of the Peace Corps volunteers, and I have
named a former Peace Corps volunteer to be
the first ex-Peace Corps person to run the Peace
Corps. They are swelling with pride to this day
for what they did 25 and 30 years ago. And
so it will be with national service if we can
do it.
I want to say one last thing to all of you.
Thomas Jefferson, whose memorial is right back
over there and was built 50 years ago this year,
was fond of saying that the Earth belongs to
the living in trust; that all of us have to balance
our lives between doing what is good for us
today and what is good for our country, our
families, our friends, and our children and
grandchildren tomorrow. That means that for
all the opportunities you will have, and you
young men will have more than most Americans,
you have an immense responsibility to give
something back to your country. One day you
will understand that even more clearly than you


1176




-


Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 26


do today, although I wish that Americans twice
your age understood it as well as you clearly
do at this moment.
Regardless of what you do, remember this:
It is not enough in life to have feelings. It is
not enough in life to have convictions. You must
act on them. You must act on them. You must
move. You must do. You must make things happen. That is surely the ultimate lesson of Boys
State and Boys Nation. We were given a system
by the Founding Fathers which permitted people in every generation of Americans to the end
of time to join together and to act, to deal
with the challenges, seize the opportunities, and
beat back the problems of the day. That is the
legacy that you have been given. And that is
the responsibility that you must assume.
I can tell you that, to me, it seems only yesterday that I was your age, standing here. It
doesn't take long to live a life. But it can be
very rewarding if you have convictions, if you
believe in your feelings, and if you act.
I wish you well, and God bless you. [Applause] Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very
much.
I'd like now to ask Roger Munson to come
forward, and ask the rest of you to sit down.
It won't be much longer. I know it's hot out
here. When Girls Nation was here a couple of
days ago, it wasn't so warm. But it's still a nice
day.
[At this point, Arkansas delegates Traftin
Thompson and James Welch presented the President with a 1963 photograph of himself with
President Kennedy.]
Thank you very much. I think now we're
going to take the pictures over here. Is that
right? No, we're going to do-we've done that.
Oh, they're coming to speak? One of the things
that happens to you when you become President
is you sometimes don't get good instructions.


[Laughter] Then you just have to fall on the
sword.
Who am I supposed to introduce? Pete, are
you coming up here? And Jeff Keyes, is he
here? Come on.
Let me say, I saw Pete again during the
course of the Presidential campaign. And until
that happened, I had one Boys Nation person
who went to Georgetown with me who was in
my class; the two guys from Louisiana, one who
went to Georgetown with me, one who went
to law school with me, those two guys I had
stayed in close touch with; and one other person
who was a delegate from Virginia who I stayed
in touch with over the years. Now, when I ran
for President, I met so many of them again.
And I wanted to make one other point. It
wasn't in my notes, but I'd be remiss if I didn't.
It is a very great thing to be given the chance
to serve this country as President. But it is a
very great mistake to think that that is the thing
that counts the most in America. The thing that
counts the most in America is the contributions
that are made by all Americans who work hard,
play by the rules, raise their children well, make
their communities stronger. And I was so terribly impressed by learning about the life stories
of the other people with whom I was here,
the struggles that they'd had, the tragedies
they'd faced, the triumphs that they had created.
And I want you to remember that, too. Each
of you has to serve, and each of you can serve,
and each of you can make a difference. And
the collective efforts we make are far more important than the individual achievements of any
person.
NOTE: The President spoke at 11:11 a.m. in the
Rose Garden at the White House. Following his
remarks, 1963 Boys Nation delegate Jeff Keyes
presented him with a plaque and a second photograph with President Kennedy.


Remarks to the Conference on the Future of the American Workplace in
Chicago, Illinois
July 26, 1993


The President. Thank you very much. Senator
Simon, Senator Moseley-Braun, Mayor Daley,
President Gross, and my friends and colleagues


Secretaries Brown and Reich, and to all of you
in the audience, my old colleague Governor
Caperton and the distinguished business and


1177




July 26 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


labor leaders from all across America.
This has already been a little bit of fun for
me. I never thought I'd see Carol MoseleyBraun blush. [Laughter] But I will say this: You
can call me anything you want as long as you
don't take out after me like you did Jesse Helms
the other day. [Laughter]
I want to say a special word of appreciation
to Mayor Daley for talking about the Chicago
Laboratory for Change, because it really is sort
of symbolic of what we're trying to do all across
the country, the kind of partnership between
government and business and labor and social
service agencies to try to put low income people
into the work force, into independence, and
away from dependence. And I'm very excited
about that.
I talked to President Gross before we came
in about the history of Roosevelt University, a
very appropriate place to be cosponsoring this
event. I'd also be remiss if I didn't thank Adele
Simmons, the president of McArthur Foundation, for that foundation's support for this conference and the Joyce Foundation for supporting
the conference. I'd like to acknowledge in the
audience-I believe she's here-the Reverend
Willie Barrow, the chairwoman of Operation
Push. They held a conference on economic
empowerment this week here, and I want to
talk a little more about that later, but until we
find a way to reward the working poor and
to move people from welfare to work and to
make it attractive for people to invest in distressed areas of this country, our economic recovery is going to be limited. Finally, let me
say a special word of appreciation to Secretaries
Brown and Reich for their work on this conference.
And there's one group of American workers
I really want to acknowledge today. This is the
third anniversary of one of our most important
civil rights laws, the Americans with Disabilities
Act. For more than 40 million people, this law
is clearing the barriers to full participation in
American life, making real the whole pledge that
we often say that we don't have a person to
waste. This morning in Washington I ran a 5K
race with a group of astonishingly able disabled
Americans: two who raced in their chairs who
had raced all over the world; one marathon runner who happened to be blind; one woman who
had MS and made a terrific race around the
5K track, kept the pace all the way; one amputee who had once run a 62-mile race in one


day on a prosthesis and today made the 5K
around on his crutches just to prove he could
do that, too. The kinds of achievements that
these people have demonstrated athletically are
demonstrated even more profoundly in the work
force every day. We need them, and I am proud
of that law.
I am glad to be here in Chicago to discuss
this subject today-the city that works, the city
of big shoulders, all that. You need to know
why I'm glad to be here, because in a very
real way, I would not be here as President if
it weren't for Chicago. And the economic forces
that bring us here to discuss this subject today
help to explain that.
I was once at a meeting here in 1988 over
at the South Shore Development Bank, and I
discovered that three city councilmen, two or
three Democratic ward chairs, and a significant
portion of the business community in this city
came from Arkansas, and it was no accident.
If you've ever read Al Hawkis-you ought to
read John Johnson's autobiography here, which
might be subtitled, "How I Escaped the Abject
Poverty of Arkansas City and Came to Chicago
and Became a Big Cheese." [Laughter] It is
a story that has millions of replications: people
in the South who couldn't make a living in the
Great Depression leaving in massive numbers
from the farms and small towns; coming to Chicago, coming to Detroit; finding a way to get
into the factories or start a business, at the least;
becoming middle class Americans; earning a decent wage with a rising paycheck and a good
retirement and health care benefits and enough
to buy a home and take a vacation and send
your kids to college.
It was the American dream. And when I
began running for President I found myself deluged with people in Chicago who had roots
in my hometown, in my home State. We had
two delegates here, two who were born in the
same little town in Arkansas that my Chief of
Staff and I were born in, in the Chicago delegation. There's a whole town in Michigan where
90 percent of the people who live in this little
town were born in my State. They all came
looking for a different life. And that's what basically worked for us. Then eventually, the industrialization which bloomed first here spread back
to the South.
In the year I was born, my home State's per
capita income was only 56 percent of the national average. Mississippi's was only 48 percent.


1178






Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 26


The postwar economic boom of America by the
late seventies had taken the entire South to
about 87 percent of the national average in per
capita income. And it was projected that the
region would equal or exceed the national average of per capita income by the turn of the
century. But then the economic slowdown of
the last 20 years hit everywhere and hit those
who were less well-educated, more rural, less
able to compete in the global economy, even
harder.
And I say that's what's important to bring
us here today because I got to this job by being
a Governor for 12 years in a State where I
focused almost exclusively on the subjects and
the triumphs and the tribulations that will be
discussed here today, on jobs and education and
partnerships and productivity. And when I became Governor for my second term in 1983,
my State's unemployment rate was almost 3
points higher than the national average. In every
month but one until 1992, we were above the
national average in unemployment. Then in
1992, we were first or second in job creation.
And in 1993, the State enjoys an unemployment
rate that I think is still too high but is well
below the national average.
The point I want to make is this: The issues
we are discussing today in terms of the big,
sweeping developments in America have been
of at least 20 years in building. The policies
we need to change have been in place for a
good long while nationally. You know what
works in the workplace. You know that partnership works. You know that investment in new
technology works. You know that flexibility
works. You know that being competitive works.
You know that treating people like assets instead
of something that is expendable is very important. We need to figure out how to write that
large in national policy and then be better partners with you in what you do.
And one of the things that I understand very
clearly because I have been a Governor is that
nothing I do as President can be fully successful
unless it makes sense and works with what all
of you are doing. And what I want to talk to
you about today is how we can be better partners and what we can do to meet the challenges
of this time, because it's much more complex
than it was after the Great Depression and after
the Second War, when people at least, even
though it pained them to do so, could leave
their little farms in Texas and Arkansas and Ala

bama and Mississippi and come to Chicago or
come to Detroit or go to Pittsburgh or go out
to California, and know they could get a job
and hope that when they retire they could come
home.
Now the whole country is caught up in a
global economy which, to be sure, is always affecting different States and communities in different ways, but essentially has some broad,
sweeping characterizations that we have to work
to reverse. And to make it more complicated,
all over the world the wealthiest countries are
having many of the same problems we are. I
just returned from Tokyo from a meeting of
the great industrial powers of the world. And
we find that all of them are having trouble promoting economic growth, all of them are having
trouble generating new jobs, and in the 1980's,
all of them found an increase in inequality of
income and greater difficulty in creating new
jobs, even when their economies were growing.
So that it is clear that we are dealing with a
very complicated issue and that no one has all
the answers.
Still it is clear that some things have to be
faced. We know that every nation competes in
a global marketplace where money management
and technology are increasingly mobile. We
know that increased productivity and new technologies often mean that more output can be
produced with fewer people and that not always
now, as was in the case for the last four decades-when that happened before, it was always
new and different jobs waiting for those people,
so that technology was always a winner. Productivity was always a winner. It always was a net
expansionary force. We've always had changes.
People have always been moving in and out
of jobs. No one can freeze-frame any form of
human work and make sure it will always be
there in just that way forever. But we know
now that for the last 20 years we have seen
a steady erosion of the security of average middle class people who work hard and play by
the rules, because we have not been able to
make the adjustments necessary in this new and
different global economy.
We know that we can only meet the challenge
if we begin with a very basic fact, the one that
you are here to celebrate today and to elucidate:
The most precious asset any nation has is the
people who live there and that as long as the
people who live there are willing to do what
it takes to learn more, to do better, to be smart

1179




July 26 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


er, to stay ahead of the curve, there are going
to be opportunities. We also know that most
jobs in every society now are going to be created
by the private sector and by what people do
or do not do to be more productive, to reach
out to new markets, to develop new products
and services. And the third thing we know is
that Government policy makes a difference at
home and abroad. It does make a difference.
For more than two centuries our country has
built prosperity by investing in our people and
our technology and our future. We have, in
other words, followed the policy that I have
called putting people first. We invested in our
skills through a public school system, through
the land grant colleges, through expanding opportunities through the GI bill after the war,
our investments in canals and in railroads and
highway systems and mass transit, all of these
things have helped to make us more productive.
We've developed cutting-edge technologies
through national defense; through the space program; and to a lesser extent in the past, but
it must be more in the future, toward civilian
partnerships for new technologies.
But for 20 years we still have seen most
Americans working harder for less money. And
we have not developed an adequate response
to the new global economy. For at least a dozen
years, our country has pursued policies that are
popular in the short run but very limiting in
the long run. We have, to be popular in the
short run, reduced taxes and increased the deficit in a way that has taken our national debt
in 12 years from $1 to $4 trillion and our annual
deficit from about $73 to a projected $311 when
I took office.
At the same time, we have miraculously managed to reduce our national investment in the
education skills and technology that our people
need to grow in the future, a mathematical
sleight of hand that is almost inconceivable
when I tell people about it, but it's true. Why?
Because we keep spending more on the same
health care and more on interest on the debt.
So that the people you think of in Washington
as being to blame for big spending and big
deficits because they're spending more on programs are, in fact, by and large, spending less
on programs that would help you to do your
job better. But because there has not been a
disciplined effort to bring down the deficit, a
disciplined effort to bring health care costs in
line with inflation, which would bring interest


rates down there and then reduce what we have
to spend servicing the debt, we are actually
spending more and getting less for it, the worst
of all worlds.
This has continued the downward pressure
on wages and job growth. And every working
family in America has felt its impact. Between
1972 and 1992, while the work year got longer
for Americans, average hourly wages actually
dropped by 10 percent. The 75 percent of our
workers who don't have 4-year college degrees
felt it most profoundly. For those who began
but didn't complete college, wages fell 10 percent from 1979 through 1991; for those who
didn't go on to college, wages fell 17 percent;
for those who left high school, wages dropped
24 percent.
It is, of course, perhaps enough to say to
explain this, that as we move into a global economy where what you earn depends on what
you can learn, many of those people could not
command more in a global labor marketplace.
But that is an insufficient response if you want
to keep the American dream alive, you want
to keep the morale and the spirit of America
moving forward, and those of you who are employers want to be in a workplace where people
are productive because they are happy and constructive and an important part of a team. In
other words, it is not enough just to say that
we're in this terribly difficult period that it took
20 years to build and that no one knows exactly
what caused it. We simply cannot go gently into
a good night of limited economic expectations,
slow growth, no growth in living standards, and
a lesser future for our children. It is not the
American way.
We know that it may take us a good deal
of time to work out of this, and we know there
may be no simple answers or silver bullets, but
we have got to do better at building a future
for ourselves. Of course, we have a rare opportunity to do it because the cold war is over;
because democracy and free markets are in
favor and flower throughout the world; because
a global economy creates opportunities as well
as challenges and hazards for us because there
are new things which have to be done. We
have to find a way, for example, to make money
out of the global environmental crisis and make
jobs out of it, and I believe we can. And in
many ways, the challenges we face today are
ready-made for Americans, with our love of
learning, our proven genius at innovation, our


1180




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 26


far greater flexibility than any of our competitors, and our capacity for communicating with
people among different cultures. After all, we
have at least one county in this country with
people from 150 different racial and ethnic
groups. It need not be a weakness; it can be
an enormous asset for us as we move into a
global society.
But we know we have to stop doing some
things and to start doing some other things.
Put simply, we have to stop borrowing so much
from our future and start investing more to
build it again. We need fundamental changes,
and we have to do a lot of things at once.
And therefore, our administration is trying to
do a number of things in a short time: to reduce
the deficit, to improve education through our
schools, through opening the doors of college,
through reforming the system by which we support those of you who want to train your own
workers. We need to reward work and reform
welfare. We cannot continue to spend 30 percent more than any other country in the world
of our income on health care.
Many of you today here work in companies
or represent workers who do not have jobs who
would have jobs if we simply had been able
for the last 12 years to keep health care costs
in line with inflation plus population growth.
Many of you do. So all these things are related.
When people say to me, well, you know, why
don't you just reduce the deficit and forget
about the rest of it? I'll tell you why. Because
5 years from now, no matter who does what
with the deficit, it goes up again if you don't
bring health costs in line with inflation plus population growth. They say, well, why don't you
just not spend a nickel on anything? I'll tell
you why. Because look at California if you want
to see the consequences of 6 long years of cutting the defense budget and letting the people
who won the cold war go out in the cold and
giving no thought to what we're going to do
with the scientific and technological base and
the workers there and whether there is not some
new partnership that would give them something
to do.
So we have to do things in order, and we
have to begin by bringing the deficit down and
putting our financial house in order. But we
also have to think anew. All these partnerships
you've got going in your businesses, if somebody
came to work one day and said, "OK, we're
going to forget about these 12 things and just


do this one," a lot of you would go broke if
you did that. You do not have the luxury of
ignoring some problems if you have the means
at all to deal with them. And I would argue
that we don't either. But there needs to be
one overriding purpose for this country, and that
is returning us to a path in which we can build
a high-skill, high-wage, high-growth society in
which people who work hard and play by the
rules will be rewarded with decent work and
an opportunity to raise a strong family in a safe
neighborhood.
Let me say very briefly that the essentials
of the economic plan that the Congress is wrestling with-and I mean that literally, "wrestling
with." I feel since I'm here in Chicago I have
to say this. Chairman Rostenkowski and Senator
Moynihan from New York are obviously the lead
conferees on our budget, and they're working
through some very difficult and complex issues
today, and I compliment them for their enormous labors and for what they're doing. But
the elements of the plan are clear: We want
to bring the deficit down by $500 billion over
5 years. We want to make at least as many
cuts as we raise taxes, if not more. There are
200 cuts with more than $250 billion in them
if the Congress will adopt them. We want to
restore some fairness to hard-working middle
class families, and we want to reward work over
welfare.
For every $10 in the plan I presented to
the Congress, and this is true in both the House
and Senate version, $5 comes from spending
cuts, $4 from new revenues from people in the
upper 6 percent of earning brackets, $1 from
the middle class. Families with incomes under
$30,000 are held harmless. The working poor
for the first time are lifted out of poverty by
not taxing them into poverty if they work hard.
This is a very big deal in America. Eighteen
percent of the people who work full-time in
this country are living below the Federal poverty
line. It is hard to lecture people, to say, "Well,
don't be on welfare; go to work," if you don't
reward work. That is something the Government
can do that I think all Americans should support.
Now, I want to say something else today, because we're celebrating partnerships here. The
tax part of this program does not impose 70
percent of its burden on people with incomes
above $200,000 to soak the rich or promote
class warfare. I want to reward success. The


1181




July 26 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


tax burden is the way it is because we seek
to reverse what happened in the 1980's, where
taxes went up on the middle class and down
on the wealthiest Americans. Payroll taxes went
up, and the Government shoved more and more
off on the State and local government, and almost all the revenues they adopted hit the middle class disproportionately. This has nothing to
do with class warfare. It has to do with opportunity and fairness. And I think it will rebuild
a sense of teamwork and a spirit of partnership
and cooperation.
I also want to point out that if we can continue to bring this deficit down, you will see
the continuation of the last 5 months of a big
drop in long-term interest rates, which is causing
millions of people to refinance their home loans
or their business loans or take out other forms
of credit in ways that will save them far more
money than they will pay in new revenues. If
we can keep interest rates down for over a year
at this level, it is estimated from a low side
of $50 to a high side of $100 billion will be
released to be reinvested back into this economy
to jumpstart the economy again. I think it is
terribly important.
The second element of this plan, in addition
to deficit reduction, is incentives for people and
companies to invest more. That is, nothing
would please me more than if people who would
be pushed in the higher income brackets by
this plan would lower their tax burden by turning around and reinvesting the money in creating jobs here at home. And this plan gives the
opportunity to do that. We double the small
business expensing provision. We have a new
business capital gains that anybody that invests
in a company capitalized at $50 million or less
and holds the investment for 5 years or more
will cut their tax burden in half. We extend
the research and development tax credit. We
do some other things to revitalize the home
building industry and the real estate sectors of
our economy. All these things will give opportunities for people who have funds to invest and
to create jobs as they do. I think that is very
important.
I want to say I'm very grateful for the fact
that at least 50 of the 100 biggest companies
in the country have endorsed this program, partly because the changes in the alternative minimum tax lets them invest in new plant and
equipment, to mitigate the impact of the taxes,
and to create more jobs and productivity. I'm


grateful for the support we've received from the
high-tech community, and I'm grateful that finally we're getting out the facts that 90 percent
plus, that's right, over 90 percent of the small
businesses in America actually get a tax cut
under this plan if they simply invest more
money in their business because the expensing
provision has been doubled, and their income
taxes don't go up, something that you haven't
been reading a lot about in the press. But it
is true, and I am glad to see it coming out.
And it's very important, because most of our
jobs are created by smaller firms, and that needs
to be emphasized.
The third element of this plan is investments
to empower people to compete and win. Every
child born in this country should be able to
grow up to be successful. But you and I know
that we have a far higher percentage of people
living in unhealthy, disadvantageous environments than most of our wealthy competitors.
We have proof; we have evidence. No one disputes it that if you invest in child nutrition,
immunization, and preschool education, and
they're good programs, the programs pay for
themselves many times over: The taxpayers win,
productivity goes up, and you have people who
can learn when they get into school. So yes,
we do spend some more money on that. We
also have a program of modest cost but enormous impact called Goals 2000 coming out of
the Department of Education, designed to set
national standards by which all schools and students can be evaluated. And that is important
in a global economy. And we have, as has already been said by Senator Simon and others,
a really ambitious and I think quite wonderful
program to open the doors of college education
to all Americans by lowering the costs of loans,
making their terms of repayments better, and
giving thousands of them the opportunity to pay
back their college loans through service to their
communities, rebuilding them. And I might say
some of those young people in our experimental
program for the summer have helped people
to try to deal with the aftermath of this terrible
flood in the Midwest. That is just one example
of what we can do if we have the right kind
of incentives.
Finally, we very much want to create a program of training for people who don't get 4 -year college degrees, that merge the partnership
and efforts of the private sector, the education
system, and the Government. Everybody in this


1182




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 26


country who doesn't go on to a 4-year college
needs to finish high school and get at least 2
years of further training, either in a school, on
the workplace, or in the service. Everybody. All
the demographic figures are clear now from the
'90 census. All the people in this country who
have high school plus 2 years, if it's good, are
highly likely to get jobs with growing incomes.
Those who have less are highly likely to get
jobs with shrinking incomes. You know, you
don't have to be Einstein to figure out we
should do what is likely to give people jobs
with growing incomes and that, in the aggregate,
it's better for you in the workplace and better
for the country as a whole. So we're trying to
do that.
And lastly, let me say, we've got to provide
markets for all these people's labor in products
or services. We simply have to continue to expand the frontiers of the global economy. A
wealthy country cannot grow richer unless there
is a higher rate of global growth. We cannot
do it by simply drawing within. And perhaps
the most important thing that happened at the
G-7 meeting in Tokyo was that the seven industrial powers agreed among themselves to a dramatic reduction, in many cases, to outright
elimination of tariffs, that every analyst says will
dramatically increase the number of manufacturing jobs in the United States of America between now and the end of the decade if we,
the larger countries, can get the other countries
to agree to it by the end of the year in a
world trade agreement. No analyst has disputed
this. It has the potential of being the most important thing we've done in a long time to revitalize manufacturing in America. And of course,
when you rebuild manufacturing, you get more
service jobs, you get a lot of other support jobs.
It is very, very important.
Let me also say that I think it's important
that we not forget about the Americans who
are working hard and are struggling along. I
mentioned this earlier. The most revolutionary
social aspect of this economic plan is that instead of spending a lot of money to hire people
to work for the Government to go out and help
people who are in trouble, we invest a lot of
money in this program in lowering the taxes
of people who work 40 hours a week and are
still in poverty. What better thing could we do
to reward work and family than to be able to
say for the first time that in this country if
you work 40 hours a week and you've got a


child in your house, you're going to be lifted
out of poverty, not by something the Government does but by your own labor. We'll just
change the tax system to take you out of poverty. It is a profoundly significant thing, and
it should not be watered down in this conference. We ought to do enough to be able
to say that to all Americans.
Let me just say that the one thing that's happened in the last 41/2, 5 months is that interest
rates have started coming down as it became
serious that we were trying to bring the deficit
down. And there has been a beginning of reinvestment. A lot of that is coming out of the
private sector. Last year, in the last quarter,
we had the biggest increase in productivity in
20 years in America, thanks to a lot of you
in this room. Those two things together mean
that in this economy we have seen in the first
part of the year about 150,000 new private sector jobs a month being created-that is as compared with 20,000 a month in the previous 4
years-so that we are moving in the right direction. But that's all we're doing, is moving in
the right direction. That is nowhere near
enough, and there is still a great cloud of uncertainty out there.
So I think today we need to have three challenges. One is, the Government needs to pass
this budget and get on with the rest of the
business. Hanging out there, debating it, dragging it out for weeks and weeks, will only make
it worse. There comes a time when delay to
get a slightly better decision is worse than action
to get a pretty good decision. We have reached
that time. We don't need to do that. We've
got other things to do. And you need to know
what the rules are going to be, what the deal
is, and we need to go on with our lives.
The second challenge is to you in business.
If we can get the cost of capital low, if we
are doing our part, then the savings must be
used to put more people first, to create jobs,
to train employees, not just the executives but
the workers as well, to have other companies
in this country learn from those of you in this
room that you can grow and prosper by treating
workers like indispensable partners. Companies
like Motorola outside Chicago, which Secretary
Brown visited recently, and L. S. Electro Galvanizing in Cleveland, which Secretary Reich
visited recently, and all the many that I have
had the privilege to visit over the last several
years can show that.


1183




July 26 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


And the challenge to labor is clearly the same
thing. This is an opportunity we have to seize.
There is no way we can ever see wages grow
and jobs increase in this country again unless
there is an emphasis on education and training,
flexibility in the workplace, partnership and responsibility by everybody for improving quality.
But if the labor people do it, then Government
ought to do right by them and by business,
and business should do right by their workers.
There is no easy answer here, but we all know,
I think, that if we treat each other better we're
going to come out ahead, and that insofar as
we drive up unemployment and run people off,
we also diminish the number of customers with
money in their pockets to make the American
economy go. We are truly in this together.
Now, let me just say one more word about
this. I don't think the fight in Washington
should be about Republicans and Democrats.
I think most of the arguments we have to have
are about issues that don't have an easy partisan
tent. The world is a very different place than
it was when most of the party lines were drawn
10 and 20 and 30 years ago. This really is about
growth against gridlock, decision against delay,
change against the status quo. And you have
got to demand that we do something.
I mean, you know, this gridlock thing is amazing. Let me just give you an example of how
bad it gets sometimes with Congress. I had my
nominee for Surgeon General up there in the
Congress-Senator Braun was sitting with her;
I appreciated that-a woman that grew up in
a cotton field in Arkansas. Her brothers and
sisters put her through medical school. And
maybe there were people who don't agree with
her and didn't want to vote for her, but through
some parliamentary maneuver, they tried to put
off the whole hearing. The country needs a Surgeon General. Thanks to Senator Kennedy, the
chairman of the committee, they went back and
had the hearing. He told them they were going
to stay there 'til kingdom come, 'til they finished. But if somebody wants to vote against
her, let them vote. But let's get on with it.
Let me give you another example. There is
now a filibuster in the Senate against the national service plan. We have worked our hearts
out with the Republicans and the Democrats.
We have lots of Republican cosponsors in the
House and a few in the Senate. They just want
to delay it. Why? Why shouldn't we send a
signal to America's young people that we want


you to work in your community to make it a
better place? Why shouldn't we say we want
to open the doors of college education to everybody? Look at the figures from the '90 census.
Last week there was even a filibuster or a
delay in the House against flood assistance to
Illinois and to Iowa and to Kansas and South
Dakota and North Dakota and Minnesota and
Missouri. Why? Got me. There is ample precedent for emergency action here. We do not
need to raise a tax to pay for flood relief; because interest rates have come down, the deficit
is already going to be much lower this year
than anybody thought it was. And here are these
people out here up to their ears in tragedy,
wondering when Congress is going to get around
to passing the flood relief. There is a point at
which we need to learn what we're talking to
you about. We need to work together and make
decisions.
How many of you could stay in business if
either management or labor said when you started a new path, "Well, I think I'm going to
call a filibuster and wait 3 or 4 weeks to make
up my mind whether to do this?" Your bills
still come in. You still have to pay the payroll.
Let's vote. I don't have to win them all, but
let's make decisions. This institutionalized delay
and gridlock is bad for America.
In just a couple of weeks
Q. How can you talk about a Democratically
controlled Congress? The Democrats have controlled Congress-talk about gridlock. Why don't
you take leadership?
The President. Now, wait a minute. Whoa!
Q. You're the one that talks about
The President. Do you want me to answer
the question?
Q. Yes. You're the one
The President. Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.
Most people, sir-no, wait a minute. Are you
going to let me answer the question?
Q. [Inaudible]-Congress and you won'tAudience members. Quiet!
The President. Are you going to let me answer
the question? This is not your meeting, sir. And
most people have better manners than to interrupt somebody giving a speech. I might say
that's another thing that's wrong with this country, there's not enough civility in how we treat
one another.
But the answer to your question, which is
good Civics 101, is that the Democrats do not
control the Congress when 41 Republicans want


1184




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 26


to vote to keep anything from being voted on
in the Senate. That is the answer. They do not.
The filibuster rule means you have to have 60
votes to bring anything to a vote except for
this budget. Everything else requires 60 votes.
But it's not a party deal, it's a question of
whether we should make decisions. I say, if they
want to vote against me, fine; let's make a decision and go on to something else. Let's just
move. I think that's the issue.
Let me just say one last thing. I believe that
this works. I came here basically to highlight
what you're doing and to support it and to ask


you to tell me what I can do to help it be
better at the national level. But in the end,
if this kind of attitude that you are here to
celebrate, this whole new idea of a partnership
for productivity and leaving behind all the sort
of labeling that has shackled us for too long,
if this doesn't take over the private sector, nothing the President can do can revitalize America.
You have to carry it. And I believe you will.
Thank you, and God bless you all.
NOTE: The President spoke at 1:15 p.m. at the
Sheraton Chicago Hotel.


Remarks in a Conference Panel Discussion in Chicago
July 26, 1993


Once again, let me say how delighted I am
to be here and to see all of you here and how
pleased I am to see the Secretaries of Labor
and Commerce working together. We're trying
to build some teamworks in our Cabinet that
have not historically been there. And I think
that this is a good example.
I understand that this morning's panels were
quite interesting, and I got a play-by-play description for a few moments when we were taking a break in there. So far you have focused
on what we mean by the new American workplace and the problems and barriers that companies and workers must struggle with in redesigning their organizations.
I, frankly, am learning how hard this can be
myself, because we have a very serious project
underway now in the Federal Government in
trying to reinvent the Federal Government. The
project is headed by the Vice President. We
have sought out the opinions of a number of
people in this room that I recognize here today.
But I think that next month-or, excuse me,
in September-when we announce the report
of the reinventing Government task force, you
will be very pleased to see that we're trying
to take another page out of your book to make
the Government more efficient and to work better.


Our responsibility, it seems to me, as I said
in my speech, is to create the most favorable
economic conditions. Sometimes that means reducing the deficit; sometimes it means specific
incentives or programs; other times it means
just getting out of your way and deregulating.
The Government's relationship to the private
sector are changing the nature of that relationship.
There are challenges that are clearly unique
to the workplace, outside the realm of Government, that you have to meet by yourselves but
with our encouragement and without our interference. Those are the things we're going to
focus on now. The purpose of this panel is to
focus on why companies and public institutions
are literally reinventing themselves organizationally by asking such questions as what benefits
workers receive from new workplace organizations; why unions should support these practices;
how companies' bottom lines are affected; and
how moving to high-performance work can help
improve our Nation's economic performance.
We can begin to establish high-performance
workplaces as the models, the rules, if you will,
for our country's new economy.
NOTE: The President spoke at 2:24 p.m. at the
Sheraton Chicago Hotel.


1185




July 26 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993
Interview With the Indiana Media in Chicago
July 26, 1993


The President. Thank you very much. Please
sit down. Sorry the conference ran a little late,
but there was a lot of enthusiasm up there.
Let me just make a very brief opening statement. I want to give most of the time over
to you for questions. I am doing a series of
press conferences like this with representatives
of the press from various States around the
country, trying to do as many as I possibly can,
the Vice President is doing others, to answer
questions directly about the economic plan now
before the Congress and any other issues that
you would like to raise. It's not possible for
the President, at least during the budget time,
to travel the country as much as I would like
to, so this gives me a chance as nearly as possible to communicate directly with the people
whom you report to.
I want to emphasize just one or two things,
if I might, about this economic plan. More than
any other one which has been presented by
any party, it reduces the deficit in a way that
is fair to all the American people; that balances
spending cuts and tax increases; that asks the
middle class to pay a very small percentage of
the overall burden in what amounts to about,
at the most, $50 a year, a little less than a
dollar a week; holds working families with incomes of under $30,000 harmless; and actually
gives over 90 percent of the small businesses
in the United States a chance to reduce their
tax burden because they have no income tax
increases. And they're given a chance to reduce
their tax burden because the expensing provision
which rewards them with lower taxes if they
reinvest in their businesses is doubled under
this plan.
This is a plan that will promote jobs, bring
the deficit down, keep interest rates down, and
enable us to move ahead with our business as
a country. I think it is imperative that it pass.
The most important thing is the Congress needs
to pass a budget and to do it quickly so we
can get on to other matters and start doing
the other things that need to be done to grow
the American economy as well.
If there are questions, I'll be glad to take
them.
Yes, sir.


Taxes on Small Business
Q. Mr. President, the majority of jobs in Indiana are from small businesses, and you indicated
that also in your address at noon today-Sub
S corporations. A lot of the business people
we talked to are really frightened that the tax
package or the budget package would increase
their taxes to the point where they're afraid
they're going to have to cut back, lay off people,
maybe some even go out of business. What assurance can you really give Hoosier business
men and women that this plan is good for them?
The President. Well, there are 7 million Subchapter S corporations in America. Of those 7
million, 400,000, or far less than 10 percent,
will have any income tax increase at all under
this program. All of them, if the program passes,
will have the expensing provisions of the Code,
that is, they'll be able to just immediately write
off $20,000 rather than $10,000 of expensing.
So I will say again, over 90 percent of the small
businesses in this country will get a tax break
under this program.
To those who will pay higher taxes because
the income taxes on the upper 6 percent of
the country are going to be raised-it will be
roughly small businesses with an income above
$140,000 adjusted gross income-to them, I
would say there are ways to avoid that through
reinvestment, just as there are for individuals.
Keep in mind, this plan also leaves the rates
where they are for capital investment, so if you
reinvest in a business, your tax rates don't go
up. If you invest in a new business or a small
business with a capitalization of $50 million a
year or less, and you hold the investment for
5 years, your tax rates go way down under this
plan.
We also extend the tax incentives for research
and development, which the Republican plan
did not do, so that you can take your taxes
down if you do more R&D expenditures, which
is what keeps the economy growing.
Another thing that we do I think is very important is to revitalize the real estate and homebuilding sectors of the economy by returning
to the incentives which exist there. That's why
the homebuilders and the realtors, two groups
that normally are associated, frankly, more with


1186




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 26


the Republican Party than the Democratic Party,
nationally are supporting this plan, because it's
good for that sector of the economy-again,
something not in the Republican plan.
And one final thing I would say is that we
extend the tax credit for health insurance for
self-employed people, something that was not
done under the Senate Republican plan. So in
effect, all those people would have had a tax
increase if the Republican plan had passed.
So I think if you look at the small business
sector-and I want to compliment the Wall
Street Journal. They've run a number of stories,
factual stories, in the last week which have analyzed the facts of this economic plan as against
the outrageous and inaccurate attacks being
made on it which sort of show this. I mean,
one of the people who was testifying against
our plan for some group was given the facts
of her business, and she said that's not what
they told me this did. And it turned out she
got a tax decrease instead of a tax increase.
Economic Program
Q. Well let's talk about, Mr. President, that
for a second if you could. Senator Dan Coats'
office this morning is saying they admire your
sophistication of going to the local media, but
the facts are taxes outstrip cuts two to one in
this proposal. And they point out that among
Hoosier voters, even something like a cigarette
tax, your friend Governor Evan Bayh couldn't
get it passed in Indiana-make the case to Hoosiers for what the Republican Senators are just
calling a tax package.
The President. Well, first of all, they're wrong.
They're wrong. Go back and look at what they
said about the budget program they voted for
in 1990, which had taxes and budget cuts in
it and which had an outrageous estimate of economic growth in it, so much so that they
changed their own program. They wrote it down
by about a third within 60 days after passing
it. I mean, the things I call tax increases and
spending cuts are the same things that Ronald
Reagan and George Bush and the Republicans
in the Senate call tax increases, spending cuts.
They say that if they, under the budget they
passed in 1992, were going to raise Medicare
expenses 12 percent a year, and we cut it back
to 9 percent a year, shaving $50 billion off the
deficit and now almost $60 billion from what
it would have been under their last budget, that
that doesn't count as a cut. They say that it's


not a cut. I think it is. They say if we reduce
interest costs to the Federal deficit, which we
have done, by the way, already-the deficit this
year is going down because we're bringing the
deficit down, because the markets have brought
long-term interest rates down because they see
finally there's somebody serious about bringing
the deficit down-they say that doesn't count
as reducing the deficit. They're playing word
games. All of a sudden they've got a whole new
dictionary now that they're out of power. I'm
using exactly the same calculations that they
used for 12 years on what increases the deficit,
what reduces the deficit.
Defense Cuts
Q. Mr. President, let's talk about some jobs
in Indiana that are scheduled to go out of business on your watch. The White House the other
day put out a list of all the jobs that were
lost under the Bush administration. The 2,800
jobs I'm referring to are at the Military Finance
Center at Fort Benjamin Harrison, which as you
know, was one of a number of finance centers
across the country scheduled to be consolidated,
this one to be closed in 1995. Indianapolis, we're
told, was one of the 20 finalists to retain those
jobs and pick up some more and then one of
the 5 winners. And then at the very last minute,
Defense Secretary Aspin stopped the ballgame
and said we're going to start the process all
over again. What can you say about the fairness
of changing the rules at the end of the game,
and what can you say to these 2,800 workers
whose lives have been on a yo-yo?
The President. First of all, the decision that
was made to close those facilities was made,
as you know, in the previous administration, not
under my administration. Secondly, it's just not
true that there were five finalists picked. I
mean, at least I couldn't find it. I asked the
Defense Department to tell me where we were
on this issue when I became President, and
they said, here are the 20 finalists. And I said,
has the decision been completed? They said,
no, we're still at the 20 finalists. And I said,
what are the criteria? And we talked about it.
And interestingly enough, the only thing I
said about it was that I felt very strongly that
one of the criteria should be how badly a community or a State had been hurt by other defense cutbacks, because I was worried that those
States or communities that had been hurt more
by defense cutbacks might have less ability, in


1187




July 26 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


effect, to put up their own financial incentives
to get the financial accounting centers there.
That is, I didn't think that we ought to reward
people who could, in effect, buy the Senators
by putting up a whole lot of money up front
or who couldn't afford to compete because they
had lost a lot of defense jobs. And I didn't
even ask them to go back and start the whole
thing all over again. I just said I'd like that
factored in, that I thought that was something
the American people would want us to dowould want us to take account of where all
these defense cuts had hurt people the worst.
And so they said they would work up that, and
go back and do it.
And my own impression is that the finalists
from the first round are still in very, very good
shape. That's at least the indication I have and
that the Defense Department will be ready to
make a recommendation to me pretty soon. But
I did want to say that's the only role I had
in it, was I was assured that there was no decision made. They were still at 20 finalists. I asked
only that the burden those communities and
States had borne in the defense cutbacks since
1987 should be able to be a factor to be taken
into consideration. And that was it.
Q. [Inaudible]-that the list is up to 100 cities
again, 100 contestants
The President. Well, there may be 100 who
comply, but it has to be that the people who
did well the first time would be in good shape
to do well the second time. I was astonished
that they reopened it. They seemed to think
that if they changed one criteria they had to,
at least in theory, reopen it.
Q. One of the concerns that people in Indiana
have is that those final centers are going to
be chosen based on their political connections
to you. Can you guarantee that that won't happen?
The President. That won't happen. You know,
during-you might say that, but let me say this:
It was interesting to me that during the last
election, right before the election, conveniently
it was leaked by the Defense Department that
the centers were going to be perhaps in this
city, that city, the other city, and, quote, "someplace in Indiana," which didn't exactly sound
like the most meritorious decision in the world
at the time it was leaked.
So all I can tell you is I'm telling you just
like it is. I asked for one thing to be taken
into account. I said, "I don't think we ought


to let these things get bought by communities
that are already wildly successful without any
consideration being given to the communities
that have been hurt most economically by the
defense cutbacks." That's the only thing I ever
asked them to do. Yes.
Steel Industry
Q. Mr. President, a question about northwest
Indiana. I noticed that the chairman of Inland
Steel, Robert Darnall, was present at your conference today. And I was wondering what kind
of job security you can offer steel workers, particularly those in the Gary area where over
30,000 steel jobs have been lost since the 1980's.
The President. Well, I'll tell you what I think
will happen in steel. I think you're going to
see a big increase in the number of steel jobs
if we have flexibility and competitiveness and
if two other things happen: if we move at the
national level to bring health care costs under
control and if we can continue the work we're
doing now to bring tariffs down in worldwide
manufacturing trade.
And let me just mention those two things
specifically. The most important thing for average Americans that happened at the Tokyo
meeting of the C-7 was the agreement that
we made among ourselves to try to drastically
reduce tariffs on manufactured products and to
eliminate them in whole classes of products with
the view toward getting the other countries to
agree to do that, because we were taking the
lead by the end of the year and having a new
world trade agreement. It's not like NAFTA.
There's some difference of opinion, as you
know, about NAFTA. And I'm for it, a lot of
people aren't. But there's a difference. On the
agreement we made at Tokyo everybody concedes that if we can make that a part of the
world trade law, it will lead to hundreds of
thousands of manufacturing jobs coming into the
United States.
Meanwhile, the steel companies I think will
tell you that our administration has been much
more vigorous in trying to protect them from
unfair trade practices from other countries than
any administration in a very long time. I think
every steel executive, if you called him, would
tell them that, that we have worked with them.
We've tried to make sure that the investments
they've made and the productivity they've
achieved will result in more secure jobs by giving them a fair deal.


1188




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 26


Now, the second thing I want to say is this:
steel and automobiles, among others, but they're
really out there on the cutting edge, have enormous, enormous health care costs, spending
often 15 percent or more of payroll on health
care costs. The work that we have been doing
to try to bring health costs in line with inflation
and at the same time find the mechanism for
all Americans to have health security will help
heavy industry as much as any other section
of our economy. It is very difficult for them
to compete in a global economy where they're
spending 35 or 40 percent more on health care
than any of their competitors. So I can't promise
anybody that's in a tough global economy job
security. I can tell them that the things we're
doing will make them more likely to succeed.
NAFTA
Q. Mr. President, what can you tell the people of Indiana who-for instance, I do a talk
show in South Bend, and many of my callers
are very concerned about NAFTA as it is. You
mentioned NAFTA a minute ago. What solutions are there for those people who are out
there that are out of work and they're losing
their homes, they're losing their cars, they're
losing their identity because of their companies
that have pulled out or are pulling out of the
country?
The President. First of all, that's the initial
point we ought to make. And let me back up
and say this. This is a little background. For
12 years I was Governor of a State that had
plants shut down and go to Mexico. Before I
quit we had one or two of them come back,
just like that General Motors plant. I don't know
if you saw that, it was announced they were
going to shut down 1,000 jobs and bring them
back to Michigan because they thought they
could achieve higher levels of productivity. The
point I want to make to you about NAFTA
is this-I want to make two or three points
about it. Number one, if we don't do it, let's
say we don't do it, anybody who wants to shut
a plant down in America and move it to Mexico
for lower wages can do that anyway within the
so-called maquilladora zone, right? And what
upsets people is they move jobs down there,
then they produce products and bring it back
here, okay? What NAFTA does primarily with
regard to that is to move the line back down
toward Mexico, throughout Mexico. It makes the
whole country eligible. But if you wanted to


go to Mexico for low wages to produce for
America, you would stay as close to the border
as you could to cut your costs down. If you
go to Mexico City, in all probability you're going
down there to produce for the Mexicans in Mexico City. So if we do nothing, what people really
hate about this can continue and will.
Secondly, I think the people will be better
off because I don't intend to sign this agreement
or send it up to Congress until we get some
agreements on the part of the Mexican Government to lift labor standards and to lift environmental standards there which will lower the
wage gap and the cost-of-production gap, increase incomes from Mexican people, and enable them to buy more of our products.
Thirdly, 5 or 6 years ago Mexico had a $5
billion trade surplus with us because they had
more tariffs on our products than we had on
theirs, 5 or 6 years ago. Now, we've got a $6
billion trade surplus with them because President Salinas had lowered these tariffs. So I believe that if we go forward with the agreement,
if the Mexican incomes rise, they will be able
to buy more American products, and it will create more jobs than it costs. If I didn't think
that, I wouldn't be for this. And I think everything that's bad about it is going to happen
anyway and even more so if we don't do anything. That's what I believe. That's the reason
I'm for it. Yes.
Defense Cuts
Q. I want to go back really quickly-[inaudible]-association. Evansville, Indiana, with which
I am a reporter from, was one of the 20 finalists.
You mentioned thatThe President. There were two or three cities
in Indiana, weren't there, in the finalists?
Q. Indianapolis and Evansville were the 2 on
the list of 20. You mentioned that you thought
that the incentive program was not a good idea.
Evansville
The President. No, I do think it's a good idea.
No, I think it's a good idea, the incentive program. I do not believe that there should be
no consideration-under the previous formula,
no consideration was given to the harm done
to communities by defense cutbacks. So, no,
I didn't ask them to take the incentive out.
I think they should leave that in. I just didn't
want to eliminate any considerations for the
harm done to communities.
Go ahead.


1189




July 26 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


Q. Evansville submitted a bid that would have
cost the Government $1 a year in operating
costs. Now, since Indianapolis has lost Fort Benjamin Harrison, which has been closed down,
would that give Indianapolis a more favorable
advantage over Evansville and the southern half
of the State?
The President. It depends. It doesn't mean
that the Indianapolis bid would prevail, it just
means that they would get some credit, and
it would be dependent on how much they've
been hurt by it.
Q. Local officials have enacted a tax increase
in Evansville to help fund this center, or try
to work with the department of revenue to have
it repealed in-Vanderburgh County in Evansville. Should local officials give up and have
this tax repealed, or is there still a chance?
The President. Absolutely not. No. I'm telling
you, no decision has been made about any of
this stuff. And I was really stunned-the question that he had. I'm going to go back and
check this out. I asked point blank-because
if the whole process was over, I was just going
to announce it and go on.
Q. [Inaudible]-has on good authority that
there were five and Indianapolis was one of
them.
The President. Well, all I can tell you is I
asked where they were going, and they said
here are 20 cities, and the 5 haven't been decided yet.
Q. When will a decision be made on this?
The President. Well, I hope in a hurry. Actually, I asked a couple of days ago, and I was
supposed to get a report this week about when
the whole thing will be completed.
Q. I talked with several workers who are
being hired part-time, but they're actually doing
full-time work just because the company doesn't
want to pay for the benefits, i.e., retirement
and health insurance. What can you do to make
these companies do what's right for these people?
The President. Well, first of all, I think the
only way that's ever going to happen under the
circumstances we're living under today is if you
have a system like every other advanced country
does which has some provision for adequate
health care for all workers and requires everybody, including the workers themselves, to assume some responsibility for their health care
and the employers. I mean, look at the system,
we're the only country, the only advanced coun

try that does what we do. Germany doesn't do
this and Japan-no other country does this,
where basically if you want to take care of your
workers you can, and if you don't, you don't
have to. And so it's just up to what you think
is better-either more humane or better for
your productivity.
In the 1980's, the cost of health care went
up by more than twice the rate of inflation
because, again, we were the only advanced
country that had no system for trying to rein
it in. So that if you're employer X and you're
competing with employer Y and they don't do
it, and you do, what kind of a disadvantage
do you have? That's why we have to have a
systematic response to this, and why I think
it is so important-let's just go back to the deficit reduction. Under any conceivable deficit reduction plan, including mine, which I think is
the best, you can bring the deficit down for
5 years and then it starts to go up again in
the sixth year. Why? Because of health care
costs.
So the answer to your question is we've got
to have a national response. About 100,000
Americans a month are losing their health insurance now because of the phenomenon you
asked. If it's just a dog-eat-dog world, there
has to be some law that requires coverage, but
does it in a way that doesn't bankrupt small
business. And it's clearly possible to do.
We were just out in Hawaii. I went there
to review the Pacific Fleet and to meet with
our military leaders in the Pacific on the way
back from Asia. And then Hillary spent a day
there looking at the health care network. And
virtually every employer in Hawaii insures their
employees, including the smallest ones. The premiums are slightly below the national average.
They've done it for 20 years now. They've managed the system quite well. It can be done.
Yes? Nice tie. [Laughter]
Gridlock
Q. I wanted to ask you about actually the
subject you came here to push, the budget. You
talked a little bit about the political problems
Republicans have caused for you, but you have
some problems in your own party. On the deficit
reduction package last year, two Democratic
Members of the Indiana congressional delegation voted against it. Given the election results
in Texas and California, what kind of leverage
do you have to influence people in your own


1190




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 26


party who are in vulnerable districts?
The President. Well, the mayor's race in California didn't have anything to do with it. There
has only been one race in this whole country
which was a referendum on my economic plan.
That is, an honest referendum. That is, where
both sides were debated and then three House
races, all of which the Democrats won. But the
only one where a Democratic candidate decided
to defend and, more importantly, to explain the
budget proposal was in the race for Leon Panetta's old seat where, by the way, there were
a lot of upper income constituents who had to
pay higher taxes. And the guy won by nine
points. And he did things that I never asked
him to do. I wasn't even particularly involved.
He ran my picture in his brochures, and he
said, "This is right for America, and here's why
I'm for it." And he had advertisements saying,
"No matter what you've heard, here's what the
truth is." And we won the race by nine points.
There was no fight in Texas. I mean, there
was no issue. But let me just tell you what
happened as a result of that. On the day that
Senator Hutchinson from Texas went out on
the steps of the Capitol with Senator Gramm
from Texas, talking about how no taxes are
needed, and all we need to do is cut spendingshe was standing there with Ross Perot-the
word spread in the House of Representatives
they were out there. And so the House voted
on the superconducting super collider, a project
I have supported, and defeated it by 70 more
votes than they defeated it last year and just
lobbed it over to them. I said-because it's all
in Texas, right? So, I mean, I think it's in the
national interest to pursue it, myself. I think
it's crazy for us to just dismantle our science
and technology system and the kind of hightech investments that make us a strong country.
But the only place we've had a debate where
the voters heard the other side was in that district in California. Even in the Wisconsin-Mississippi races, that was not the issue.
Q. We have time for one more question.
The President. Go ahead.
Economic Program
Q. A followup-why are you having some
trouble persuading-[inaudible]
The President. Because it's tough. All the easy
decisions have been made, because the American people have been fed pablum for 12 years.
Because it's easier to cut taxes and spend more


money than it is to spend less money and raise
taxes and because the rhetoric is unfavorable.
But the specifics show every single solitary focus
group or poll where the people have been sat
down and go through the specifics, shows that
the people will support the program. It's the
generalities and the desperate looking for the
easy answer. Look, in 1980 we had a $1 trillion
national debt piled up since we became a country. Now it's $4 trillion. Something went wrong.
David Stockman, who was Ronald Reagan's
budget director, right, was not a liberal Democrat, gave an interview a few weeks ago in which
he said that it was folly to believe that this
whole thing could be solved by spending cuts
alone, that they meant to cut taxes 3 percent
of the gross national income in 1981, and they
got into a political bidding war, and they got
to liking it, and they just got carried away, and
they lost control, and they cut taxes 6 percent
of income.
But I can understand; look, most middle class
people are working harder for less money, and
they didn't get a tax cut. Their Social Security
taxes went up at the national level, and State
and local taxes went up at the local level as
the Federal Government threw more stuff off
on State and local government throughout the
1980's. I lived through that as a Governor.
And any mention of taxes is always unpopular.
But I can tell you-I ought to have some credibility on this-my State had the toughest balanced budget law in the country. We were always in the bottom five in the percentage of
income going to State and local taxes. I never
raised any taxes to balance the books. I did
raise some money to build roads and educate
kids. We ran our business in order. But the
truth is this country's out of control financially.
But the easy decisions have been made. The
only ones that are left are tough.
And let me say this: I have a lot of sympathy
with the Democratic Members of Congress from
Indiana because they come from districts that
are just like my State. They're fiscally conservative. They want their money spent right.
They're tired of the money being wasted. And
they don't believe anything anybody says in
Washington. I understand that. But I don't think
we've done too badly. Let me just give you
one comparison. In 1992, 75 percent of the
House Republicans, not Democrats, Republicans, voted against President Bush's last budget. I mean, this is a serious budget.


1191




July 26 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


Let me just make one last plug, because a
lot of this stuff operates at a rhetorical level.
If we have to do-is get in a shouting match
as sort of like as we would on a Rush Limbaugh
show or something like that-[laughter]-it's
hard for the responsible position to win. But
if you have to get to beyond the rhetoric to
the facts, I think we can win.
And let me just give you one last thing. The
Philadelphia Inquirer went out and actually
interviewed people who are experts on the
budget who don't have an ax to grind, budget
analysts with big accounting firms, for example.
And the budget analyst for Price Waterhouse
is a person obviously, I don't know, never met
him-said that my budget was the most honest
budget in 10 years and that the only thing that
was not accurate about my budget is that it
would produce more deficit reduction than I
said it would. It would bring the deficit down
more. And we can get you a copy of the article
if you'd like to see it.
I mean, I was a Governor. With all the unmet
needs this country has and all the other things
we need to be addressing, from health care reform to welfare reform to a new policy to revitalize the workplace the thing we met here
about-to the crime bill I want to bring up,
all these things I'm interested in-spending 8
months or 7 months doing nothing but this is
not my idea of recreation. But we have lost
control over our financial affairs. And this deficit
is like a bone in our throat, and we have to
take it out. And I don't know any other way
to do it. If I could think of any other way
to do it, I would do it. I also think to get
it down to zero, which is really important, over
a fixed period of time, you've got to deal with
the question of exploding health care costs. But
the fair way to do that without bankrupting hospitals or being unfair to providers or to elderly
people is to overhaul the entire system.
Yes, sir?
Agriculture Assistance
Q. Mr. President, a lot of people downstate
are involved in agriculture, and many are having
a tough time making ends meet. Some of them
are even going out of business, going bankrupt.
What type of hope can you offer them?
The President. Well, first of all, we're going
to rewrite the farm bill, as you probably know.
We have to do that for 1995. And one of the
things that I've asked the Secretary of Agri

culture to do is to examine whether or not the
bill that was done in 1990 has done enough
to help family farmers stay in business and
whether or not we need to look at the farm
finance issue even more than the crop price
supports, as well as to look at what we can
do to help younger people get into farming.
And that's all separate from what we need to
do for the farmers that lost money in the flood,
you know, in the Midwest.
Just in my lifetime, and especially in my tenure as a Governor of a farm State where most
of the farmers were family farmers, I watched
the number drop drastically. I think that we
are looking at a period, if they can hang on
another year or so, where just looking into the
future you're going to have pretty stable markets
for American agricultural products, in fact, ones
that might grow and where, if we can put in
place some systems in this new farm bill to
help the family farmers deal with the radical
swings in income caused by the weather, caused
by markets, caused by other things that the big
corporate farms can endure, I think that the
future of the people now farming can be pretty
solid. But I do think with the average age of
the farmer being about 58 and a half now, we're
going to have to do something to help ease
the financial barriers to getting young people
into farming.
Q. Thank you.
The President. Thanks.
Health Care Reform
Q. My only question is you talked about how
health care is going to be such an integral part
of reform in labor and in farming. So how much
is the Government going to be involved in whatever health care reform package there will be?
And how soon will that happen?
The President. Well, I think we'll have to
phase some parts of it in over a period of years,
but I want to come forward with a program
as soon as we get the budget out of the way.
I'd like for the Government to take care of
insuring the unemployed, uninsured, and to
make sure that people can change jobs even
if someone in their family has been sick-you
know, today you've got millions of people locked
into the jobs they're in because they've got a
sick husband, wife, child, or something, and they
can't change-and mandating reform of the insurance markets so that small businesses don't
get busted just to buy health insurance-and


1192




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 27


self-employed people.
But I think that the providers system we have
in America is very good now. And I think we
ought to leave the doctors, the hospitals, all the
private providers and private choice in providers
intact, but we'll have to do some more in rural
areas especially, and in inner cities to provide
for some assistance just to get doctors and
nurses and clinics out there in places that are
terribly isolated. But the fundamental system is
sound. It's the insurance and the coverage that
is messed up. The delivery system-if you've
health care in America, you're getting pretty
good health care.
Thank you. I've got to go, sorry.
Representative Dan Rostenkowski
Q. Could you comment on Chairman Rostenkowski's situation? The buzz among Indiana Republicans that I spoke to today was that that's
the real story. It's not policy, but it's practical
politics, and if he's indicted you're really dead


in the water.
The President. Well, I don't agree with any
of that, but I can't comment on something that
hasn't happened. I have no way of knowing,
and I think it would be irresponsible for me
to do that. I mean, I'm a public official. I don't
know what the facts are. We'll just have to see
what happens, and I have no reason to believe
that the conference won't proceed and produce
a report and the Congress won't vote on it no
matter what.
Q. [Inaudible]-Stevens says that you are
holding up the whole investigation to get the
budget over with.
The President. Well, you know that's not true,
don't you?
Q. Well, of course, I know that's not true.
We have to ask.
NOTE: The interview began at 4:07 p.m. at the
Sheraton Chicago Hotel.


Exchange With Reporters Prior to a Meeting With Congressional Leaders
July 27, 1993


Economic Program
Q. Mr. President, are these your "delay in
gridlock" friends?
The President. These are my friends. This
group had always supported an aggressive approach to deficit reduction, the balanced approach.
Middle East Peace Talks
Q. Are you sure?
Why is Secretary Christopher coming back?
The President. Because I want to talk with
him about the Middle East before he goes
there.
Q. Do you think the peace process is in jeopardy, sir?
The President. Well, I hope not. I certainly


have no reason to believe that it is, but obviously
I'm concerned about it. I think the Syrians have
shown commendable restraint so far. And I
don't think we should let Hezbollah and all
these groups that don't want anything good to
happen in the Middle East derail the peace
process by what they do. I don't think we
should, any of us, should allow that. I mean,
I really want something to happen there. So
I'm very hopeful. But I thought that in view
of the events there, that he ought to come
home, and we ought to have a conversation
about it before he goes to the Middle East.
NOTE: The exchange began at 10:20 a.m. in the
Roosevelt Room at the White House. A tape was
not available for verification of the content of this
exchange.


1193




July 27 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


Remarks and an Exchange With Reporters on Immigration Policy
July 27, 1993


The President. Thank you very much, ladies
and gentlemen. I'd like to say a special word
of thanks to the large number of Members of
Congress who are here today. I think I have
the entire list. If I don't, the Vice President
will amend it when I finish. But I see Senator
Kennedy, Senator Simon, Senator Feinstein,
Senator Boxer, Senator Graham and Congressmen Brooks, Mazzoli, Schumer, Bryant, Fish,
Kennedy, Lantos and Gilman. I think that's
every Member of Congress here. Did I miss
anyone? I missed Congressman Gallegly; I'm
sorry.
Several weeks ago, I asked the Vice President
to work with our Departments and Agencies
to examine what more might be done about
the problems along our borders. I was especially
concerned about the growing problems of alien
smuggling and international terrorists hiding behind immigrant status, as well as the continuing
flow of illegal immigrants across American borders.
Following several weeks of intense efforts, including his personal involvement in resolving the
recent alien smuggling incident with Mexico, the
Vice President presented me with a report spelling out what we might do. I have reviewed
that report and approved it. We have spoken
to Members of Congress, including those who
are here today and others. I want to particularly
acknowledge Senator Kennedy, Senator Simpson, Congressmen Brooks and Mazzoli for all
their work on this issue over many, many years.
We're also in debt to Senators Feinstein and
Boxer for their aggressive work in trying to deal
with the growing problem, especially in the
State of California, and I want to state publicly
how much I appreciate the work the Hispanic
Caucus has done to ensure that a balanced approach is adopted in dealing with this issue.
The simple fact is that we must not, and
we will not, surrender our borders to those who
wish to exploit our history of compassion and
justice. We cannot tolerate those who traffic in
human cargo, nor can we allow our people to
be endangered by those who would enter our
country to terrorize Americans. But the solution
to the problem of illegal immigration is not simply to close our borders. The solution is to wel

come legal immigrants and legal legitimate refugees and to turn away those who do not obey
the laws. We must say no to illegal immigration
so we can continue to say yes to legal immigration.
Today we send a strong and clear message.
We will make it tougher for illegal aliens to
get into our country. We will treat organizing
a crime syndicate to smuggle aliens as a serious
crime. And we will increase the number of border patrol, equipping and training them to be
first class law enforcement officers. These initiatives for which I am asking the Congress for
an additional $172.5 million in 1994 are an important step in regaining control over our borders and respect for our laws. When I made
a commitment to combat this problem on June
18th, I announced a plan of action. This is the
next step in fulfilling that commitment.
Some will worry that our action today sends
the wrong message, that this means we are
against all immigration. That is akin to America
closing its doors. But nothing could be further
from the truth. Let me be clear: Our nation
has always been a safe haven for refugees and
always been the world's greatest melting pot.
What we announce today will not make it tougher for the immigrant who comes to this country
legally, lives by our laws, gets a job, and pursues
the American dream. This administration will
promote family unification. We will reach out
to those who have the skills we need to make
our nation stronger, and we will welcome new
citizens to our national family with honor and
with dignity. But to treat terrorists and smugglers as immigrants dishonors the tradition of
the immigrants who have made our nation great.
And it unfairly taints the millions of immigrants
who live here honorably and are a vital part
of every segment of our society. Today's initiatives are about stopping crime, toughening the
penalties for the criminals, and giving our law
enforcement people the tools they need to do
their job.
I'm also taking steps today to address the
long-term challenges of reforming our immigration policy. I intend to appoint a new chair
to the congressionally mandated Commission on
Immigration Reform and to ask the Congress


1194




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 27


to expand the Commission to include senior administration officials. I'm also asking our Attorney General, Janet Reno, and the INS Commissioner-Designate, Doris Meissner, to make sure
the INS is as professional and effectively managed as it can be. Under their leadership, I
have no doubt that it will be. With these efforts,
I hope that we can begin a broad-based national
discussion on this important issue and move toward significant resolution of the problems that
plague all Americans.
Now, I'd like to ask the Vice President to
come forward with my thanks for his outstanding work to discuss the specifics of the initiative.
[At this point, the Vice President outlined the
immigration policy. The Attorney General then
discussed what enforcement measures would be
taken. ]
Q. With all due respect, sir, all of this has
been tried previously. The Simpson, Romano,
Mazzoli bill did make a similar attempt to this
by increasing penalties, they increased funding,
they increased border patrols, they increased
penalties to employers, and yet, nothing happened. What leads you to believe that this time
something might really happen?
The President. I want to give them a chance
to answer this. It's not true that all these things
have been tried before. First, Senator D'Amato,
I'm glad to see you. Thank you for coming.
It's not true that all these things have been
tried before, and it's certainly plain to anybody
with eyes to see that the border patrol is drastically understaffed, breathtakingly understaffed.
But there are also some new elements in this,
and I think I'd let the Vice President and the
Attorney General address them.
The Vice President. Yes, the change in the
exclusion provisions is brand new. The change
in the investment in the information systems
that will avoid a repetition of what happened
when the sheik applied for a visa and then the
office didn't have the information because even
though the State Department did, it didn't have
the information system to display it, a lot of
these things are brand new. They've never been
done before, and it is a coordinated approach
involving all of the players involved and the full
keyboard, if you will. Every part of the issue
is being addressed here.
Now, there are some things that are not addressed and the procedure the President outlined for addressing the longer term problems


is going to work just as well as this procedure
worked. It's going to take more time, though.
Q. How much of this counterterrorism provision was sparked by the World Trade Center
bombing, and how confident are you that the
borders will be safe now from terrorists getting
into the United States, if this proposed legislation is enacted?
The President. I can answer the first part;
maybe I should invite the Attorney General to
comment on the second. There's no question
that the World Trade Center bombing has
caused us to review a whole range of issues,
not just involving immigration, in terms of our
ability to deal with the whole threat of actual
or potential terrorism. And when that happened,
we began in earnest to review not only this
issue but the capacity of our law enforcement
agencies to deal with it, and we will continue
to do that. I think that I owe that to the American people, and that clearly had something to
do with it.
Attorney General Reno. With respect to the
second part, no one can ensure anything, except
that we are going to try our best. When I came
into office, I found a service that too often did
not communicate with law enforcement and
vice-versa, that too often was not in communication with other Federal Agencies. I think it's
imperative that we bring everyone together to
communicate to do everything that we can to
address the critical issue of terrorism and to
be as vigilant as possible. To ensure our borders
at this day and time is a very difficult task,
but it is one that is of the highest priority of
this administration.
Q. Mr. President, on the question of the reason illegal Chinese immigrants-obviously, they
involve three parties: the United States, China,
and Taiwan, because some of the ships are from
Taiwan. So I wonder, are you planning to personally discuss with leaders of China and Taiwan, maybe, in November APEC meeting in
Seattle?
The President. Well, let me say, first of all,
I just talked to the Secretary of State last night,
and he raised these issues personally in his conversation with the representative of the Chinese
Government recently. And we have enjoyed
good relations with Taiwan, also. We intend to
raise it with them. We intend to raise it at
the highest levels with both countries and to
seek their active and consistent cooperation. And
I think, as you point out, without that coopera

1195




July 27 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


tion, we will continue to have greater difficulties
on this end. But I think they will help us more,
and I have no reason to believe that they won't.
We're just going to have to work on it. We're
going to have to have their help to do better.
Q. Are you inviting them to the APEC meeting? Are you inviting President Li Teng-hui to
the APEC meeting?
The President. We also are discussing how
we're going to deal with the APEC meeting,
who is going to come from all the 15 countries.
And of course, who comes will be in part, I
think, determined by how much we'll want to
pursue this discussion there. But in terms of
who will be there, that hasn't been finalized
from their point of view.
Go ahead.
Q. Mr. President, how do you depoliticize
the asylum process? Because in the Reagan
years, anybody from El Salvador was not considered to have a bona fide claim of asylum. In
the Bush years, Chinese fleeing birth control
policies were deemed to have a good claim for
asylum. How do you make this more rational
so that the American people and the foreigners
both know what qualifies as asylum?
The President. That's a very good question.
I'm so glad you asked it. I think the answer
is that we have to have criteria for enforcing
this law that grows out of our laws that are
based on policies rooted in laws enacted by the
Congress. I think that is the answer. Obviously,
if Congress and the administration work with
the Congress, if we decide that there's some
policy that's so important for other reasons, for
our other foreign policy concerns, our human
rights concerns, you name it, that we want to
root that in our legal policy, then no one can
accuse us of being arbitrary, because we will
have gone through a deliberative process. The
Congress will have made a judgment; we will
all be on public record.
But I do think it's very important that immigrants from the world looking at us and governments from the world looking at us, not believe
that the President will wake up someday and
decide that for some arbitrary reason we will
enforce the immigration laws of the country in


one way or another. Perhaps the Vice President
and the Attorney General would like to make
a comment about that, also.
The Vice President. I'd like to add one brief
point. This proposal does take the partisanship
and the politics out of it. This is a bipartisan
initiative. Republicans as well as Democrats are
here from both the Senate and the House. And
if I could summarize the basic tone of this initiative, I would use the words of Doris Meissner,
who is the designee to head up INS, when she
said not long ago, we want to stop illegal immigration so that we can continue opening our
country to legal immigration. The two go together, and that's what this proposal is designed
to do.
The President. I think we've answered about
all the questions we can. I'd like to close by
reemphasizing that point. When I ran for President, I think in some ways the most rewarding
part of the experience was having the opportunity to see just how many different countries
and how many different ethnic groups have contributed to making America what it is today.
We don't want to do anything to interrupt that.
But we cannot continue to progress as a country
unless we have a more vigorous response to
this problem, and we don't want to cloud the
two. This has nothing to do with our support
for keeping the rainbow and the melting pot
of America going and growing and enriching
and strengthening this country.
But the kinds of practices that are manifest
in who can get into this country on an airplane,
what kind of illegal smuggling can go on, and
the fact that our borders leak like a sieve, those
things cannot be permitted to continue in good
conscience. It's not good for the American immigrants who are here legally in this country,
for the American economy, for the cohesion of
our society, or for the rule of law worldwide.
And we're going to try to do better. This is
a very good first step.
Thank you very much.
NOTE: The President spoke at 11:38 a.m. in Room
450 of the Old Executive Office Building.


1196




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 27


Message to the Congress Transmitting Proposed Legislation on Illegal
Immigration
July 27, 1993


To the Congress of the United States:
I am pleased to transmit today for your immediate consideration and enactment the "Expedited Exclusion and Alien Smuggling Enhanced
Penalties Act of 1993." This legislative proposal
is designed to address the growing abuse of
our legal immigration and political asylum systems by illegal aliens holding fraudulent dQcuments and by alien smugglers. Also transmitted
is a section-by-section analysis. The proposal is
part of a larger Administration initiative that I
announced on June 18, 1993, to combat the
illegal entry and smuggling of aliens into the
United States.
The use of fraudulent documents by aliens
seeking to enter the United States has increased
dramatically. This proposal would expedite the
exclusion and return of certain undocumented
and fraudulently documented aliens who clearly
are ineligible for admission to the United States,
while ensuring that persons who have legitimate
asylum claims receive full and fair hearings. In
addition, the bill would increase the ability of
the Immigration and Naturalization Service
(INS) to prosecute alien smugglers and enhance
the penalties for alien smuggling.
The expedited exclusion procedures would
apply to an alien who, for example: (1) attempted to use a fraudulent passport to enter
the United States; (2) came to the United States
by commercial airplane and did not present a
visa upon arrival; or (3) was encountered by
the Coast Guard on the high seas and brought
to the United States. To apply for asylum, these
aliens first would have to establish that they
had a credible fear either of persecution in the
country from which they had departed or of
return to persecution. If an asylum officer determined that the alien had such a credible fear,
the alien then could apply for asylum. If the
alien did not have the requisite fear of persecution, the alien would be subject to an immediate
order of exclusion barring him or her from entering the United States. The bill would limit
judicial review of such an exclusion order.
Alien smuggling has become an increasingly
pervasive problem, as seen in the current wave
of Chinese aliens being brought to the shores


of this country by unscrupulous criminal organizations. These organizations seek to profit both
from transporting these aliens and from their
labors once in this country. The number of alien
smugglers arrested in the past 3 years has tripled, and the number of smugglers convicted
has doubled.
Alien smuggling not only violates our criminal
and immigration laws, but it also takes a terrible
toll on the lives of the aliens illegally brought
into this country. Many of these individuals
transfer their entire life savings and pledge thousands of additional dollars to smugglers. These
aliens are often placed in deplorable conditions
amounting to indentured servitude until they
can pay the debts incurred for their passage
to America. Moreover, organized criminal syndicates are becoming more frequently associated
with this highly profitable traffic in human
cargo.
The bill's criminal provisions are vital to help
apprehend offenders and deter future criminal
activity in this area. Under this proposal, the
maximum penalty imposed against certain smugglers would be increased from 5 to 10 years
in prison for each individual smuggled. Since
clandestine means of investigation are often
needed to build cases against alien smuggling
rings, the bill would authorize INS to conduct
wiretaps for alien smuggling investigations.
Finally, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations statute would be amended so its
penalty and forfeiture provisions could be used
against alien smuggling organizations. The proposal also would expand the ability of law enforcement personnel to forfeit the proceeds of
illegal alien smuggling, such as cash and bank
accounts.
In addition to this bill, our efforts to combat
alien smuggling include strengthening law enforcement efforts and attacking smuggling operations at the source. The Federal Government
already has begun interdicting and redirecting
smuggling ships, where feasible, in transit to
the United States. INS is detaining aliens who
enter the United States in conjunction with
criminal smuggling activities. The Department
of Justice, consistent with due process and exist

1197




July 27 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


ing laws, is expediting the adjudication of entry
claims raised by migrants who are the victims
of organized criminal smuggling schemes.
All of these actions, taken together, signal the
United States abhorrence of the trafficking in
human beings for profit and our determination
to combat this illegal activity. At the same time,


they reaffirm our Nation's commitment to safeguarding the protection of bona fide refugees.
I urge the prompt and favorable consideration
of this legislative proposal by the Congress.
WILLIAM J. CLINTON
The White House,
July 27, 1993.


Exchange With Reporters Prior to a Meeting With Midwestern Governors
July 27, 1993


Disaster Assistance and Economic Program
Q. Mr. President, do you have any problem
with Senator Boren's idea for a budget summit?
The President. Let me make a statement, first
of all, about what we're here for.
I want to welcome the Governors from the
States afflicted by the floods to Washington, and
I'm very encouraged by the work they've been
doing here today. Of course, we hope the legislation will pass the House today, and if it does
then when it moves on to the Senate it is our
intention, as I indicated when I was in St. Louis,
based on Mr. Panetta's figures, to ask that the
relief package be increased by another $1.1 billion which will take us to just slightly above
$4 billion. And of course, we're still collecting
damage estimates. It may get worse because it's
still going on in some places. But I'm very hopeful that we can push this through and work
this through. And of course, there are a lot
of other issues the Governors want to talk about
and deal with that we're going to try to help
them on some. I'm encouraged by that.
In terms of the other question you asked me,
go back to 1990. You know, I will say again,
that the strongest reaction I got yesterday in
Chicago with that highly bipartisan crowd was
when I said we need to make a decision and


go on with other things.
If you look at what happened in 1990, there
was this sort of delay. If you delay it a couple
of months you're going to have less deficit reduction, higher interest rates, more fragility and
uncertainty in the economy, more consumer
confidence going down. We have been working
on this.
We have other things to do. The American
people want us to solve the health care crisis,
deal with welfare reform, to pass a crime bill.
We have a whole range of other issues out
there. The Congress is strangled from doing
anything else until we put this budget issue behind us. So the time has come to act. We just
need to move and go on and almost everything
else that needs to be done, I hope and believe
we'll have bipartisan support and we'll meet the
needs of this country. Nobody wants to reduce
the deficit because-the reason it got so bad
as it did is that there were tough decisions required to turn it around. And I think to delay
it while we nibble around the edges would be
a serious error.
NOTE: The exchange began at 1:54 p.m. in the
Cabinet Room at the White House. A tape was
not available for verification of the content of
these remarks.


Remarks on the Anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act
July 27, 1993
It is great to see all of you. You know, I   first of all, how grateful I am, as an American,
heard Tom's speech outside, and I want to say, to Tom Harkin and Steny Hoyer and all of


1198




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 27


you who made the Americans with Disabilities
Act a reality, but how much I owe, as a public
servant, to Senator Harkin personally. You know,
when we were on the campaign trail together,
he made his brother the most famous brother
in America in a very beautiful way. And you
need to know when he was up here speaking
we've been killing time because his brother,
Frank, is on the phone, and he doesn't have
time to talk to me right now. [Laughter] His
line is busy. This is true. His line's busy. We've
been trying to call him which is great. It's great.
It means that the thing is working. [Laughter]
This is-yesterday, I guess, was the effective
date when the telephone service had to be provided. So I'm so excited about that.
While we're waiting for the line to clear, let
me just-if I might make a few points. First,
I want to reaffirm strong support of our administration for implementing and enforcing the act.
Yesterday, the Attorney General and a number
of other Cabinet members conducted some activities designed to clearly remove any ambiguity
about that and to reinforce our commitment
on that issue.
The second thing I want to do is to-I know
that Roy's already introduced them, but to say
a special word of thanks to Americans with disabilities who happen to be part of this administration and to those who will be, including some
in this room and some who are not in this
room.
Finally, let me say, we need your help because you have become a very powerful force.
We need your help to pass this economic plan
so we can get on with the rest of the business
of the country, and then so we can get on the


health care and try to deal with the issues of
long-term care and personal services and
empowerment, the kinds of things that are so
important to-I heard Tom talking about the
inclusion, independence, and empowerment.
There are a lot of Americans who need that,
not just Americans with disabilities. And we
have to go forward.
And I know a lot of people, but none more
than you, are eager to see this debate on health
care begin. It cannot begin until we have a
budget and economic plan in place. And there
are many more things that we have to do which
are also of interest to you that are especially
important. We need a new crime bill. We need
a bill that reforms the welfare system. It also
works on empowerment. We need a whole series of things that we are eager to get on with
doing. But first we have to nail this budgetary
issue.
I am especially interested in the health care
debate, as you know. And I spoke with the
First Lady this morning, as I do on most mornings-[laughter]-and we were reviewing our
days, and I told her that Tom and I were going
to be here with you today. And she was very
interested in, you know, the fact that we were
going to do this and asked me to give you her
best and to thank those of you who have been
involved already with her in the health care
task force in trying to work through these issues.
NOTE: The President spoke at 2:50 p.m. in the
Roosevelt Room at the White House. A tape was
not available for verification of the content of
these remarks.


Remarks in a Telephone Conversation With Frank Harkin
July 27, 1993


The President. Hello?
Operator. Yes, hello. Good afternoon. This is
Agent 218 of the Federal Information Relay
Service.
The President. May I speak with Frank now?
Operator. Yes, he's on line standing by for
your conversation.
The President. Frank, this is Bill Clinton. I'm
really glad to be able to talk with you now


that the text telephone system is in place nationwide. And I'm here with your brother, Tom,
who just gave a great speech.
If it hadn't been for you, I don't think he
would have had all those great speeches. I just
told the crowd here that he made you the most
famous brother in America last year.
Mr. Harkin. Gee, thanks.
The President. He said, "Gee, thanks."


1199




July 27 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


Mr. Harkin. Thanks for saying that.
The President. "Thanks for saying that."
What we all want to know is whether you
are wet or dry.
Mr. Harkin. It is a great moment to talk to
you, Mr. President.
The President. Frank, what we all want to
know here is whether you are wet or dry. I've
been to Iowa twice, and I know how much
flooding you've had. So tell us how it is around
where you live.
Mr. Harkin. Today it is humid and muggy.
I did watch on TV when you were in Iowa.
The President. Well, I just had the Governors
of six States, including Iowa, in to see me to
talk about how we could help people get over
the flood damage, and I certainly hope we can
do a good job of that.
Interview With the Georgia Media
July 27, 1993
The President. Well, first of all, I want to
thank you for coming. Welcome. As you probably know, we've been doing a whole series of
these press conferences, both when I'm out and
when I'm here and also some of it electronically,
but as much in person-to-person as possible.
And I would like to give as much time as possible to answer your questions.
But I think I should begin with a story that
Charles Stenholm told this morning. He's the
chairman of the Conservative Caucus in the
House who, by the way, thinks we should make
some changes in the program during the conference. But he acknowledged today that-he
said every time someone calls me criticizing this
program, they've normally had their heads filled
full of misinformation by people who are criticizing them without telling everything. And
every time I talk somebody through it, they
wind up thinking it's not so bad.
Last night Leon Panetta went to a Maryland
district that's fairly representative of the United
States with Congressman Cardin and went
through the whole program. And afterward the
Congressman asked the people, "Do you want
me to vote for this, or do you want me to
delay it 60 days more or just let it to go to
pieces and see what happens?" And three to


Mr. Harkin. Hopefully you will do your best.
The President. I want you to tell all the people here with me how you like this communications system.
Mr. Harkin. It is wonderful-have a TV crew
from Des Moines in my house.
The President. Well, now I want you to say
a word to your brother. You have proved that
you are a person of fewer words than-[laughter]-than the President or your brother. Congratulations.
NOTE: The President spoke at 3:09 p.m. in the
Roosevelt Room at the White House. The conversation took place during a ceremony commemorating the anniversary of the Americans
with Disabilities Act.


one, they wanted him to support it.
Then the Wall Street Journal last week finally
began something that has not happened up here.
This is not your issue but ours in Washington.
They actually went around and started asking
people who said they were with small business
groups opposed to this plan if they knew what
was in it, and it turned out they didn't. And
over 90 percent of the small businesses in America will actually be eligible for a tax reduction
under this program, because they have no tax
increase on the income taxes, and we doubled
the expensing provisions for small businesses.
So the program-I just want to emphasize
again-is the only program presented that provides $500 billion of deficit reduction, an equal
balance between spending cuts and tax increases. For every $5 in spending cuts, there
are $5 in tax increases; $4 of those come from
people with incomes in the upper 5 percent
of the income brackets; $1 comes from the middle class. Working families with incomes of
under $30,000-and there are a bunch of them
in Georgia-are held harmless in this program.
An average family of four with an income of
$50,000, we're looking at a ceiling of about $50
a year, which is less than a buck a month to
get the deficit down and provide some of the


1200




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 27


economic incentives to grow some jobs, which
I think is very, very important. So I think it's
a balanced plan. I think it's a fair plan. And
if you look at the alternative that was presented
in the Senate, it's the only serious plan so far
that's been up that really has big deficit reduction in a fair way.
Questions? Go ahead.
Georgia Congressional Support
Q. As you're meeting with us, obviously, some
of this is directed at reaching our congressional
delegation as well. We had conservative Democrats in the House, and obviously Senator Nunn
in the Senate, who had voted against the plan.
How are you approaching our delegation? Are
you meeting with them personally? How are
you lobbying them? Are you disappointed that
you haven't had them with you? And do you
think you can turn them around?
The President. First of all, we got a good
number of votes from Georgia for which I am
very grateful. But let me tell you how I'm doing
it generally. I'm trying to meet with the House
Members in the big caucuses first: the Conservative Caucus; the Mainstream Forum, which is
sort of the DLC group; the Black Caucus; the
Hispanic Caucus; the Women's Caucus. I've met
with all of them, except I'm meeting with the
Mainstream Forum tonight, and then talking to
individual Members about individual concerns.
In the Senate we pretty well know the 10
or 15 Senators that could go either way and
what the issues are for them, and so I'm trying
to talk to each of them individually about their
concerns. I met with four Senators over the
weekend, and I have talked to a number of
others over the phone.
The concerns basically are twofold. They
break down into two broad categories. Some
are just worried about a political reaction. And
many of them have said to me, "Look, if our
constituents knew what was in this, we know
they would support it."
This is the only political issue in my lifetime
where people have known less about it as it's
gone on; that is, known less about the issue
as time has gone on. The night I gave the State
of the Union Address when there was a great
deal of support for this was really the time when
people had the largest number of facts. And
then all the groups that ginned up opposition
to it-it's like this spokesperson for a small business group last week ran a car washing service;


turned out she got a tax reduction, not a tax
increase out of this plan, and she didn't know
it. And the people that had gotten her to stand
up and speak against something she didn't know
what was in.
So for those folks we have really got work
on just making sure that they understand, that
we now have an aggressive effort to get the
evidence out that this is fair, progressive, real
deficit reduction and real job creation. It's going
to keep interest rates down and get jobs up.
I mean, that's just a-that's reality, and I think
that's important.
To the second argument is that the country
wants us to make a decision and go on about
other things. They don't want us to fool around
for 60 more days without a budget. They want
us to make a decision and then deal with health
care, the crime bill, the welfare reform bill, all
the other issues out there facing us.
Now, there's another group of people who
basically didn't like either the bill that passed
the Senate or the bill that passed the House
but are more than prepared to take the political
heat associated with serious deficit reduction if
they can get a bill that they agree with. Senator
Nunn, for example, told me that there were
basically two big issues for him. And he told
me that he might have reluctantly voted for
the House bill because the House bill addressed
one issue, which is that we need some more
incentives in the Tax Code for people to invest
their money in job-creating activities. And in
the House, you know, we had incentives for
new and small business capital gains tax. You
invest your money in a business capitalized at
$15 million a year less; if you hold it for 5
years, you cut your tax rate in half on the gain.
By raising personal income tax rates, we created a significant incentive to halve capital gains
generally by investing in new businesses. We
had some new incentives for new plant and
equipment. We had new incentives to revive
real estate and homebuilding. We had incentives
to do more research and development.
When the Senate passed its bill to move from
the Btu tax down to the fuel tax at 4.3 percent,
one of the ways they did it was just to eliminate
all that stuff, as well as the empowerment zones
to try to get free enterprise into the depressed
urban and rural areas. They cut that way, way
back, so-no, they eliminated it in the Senate
bill.
So, I believe that that concern will be ad

1201




July 27 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


dressed in the conference report. That is, I think
the final bill will, through a combination of
other spending cuts and maybe some just minor
modifications to the revenue package, put a lot
of those job incentives back in there.
The other issue that Senator Nunn raises is
one with which I am very sympathetic but one
that I am absolutely convinced we cannot deal
with right now but that we have to deal with.
And that is that there needs to be some limits,
some discipline on the growth of entitlement
spending. Let me just give you an example. The
budget that was passed last year before I became President had an estimated 12 percent
a year increase in health care costs, Medicare
and Medicaid, 12 percent a year. Now, the rolls
were growing some, but most of it was just
inflation, paying more for the same health care.
We cut that back to 9 percent a year and
saved $55 billion or so off the previous budget,
a big shave. But still if you look at this budget
now, you've got defense going down, many domestic programs going down, and an overall
freeze on domestic spending. That is, for all
the increases we have in Head Start and worker
training and new technologies and defense conversions, we have offsetting decreases in something else. And the only thing that's really increasing in this budget are the retirement programs, Social Security cost-of-living increases,
which are at least covered by the Social Security
tax, and other cost-of-living increases on retirement programs and health care. That's what's
going up.
So Senator Nunn and others believe, and I
do, that you have to find a way to control health
care costs. Otherwise, you're going to give the
whole budget over to health care. You wind
up cutting defense too much, and you don't
have enough money left to spend where you
ought to spend it, which is in revitalizing this
economy. The problem is that if you put a cap
on health care costs in this budget without reforming health care, which is the next big issue
I want Congress to take up, if you did that,
then all that would happen is you'd impose a
hidden tax on every American with health insurance. Because what happens is if you just quit
paying doctors and hospitals at the Federal level,
then they just send a bill to your employers
and to you if you pay part of your health insurance.
And that's why I don't think we can pass
this cap now. I think we can pass the controls


on health care costs by the Government if we
reform health care. So anyway, that's a long
answer. But you're interested in the Georgia
politicians. I'm dealing with the political concerns and the substantive concerns as they come
up.
Senator Sam Nunn
Q. Can I follow up? Why could you not convince Nunn of that, given the fact that here's
a guy who supported you in the campaign and
sold you, in effect, to Georgia voters in campaign ads? And it would seem like, this being
as important to you as it is, that you would
be able to persuade him to accept the logic
of that and wait for health care reform down
the road.
The President. I'm not sure he won't. I mean,
he told me clearly that he found that he thought
the Senate was wrong to take out all the job
incentives, and of course, I did, too. But my
argument to him was don't let the thing get
defeated. Let's send it to Congress and see if
we can put them back in. But you know, he
and Senator Domenici worked for years on this
program of strength in America. I think he's
got a lot vested in it. He's got some very strong
convictions about it. But all of us, including
the President, in order to get anything done
in a tough time, we've got to be willing to compromise some. And I hope we will get his support at the end.
But I just wanted to tell you what I think
the roots of it are. I think they're-and that
I'm very sympathetic with a lot of what he was
saying. And I think in the end we'll get where
he wants to go.
Let me just mention one other thing I have
to tell you. If you get the budget out of the
way and you start health care reform, which
is the only way to ever get the deficit down
to zero, by the way-I'm not satisfied with going
down to $200 billion a year and then going
back up again in 5 years; we've got to do something about health care to move it to zero. Then
the other big issue that's coming up this fall
that I think is terribly important is the Vice
President's report on reinventing the Government. That's been a big issue that Senator Nunn
and I worked on through the Democratic Leadership Council. He is going to offer some very
controversial but very important suggestions to
cut the overhead costs of the Federal Government and make it more efficient, make it more


1202




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 27


user-friendly to the taxpayers, and free up some
money which can itself be used to reduce the
deficit or to invest in our future. So all these
things have to be seen together.
And the argument I have to make to Senator
Nunn-and I'm trying to make to some others,
and a lot of the moderate Republicans who basically think they ought to support me if they
could get out from under the partisan dealis that you cannot solve every problem with
the Federal budget with this act. We cannot
solve all the problems. But if you put the budget
and economic program with the Gore
reinventing Government initiatives, with health
care reform, you can bring this deficit down
to zero, and you can really revitalize the economy, and you can do it in a way that's fair
to all the American people. But you can't do
it in one bill. And I guess that's the-a lot
of the people who are holding out are saying,
"Well, we want it to be perfect." Well, it can't
be perfect. It's just got to be a big advance.
It's given us the dramatically lower interest
rates, and it's a good thing.
Q. Can you tell us a little about your relationship to Senator Nunn? I'm belaboring the point
a little bit, but we have watched this over the
last 6 months. How often do you talk with him?
How is your personal relationship, despite all
of the thing with gays in the military
The President. Probably-I don't know-anyway, often. I talk to him often on the phone.
And I see him with some frequency, and I hope
to see him again pretty soon to discuss this.
But you know, it's not unusual for me every
week, a time or two, to pick up the phone
and call him on something.
Q. Are you frustrated with him?
The President. No. No, I mean, I thinkyou know, I don't agree with the decision he
made on the budget bill. But I agree with the
reasons he had for not liking the way it came
out. I didn't like the way it came out. But I
think we should have kicked it into the conference-the Senate did the right thing-so we
could keep the process going. Because the Republicans have not offered any credible alternatives, so there's no basis for us to build a
bipartisan coalition. I hope we never have another bill without a bipartisan coalition, because
I'm not comfortable with that. But in general
I think it's going pretty well. I mean, the other
issues-you know, he never made any pretense.
He never agreed with me on the gays in the


military issue. He made it clear in the campaign.
He made it clear during the transition. He made
it clear after the election. And we wound uphe wound up in a place where I don't think
he expected to wind up either. I mean, I think
we moved this thing quite a long way.
As a practical matter, if you read this policy,
it differs from what I said in the campaign in
only one respect: You still can't openly declare
your homosexuality without some fear of being
severed from the service. If you do that, the
burden is then on you to demonstrate you are
not going to violate the Code of Conduct. But
I never said one word, not a word, about changing anything about the Code of Conduct. And
yet the military leaders themselves decided to
go further than they had ever gone in protecting
the privacy and association rights of all members
of the military in ways that Colin Powell
summed up as a policy of "live and let live."
That goes well beyond anything I even talked
about in the campaign. Senator Nunn endorsed
that. The Joint Chiefs endorsed that. The House
leadership yesterday endorsed that. So I'm very
encouraged about where we are on it.
Economic Program
Q. I've asked this question of a couple of
your people, and I'd really like to hear your
response on it as well. You last week released
the jobs State by State that you think the plan
will generate. Now, this morning in a session,
Roger Altman's staff basically said, "Gee, we
probably shouldn't have been so specific. We
should have rounded these numbers a little bit.
We're not going to create 238,416, or whatever,
for the State of Georgia."
The President. It might be more; it might
be less. I think everybody knows projections are
approximations.
Q. But the choice was to release very specific
numbers and now to round them. And now the
administration is getting some criticism for that.
Do you not think it may have been a mistake
to have tried to put such specific numbers together in an attempt to sell this plan?
The President. Well, it may have been, but
let me tell you why we did it. What we're trying
to do is to avoid-frankly, the main reason we
did it was to avoid overpromising, because I
don't believe that this plan alone can restore
America's health. I just think it is the critical,
it is the critical first step. Without it I think
you have total uncertainty; you have chaos; you


1203




July 27 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


have interest rates going back up again, and
you have a Government that can't get anything
done.
With it you begin the march to progress. I
think to get total economic health you have to
do something about the health care crisis, do
something about the way the Government does
its business, deal with the welfare reform issue.
And then there has to be a whole set of other
economic strategies to help people convert from
a defense to a domestic economy, continue the
education and training of the work force, open
new markets, all those other things.
So I think what they were trying to do was
to say yes, it will do something, but we don't
want to overpromise. Here's a model we ran
through, and this is where we got. It may or
may not have been a mistake, but we were
trying to give people a sense of what our own
research had produced.
Media Coverage
Q. Could I ask a followup please? One of
the reasons for days like today is that people
acknowledge that you have been misunderstood
to some extent in terms of this plan. As you
well know, there's been a fairly constant sense
among some people in the administration, and
sometimes you're one of them, that you've been
misunderstood a lot on issues like gays in the
military and what you first meant and what you
really meant and on the economic plan, that
sort of thing. Why, now that you've been here
for a while, do you feel there is something systemic that's wrong with the way the media covers the White House? Why have you been so
misunderstood by the people who cover this administration?
The President. Oh, I don't know. I think that
for one thing if you throw something really controversial out there, and are new and different,
it is very difficult for anything but the controversy to get constant coverage. And I don't
say this so much about you but I mean, just
in all the stories that compete for time on the
national news. For example, let's suppose
you're-and this is not a criticism more than
an observation-suppose you are the producer
of ABC News or wherever. You've got to put
the flood on, right? The Israelis bomb the Bekaa
Valley or attack the-you've got to put that on.
So instead of, I mean, you can't go back through
every night all the essence of the economic plan.
And if our adversaries decide just to scream,


"taxes," it's just easier to cover that story and
to get it in the timeslots you can cover it.
I think that a big part of it is when there
is just a huge volume of news and you've got
somebody like me who's very much into trying
to solve problems and get them out of the way,
whether it's the test ban issue or the POW
issue or the Northwest United States forest
issue, I just try to take all these things and
move through them. If you get something really
controversial like gays in the military, it's not
as if I had a chance to sit in the home in
a fireside chat with the American people and
walk them through my position and then walk
them through why we came up with this compromise and why I think it is the principled,
right thing to do.
And on the economic plan, I think it's just
clear, I think-let me just give you-Bernie
Sanders from Vermont is an independent from
Vermont, the only independent in the Congress.
He called me the other day and he said, "I
have done you a terrible disservice." I said,
"What do you mean? You voted for me on everything." He said, "That's what I'm telling
you." He said, "If the progressives in the Congress had burned you in effigy for all these
spending cuts, then America would know you
had made spending cuts. But because the entire
Democratic Party and I rolled on the spending
cuts, it was never newsworthy." They weren't
newsworthy. The newsworthy thing was the fight
over the taxes, so that even when the Republicans-they were so smart about it-when the
Republicans in the Senate Finance Committee
offered all kinds of things to water down the
tax program, but they did not offer one, not
one red cent in spending cuts, because they
didn't want to take any tough decisions. They
knew we already made a lot of spending cuts,
and they just wanted a lot of attacks on the
taxes.
So I think, frankly, anytime you do hard
things and you try to change, you have to expect
to be misunderstood. But when you've got more
than one thing out there at once, you have to
really work on talking it through, which is why
I think I should have been doing this from February the 18th until today, not just for the last
month or so.
Q. But is any of this your fault, sir?
The President. Sure it is. Sure it is. I mean,
I'm sure it is. I've got to learn-you know it
is. But I'll tell you this, I've got an administra

1204




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 27


tion that's tried to face the problems of this
country. Everybody up here is trying to do right
by America. We get up every day and go to
work, and we have taken on things that have
been ignored for a long time. And I do not
believe, frankly, that the evaluation of the administration by the press or the people has fairly
compared us with what got done in previous
administrations. I mean, I could have been, I
guess, immensely popular if all I'd done is make
speeches for the last 6 months and not try to
do anything.
Taxes
Q. Mr. President, this goes to what you've
already been saying about American taxpayers.
There are many people who have the perception
that you are a taxaholic, that you didn't get
the message that many people in this country
want you to cut spending first, get rid of the
bloat in the Federal Government and then talk
about tax hikes.
The President. But we are cutting spending.
And if all you had was spending cuts, you would
have a deficit reduction package in the neighborhood of $250 billion to $260 billion which
no one-which the financial markets would not
take seriously and interest rates would be 2 percent higher and all these people refinancing
their home and saving a ton of money on it
wouldn't be saving it.
In other words, let me give it to you in another way. We are cutting spending. We're
going to cut more spending. But you'd be
amazed how many of those same people, when
you say, "Okay, all the growth is in Medicare
and Medicaid. You want me to cut Medicare?"-they say, "No, don't do that." I mean,
there are people who believe that all the Federal budget goes to welfare and foreign aidwhich is something we cut, by the way, foreign
aid-which is a tiny percentage of the total overall budget of the Federal Government.
We are-this administration, not the two previous ones-that's really got the serious attempt
going to reduce the Federal bureaucracy and
to change the way the Federal Government relates to people. That's what the Vice President
is working on, and we'll have our report out
next month. But we don't have time to fool
around.
Let me just make one final point about this.
David Stockman, who was Ronald Reagan's
Budget Director when the '81 tax cuts were


enacted, gave an interview last month in which
he said it was folly to believe we could balance
the budget on spending cuts alone, because in
1981 President Reagan intended to cut taxes
3 percent of national income. And by the time
he and the Congress got through with their bidding war, they had cut them 6 percent of national income, so much that some companies
couldn't even handle all their tax cuts. They
were selling them to others. And he said, "That
has to be reversed." That's what I'm trying to
do.
And you know, let me just point out for all
those people who think I'm a taxaholic, for 12
years I was Governor of a State that was always
in every year in the bottom five of the States
in the country in the percentage of income
going to State and local taxes, in every year.
We had the toughest balanced budget law in
the country, and the only time we raised money
was when a majority of the people of my State
supported it, and the money went to schools
or roads. We didn't do anything but education
and jobs with new taxes. In the late eighties,
the percentage of our income going to taxes
in Arkansas was the same as it was in the late
seventies when I became Governor.
But when you get up here, you see the problems we've got and you see how long they've
been ignored. And keep in mind, families with
incomes under $30,000 are going to be held
harmless. Families with incomes between
$30,000 and $140,000 are going to be asked
to pay very modest amounts. The average payment for a family of four with a $50,000 income
is $50 a year. To get this deficit under control,
I think it's worth it. If the people don't think
so, they can tell their Congressman. But the
idea that there are no spending cuts in this
thing is simply not true. The spending cuts have
not been controversial, so they have not been
reported, so people don't think they exist. But
they do exist.
Legislative Action
Q. Mr. President, what are the consequences
of your not getting this budget plan passed as
you want it by the August recess?
The President. Well, the consequences of not
passing a budget plan-it won't be exactly as
everybody wants it. That's what a democracy
is about. People get together and work through.
But if they don't pass the budget plan by the
August recess, what will happen is we'll flail


1205




July 27 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


around here for a couple of months. You'll see
interest rates start to go up again. Uncertainty
will get worse, and you'll wind up with less
deficit reduction. Politics will take over, and
you'll wind up with less deficit reduction. So
the thing we need to do is to make a decision
and get on with it. I mean, we've been fooling
around with this for long enough.
I realize that we're keeping a pace that's faster than normal for Washington; but for America,
they want something done. It's time to do something. It means that if you fool around with
it, it means we don't deal with health care;
we don't deal with welfare reform; we don't
deal with the crime bill; we don't deal with
all these other issues that are out there crying
for attention in America. Eight months is long
enough to make a decision about a budget and
an economic plan. It's just long enough.
Q. Are you worried you're not going to be
able to get it?
The President. Well, I think in the end they
will do it because I think that all the Republican
Members have gone on strike basically. We've
reached out to them. We've tried to negotiate
with them. And they have basically said, you
know, they don't want to talk unless we're willing to do things that aren't real, adopt these
amorphous caps and slash Medicare even for
middle class people, and I'm not willing to do
that.
Q. Did you talk to Senator Coverdell?
The President. Yeah, I've met with the whole
Republican caucus. And I meet with the Republican leadership, with the Democrats every other
week.
Q. What have you learned about your ability
to rally your own troops? You talked about
under Republican resistance, but some of the
strongest resistance has come within the party.
The President. Well, I think you should not
assume-the Democratic Party, first of all, is
much more diverse than the Republican Party
but, secondly, has been much more unified with
me than the Republicans were with President
Bush.
That's another thing. Look at the historical
perspective. Here's a little question: There was
a Republican House budget plan and my plan
voted on back to back in the House. There
are more Democrats than Republicans, right?


Now, the Republican plan was no tax increases,
the Kasich plan. He lost more Republicans for
his plan than I lost Democrats for mine because
it was so unfair to the elderly, the poor, the
middle class. That was the other plan in the
House. Last year, 1992, when the Bush budget
came up in the House of Representatives, 75
percent of the Republicans, not the Democrats,
the Republicans, voted against it. Why? Because
it was a political document. I mean, I have
given them a real budget, and it's tough.
Let me just say one thing in closing. The
reporter for the Philadelphia Inquirer, the political reporter, went out and did something that
we should have arranged. I wish I had thought
about it, but he did it about 2 weeks ago. He
interviewed all these budget experts who work
for private companies but whose job it is to
know about the Federal budget. And he wrote
an article which said that the consensus was
that my claims were accurate and that Senator
Dole's attacks were not. And the budget expert
for Price Waterhouse, not an employee of my
administration, said that the budget we had presented was the most honest budget in more
than a decade and the only thing that was wrong
with it was that it would produce more deficit
reduction than I was claiming. And we can get
you a copy of the article. It was very impressive.
But I think the Democrats, when you think
about the withering attack that they have been
under, constant misinformation, and almost no
way to get the facts out except through their
newsletters-and we have begun to run ads for
some of them now, those that have been subject
to ad attacks-I think there's been a remarkable
cohesion in a very diverse party because there
is now a consensus that the time has come to
do something about the deficit and to try to
grow some jobs. And that's what we're trying
to do. And I think they'll do it before August
5th. I'll be very surprised if they really want
to go to an August recess, have all this unresolved, and come back here and fool around
in September and October and not deal with
the other problems of America. I think it will
be a mistake, and I don't think they'll do it.
Thanks.
NOTE: The interview began at 3:59 p.m. on the
South Lawn at the White House.


1206




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 27


Remarks to the National Conference i
July 27, 1993
The President. Thank you very much, Art.
Thank you for your leadership of the National
Conference of State Legislatures, and thank you
for your friendship to me. And most of all, thank
you for giving me the chance to speak with
all of you by satellite today.
It wasn't very long ago that you and the other
leaders of the -National Conference of State Legislatures came here to Washington along with
some State legislators from California to speak
about the specific problems of their State. I
understand your incoming president, Senator
Bob Connor from Delaware-perhaps he remembers, as I do so well, stopping in Wilmington last fall when my voice was so bad I could
barely speak. I hope you're all able to hear
me a little better today.
And to all my friends from Arkansas, let me
say I do miss you, and there are plenty of days
when I would trade with you. But after all,
I asked for this job, and most of the folks in
the Congress do want to move this country off
dead center and move it forward, and I'm convinced we're going to break the gridlock and
go forward with your help.
President Franklin Roosevelt once said that,
"What this country needs is bold, persistent experimentation." As a former Governor who has
worked with you to redefine how our Government can best meet the needs of our people,
I think I know what that means. Most of you
in this audience and most of the Governors with
whom I work really have worked hard for a
long time now to represent the laboratories of
reform, whether in the cause of reinventing
Government or controlling health care costs and
providing health care to people who don't have
it or giving people the dignity to move from
welfare to work or to build an ambitious set
of national goals for education or to devise State
strategies for generating jobs and income.
For more than a decade, I have worked on
these reforms with you. Now, as President, my
administration aims to establish an historic partnership between the White House and the statehouses to give you the freedom to experiment
in bold and innovative ways to meet the unique
needs of people in your own States. The first
order of business, as you know, must be to


of State Legislatures
reclaim control of our economic destiny. Here
in Washington, I put forward an ambitious economic plan that finally does something serious
about the deficit, reducing it by $500 billion
to be locked away in a deficit reduction trust
fund, the largest deficit reduction program in
history, with $250 billion net in real, enforceable
spending cuts. This plan restores tax fairness.
For every $10 we reduce the deficit, $5 comes
from spending cuts, $4 comes from taxes on
the wealthiest 6 percent of Americans, and only
$1 from the middle class, with working families
under $30,000 held harmless.
This plan keeps faith with the hard working
middle class, because over the course of a year,
the average middle class family of four would
pay about $1 a week. The plan is designed to
restore our economic greatness by cutting the
deficit and by getting on with the business of
investing in our future. And you at the State
level know that we have to do both. You
couldn't run your State budgets with the kind
of deficits we have, but if you didn't invest and
give incentives to the private sector to invest,
you know you wouldn't be able to meet the
global competition.
So indeed, we must invest more to start new
businesses, to create new jobs, to rebuild our
infrastructure, to train our workers for the jobs
of tomorrow. Our plan invests in our people
and their education and their training as workers
and new police officers on the streets and in
new technologies that will boost economic
growth and help to put our defense workers
back to work. And analysis shows that this plan
will create in California alone roughly 1.9 million
jobs by 1996. As Government borrows less, interest rates will go down, and America will invest more.
Since I was elected President and it became
clear that Washington would now be serious
about deficit reduction, the financial markets
have reduced long-term interest rates to historic
lows. That means lower mortgage payments for
middle class homeowners, particularly in California where property values are so high, and better loans for small business entrepreneurs who
create a majority of our new jobs. It also means
lower interest rates for cars and consumer loans.


1207




July 27 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


I'll bet there are people here at this convention
who have refinanced your own home in the
last 6 months and are saving a lot more money
in lower mortgage rates than you'd be asked
to pay in the modest fuel taxes. If we can keep
these interest rates down for a year, this economic plan will pump between $50 billion and
$100 billion of new private investment back into
the economy by the end of the year. In the
end, it all comes down to this: a choice between
change for the better or more of the same.
We've seen the cost of gridlock, and the price
is simply too high. We cannot afford for Washington to put off the hard choices or pass them
on to people like you in the States any longer.
It's time for us to act to get our own house
in order.
We have to keep pace with the economic
changes that are going on in the world. We
have to decrease the deficit, lift the skills and
wages of workers, open opportunities for young
people who work hard and play by the rules.
I know you've got some questions for me,
and I want to get to them in a moment. But
first, let me tell you about one more issue, an
announcement I made just a few hours ago with
Vice President Gore and Attorney General
Reno. I know it concerns people in San Diego
a great deal, and it concerns many of the States
which you represent.
Earlier today, our administration took new
critical steps to control the growing problem
of illegal immigration. America will continue to
welcome new citizens into our family with honor
and with dignity. But we will not allow terrorists
and smugglers to dishonor the millions of immigrants who live here lawfully and contribute to
the vitality of our society.
We will, first, expedite the process to exclude
undocumented aliens without credible claims to
asylum. Second, toughen penalties in law enforcement efforts to crack down on gangs of
so-called "coyotes," or organized crime syndicates who smuggle illegal aliens to America
by boat. And third, increase funding for up to
600 additional border agents and the training
and technology they need to be effective.
We will not surrender our borders to those
who wish to exploit America's history of freedom
and justice, to engage in terrorism against Americans or traffic in human cargo. By correcting
the system, by moving against those who traffic
in cargo, and trying to make it far more difficult
for terrorists to travel to this country, we will


also protect the immigrant who comes to America legally to live by our laws, work for a living,
and to pursue the American dream.
I'm very grateful to the Vice President for
coordinating these initiatives since we began this
effort on June the 18th. And I also want to
thank California Senators Feinstein and Boxer
and the Hispanic Caucus and Congress for their
aggressive work in trying to resolve this difficult
issue through a balanced approach.
Now, I know you have some questions, and
I want to answer them. I ask, finally, for your
partnership: passing this economic plan, moving
forward to the reinventing Government program, to a new health care program which will
alleviate enormous pressures on your budget as
well, and to helping you fight the battles against
crime and for welfare reform, and to open the
doors of college education to the citizens in
your State. All that awaits the successful conclusion of the struggle in which I am now engaged
and for which I seek your help.
The floor is yours. Thank you.
Unfunded Federal Mandates
Arthur M. Hamilton. Thank you, Mr. President. Our first question will be offered by State
Senator Robert Connor of Delaware, presidentelect of NCSL.
Mr. Connor. Good afternoon, Mr. President.
The President. Good afternoon, Bob.
[Mr. Connor thanked the President and asked
if he planned to relieve the burden of unfunded
Federal mandates.]
The President. Yes, I can. First, I have to
be careful what I say because I've promised
the Vice President faithfully that we would not
dribble these recommendations out a little at
a time but instead we'll try to present them
in a package.
But I'd like to mention just two things if
I might and to offer you an invitation. First,
I want a part of this reinventing Government
to be a reaffirmation of the idea that the Federal Government should not continue to put unfounded liabilities on the States. Second, I
would like this report to also specifically outline
some areas in which we can deregulate our relationships with the States and with local communities as well, where we can provide the funds
that come from the Federal Government and
the partnership that comes from the Federal
Government without so much front-end regula

1208




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 27


tion but instead evaluating whether these programs work after you've been given a chance
to implement them. I hope both those things
will be a part of the final report.
In that connection, I want to invite you again,
and I know you've been consulted before, to
give us collectively or any individual in this audience to present to us any specific recommendations you have for the kinds of things we could
do that might save the taxpayers money, save
you bureaucratic headache, and still put more
funds or other resources into your hands so that
you can actually solve the problems of the people that you are closer to than we are here
in Washington. And I want to invite you to
do that. We still have a few weeks left before
we finalize the program, and any specific suggestions you have will be most welcome.
Energy Tax
Mr. Hamilton. Mr. President, thank you. Our
next question comes from Karen McCarthy, representative from Missouri, vice president, National Conference of State Legislatures.
[Ms. McCarthy asked if the proposed gas tax
would be dedicated to the highway trust fund.]
The President. Well, that's a subject, actually,
that is now being discussed in the conference.
It was raised with me for the first time today,
actually, and I say that because you have given
me a little impetus now to get more involved
in this question. As you know, when I proposed
the Btu tax, I thought the compromise would
be one that saved the Btu tax without imposing
it on production. I still think that was a better
alternative. But the Senate fuel tax proposal
seems destined to, in some form or fashion,
become a part of the conference. And I will
take that issue up with them. I want to make
sure you understand, however, that even if it
is put into the trust fund for the period of
the deficit reduction, it still has to go to that.
Of course, after that, it could then be freed
up for the original purpose for which it was
intended if we had done what we ought to do
by then, which is to control health care costs
and otherwise change the Government so we're
moving toward a zero deficit, which is what our
ultimate goal ought to be. But I will consider
that. I never even thought about it until the
last day or so, and I appreciate you bringing
it to my attention.


Block Grants
Mr. Hamilton. Mr. President, our next question comes from Senator Bud Burke, president
of the senate in Kansas and the immediate past
president of NCSL. Bud.
[Mr. Burke asked if the President would support
legislation to consolidate Federal programs into
flexible grants. ]
The President. Senator, let me ask you a question. Have you presented that specific proposal
to the Vice President's task force on reinventing
Government? Do you know the answer to that?
Mr. Burke. Yes, we have. And we've also discussed this proposal with congressional leaders
over the past 3 years.
The President. Let me tell you that, generally,
I am very favorable to that sort of approach.
I must say I was disappointed when we were
trying to pass the emergency jobs package earlier in the year, that there seemed to be so
much resistance or at least so little enthusiasm
among Members of the Congress in both parties
for the community development block grant program. I don't know what your experience has
been in Kansas, but in Arkansas, I can tell you
that if it hadn't been for the CDBG funds and
the flexibility they gave us, it would have been
very difficult for us to have the kind of aggressive economic development program we had
when I was Governor.
So I am generally very favorably inclined toward consolidating specific programs into larger
block grants. I will look at the specific proposal;
I will review it; I will discuss it specifically with
the Vice President about in terms of what role
it should have in his final recommendations.
But I have to say that we're going to have
to do a little work on Members of Congress
from both parties to increase their enthusiasm
for the block grants. I don't quite know what
the problem is, because it seems to me that
the evidence is clear, at least based on my personal experience, that Federal money goes farther, does more good, has a bigger impact if
we stop trying to micromanage it and overregulate it and instead let it be spent where the
people and the problems are. So I'm very sympathetic, but I want to be candid. I think we've
got a little work to do to bring the Congress
to where we are.
Banking and Community Development
Mr. Hamilton. Mr. President, our next ques

1209




July 27 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


tion comes from Assemblywoman Gwen Moore
of California, who is a majority whip of the
California Assembly.
[Ms. Moore asked if the President opposed efforts to preempt State laws related to interstate
branch banking and community reinvestment.]
The President. Let me first, if I might, make
a comment in reference to the first thing you
said about California, because we now have legislators from all over America there. I want to
make it clear that I got hired by all the American people to revitalize the whole American
economy. But we can't get there unless something is done about California.
California has 12 percent of the country's
population, 21 percent of the country's defense
budget, took about almost 40 percent of the
cuts in the last round of base closings, has taken
a huge percentage of the cuts of defense cutbacks, and therefore is a net drag on the whole
rest of the country when we have to pour money
in for welfare, for food stamps, for unemployment, for maintenance programs, instead of having California do what it has done for much
of the last 20 years, which is to lead the vibrant
economic growth of America. So it is critical
to all of you in the audience, whether you're
from California or not, that something be done
to deal with what is otherwise the world's sixth
biggest economy.
Now, to go back to your community development question. I'm from Arkansas; my people
have an interest in this. Everybody does. Now,
let me say about the community involvement
issue, I believe strongly that the Federal Community Reinvestment Act should be easier to
follow and more clearly enforced. There is a
way that we can make it less bureaucratic and
still more easily enforced.
I believe that we ought to create partnerships,
as you know, for community lending institutions
all across America. There is clear evidence in
the South Shore Bank in Chicago, in the Southern Development Bank in Arkansas, in the community initiatives in North Carolina and a lot
of other places in this country, that you can
make loans to poor people in distressed areas
and make free enterprise work, create jobs, and
move people from welfare to work. That clearly
mostly is going to have to be done by people
at the local level working in partnership with
the bankers. Therefore, I do not see any need
to preempt whatever State laws might be also


adopted with regard to community investment
priorities or initiatives.
In terms of interstate banking, the other question you asked, that hasn't come up yet. I know
of no reason that we would want to do that,
and I certainly won't make any move or make
any final decision on it without consulting you
and the Governors and others at the State level
who have an interest in this.
Ms. Moore. Thank you very much.
Health Care Reform
Mr. Hamilton. Mr. President, our last question will be offered by Senator Don Wesely
of Nebraska, who is chair of our assembly on
the legislators.
[Mr. Wesely asked when the President would
announce his health care reform package and
if it would allow States to continue experimenting with their own programs. ]
The President. We expect to come forward
with a package after the budget passes, that
Congress has made it clear that they do not
want to deal with an issue as major as health
care while the budget was still on the griddle.
I think that it's also clear that we're going
to be able to do far more at lower burden
than had originally been assumed in terms of
providing basic coverage for the unemployed,
uninsured, locking in people to some coverage
even if they have some preexisting health condition or someone in their family does, and promoting some significant insurance reforms and
Government reforms to simplify the administrative costs.
I think there needs to be a sort of baseline
comprehensive care package that every American has access to. But I also believe the States
should be left a considerable amount of freedom
to experiment with whether they want to provide other services or alternative delivery networks or alternative financing systems. So I
think you can look forward to seeing a fairly
significant amount of State flexibility here.
It's interesting, if you go back and look at
the Canadian system, they've started that in one
Province. We now have a lot of States trying
different things. Hawaii, for many years, has
provided some health insurance to virtually all
their employees, although not all children were
covered. But they did more sooner than anybody
else. Now you've got Washington State, you've
got Minnesota with new plans, you've got Ken

1210




- I~~_~


Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 27


tucky and Vermont with plans on the griddle,
a lot of other things being considered. So I
think we need to maintain the elbow room and
the creativity of the States in solving some of
these problems, but there needs to be enough
of a framework so that no one fears being left
out and so that there's enough systematic
change to bring these cost increases down. We
have got to get health care costs down closer
to inflation, plus population growth, or we're
never going to turn this economy around in
the long run. We're spending 14 percent of our
income on health care, and only one other nation in the world, Canada, is even over 9 percent of income, and they're just barely over.


So we are going to have to have some uniformity, but I want the private system to remain
in place, and I want as much flexibility for the
States as possible.
Mr. Wesely. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Mr. Hamilton then thanked the President for
participating in the program. ]
The President. God bless you, Art. Thank you
all, and goodbye.
NOTE: The President spoke at 5:10 p.m. in Room
459 of the Old Executive Office Building. A tape
was not available for verification of the content
of these remarks.


Exchange With Reporters at a Meeting With Democratic Members of
Congress
July 27, 1993


Flood Relief Legislation
Q. Mr. President, the flood aid bill, sir? Your
response to the House-overwhelmingly passed
the flood aid bill?
The President. I'm elated. I'm elated. I think
it's a wonderful thing. We had, as you know,
the Governors from the flooded States, and
they're real grateful. And we just have to see
quick action from the Senate. There are still
a lot of problems out there, a lot of things
that could still go wrong. And the front needs
to break up so the South and East can get
some rain, or we're going to have some agricul

tural disasters there.
Q. Would it help with the chances in the
Senate that Kansas has had some pretty severe
flooding at this point?
The President. I don't think that has anything
to do with it. I think the Senate will support
it on a bipartisan basis and without regard to
where they're from.
NOTE: The exchange began at 7:26 p.m. in the
State Dining Room at the White House. A tape
was not available for verification of the content
of this exchange.


Statement on the Death of Matthew Ridgway
July 27, 1993


There can be no greater tribute for a patriot
than to say he spent his life serving his nation.
General Matthew Ridgway was such a patriot.
He fought for our liberty and in opposition to
tyranny through two great conflicts, World War
II and the Korean conflict. Through his efforts,
General Ridgway became one of our most venerated military leaders. His greatest legacy is


the freedom his tireless work helped preserve
and promote.
Hillary and I wish to extend our condolences
to Mrs. Ridgway and the rest of his family.
We all owe a debt of gratitude to Matthew
Ridgway, soldier and patriot.
NOTE: The related proclamation of July 29 is listed in Appendix D at the end of this volume.


1211




July 28 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993
Exchange With Reporters on Bosnia
July 28, 1993


Q. Mr. President, are you going to send air
power to Bosnia?
The President. Let me say, I saw the stories
this morning. The position of the United States
has long been that if the United Nations troops
were attacked there, we would do our part to
protect it and by making available air power.
We have not yet been asked to do that. If we
are asked, that's something we'll give good consideration to. But we have not been asked to
do it, and I
Q. The French did not ask you?
The President. Not yet. But we've had some
conservations with them. I'm very upset by the
shelling of Sarajevo. And we're going to take
a look at what the situation is and what the
options are. But they have not formally asked
yet.
Q. Does that mean the answer could bea request is made that the answer will be yes,
sir?
The President. It means just what I said. It
means that the United States has always had
Remarks Following a Luncheon With
With Reporters
July 28, 1993
The President. Thank you very much. Please
be seated. First let me thank all the business
leaders who are here: Felix Rohytan, John Johnson, Ron Hall, Harry Buckley, and Mike Walsh
for the fine words that they said but all those
who are also on this platform behind me today.
They represent companies of all sizes and shapes
from Main Street to Wall Street.
They're here united in an unwavering desire
and commitment to the health of the American
economy over continued political rhetoric, to
productivity over politics, to action over gridlock.
They are here, just as I am, not because anyone
agrees with every last line and jot and tittle
of this economic program as it will doubtless
come out of the conference, but because of
what it does and because it does far more good
than harm; because it brings down the deficit


the public position and the private positionwe've made it very clear that if the United Nations operations in Bosnia were attacked, we
would be prepared to defend them with air
power. And we have not been asked yet. If
we are asked, that's something we will seriously
consider.
Q. You certainly are expecting it, aren't you?
I mean, Bosnia has been attacked and they are
on theThe President. We'll just have to see. I am
going to be reviewing it in the next couple of
days. I asked the Secretary of State to come
home to discuss the Middle East before he goes
to the Middle East. So he will be here. We'll
have a chance to discuss it, and as soon as
we make a decision we'll let you know.
NOTE: The exchange began at 8:34 a.m. in the
State Dining Room at the White House, prior to
a meeting with freshman Democratic Members
of Congress. A tape was not available for verification of the content of this exchange.
Business Leaders and an Exchange
by $500 billion; because it has an equal apportionment of cuts and new revenues; because the
revenues are fairly apportioned. And I was very
proud of the speakers because the people who
are up here with me are the ones who are
really going to pay all the revenues that others
are complaining about. And they have determined that they will do it to bring the deficit
down, to keep interest rates down, to restore
the stability and health of the American economy.
We talked a lot today about a few other issues
at lunch, and I just would emphasize what I
have tried to emphasize before, which is that
over 90 percent of the small businesses in this
country will be eligible for a tax cut if this
plan passes; that working families with incomes
under $30,000 will be held harmless; the work

1212




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 28


ing poor with children in their homes who
spend 40 hours a week on the job will, for
the first time, be able to work themselves out
of poverty; that we have new and important
incentives for high tech companies, extension
of the incentives for research and development,
and a real commitment to grow this economy.
I want to say again, as I have on so many
other occasions, that for every $10 of deficit
reduction, $5 is in spending cuts; $4 in new
revenues from the upper 6 percent of the American work force; and $1 from middle class families with incomes of between $30,000 and
$140,000.
The people on this platform today represent
what makes America work-the fact that they
have become more involved in this, that they
are willing to put their own names on the line.
And many of them are Republicans; some are
Democrats; some are independents. They're all
united here because they're Americans, and they
know that we've neglected our problems long
enough.
I thank them for their presence here, for their
willingness to lobby the Congress. And I assure
them that together our best efforts, I believe,
will produce a victory in this economic battle.
Thank you very much.
Bosnia
Q. Mr. President, if I could turn your attention to the situation in Bosnia. The United
States has long promised to provide air support
if U.N. peacekeepers are threatened. French
peacekeepers have now been fired on for 2 days
in a row. Are you now prepared to deliver your
air power, and would that alone be enough to
deter Serbian aggression?
The President. We are prepared to fulfill our
commitments, yes. The procedure is as follows:
The United Nations forces in Bosnia must ask
the Secretary-General of the United Nations for
assistance. He will then relay that request to
NATO, and we would act through NATO. And
the answer to your question is, we are prepared
to move if we are asked to provide that assistance by the Secretary-General.
Will it be enough to deter aggression, to stop
the shelling of Sarajevo, to bring the parties
to the peace table? I don't know. But we are
prepared to do our part.
Q. Mr. President, do you feel that the United
States and its NATO allies already have the assets in place, the air power and the air traffic


controllers to go ahead with these kinds of air
strikes? And what does your gut tell you? Do
you think the U.S. and its allies will be bombing
Serbian targets in Bosnia within the next few
days?
The President. There are a few questions on
which a President's conversation with his gut
should not be made public until the facts
present themselves. [Laughter] Let me say this:
If the request comes, we certainly can be prepared. NATO can be prepared within a very
brief time span.
Middle East
Q. [Inaudible]-bombing-near silence of the
United States during this fourth day of bombardment of Lebanon-the civilians being driven from-is being interpreted in the Middle
East as supportive of these assaults. What are
you going to do to stop the bombing, and would
Christopher really be welcome in these outraged
capitals?
The President. The reason I asked-well, I
didn't ask; Secretary Christopher and I had a
conversation, and we agreed that he should
come home-is because we are so concerned
about what is going on in the Middle East.
I think Hezbollah should stop its attacks, and
I think Israel should stop the bombardments.
I think that Syria should go from showing restraint to being an active participant to try to
stop the fighting. And we ought to do whatever
we can to stop the fighting as quickly as possible.
Economic Program
Q. Mr. President, on the subject of the budget, at least eight Democratic Senators, possibly
as many as 10 or 12, have said that they are
leaning against voting for it. And five Democratic Senators have written to the conference
committee chairman and have said that they do
not want the gasoline tax or any form of energy
tax. Do you believe you will have to make major
compromises, such as eliminating the gasoline
tax entirely, in order to get it past the Senate?
How do you propose to get SenatorThe President. I don't.
Q.     Boren and Senator Nunn
The President. I don't, because I haven'tno one's answered the question that-almost all
the ones who say that also say I want $500
billion in deficit reduction and, by the way, put
all the economic incentives for growth in. It


1213




July 28 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


becomes an arithmetic problem at some point.
And that's really basically what it is. The fuel
tax that's in there now is modest. It will not
promote a great deal of energy conservation.
It has very little environmental significance. The
real question is, is it necessary to get $500 billion in deficit reduction to have real tax fairness
in terms of what's provided in terms of the
earned-income tax credit and to have the economic incentives. And no one so far has been
able to give a credible alternative. So I would
say to you I think our plan is still the best
one on the table.
Q. You've been meeting one-on-one with
them. Have you been able to persuade any of
the opponents to switch?
The President. Let me say this: The atmosphere and discussions here is not as bad asif anything, it's a little better than it was before
the initial votes were taken in the Senate and
the House. We'll just have to see. I mean, I
think in the end a lot of them, whatever the
situation is, they're going to have to make up
their minds whether the consequences of voting
no for the country are graver than the consequences of voting yes. If that's the question,
they'll all vote yes.
Bosnia
Q. Mr. President, I just want to clarify on
the Bosnia situation. Is it your interpretation
that if we do engage in air strikes there, that
we will go not after the source of fire if it
can be identified but also, if necessary, against
other Serbian targets, headquarters, or logistical
sites? And just as a followup to that, if I could,
are you concerned that in doing this that we'll
send a signal possibly to the Moslems that it
could be overinterpreted by them that the cavalry is coming and maybe now they should hang
back a little bit?
The President. Let me try to answer both
questions. First of all, I have not yet had a
meeting with the Secretary of Defense and the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. I have not been
briefed on our options. And I don't think I
should comment on that at this time.
Secondly, we have, at the request of President
Izetbegovic, agreed to have Reg Bartholomew
go and participate in the discussions about
whether a peace agreement can be reached. We
have made it clear to all the parties all along
that we would never seek to impose an agreement on the Bosnian Government. We've also


made it clear to the Bosnian Government that
we think that they should always be willing to
talk, but we're not going to try to impose a
settlement on them. I think that they know that
our position would be that we should continue
to discuss a peaceful resolution to this.
Middle East
Q. Do I detect correctly, sir, a slight shift
in your attitude towards Syria, which you commended yesterday for its role in the current
trouble in the Middle East? And do you think
you might have been too hasty yesterday and
have you changed your mind?
The President. No. I don't think anybody
thought that Syria was exactly behind Hezbollah.
I just believe that they could do more. I think
it's now time for all the players to do more
to bring an end to the fighting. I think Syria,
and Israel, Jordan, the Palestinians, and the
Lebanese, everybody except these political
groups that make their living from the continued
misery of the Palestinians, everybody else has
a vested interest in continuing the Middle East
peace process, and I hope that we can get it
going again.
NAFTA
Q. On the free trade agreement, you are coming to the end of the collateral negotiation with
Canada and Mexico. I understand they'll be
meeting here tomorrow-country are talking
about-deficit reduction. What new facts are
you getting from them on the free trade agreement, are they backing you on that?
The President. I think most of them are for
it. I certainly hope they are, and I believe they
are. I'll take one more.
Bosnia
Q. Mr. President, Boutros-Ghali has said in
the last few hours that he thinks the NATO
air cover should be able to start early next week.
Based on what you know about it now, and
this plan has been around since May, how do
you calculate the risk? Do you feel like you
have any obligation to go to Congress before
that first plane takes off or to go to the public
with this?
The President. I think I should wait. I asked
the Secretary of State to come home to discuss
the Middle East. He is now home. I want to
talk about Bosnia with him, with the Secretary
of Defense, with some others, before I decide


1214




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 28


on what next has to be done. I think that the
commitment that we have had all along to defend the United Nations forces there if they
were attacked is, I think, fairly clear and has
been highly publicized. But of course, if we
have to take any action, I will have appropriate
consultations with Congress and appropriate
conversations with the American people.
Thank you.


NOTE: The President spoke at 2:12 p.m. in the
East Room at the White House. In his remarks,
he referred to Felix Rohytan, senior partner, Lizard Freres; John Johnson, chairman and chief executive officer, Johnson Publishing Co.; Ron Hall,
president and chief executive officer, Citgo Petroleum Corp.; Harry Buckley, president and chief
executive officer, H&R Block Tax Services, Inc.;
Mike Walsh, chairman and chief executive officer,
Tenneco, Inc.; and Alija Izetbegovic, President,
Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina.


Interview With the Texas Media
July 28, 1993
The President. It's nice to see you all here.
And I know you've all received other briefings
today. And so I think that probably the best
thing to do would be to start, and I'll answer
your questions.
Texas Senatorial Election
Q. [Inaudible]-we are aware of the fact that
did carry the State in the election last year.
And more recently Texas rejected the Democratic-appointed Senator in what some people,
such as Senator Gramm, characterized as repudiation of you and your policies. So to paraphrase Admiral Stockdale, why are we here?
The President. [Inaudible]-several others
who wanted to support it and felt that there
had never been an adequate defense made in
Texas. I thought, given the fact that I had two
Texas opponents, I did rather well there in the
last election. And I don't, with all respect, I
don't think the Senate race in Texas was a referendum on our program, because nobody defended it; nobody said what was in it.
There have been four special elections in the
Congress: three in the House, one in the Senate.
The Democrats won all three in the House.
But frankly, only one of those races was a referendum on the program, because it was the
only place where the Democrat on his own initiative defended the program-without my even
knowing it, put my picture in his brochures,
ran television ads explaining to the people what
was in the program. And he won the race by
nine points in a district in which a lot of upper
income people live who would have to pay the
higher taxes.


So you can't have a referendum on a program
if the people don't know what's in it. If anything,
if I've made any mistake in this, it is that this
is the only issue in my lifetime where the people
knew less about it as time went on. That is,
on February the 18th when I spoke to the country, I actually went through chapter and verse
factually all the things that were in this program
and how they fit with what we wanted to do
in health care, welfare reform, the crime bill,
all the things that are coming afterward. But
I said who was going to pay the taxes, what
the spending cuts were going to be.
After that, because there was no fight over
the spending cuts, people were not told there
were any, and the rhetoric against the program
took over. So I think I owe it to the people
of Texas to at least put my case out there.
And I certainly owe it to the Members from
Texas who supported the program because they
think it's the right thing.
Taxes
Q. [Inaudible]-Corpus Christi. It's a community that's just now coming out of recession,
and they're doing it, probably they're diversifying. What can you say to reassure folks who
have been hearing about this gasoline tax, people who are in the tourism industry who depend
on people driving to come see us and our attractions, people who in the refinery industry who
are dependent on-and the people, the trucking
industry, agricultural and so forth? What can
you say to them that will put them at ease
about what may be coming out of this conference committee?


1215




July 28 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


The President. I don't think the conference
committee is going to adopt anything in the
range of a dime, nine cents, eight cents, anything like that. I think, first of all, gasoline is
at its lowest real price adjusted for inflation in
more than three decades. I think that any tax
they put on it will be modest and will amount
to no more than $50 a year for a family of
four with an income of $50,000 a year, about
$1 a week to help to pay down the deficit.
All the money will be put in a trust fund and
can only be spent to reduce the deficit.
And I think that it is a bearable burden. It
was not, as you know, my first choice. We had
a compromise Btu plan that was never really
considered that exempted agriculture, exempted
all production, and broadened the base of the
tax to even it out a little. But I think that
this is something that we can clearly manage
given the fact that gasoline is at it's lowest real
price in 30 years.
Q. [Inaudible]
The President. Well, I told you what it will
amount to. It can amount to about a dollar
a week for a middle income family, a family
with an income of $40,000 to $50,000 a year.
I don't think that will be a significant burden.
And in terms of the energy industry, we had
people from three energy companies here today,
ARCO, Sun Oil, and Citgo, as well as the CEO
of Tenneco here supporting the plan because
they believe that bringing the deficit down,
keeping interest rates down, which the deficit
reduction plan is doing, enabling people to refinance their homes and business loans, and stabilizing the economy will do far more good than
this will do harm. And I believe that, too.
Super Collider
Q. I know you support the SSC, but about
a week and a half ago, you strongly criticized
Senator Gramm and Senator Hutchinson for
calling for spending cuts while the House vote
was going on. I think yesterday Senator Gramm
sent you a letter urging you to pick up the
pace of your support for the SSC. Can you
get together with them and keep this
projectThe President. I'm a strong supporter of that
project. And I worked it in the House. But,
you know, the timing was amazing. I mean, I
couldn't believe that they would walk out on
the steps of the Capitol with Ross Perot and
begged the Congress to cut spending more and


rail against taxes and give people the impression
that there was some huge middle class tax burden in this thing, which is false. After the Senate
Finance Committee had met and the Republicans offered not one single specific spending
cut in the Senate Finance Committee-not one,
not one dollar-and then, they go out on the
steps of the Capitol, while we're doing our best
not to get beat too bad in the House, hoping
we can do what we did last time, pass it in
the Senate and save it in the conference.
You know, this is tough. I mean, you've got
all those Congressmen from California. They
took 40-something percent of the base-closing
cuts this time, a State with second highest unemployment rate in the country. They take 40 -something percent. Their Congressmen line up
and vote for this program to benefit Texans with
lower interest rates and a more stable economy.
You know, and they say, "Here's a State with
a space station. Here's a State with all the benefits from the super collider." All they want to
do is gain the political benefits of all this Federal spending and the political benefits of railing
against the taxes and not have to take responsibility for proposing specific spending cuts. And
it's just a little too much to swallow. You've
got to put yourself in the position of people
from other States. And so, they said, "Let's just
lob them one." And so we lost by this breathtaking margin, far worse than we lost last year.
And then, of course, they want to disclaim
any responsibility for that. I don't blame them,
but I'm telling you-put yourself in the-suppose you were from Idaho or Utah, or someplace that had hardly any of this stuff. Nobody's
writing you Federal checks every month. You
don't have hundreds of scientists and engineers
and high-tech employees. It's just difficult for
these Members that I'm lobbying to take.
We came very close to losing the space station
in the House. And two supporters of mine who
were in a group that had already come against
the space station stood down there in the well
and waited until the last votes, and they realized
that it could not prevail unless they changed
their votes, and so they went down and voted
for it.
And that's how we saved the space station
in the House. So, all I'm saying is, I believe
in the super collider, and I believe in the space
station. I believe we have now saved the space
station, and I feel very good about it. And now
I can sort of gin up my efforts on the super


1216




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 28


collider. We've got to pass it in the Senate to
have any hope of getting it out of conference.
All I can tell you is, you have to put yourself
in the position of people from other States who
have been asked to take the tough votes, take
the hits, who've already voted for $250 billion
of spending cuts, and then they're told by people who stand on the steps of the Capitol they
hadn't cut spending. It just was difficult for
them. And I thought it was kind of an interesting irony that at least they could have waited
a day to do it, you know. They could have
had the good grace to wait instead of just rubbing the Congress' face in their rhetoric.
Media Coverage
Q. Why not talk about the economy if learning about the economy and learning about the
problems with the economy and how deficit reduction can help the economy? Why not talk
to the whole country about the economy, rather
than each State individually?
The President. Well, I intend to do that also.
But one of the problems is that, as those of
you who are in this town know, what really
makes news is controversy. I mean, the President can't just go talk to the country whenever
he pleases. Last time I talked to the country,
this program had good support because I was
able to give out all the information. Since then,
it's just been rhetoric, 10-second sound bites,
taxes, or "it's spending, stupid," or something
like that. And the whole facts don't get out.
So one of the things I can do to reach the
whole country is to spend more time with media
from many States. We're doing this with a lot
of States. I will, I hope, have the chance to
address the country again. But I tried to do
this in a national press conference, and only
CNN and one network covered it. And by the
way, the research showed that the people who
saw it on the network that covered it had their
attitudes markedly altered about the economic
plan. So I'm doing the best I can to get information out.
NAFTA
Q. [Inaudible]-Corpus Christi. But we live
in an area, because we're so close to the border
that if things go sour in the U.S., we get hit;
and if things happen in Mexico we feel it also.
So we're looking at the North American Free
Trade Agreement. Can you bring us up to date
on that one?


The President. Yes. We're making good
progress on our efforts to achieve agreements
relating to the environment and labor standards.
The last reports I have are quite good. And
I think that when those agreements are finalized
and announced that we will really diminish at
least the fervor of some of the opposition to
NAFTA. We're also making good progress in
getting a broad base of support for it. And I
still believe we can go forward with it and pass
it this year. There is an awful lot of opposition
to it in the House and some in the Senate.
You may have seen recently that some Congressmen were asking me virtually to delay consideration indefinitely. But we have to take it up
this year. And I expect to do that.
And I think the more we talk about it-I
think the important thing with NAFTA is to
try to-as I believe with a lot of these things,
by the way. And because NAFTA will have bipartisan support and bipartisan opposition, we
may be able, funny enough, to have a calmer
conversation. We may be able to talk to each
other as if we're all in the family.
I mean, one of the things that I tell people
about NAFTA, is I was Governor of a State
where people shut their plants down and moved
it to Mexico. I know a lot about that. But the
point-if we have no NAFTA, as you well know,
that will continue or could continue. NAFTA
is not about stopping that or accelerating that.
That is virtually irrelevant to what we're trying
to achieve. And I think it's quite important.
So we're making good progress. I expect to
go forward. I have high hopes. We've got a
lot of opposition, but I think if we can really
be calm and talk each other through it, we can
make it.
Deputy Counsel Vincent Foster, Jr.
Q. We've heard conflicting stories about-this
is on another subject. On the telephone call
that you made to Mr. Foster, we heard at one
point it was made on Sunday, then we heard
it was made on Monday. And we heard, oh,
it was just a routine call, because you talk all
the time. And then we heard it was to buck
him up. Can you sort of set the record straight?
The President. I called him Monday night because at the last minute-Hillary was gone, was
still in Arkansas with our daughter. And I decided to watch a movie, and Webb Hubbell
was still hanging around here. And I hadn't seen
Vince in a while, and I called him. I didn't

1217




July 28 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


unlike some other people, who did know that
he'd been quite distressed, I was not really
aware of that. But I knew I hadn't seen him
in a while, and I just kind of got lonesome.
Webb Hubbell and I and one or two other
people were going to watch a movie. So I just
wanted to watch the movie. I called him and
we talked for, I don't know, 20 minutes or so.
We talked about what he'd done the weekend
before, talked about some things he was concerned about on the job, but it was just the
sort of thing we'd always talk about. He was
real work-oriented. And we agreed to meet on
Wednesday. And that was it.
House Budget Language
Q. There has been a difference between the
House and Senate on capping entitlement programs. What is your position on that?
The President. You mean because the House
version has stronger language in it?
Q. Right.
The President. Well, I'm glad you asked that.
Now, here's something you all can help on. The
House version, first of all, has some disciplined
language in there with dealing with the entitlements and also has some language which says
that-well, first let me say, we adopt 5-year
budgets around here. I think you know-al of
you, or the groups that you work for-it's very
hard to adopt a 5-year budget with exactitude.
I mean, nobody can see the 5 years with absolute precision.
So what this House bill does that had never
been done before is not only to put all this
money in a trust fund so it can't be spent on
anything else but to say if we miss the target
in any year, in any of these areas-you know,
the targets on discretionary spending, entitlements, or revenues-whatever reason, we don't
make our deficit reduction target, under this
bill, the President must propose a plan to correct it, to meet the target, and the Congress
must vote on it. Now, the Congress, obviously,
wouldn't have to do exactly what I wanted. They
could amend it, you know, but at least there's
a process there for addressing the fact that we're
missing the deficit reduction target.
I feel very strongly that that should be a part
of the final package. You need to know what
the problem is. Under the rather arcane rules
of the Senate, this reconciliation, economic
budget plan, is just about the only thing-I
think the only thing that does not require


it's not subject to a filibuster. So if you get
one more vote than half, you win, and it can't
be filibustered, because the country has to have
a budget.
But if there is any subject in this reconciliation bill that does not directly relate to the
budget itself, it can be challenged and then,
in effect, you can require 60 votes to put it
in there. This mechanism has been challenged
by the Republicans in the Senate, even though
I believe 100 percent of them are for it. I mean,
I believe 100 percent of them honestly want
to get the deficit down and believe that this
discipline ought to be in there, and they're still
fighting it because it's another way to derail
what we're trying to do. So the way to get
it in there is for at least four or five of them
to let that go in the law because it's good Government. It doesn't have anything to do with
party.
Bosnia
Q. Regarding the situation in Bosnia, now that
you have met with Secretary Christopher, can
you tell us a little bit about your options in
the air strikes?
The President. Well, we expect the U.N.
forces there in Bosnia to communicate-the
commander there to communicate to BoutrosGhali what the situation is and what he wants,
and then the Secretary-General of the U.N. will
either make or will not make a request to
NATO. And all this will unfold over the next
few days during which time the Serbs, Bosnian
Serbs, either will or won't stop shelling Sarajevo
and will pull back. And we'll just have to wait
and see what happens.
But the United States is bound-we are committed to come to the aid of the United Nations
forces as a part of NATO if they are attacked,
and they have been. So we're just going to have
to wait and see what happens.
NAFTA
Q. On NAFTA, are you telling all the Members of Congress what will happen to us if we
have a disagreement with Mexico about rates
and about products? And isn't it true that panels
of young lawyers from Europe could come over
here and decide questions of difference between
us and Mexico about the operation of NAFTA?
The President. You mean under the agreements now being negotiated?
Q.     and come back, and regardless of


1218




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 28


what our laws were, they would be the ones
to decide whether we were fair or not. And
if they decide we were not fair, even if it was
something that conflicted with our laws, they
would prevail.
The President. Well, I haven't agreed to any
specific enforcement mechanism. But one of the
things that has been of some controversy is
the-obviously the Mexicans have not wanted
to accede control of their national sovereignty
to the United States and vice versa. So the
Mexican, Canadian, and American negotiators
have been struggling to find a way to adopt
an agreement that had some teeth in it, that
has some enforcement provision, at least if there
were a pattern and practice of violation on their
part or on ours. And I don't think they have
finalized that. Until they do, I can't really say
more.
Q. [Inaudible]-the Republicans in the House
are saying that our sovereignty would go and
you all would have to, under the rules, that
you would have to give in to this panel of lawyers from outside the country who would decide
these matters.
The President. Well, I can't comment on that
because I don't know what they are finally going
to agree to. But I think that the most important
thing from my point of view is that we have
some way of knowing that whatever we agree
to is going to be observed by all countries and
that it is not a violation of our sovereignty to
be held to the agreements, to be held to keep
our word. And we'll have to find some sort
of mechanism to see that we do it and to see
that the Mexicans do it. Nobody has discussed
the option you just described to me, and I can't
comment on it until I know whether it's a live
option.
Economic Program
Q. Back to your economic plan. The conservative Democrats on both Houses are the ones
who are really key to you. One of those conservatives is a key player, Charlie Stenholm, who
was visiting with you last night. He came out
saying that he still is unalterably opposed to
the gasoline tax. What can you tell those conservative Congressmen, many of whom come
from Texas, what basically can you give them
to get their vote?
The President. Well, let me tell you what they
say. I mean, it's interesting what a lot of them
say who aren't for the gasoline tax. They think


that it raises so little money that it's not worth
the political heat. A lot of them are basically
tired of the partisan beating up they've gotten
for trying to do something responsible about
the deficit. They are frustrated that all of their
attempts to put in more spending disciplineand Charlie Stenholm has done, I think, a brilliant job of that-has not generated any willingness on the part of Republicans to support any
kind of reasonable budget package.
And so they're saying that this is a pure matter of public perception: '"Why for a relatively
small amount of money should we have any
gas tax at all since it is a modest one and give
the Republicans something else to beat us over
the head? Why don't we just keep the upper
income taxes and the spending cuts and go on?"
Here's the answer to that, and it's the question
I pose to them. In other words, there's noit's just not like the Btu tax. You can't make
a claim that it's promoting great energy conservation or it's good for the environment or
anything. It's just a very modest attempt to raise
some funds to pay down the deficit and monies
which someday might go into road building after
the end of the deficit reduction period but not
any time in the foreseeable future.
The answer is this: If we have to pass this
bill with only Democrats, there are other conservative and moderate Democrats who don't
object to the gas tax but would object if we
took out the economic growth incentives. And
let me just mention some of them. And there
are others who would object if we didn't reduce
the deficit by $500 billion or some figure very
close to it. So then the issue is, if you take
out the gas tax, what do you replace it with?
If you just say, "Well, we'll just reduce the deficit by that much less," then you have all these
people who say, "Well, you lose me because
we're not reducing the deficit enough." Or do
you say, "We'll take out the gas tax and we
won't have any economic growth incentives."
Now, let me mention some of them to just
give you an example. Over 90 percent of the
subchapter S, the small businesses in this country, will be eligible for a tax cut under this
program because we double the expensing provisions. So any small business with adjusted gross
income of under $140,000, which is 94 percent
of them, will be eligible for a tax cut under
this program. They generate a lot of the jobs
in America. That's a job program.
We've got a provision in here to provide cap

1219




July 28 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


ital gains treatment-big break in people who
invest for 5 years in companies that capitalize
at $50 million a year or less. We took out the
surcharge on capital gains to give people incentives to invest so they can earn investment income at lower rates than the personal rates.
We have increased the research and development tax credit. We've increased the incentives
for investing in getting real estate and homebuilding going again. That's one reason the national realtors and the homebuilders have endorsed this plan, two predominately Republican
groups.
If you take all that out, you know, to keep
the deficit number up, to get rid of the gas
tax, then you lose a whole different group of
Democrats. Then there are those who say,
"Well, we don't need the earned-income tax
credit. Get rid of that and get rid of the gas
tax." The problem is if you do that, you lose
people who represent huge numbers of working
poor. Eighteen percent of the work force in
this country now, including a whole lot of folks
in Texas, work 40 hours a week and still live
below the poverty line. That's a stunning statistic.
Perhaps the most important social policy, if
you will, that I would think virtually all Americans could agree on that this plan furthers is
that this says, if you're one of those folks and
you have children in your home, and you work
40 hours a week, the tax system will lift you
above poverty so that nobody who works with
children will be in poverty if this plan passes,
once we get it fully phased in.
So if you take that out, then you lose all
those Democrats that represent that. So the real
problem is it's really an arithmetic problem. If
you want the pro-growth, pro-jobs incentives
and you want to support work instead of welfare
and you want to stay at $500 billion of deficit
reduction or awfully close, how do you do it
without this modest fuel tax?
The only other option that was given is further cuts in Medicare, which in my opinion,
again, would lose you a lot of Democrats, both
people who are concerned about middle class
elderly people on Medicare and people who are
concerned about doctors, hospitals, home health
providers, and others who are under reimbursed
now and who just have to shift their costs onto
the private sector.
So if someone could solve that problemI wouldn't say that problem couldn't be solved

but I think it is highly unlikely that a resolution
of that-I'm sympathetic with Charlie Stenholm.
He has been very courageous. He has been very
helpful. He has done as much as any Member
of the Congress in either party to really control
the deficit. And nobody has a better record than
he does in trying to control spending and control
the deficit. And he's made a very compelling
case, but I don't know how to solve it.
Q. Given the fact that if your plan passesit will probably do so without a single Republican vote-do you think it would be fair for
the American people to give your administration
all the credit or all the blame with the economic
condition of the country over the next 31/2
years?
The President. No, but it'll probably happen
anyway. [Laughter] That is, it will be fair to
give the administration and those who voted for
it the credit or the blame for whatever impact
this has. And I think it will be basically positive.
We know it will keep interest rates down. I
mean, you've got Alan Greenspan, who's the
Republican head of the Federal Reserve Bank,
who has constantly told the Congress they need
to do a deficit reduction package in this range,
and they need to do it immediately to keep
interest rates down and to help the economy
to recover.
But let me make two points. Just a substantive
point-I don't want to talk about politics but
just the substance of it. Number one, the country has been in an economic difficulty on and
off for 20 years. The high water mark of American economic dominance was about 20 years
ago. Since then the pressures of a global economy, which have punished the relatively
undereducated, the relatively rural, the people
that didn't fit very well in the global economy,
have been building up and basically real wages
of working people have been stagnant or declining, and the work week has been increasing
for 20 years.
For 12 years we have followed a path that
worked in the short run but caused us great
grief in the long time. That is, supply-side economics, which basically says we're going to cut
taxes and increase spending, took us from a
$1 trillion to a $4 trillion deficit-debt, a huge
deficit. In the short run, we came out of the
recession of '81-'82 after we cut taxes and increased spending and kind of kept the lid on
inflation. But in the long run we have dug ourselves into a hole now where we-for example,


1220




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 28


we actually-almost anybody-Charlie Stenholm
said the other day, "We need to be spending
more money helping places like California and
Connecticut and some other places to convert
from a defense to a domestic economy. But
we don't have the money. We need to do whatever we can to train our non-college educated
workers better. We don't have the money.
We've got a lot of things we need to do. We
can't and we're paralyzed". So I would say to
you that we didn't get into this mess overnight.
We're not going to get out of it overnight.
The second thing I want to say is, we need
to bring the deficit down to zero. To do that,
we have to pass health care reform. Then to
make people more productive we need to pass
our education bill and the welfare reform bill,
and we need to pass a lot of other things.
There's lots of work we need to do here to
open new markets-you asked the NAFTA
question-to get this economy turned around.
But I expect to be held accountable. I just
would tell you, this bill is important. Without
it, we can't go forward. But it is not the endall and the be-all.
Cuba and Vietnam
Q. One of the cornerstones of your whole
program is to stimulate business growth. I'm
just curious, do you believe that lifting the trade
embargo against Vietnam at this time would
benefit the economy? And a part two to that
question: Do you believe that lifting the embargo against Cuba and allowing American businesses to trade in both Vietnam and Cuba would
be good for the economy of this country?
The President. I believe if the embargo were
lifted, some businesses would clearly benefit. I
think it would be a marginal benefit to the economy in the short run because the economies
of both those countries are so small compared
to ours. I don't think it would have a major
impact. But I don't support it for different reasons. I think the embargo against Cuba should
stand until there is a real movement toward
freedom and democracy. I think the embargo
against Vietnam should not be lifted until we
have even more assurances that they are doing
everything they can to help us with the POW/
MIA issue.
As you doubtless know, or you wouldn't have
asked the question, I did remove the objections
of the United States to letting Vietnam participate in International Monetary Fund financing,


which will help them to improve, because they
have taken a lot of steps since I've been President and since before I became President, starting right before I became President, to open
up the country, to help us try to find the answers about our POW and MIA personnel. But
I'm not confident that everything that should
be done, has been done. And until I am, I
can't support lifting that embargo.
Q. I've talked to a couple of business people
who say that telephone lines are burning up
at the Commerce Department-[inaudible]business people all over the country. I was in
Vietnam and I met American business people
who were there able to initial business contracts
but couldn't sign them. I would just like to
know, how much pressure are you getting from
American businesses to lift the embargo?
The President. Not much. Some. A lot of the
business people want to do it, but I would hope
that the business community would also understand that we have a lot of families out there,
a lot of relatives, a lot of friends, and a lot
of supporters of the people who have served
who have never been accounted for. And that
while we have gotten an awful lot of information
in the last few months, even that has raised
questions in some people's minds as why are
we just now getting it, you know, and all of
that.
I think we are now getting real access to
the country. We are making real progress. I
just wrote a letter to the President in Vietnam,
in response to a letter he wrote me, encouraging
him to continue on this path. I know a lot
of American businesses want to do business
there, but that cannot be the sole criteria of
what we do. And our first concern has to be
for the POW's and the MIA's. We are moving
in the right direction. Let's just hope it continues so we can continue to make progress.
Taxes
Q. The American people are now being taxed
in local and State and national levels up to 50
percent of what they are making. And we look
back at the serfs in Europe, and they only had
to give up 30 percent of their income, and we
looked at them as slaves. Why are we any better
than the serfs? And why have you been so loyal
to promises to the homosexual community, but
not quite so loyal with your tax cut promises
to the middle class of America?
The President. First of all, what you've said


1221




July 28 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


is not accurate. All major Western countries
have higher tax rates than we do. You know,
it does not serve the public debate to tell people
that Germany has had a higher growth rate than
America because they have lower taxes. It's simply not true. It is absolutely untrue. National
tax rates in Japan are much higher than they
are here. And aggregate corporate rates in Japan
at all levels of government will be higher than
they are here even if my plan passes. And if
you look at the percentage of income going to
taxes in America, with the exception of some
very high taxed urban areas, where the cost of
living is very high, we compare very favorably,
if this plan passes in toto, with the tax rates
in all the countries with which we are competing. The problem with it is that we're not spending money on the right things. We're spending
too much on interest on the debt. We're spending too much on health care. We're spending
too little on things that create jobs and growth
and opportunity. Nevertheless, I did not raise
taxes happily here.
I was Governor of a State that was always,
always, every year I was Governor, was in the
bottom five States in America in the percentage
of people's income going to taxes. Always. And
after I had been Governor 10 years, the same
percentage of income was going to taxes that
was going 10 years before. I never raised taxes
to balance the books. The only times we ever
raised taxes in Arkansas was for schools and
roads and had the support of big majorities of
the American people.
I don't like this. I made it very clear why
I decided to ask for a modest contribution from
middle class families with incomes over $30,000,
but under $140,000; no income tax increases
until families who were basically families, if you
had two earners above $180,000. And the reason
is that after the election, the Government-the
previous Government, not mine-estimated the
deficit over the next 5 years to be about $150
billion bigger than they said it was before the
election.
So I had to face a decision. Was I going
to try to do more on deficit reduction and try
to deal with this and get these interest rates
down, based on changed circumstances, minimizing the tax burden all I could and still asking
the top-really over two-thirds of this burden
will come from the top one percent of taxpayers,
who got two-thirds of the benefits the last 12
years. Or was I going instead to do what was


more politically popular and consistent with
what I honestly believed in the campaign but
not what I thought was best for Americans. And
I decided the best thing to do would be to
try to take account of the fact that the deficit
was $150 billion bigger than we thought and
to try to respond to it. The American people
will have to decide whether they think that's
right or wrong.
Now, I have done my best to make the tax
system fairer. I have done something for working families under $30,000 a year. They've all
been held harmless. We've done something significant for the working poor. And I have 4
more years. to try to deal with further inequalities in the tax system, which I plan to do.
But I think this deficit has to be attacked first,
and I think I did the right thing.
Space Station and Super Collider
Q. From a scientific standpoint, do you think
the collider and space station are of equal merit?
And would you be prepared to veto an energy
and water preservation bill if it's not included
in the collider funding?
The President. Well, I don't know if I would
be prepared to veto it. Nobody has ever asked
me that, and I don't know what the consequences of that would be. I think that they
are different, entirely different. The space station is important technologically, and it's important for our country's continued leadership in
space, which is very important. It also has enormous international implications in terms of potential partnerships with Russia and with a lot
of other countries.
If we back off of this space station, other
countries will move into the breach, they will
push us out of an area that we plainly dominate
the international economy in. They will make
those partnerships, and we will be left, I think,
without the leadership that we need and deserve
and without the potential to create enormous
economic opportunity, as well as political cooperation in the years ahead.
It's interesting, and I'm glad you mentioned
it. One of the things that is very important and
quite apart from the technology is that the
promise of cooperation between the United
States and Russia, and perhaps with other countries just emerging, is one of the main carrots
we have if you will-not a stick but a carrotto discourage countries from doing irresponsible
things with nuclear weapons, with other weap

1222




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 28


ons of mass destruction, discourage them from
selling them to other people. So I think that's
very, very important.
Now the super collider is different. The space
station is a technological wonder that maintains
our leadership in an area we have already
fleshed out. The super collider is science. It's
research. Therefore, it is, by definition, less certain. But this country has gotten a long way
throughout its history by taking a chance on
things that might not be certain that promised
enormous potential benefits. So the possible
benefits of the super collider, the possible implications of it, in any number of areas of technology in the future, are absolutely staggering.
Sure, it might not work. It's like any investment of this kind. But that's what science is.
This is scientific research. This is an attempt
to break down barriers of knowledge, to see
the world in a whole different way, to unlock
all kinds of secrets. And we have made a major
investment in this. We also, by the way, can


get some other countries to invest in it, but
not if they have to sit around every year waiting
to see if we're going to chuck it. I mean, one
of the biggest problems we've had in getting
these other countries who said they'd invest in
it, is they don't know from one year to the
next whether we're going to keep it. And one
of the things that I hope we can do this year,
if we can get it passed in the Senate, get it
in the conference, is to get a commitment for
a multiyear continuation of it.
Now, it is more difficult to save than the
space station simply because it's science instead
of technology, if you see what I mean. It is
by definition more theoretical. But I still think
it's quite important, and I am hoping we can
save it.
Thank you.
NOTE: The interview began at 5 p.m. in the State
Dining Room at the White House.


Statement on House of Representatives Action on National Service
Legislation
July 28, 1993


By approving my national service plan today
with overwhelming support, the House proved
that Government can work, without partisan rancor, in a spirit of community, and for the common good.
Now that House Republicans and Democrats
have joined in this great act of civic service,
I urge Republican Senators to put partisan politics aside and do what is right for this country.
House Members showed the spirit of service


that we need in our politics and around the
country. Members of both parties recognized
that national service isn't Democratic or Republican. It's just plain American, helping young
people who help America. The bill embodies
principles that Americans from every political
viewpoint share: community, responsibility, and
opportunity. House Republicans put service
ahead of politics. I urge Senate Republicans to
do the same.


Nomination for Chief Financial Officer at the Department of Education
July 28, 1993


The President today announced his intention
to nominate financial expert Donald R. Wurtz
as Chief Financial Officer at the Department
of Education. Wurtz is director of the General
Accounting Office unit charged with cracking
down on high-risk areas of waste, abuse, and


fraud in the Federal Government and has
worked extensively on problems involving the
Education Department's guaranteed student
loan program.
At the Education Department, Wurtz will be
charged with improving accounting and financial


1223




July 28 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


management. He also will play a key role in
implementing the direct student loan program.
"Throughout his career, Don Wurtz has
worked to uncover and correct the abuse and
mismanagement that is too common in the Federal Government," the President said. "As CFO
at Education, Don will work with Secretary


Riley to ensure that the tax dollars of hardworking Americans are not wasted, but instead
directed 100 percent to bettering education in
America."
NOTE: A biography of the nominee was made
available by the Office of the Press Secretary.


Memorandum on Excused Absence for Federal Employees in Disaster
Areas
July 28, 1993


Memorandum for the Heads of Executive
Departments and Agencies
Sulject: Excused Absence for Employees
Affected by the Flooding of the Mississippi
River and Its Tributaries
I am saddened by the devastating losses
caused by the flooding of the Mississippi River
and its tributaries and the impact on the wellbeing and livelihood of our fellow Americans.
Many parts of the Federal Government have
been mobilized to respond to this disaster and
to begin a massive effort to recover from the
ravages of this flooding.
As part of this effort, I request heads of executive departments and agencies who have Fed

eral civilian employees in the areas designated
as disaster areas because of the flooding to use
their discretion to excuse from duty, without
charge to leave or loss of pay, any such employee who is faced with a personal emergency
because of the flooding and who can be spared
from his or her usual responsibilities. This policy
should also be applied to any employee who
is needed for emergency law enforcement, relief, or clean-up efforts authorized by Federal,
State or local officials having jurisdiction.
WILLIAM J. CLINTON
NOTE: This memorandum was released by the Office of the Press Secretary on July 29.


Remarks on the Earned-Income Tax Credit and an Exchange With
Reporters
July 29, 1993


The President. I don't want them to miss the
vote. [Laughter] This is what is known as an
excused absence for the Congress. I want to
say a warm welcome and a word of thanks to
the Risners, the Dorseys, and the Dikemans,
all of them, for coming here. They're not used
to being public speakers, but I think they did
a fine job, don't you?
I'd also like to say a special word to Mr.
Dorsey. When I was a boy, I cut lawns for
a living, too, and nobody ever gave me more
than I charged. You're either a better salesman,
a better grass-cutter, or you had better customers. [Laughter]


I am so glad to have these families here today
because they emphasize that a pivotal part of
this economic plan is increasing the earned-income tax credit which, more than anything else
we could do, will reward work and family and
responsibility and make a major downpayment
on welfare reform.
You heard Robin make that point. There are
so many Americans in this country who want
to work, who want to be independent, who want
to support themselves, and who find themselves
in a position of not being able to make ends
meet, not being able to cover basic costs. The
earned-income tax credit can help them do that.


1224




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 29


It is a terribly important part of this overall
plan, which not only reduces the deficit by $500
billion, but also does it in a fair way. Half of
the reduction comes from budget cuts; fourfifths of the rest comes from taxes on the upper
income people in this country, the upper 6 percent; one-fifth from taxes on families with incomes above $30,000 and below, for couples,
$180,000.
But the most important thing of all to reward
work is that this will be the first time in the
history of our country when we'll be able to
say that if you work 40 hours a week and you
have children in your home, you will be lifted
out of poverty. It is an elemental, powerful,
and profound principle. It is not liberal or conservative. It should belong to no party. It ought
to become part of the American creed. It's not
about more governmental or social workers or
more services. It's about more groceries and a
car, more school clothes for the kids, and more
encouragement and hope to keep doing the
right thing. These families have made it clearer
than I ever could.
One of the things that I want to emphasize
is that if we ever want to really restore the
health of the American economy, it won't be
enough just to bring down the budget deficit
or just to have good economic policies. You have
to find a way to tell people that if they work
hard and play by the rules they'll be able to
make it, they will be rewarded. The incentive
system in America has worked against that for
too long.
You know, it's amazing to me how many
American families still live in poverty. About
18 percent of the work force, nearly one in
five families, have a worker and still do not
reach the Federal poverty line. There are 36
million, approximately, low-income Americans;
about 20 million of them live in a family that
works, with someone working at least part of
the year; 6 million live in families where someone works all year round, full-time, and the family is still in poverty. And as I said, where there
is a family of four, about one in five, or 18
percent, have insufficient incomes to lift them
above the Federal poverty line.
So in spite of all the pro-family rhetoric of
our National Government for years, our policies
haven't worked. In fact, they've been going in
the wrong direction. We need every American
who can to work if we're going to compete
and win in the global economy. And more than


ever, we need strong families. This is, as you
can see, not just a pro-work policy, it is a profamily policy. We shouldn't make it harder to
work and support a family. We ought to make
it easier, and the people who do it should be
lifted up as examples of the American ideal,
not punished because they're trying to do the
right thing. That's what the EITC does.
We ought to have two principles that operate
in this country: People who can work should
work, but if they do work, their families at home
shouldn't be poor.
Today I also want to announce that the IRS
will begin an aggressive outreach campaign to
reach all Americans who are entitled to the
credit. This will make it easier for them to receive benefits they have earned by working. It
will also help us to educate them about the
advantage of getting an advanced EITC, rather
than having to wait an entire year. All these
folks figured out how to work the system. But
there are a lot of people out there, just like
them, who haven't and who deserve the same
incentive for work and for family.
We know that this program works. We know
it's a lifeline for semi-skilled workers who are
working to improve their education and training.
We want Robin to get home in time for the
test, and we want her to make a good grade.
And we want that, also, to be a symbol for
all the people in this country who are struggling
to do the same thing.
We know that the vast majority of all those
who benefit from the EITC work very long
hours for a very modest compensation in jobs
that very often have inadequate benefits, either
for themselves or for their children. These are
just three of the millions of stories we might
have heard today from a part of America we
almost never see on the evening news.
Every time you see a crime story reported
in a tough neighborhood, remember that most
people in that neighborhood, no matter how
tough it is, work for a living, do their best to
raise children, never break the law, and are
struggling, struggling against odds that are enormous to make it and to make the American
dream real for themselves and their children.
It is time we acted to support those people.
In some ways, they may be the most heroic
of all Americans today. If we really want to
rebuild family life in America, if we want to
recognize the realities that nearly everybody has
to work to make ends meet, and more and more


1225




July 29 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


families have to have both parents working if
they're in the home, even if they have four
children and two of them are as young as those
two youngest boys, we have got to say to those
people: We are on your side. Your country is
for you. You have done what all of the
speechmakers talk about, and it's time the people who make the speeches had policies that
reward you for doing what people have been
pleading for Americans to do for years and years
now.
That's why I think this is a critical part of
this economic package. Make no mistake about
it: If the people who favor the "no-new-anything
approach," as the Wall Street Journal characterized the opponents of our plan, prevail, Americans will lose the pro-work, pro-family, pro-responsibility element of the earned-income tax
credits, the largest single expansion in an effort
to help the working poor in over two decades.
We can't let this happen. This is just one
more reason why we have got to act, and act
now on this economic plan. This is not about
numbers and digits and accountants' gimmicks;
it's not about arguments about who perceives
or feels what about this economic plan. This
is about how the low-interest rates, deficit reduction, the business incentives and, most important today, the earned-income tax credit will
affect the real lives of real people and help
them to live and succeed in the way that we
always speak as if we want them to be able
to live and succeed. This is the real world. You
met it today. I hope the Congress will make
it possible in the next few days to have more
families like this with more success stories.
Thank you very much.
We can take a couple of questions.
Economic Program
Q. Mr. President, what do you think is the
chance of your budget getting through?
The President. Good.
Q. We understand it's in deep trouble in the
Senate.
The President. I think it's good. You have
to listen not only to what's being said but how
it's being said. You know, as more information
gets out, it's just like I've always said, rhetoric
was our enemy and reality is our friend. There's
a story in the Wall Street Journal today that
once again Americans are hearing the facts instead of the rhetoric and the bad-mouthing and
the negativism of our opponents and people are


saying, "Let's give the President's plan a
chance," and more likely to support Members
of Congress who support it than they are Members who oppose it. They're beginning to learn
again that over 70 percent of the taxes now
fall on families with incomes above $200,000,
the top 1.2 percent of the population, and that
this attack that the Republicans have used to
try to convince ordinary Americans that they're
being soaked, that there's no deficit reduction,
is all a bunch of hooey. And I think we've got
to get this out. So I'm feeling much better about
it.
Q. Mr. President, that same survey shows that
despite all the time you've spent on the economy, more people give you high marks for foreign policy than for handling the economy. Why
do you think that's the case?
The President. Because they're still worried
about their economic circumstances. And because they want results. And because the Congress hasn't passed the plan yet. We need to
begin to do things. But if we pass the economic
plan, if we move on the health care to welfare
reform, deal with the crime bill, if the Senate
will not filibuster the national service bill and
open the doors of college education to all Americans and give people a chance to serve their
country, then people will believe that Washington will do better. Also, the ratings of the Congress will go up. People want things done. They
didn't hire us to come up here and give speeches. We've tried the speechifying for a good long
while; it didn't work very well. They want things
to be done. I think the American people are
very patient in terms of knowing we've been
getting into economic trouble for 20 years, and
we followed a certain economic policy that I
want to change for 12, and it's not going to
turn around in 6 months or a year, that we've
got a lot of effort to make. But they want to
know that we're at least moving, that we're moving from talk to action.
And that's why I wanted these families to
come here today, to point out that this really
will affect people's lives. There was another article I saw in one of the papers this morning
interviewing very small business people who had
been told on the talk shows and from other
sources that they were about to get whanged
by this plan, and all of a sudden now they've
realized they're going to get their expensing provision doubled, and over 90 percent of the small
businesses in this country will have an oppor

1226




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 29


tunity to lower their tax burden if, but only
if, they invest. So I think that reality is creeping
back in, and that's a healthy thing always.
Iraq
Q. Mr. President, the Pentagon says that U.S.
naval aircraft have again bombed Iraqi missile
sites. Could you update us and tell us what
exactly is going on?
The President. There is nothing out of the
ordinary about what happened. It was not part
of any new initiative. It was part of the old
understandings under which our planes operate
in that area and circumstances under which they
respond.
Entitlements
Q. Mr. President, another controversial aspect
of your plan deals with entitlements. A few days
ago, Congressman Tim Penny said that you're
considering issuing an Executive order to curb
entitlements. My understanding is it would be
modeled after the Stenholm entitlement budget
provision in the House. Can you comment?
The President. The Stenholm provision basically imposes discipline on our budget. It says
that if we miss the deficit reduction target in
any given year in any given category, whatever
the category is, whether it's general expenditures, revenues, or entitlements, that the President will have to come back in with a plan
to meet the deficit reduction target, and the
Congress must vote on it. They don't have to
vote specifically for that, but they must vote
for something. They have to vote on it. In the
rather arcane rules of the Senate, there is some
question about whether that provision can go
on this budget bill without triggering a filibuster
and, therefore, requiring 60 percent to approve
that provision.
Now, I believe every Republican Senator is
Interview With the Nevada Media
July 29, 1993
The President. It's nice to hear your voice.
I want to thank all of you for participating in
this radio press conference or town hall meeting
or whatever we want to call it. I'm glad to
have the chance to talk with you.


for the Stenholm amendment, in his or her
heart. I believe that, because it is what they
always say they want: spending discipline. And
yet they are threatening to filibuster it. Why?
Because it makes our bill stronger, because it's
a real deficit reduction, because it undermines
the ability to give speeches instead of doing
something.
And so if they don't let the Stenholm provision go on the budget, then I will do my best
to, by Executive order or through a separate
bill or through some other measure, to get as
much of that discipline as I can. I think we
should every year-nobody, nobody running a
business can foresee what's going to happen for
5 years. The networks represented here can't
do a 5-year budget and estimate with absolute
exactitude what their revenues are going to be
and who will watch what and all that sort of
stuff. And you ought to make corrections every
year, and this is the first time the Government's
ever committed itself to that. I like it.
Bosnia
Q. Mr. President, are you considering the use
of war planes over Bosnia, not just to protect
U.N. peacekeeping forces but also to keep the
supply lines going and perhaps to stop some
of the shelling in Sarajevo?
The President. The best way for me to answer
that today is to say that nothing has changed
since I was asked that question and others yesterday. We're still waiting to hear from the U.N.
When we do, when we make a decision, then
I will respond.
NOTE: The President spoke at 12:02 p.m. in Room
450 of the Old Executive Office Building. In his
remarks, he referred to participant Robin
Dikeman. A tape was not available for verification
of the content of these remarks.


Let me just say very briefly by way of summary, the Senate and the House are meeting
today, trying to agree on a final version of the
economic program which could then be presented for a vote next week. Obviously, I'm try

1227




July 29 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


ing to secure passage of the program. I believe
it is very important. I want to emphasize, if
I might, some of the major features.
First, this is the largest program for deficit
reduction in the history of the country, $500
billion. Of every $10 of deficit reduction, half
of it is in spending cuts, very significant ones
in nondefense as well as in defense, including
150,000-person reduction in the Federal work
force and big cuts across the board in many
other programs.
Second thing I want to say is that of the
$5 in new revenues, about 80 percent of them
come from the top 5 percent of the American
work force. There are no income tax increases
on couples with incomes below $180,000 a year.
Third thing I want to say is that in addition
to reducing the deficit and imposing a fair tax
burden, this program does an awful lot to promote job growth. It holds families with incomes
of under $30,000 a year harmless. It doubles
the expensing provision of small business and
makes over 90 percent of the small businesses
in America eligible for a tax reduction if they
invest more in their businesses. It has a very
innovative capital gains tax for investment in
small new companies that are capitalized at $50
million a year or less, which should benefit a
fast-growing State like Nevada. It has any number of other very important things that could
help the technology jobs in your State, including
an extension of the research and development
tax credit, as well as real initiatives to revive
homebuilding and real estate which is why the
National Home Builders and the National Realtors, two groups not normally associated with
Democratic Party initiatives, have endorsed this
program.
Yesterday we had almost 70 business executives from all over the country, including 4 big
energy company executives, about half of them
Republican and of course the other half Democratic, endorsing the program and saying it was
important because we had a 20-year low in interest rates, and we had to restore certainty
to the economy, keep these interest rates down
because we're bringing the deficit down, and
get on with other business. We've got a health
care issue to deal with, a crime bill to deal
with, welfare reform to deal with, all these
things that have to be done but can't be done
until we first pass the economic plan.
With that, I'll be glad to take as many questions as we can.


Economic Program
Q. Thank you, Mr. President, for allowing
us this opportunity. Why have you had such
a tough time selling your economic plan to not
only Congress but to the American public?
The President. I think until the last couple
of weeks, the opposition did a better job than
we did because they had a simpler job of selling
it. We had some overtures to the Republicans,
and especially in the Senate, before I even unveiled this program about whether there was
a possibility of a real bipartisan effort to deal
with this deficit. And we were basically told
that if we were going to have any taxes on
upper income people, they weren't interested.
And they basically wanted to take it all out of
Medicare and other things that we think there's
a limit to how much you can cut. And we've
cut Medicare as much or more than they have
in the past but not as much as they wanted.
So when you've got a program of spending
cuts, tax increases that are overwhelmingly on
the wealthy with an enormous number of economic incentives to grow, you'd think it would
be quite popular. In fact, it is when people
know the details of it. But what happened is,
you had everybody from the Republican Senators to a lot of the House Members to Rush
Limbaugh just trying to convince the American
people that there were no spending cuts, no
deficit reduction, and no taxes on anybody but
the middle class. None of that was true. But
it's a lot easier to bad-mouth something like
that and just scream "taxes" than it is to deal
with the specifics.
Let me just give you one example. Just in
the last couple of weeks, it's been very impressive to me that the Wall Street Journal, a newspaper that's not editorially on my side often,
that their news columns have repeatedly shown
how most small businesses benefit from this program, but most of them didn't know. Their communications job, those that are against us, was
simpler than ours, and we've only begun to do
what we should in the last couple of weeks.
But the more people know about this, the
more likely they are to support it. The details
of the plan are friendly to support; it's all this
rhetoric that's hurt us so bad.
Taxes
Q. Mr. President, I am here, and on behalf
of our audience in northern Nevada, I would


1228




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 29


like to thank you for this opportunity. We've
had quite a lot of interest at our station today
particularly in the subject of the cost of your
economic program to our people here in northern Nevada. Mr. President, the deficit is something that most people cannot reach out and
touch or feel, and yet taxes, whether we're talking income taxes, a gas tax, a value-added tax,
those are very real to our people here in northern Nevada. Is there too much emphasis in your
program on reducing the deficit through taxes
and not enough on cutting the burden to the
American people?
The President. Well, let's talk about that. I
think from the day I made it clear that we
were going to bring down the deficit and then
the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board,
a Republican, Alan Greenspan, came out and
supported it, long-term interest rates began to
drop. When the House passed my bill, they
dropped some more. When the Senate passed
my bill, they dropped some more.
So here's why average people should be for
bringing the deficit down. Number one, that's
the way to keep long-term interest rates down.
That means you can refinance your home or
your business loan or take out a car loan, a
consumer loan, or a college loan at lower interest rates. Millions and millions of Americans
have refinanced their homes just in the last 5
or 6 months with these lower interest rates that
are a direct result of our serious attempt to
bring the deficit down. And if we pass the program, the interest rates will stay down until the
economy really, really starts to boom again.
That's good news.
Here's another reason ordinary people should
be for bringing the deficit down. We are spending more and more of taxpayers' money just
to pay interest on the debt. In 1980 our debt
was $1 trillion. By 1992 our debt was $4 trillion.
Today every Nevadan puts 15 cents of every
tax dollar to the Federal Government just to
pay interest on the debt. That means middle
class people are paying interest payments to
upper income bond holders who hold that
money, instead of using the money to educate
their children or to build roads or otherwise
develop the economy of Nevada.
The third thing I would say is that this deficit
has clearly made our economy weaker. It is one
reason we cannot grow jobs and increase incomes. Now, Nevada has been the fastest growing State in the country for new jobs for the


last 6 or 7 years. But even that cannot go on
forever.
Finally, let me say, let's talk about what this
burden really is. Keep in mind that half of this
deficit reduction is coming from spending cuts.
Of the taxes which will be paid, basically, for
a family of four with an income of $50,000 or
$60,000 or what we're talking about today, the
costs will be no more-and this is the outsidethan $50 a year, or less than a dollar a week.
For a family with income of under $30,000,
they'll be held harmless. And the income tax
increases only trigger on people whose taxes
were lowered in the 1980's while middle class
taxes went up, families in the upper 6 percent
of the income earners. So I think it is a fair
and balanced program.
Q. Thank you, Mr. President.
Q. Good afternoon, thank you.
The President. Thanks.
Senator Richard Bryan
Q. Are you speaking to residents of the Silver
State today mainly at an attempt to change Senator Richard Bryan's opposition to your deficit
reduction plan?
The President. Yes, but not only that, also
to point out why Senator Reid and Congressman
Bilbray voted for it. They've all been good
friends of mine. And Senator Bryan has some
very legitimate concerns which I've tried to address, and I think when this conference report
comes out, that is, the final form comes out,
the bill will be more to his liking.
One of the things that Senator Bryan, himself,
thought the Btu tax was a little better than
the gas tax. He also felt very strongly that we
ought to have more economic growth incentives
in this bill than the Senate originally provided.
And we're putting some of those growth incentives that I proposed in the beginning back in
there: the new business capital gains tax, the
incentives to rebuild the homebuilding industry
in America, the incentives for industry to invest
in new plant and equipment, doubling the
expensing provision for small business, more incentives for research and development, the
things that will cause business and individuals
to invest to grow jobs. Dick Bryan said he
thought that too much of that had been taken
out when the Senate bill passed, and I agree
with him. And I hope when we get this final
bill out there he'll see it as a pro-jobs bill that
will be good for Nevada, and then he'll feel


1229




July 29 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


that he can vote for it.
Job Creation
Q. We seemed to be losing jobs nationally
faster than they can be generated: last week
Procter & Gamble, this week IBM, not to mention the jobs that have been lost through the
cutback in the Sears catalog stores. How do
you propose to reverse that process, and is there
something specific that the private sector can
do to help?
The President. Yes, there are some specific
things that the private sector can do, and let
me make two comments, if I might, to the statement you made by way of introduction. Number
one, every rich country in the world is now
having trouble creating jobs, even when they're
having economic growth. We've seen that in
Germany. We've seen it in France. We've seen
it in Japan. That's cold comfort for America,
but our unemployment rate is actually lower
than all those countries now, as tough as it is
here.
Number two, in our country and in all other
advanced countries, big, big companies like
IBM, Procter & Gamble, Sears are going
through a process of restructuring where they're
eliminating middle layers of management, getting rid of unprofitable businesses, and cutting
down so they can be more flexible and so they
can compete. That is very tough, and it's tough
for our economy.
So how are we going to generate more jobs?
These are the things that have to be done. First
of all, what can the private sector do? They
can invest more, create more jobs here, and
sell more products and services at home and
abroad.
What is the Government going to do to help
them do that? The first thing I want to do
is get the deficit down so we can keep interest
rates down. The second thing I want to do is
to change the Tax Code so that we favor investment for jobs, that we give people ways to lower
their tax burden by investing to create jobs.
The third thing I'm trying my heart out to do
is to open new markets for our American products and services around the world. If we do
those three things and we provide a better system for educating and training the work force,
control health care costs, which is a big problem
for a lot of these big companies-a lot of them
are going into real trouble because they can't
control health care costs-and then have a bet

ter system for developing our people's ability
to work, reducing the welfare rolls, increasing
the work rolls, training people better, those are
the kinds of things that will change the future
of this country. And that's what my economic
plan is designed to do. The deficit reduction
program and the jobs incentives, that's only the
first step. We've still got to do these other things
as well.
Economic Program
Q. Of all the things in the budget and the
deficit reduction package, several of the things
which seem to hurt Nevada the most-we're
basically a service economy; we depend on tourists arriving here. We're not a manufacturing
State; we're not really an agricultural State; we
don't export a lot of things anywhere. And yet,
the proposal for a nickel more a gallon on gasthe Btu tax may or may not be dead-all of
those things would tend to drive down tourism,
the very thing that Nevada thrives on. What
is there in your program, since we're already
the second fastest growing State job-wise and
we have among the highest in new construction
and what have you in our State-what is there
specifically in your plan that will actually be
of benefit and not of cost to the people of
Nevada?
The President. Well, first, let me make a comment about-there will not be a Btu tax. If
it is an energy tax, it will only be the fuel
tax. I think it will pass at a low enough level
so that it will not burden travel any. Keep in
mind that gasoline in America is the cheapest
of any country in the world, and gasoline is
now at its lowest price in 30 years in America
when you make adjustments for inflation. So
we've got very low fuel costs, and we're proposing a very modest gas tax, not a big one.
Secondly, there are a lot of things that are
good for Nevada, are the incentives to revitalize
the   homebuilding    and    real   estatehomebuilding's slow everywhere, just about-the
incentives for all small businesses to invest more,
to increase their profitability and their employment, which is a dramatic thing. We've qualified
over 90 percent of the small businesses in this
country for a tax break. And then the incentives
for new high-tech industry and research and
development and investment in new companies,
that's very important, because among other
things, we're trying to find alternative developments uses for the nuclear test site while we've


1230




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 29


got this moratorium on nuclear testing. You've
got a big sort of technology-based infrastructure
up there because of the past nuclear tests, and
the Governor's economic development task force
is working with us now to determine whether
there are alternative uses and projects and spinoffs. And this would help a great deal because
it would make this kind of investment more
attractive to more capital by giving tax incentives
to attract it.
So all those things are important. And in the
end, I'll say every State in the country will have
a more attractive, effective economy if the deficit stays down and we can keep interest rates
down. Low interest rates for a sustained period
of time will make available more money to more
business people and lower cost in every State
in America, and that's very, very important.
That's a big issue in every State.
We can take a few more questions if you
like. Let me go back to the top.
Federal Lands
Q. Yes, sir. Mr. President. Do you see there
being increases in grazing fees for public lands,
and also on mining royalties?
The President. I think the Congress will pass
some increase on mining royalties with a bipartisan consensus that has some support from the
West this year. I think they will be pretty modest and the subject of a lot of discussion. But
it appears to me that they're going to pass a
bill to do that.
With regard to the grazing issue, Secretary
Babbitt has visited Nevada as part of his western
swing to talk to people about that. What we
had hoped to do is to turn that whole issue
into an environmental one, that is, to give ranchers incentives to continually restore the ranchland as a way of avoiding higher fees and also
to make sure that any fees that were imposed
were not economically crippling to the people
involved.
As you may know, if you've been reading the
press back East, that we took a lot of criticism,
Secretary Babbitt and I did, from a lot of legislators from places other than the West who wanted to mandate by law much, much higher grazing fees. And we took the position that the
Secretary ought to go out West, ought to sit
and visit with the ranchers and cattlemen and
talk to them about what we could do to make
sure we're being environmentally responsible
with this Federal land and how we can use


the grazing fee structure in a way that would
encourage that. So that's where that issue is
now.
Energy Tax
Q. A fuel tax increase will not only be felt
at the gas pumps, sir, but in people's pocketbooks as well, in regard to the price of goods
and services at the consumer level. Now, the
Fed has indicated that interest rates will be
raised if inflation starts to rise. How do you
justify a double whammy or a double blow like
that? How can that be good for the economy,
sir?
The President. Well, the Fed has basically indicated that they're going to raise interest rates
if this deficit reduction package doesn't pass.
Alan Greenspan has repeatedly told the Congress that the size of the Federal deficit and
the accumulated Federal debt from the last 12
years was the biggest threat to the health of
the American economy. And he was up there
just last week saying that if this plan is derailed
and we don't, in fact, come up with a plan
for just about $500 billion of deficit reduction,
that in his view interest rates are going to go
up, and that will cripple the economy.
As I said, everybody we have talked to has
suggested that this level of fuel tax increase will
be very modest and have virtually no impact
on the economies of the various States in the
country. Virtually all States in America have
raised fuel taxes more than this for their road
programs over the last 10 years without adverse
economic impact.
Q. Early on in the proposition on the Btu
tax, you mentioned that one of the reasons for
such a tax was to provide an incentive for alternate energy sources. Now, Nevada has tremendous geothermal energy resources here that are
being developed on a somewhat small scale.
Without that Btu tax and that incentive, what
kind of an incentive are you going to provide
down the road for developing alternative energy
such as geothermal?
The President. We're going to have to come
up with another approach. The reason I liked
the Btu tax is that it promoted the development
of American clean energy: natural gas, geothermal, methane, ethanol, solar energy, all
kinds of things which would have led to big
investments in the West particularly to try to
develop the technologies. But there was so
much misinformation and such an effective spe

1231




July 29 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


cial interest campaign carried out against the
Btu tax that it was killed. We just had no way
to save it.
I will say this in response to the gas tax question: The fuel tax now being considered is a
smaller amount per gallon than the Btu tax was.
But Nevada would have gotten the benefit of
having a greater economic incentive to develop
geothermal and alternative sources of energy.
I haven't given up on that, but I can't do everything in this bill. In order to get on to energy
policy, control of health care costs, which is
a huge economic issue for America, welfare reform, all these other issues, we've got to pass
the economic plan first.
Federal Employees
Q. We hear again and again how we all must
make sacrifices to bring the deficit under control. What about the salaries and benefits that
Federal employees earn? Will they too be asked
to sacrifice?
The President. Absolutely. First of all, let me
repeat again, I recommended, number one, that
we reduce the Federal work force by now a
figure that is now 150,000, and I think it will
be bigger before we finish, that is, I have another report coming out on this next month;
number two, that we freeze the pay of Federal
employees of next year, and for the next 5 years
we not give them the cost-of-living increases
that they got all during the eighties, that we
give them less than the total cost-of-living increase.
I think you can make a compelling argument
that Federal employees are making from a percentage point of view, the biggest contribution
to deficit reduction of any single group in America. And by and large, interestingly enough,
they've been pretty supportive of this. They've
recognized it that they have jobs with the Federal Government, that we've got to downsize
the Government, and that they need to show
some restraint, if other Americans are going to
be asked to pay $50 a year in a fuel tax, that
they need to show some restraint on their pay.
But if you look at the automatic cost-of-living
increases they've been getting for the last 12
years, it will cost them a lot more than $50
a year, this program will, before we're done,
and they'll pay a much bigger share. But I think
that's right; the Government should make a bigger sacrifice than the taxpayers. I believe that
they should, and I believe they are.


Line-Item Veto
Q. Our Senator Harry Reid recently had a
small success in getting the 100-year-old Tea
Tasting Board abolished and the funds for that.
He proposes sunset legislation that would cut
off funding for all programs after 10 years without a review, and President Bush and several
others have proposed the line-item veto, something that the State Governors, many State Governors have. Why haven't we heard anything
about that? It would seem to me and to many
that it would be a way to cut a lot of pork
out of the various national budgets.
The President. I'm strongly in favor of it, and
we have actually passed it through one House
of the Congress already. A strict line-item veto
would probably require a constitutional amendment. We had to modify it some to meet the
requirements of the Federal Constitution, but
we've passed a strong bill out of the House.
It's in the Senate now. I think both Senator
Reid and Senator Bryan support it, and I very
much hope that we can pass it. If I had the
line-item veto, I assure you that I would, myself,
be able to deal with things like the Tea Tasting
Board and some of the other subsidies.
You know, Senator Bryan has proposed eliminating the mohair subsidy, which goes back to
the Korean war, which was a pretty gutsy thing
for him to do, but it passed the Senate last
week. So both Harry Reid and Dick Bryan have
been working on this cost-cutting in the Senate.
I want the line-item veto very badly. I pushed
it as hard as I could. We got it through the
House, and I think that the Senate will pass
it, but everything is on hold while they deal
with the budget. But you're absolutely right, it
ought to be passed.
As far as the sunset review goes, we had such
a law in my State, and we tried to use it. My
own experience would indicate that the Government could eliminate an agency a year and
never miss it. That's basically what we'd try to
do. Every time our legislature met every 2 years,
we'd just try to eliminate a government agency.
We did it, oh, three or four or five times, and
I never heard any complaint from the taxpayers
if it was something we didn't need anymore.
So I think there is more specific cutting that
we can do, but I would remind you that next
month the Vice President is going to reveal his
report on reinventing Government, and we'll
have a lot more recommendations for further


1232




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 29


cuts in there.
Let me take one last question-oh, they say
I have to quit. I'm sorry. I'm having a good
time, and I wish I could talk to you some more,
but I've got to go to another meeting.
Let me say how much I appreciate your giving me this opportunity to speak directly to the
people of Nevada, and how much I hope that
they will encourage their Senators and Congressman Bilbray to support this plan. It's clearly
good for America. There is an enormous bipartisan support from people who know how badly
this huge deficit has hurt our country and how
much we need some more incentives in the
Tax Code for people to invest where the new
jobs are being created, in small businesses.
We have done our best to ease the impact
of this on middle class families and on any given
State. Like Nevada, I live in a State with a
high amount of gasoline usage. But the price


of gasoline now, plus the relatively modest
amount of the fuel tax, it seems to me is a
small price to pay to get this Federal deficit
under control and keep these interest rates
down.
So I hope you will support the plan. And
we need it. And most importantly, I hope you
will support the fact that your Senators and your
Congressmen are up here in Washington really
trying to honestly cut this budget and make
some tough decisions, and I think they deserve
support in that effort.
Thank you very, very much.
NOTE: The interview began at 4:43 p.m. The
President spoke via satellite from the Roosevelt
Room at the White House. A tape was not available for verification of the content of this interview.


Remarks on Presenting the Young American Medals for Service and
Bravery
July 29, 1993


The President. Thank you very much. Ladies
and gentlemen, especially to our honorees, I
want to welcome you to the White House and
say I hope you had a wonderful day in Washington. I know you've been over to the justice
Department with the Attorney General. I want
to thank her for her service to America and
for her introduction and to recognize some others who are here: Floyd Clarke, the Acting Director of the FBI; Robert Bonner, the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration;
Henry Hudson, the Director of the U.S. Marshals Service; S.S. Ashton, Jr., of the Office of
justice Programs; and Ellen Wesley, who coordinates this program at the Department of justice.
I'd also like to recognize at least four Members
of the Congress who are here: Senators Kent
Conrad and Byron Dorgan from North Dakota,
and Senator Larry Pressler from South Dakota,
and Congressman Tim Johnson from South Dakota. I want to thank you for coming.
The Young American Medal for Service and
the Young American Medal for Bravery are
awarded to a young person whose deeds, in
a very real way, represent the best our Nation


can offer. At a time when we hear too much
about self-interest and not enough about what
each of us can do to advance the common good
of all Americans, seven young people here being
honored, with their families, are role models
for all the rest of us. Their selfless acts of service to their neighbors remind us of our own
responsibilities to our communities and to our
Nation.
As extraordinary as the courage and initiative
of all these young people has been, we must
remember, too, that every American can contribute. Look how the American people are responding to the challenge presented by the horrible floods in the middle of the country or
how they responded to Hurricane Andrew last
year. Most Americans want to do more and will
every day if they're given a chance to do it.
The medals we award today honor special
acts. And in the same spirit, I have tried to
launch in the Nation's Capital for young people
throughout the country a program of national
service that will give people the opportunity to
help people day-in and day-out, and to earn
some money as well against their college edu

1233




July 29 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


cation.
The plan was passed yesterday by the House
of Representatives, and we are one vote shy
of ending the filibuster in the Senate. I hope
that will happen tomorrow, and millions of
young people over the next umpteen years will
be given the opportunity to serve in a very real
and compelling and human way in their own
communities.
Lately we hear a lot about the things like
cost-effectiveness and efficiency, and those are
very important things, but they sound sort of
bureaucratic. Today we honor things that matter
more, the potential of the human heart and
the courage of even the very young, what the
great American writer from my part of the country, William Faulkner, called the truths of the
heart: love and honor and pity and pride and
compassion and sacrifice. When an emergency
struck, the young people we honor today didn't
wait, they acted. When a need arose, they didn't
question whether they would succeed in the
end, they simply went to work. We have a lot
to learn from the young people we honor today.
Now I'd like for each of them to come up
on the stage and receive his or her medal as
I call their names, and then we have a place
for them to stand. I'd also like for their parents
and family members to stand as I read a few
words about them.
The Young American Medal for Bravery is
presented to Waylon Dean Bertsch of Buchanan, North Dakota. I'd like the people who
are here with Waylon to stand up. Anybody
here? There they are, back there. When Waylon
was 10 years old, his 5-year-old sister, Andrea,
fell through the ice in a river near their home.
He sent for his parents and then went to his
sister's rescue. After falling through the ice himself, he kicked to keep his body and his sister
above water. It worked. When their parents arrived, they pulled both of them out alive. Good
for you.
Christopher Paul Erichs, Rapid City, South
Dakota. Stand up. Give him a hand. [Applause]
A student at Christopher's school entered a
classroom with a sawed-off shotgun, ordered the
teacher to leave, and took 22 students hostage
over a 21/2-hour standoff with professional negotiators. As the gunman moved to light a cigarette, Christopher snatched the shotgun from
his hands, calmly freed the other hostages, and
called in the police. Let's give him another
hand. [Applause]


Jessica Ann Johnson of Elliott, Iowa. Who
is here with you? Look, you've got plenty of
folks here with you. Jessica was just 7 years
old on her family farm when she heard the
screams of her 4-year-old brother. He had
crawled into a pigpen and was attacked, trampled, and bitten by 450-pound sows. She went
into the pen with the sows, dragged her brother
to a safe spot, went back through the pen and
went to her mother for help.
I can only tell you that this is something I
have a limited, similar experience with. When
I was 6, I was attacked by a ram on our farm,
and I was darn near killed. I know how terrifying it is when you're that age to be attacked
by an animal that can take your life. To think
that this young girl at her age, to have that
amount of courage to save a member of her
family is really astonishing. Let's give her a
hand. [Applause]
After I got bloodied by that ram, I got into
politics thinking I wouldn't get knocked around
so much. I think you ought to stay on the farm.
[Laughter]
The Young American Medal for Service is
presented to Kelly Elizabeth Broxton from
Gaithersburg, Maryland. Who's here with you?
They couldn't contain themselves. They started
clapping early. Stand up. This is great. Kelly
taught over 300 students about basic first aid,
certified first aid training, and how to get treatment for substance abuse. She also organized
a youth council that recruited students from 19
other schools to perform community service
projects. Good for you. Congratulations.
Dennis Chisholm, Jr., of Winston-Salem,
North Carolina. Your family is standing. Give
them a hand. [Applause] Dennis volunteered his
many talents during the school year and 5 days
a week in the summer to work in a center
for children with disabilities. He helped other
children develop motor skills and build their
self-esteem through a range of physical and creative activities, including music and even computers.
I think that I should note that we have just
celebrated this week the 3d anniversary of the
Americans with Disabilities Act, a major piece
of civil rights legislation. But like every other
piece of civil rights legislation we ever signed,
it can only work if there is change in the hearts
and minds of the rest of the American people.
And this young man has helped other people
to see the abilities of people with disabilities.


1234




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 29


We're all in his debt.
Another person who has done much the same
is Sarah Elizabeth Greensfelder of Baltimore.
Sarah has taken part in all kinds of community
service programs: at blood drives, the Special
Olympics, Johns Hopkins Pediatric Center, in
nursing homes, or with housebound senior citizens. When she was selected for this medal she
had volunteered over 900 hours for helping others, the equivalent of working full-time for half
a year. Let's give her a hand. [Applause]
Where's your family? They should stand, too.
Let's give them a hand. [Applause] That's good.
Look at that. You've got a whole back row.
Thank you.
Now I'd like to ask-I'm not going to leave
you over there-Gennie Sue Sluder of
Clatskankie, Oregon-did I say it right?
Ms. Sluder. No. [Laughter]
The President. How do I say it? Say it.
Ms. Sluder. Clatskankie.
The President. Clatskankie, Oregon-[applause]-stand up. Gennie started a program
called Help Hungry Kids. She went to the
school board and managed a statewide campaign
Remarks in the Flood Aid Telethon
July 29, 1993
The President. I have made three trips now
to the Midwest during this flood. My Secretary
of Agriculture and the Director of FEMA have
been there many, many more times. We've seen
so many people who have lost their homes, their
farms, their businesses, but they are carrying
on very, very bravely.
Here in Washington, we're working hard to
get a multibillion dollar emergency aid package
through the Congress to help rebuild the communities, the businesses, the homes, to help to
provide basic assistance. But the Federal Government can't do it all. Our country always has
had a system in which the National Government
would come to the need of States and communities and citizens when they needed help, but
we've never been able to cover all the costs,
and we won't be able to now. That's why we
need your help.
The Red Cross has done a magnificent job;
so has the Salvation Army; so have the churches


that asked students at all 235 high schools in
Oregon to donate $1 and two cans of food
apiece for needy children. Now she's at George
Fox College, and she's working at two jobs to
put herself through school. But when she was
in high school she thought of a way to organize
a plan for every person her age in the State
to help children who were less fortunate. A very
impressive accomplishment.
I want to say again on behalf of all the people
of the United States, it is a great honor to
have these fine young people, their families,
friends, and supporters in the White House
today. They've made us all very proud, and
they've reminded us again of what is most important about our citizenship, our roles in our
families and in our communities, and in a very
real sense, what it means just to be a person.
They're great. Let's give them one more hand.
And thank you all for being here.
NOTE: The President spoke at 6:05 p.m. in the
East Room at the White House. A tape was not
available for verification of the content of these
remarks.


and the other community groups; so have thousands of people, young and old and all in-between, who have come to help. But we need
your help. And I hope that you, too, will contribute whatever you can afford to help these
wonderful Americans put their lives back together. They need your encouragement and your
support. We'll do our part. We need you to
help, too.
Q. [Inaudible]
The President. The aid should be there very
soon. Of course, some of the emergency aid
is there now. The Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Department of Agriculture
have been giving cash and food stamps to people
who are totally out of all resources and money.
But the big aid will be there just as quickly
as we can get it through the Congress. I think
it will happen very soon. And we're all set up
to move the checks out very quickly, I think
within a couple of weeks after I can sign the


1235




July 29 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


bill. And that should be just in the next day
or so.
In terms of the long run, we've already got
a group established to look at that. I met with
the Governors of the affected States here in
the White House just a couple of days ago,
and we're going to work hard in the long run,
too. I don't want this to happen again to you
or to anybody else.
Q. [Inaudible]
The President. There is an 800 number that
gets several thousand calls a day just from Iowa,
down in Texas. If you don't have it, I will ar

range to have it called in while the telethon
is going on. We've tried to set up a one-stop
telephone so that all Americans who are affected
by the flood could call. We're going to do our
best, as I said, to take care of this and also
to take care of the long-term problems. I can't
control the weather, but we're going to work
hard to help you.
NOTE: The President spoke at 8:15 p.m. via satellite from the Library at the White House. A portion of these remarks could not be verified because the tape was incomplete.


Remarks in the Missouri-Kansas Flood Relief Telethon
July 29, 1993


The President. My fellow Americans, I want
to thank you for watching this program tonight
and for your concern for those who have been
victimized by this awful flood. I've been to the
Midwest three times myself. I've met with the
Governors of the affected States here in the
White House. Our people are there every day
working hard to try to help put the lives of
the folks back together who have been so hurt.
We have an emergency aid package moving
through Congress which should be signed very
shortly, and then the money will begin to flow
to the Midwest. But under our system, the Federal Government can only do so much. We also
need your help. The Red Cross has been magnificent. So has the Salvation Army. So have
the churches and the other volunteer groups
and people of all ages from all over America.
But we now need to fill the gap left by Federal
assistance, and left by the limits that people
have in their own bankbooks, with private donations to help people put their lives back together. I hope you will help, too, so that together we can restore the people who have been
so hurt and help them to rebuild their lives
and our Nation.
Q. [Inaudible]
The President. I think the bill will pass the
Congress in the next couple of days and come
right to me for my signature. The people in
our administration believe that we'll be able to
have checks flowing out there within 2 weeks
after that bill is signed. I have told them to


be ready and to work hard. We also have an
800 number which any citizen can call, which
I'll provide to your station, to provide specific
information about farm aid, small business aid,
personal assistance, what can happen to the
communities. We're working very hard to be
ready, to be aggressive, to be fast.
Q. [Inaudible]
The President. I think we lost a day we should
not have lost, but I think now you will see
the thing move very, very quickly indeed. And
they'll bring it to me. And as soon as it comes,
I'll sign it, and we'll move the money out. I
think no more than a day has been lost. There
was an honest debate here about how we're
going to pay for emergency assistance over the
long run, but we couldn't afford to let that take
away from the urgent need to help the people
in the Midwest. And that's the program
everybody's on now, without regard to party and
without regard to which House of Congress. I
think you'll get it in a hurry.
Q. [Inaudible]
The President. The Small Business Administration has an emergency program to provide
very, very long-term, very, very low-interest
loans to help people get back on their feet.
In addition to that, for people who have been
totally wiped out and have no assets left, there
is some emergency financial aid available
through the Federal Emergency Management
Agency. So between the two of them, I think
we can go forward. As I said, one of the things


1236




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 29


I hope you'll do tonight is put our 800 number
up. A person can call that number and get information on all the programs from all the agencies. You don't have to go to the hassle to call
first one place and then another.
Q. [Inaudible]
The President. I was very moved by it. When
I went to Iowa and to Illinois and to Missouri
and everyplace I went, there were just literally
thousands of people who just showed up to help
and to pour out their concern and to break
their backs, frankly, to help their fellow Americans. It was our country at its best. And that's
what I hope that this telethon will prove to
be, too, asking for help and giving people a
change to participate in the reconstruction of
millions of lives.
Q. [Inaudible]
The President. Well, for one thing, the Government programs have never been designed to
cover 100 percent of the losses. We simply can't
do that. We are going to help the cities, we
are going to help as many farms and business
people as we can, but there will be some gaps


in this coverage. And those gaps have to be
filled by private citizens.
For another, Americans have always rallied
to one another in times of real need. And if
we can do that now in this place for these
people, just as we did about a year ago for
the victims of Hurricane Andrew, then who
knows when Americans in another State people listening tonight who think nothing like this
could ever happen to them, they may need the
help of the folks in the Midwest. So if we help
each other, we can put our lives back together
and our whole country will be stronger, believe
me. Someone in Utah or Texas or my home
State of Arkansas, their economies will be weakened by the fact that the Midwest has been
hurt by this flood. But if we all work together
and rebuild the region, then that helps everybody in every State in America.
NOTE: The President spoke at approximately 8:30
p.m. via satellite from the Library at the White
House. A tape was not available for verification
of the content of these remarks.


Message to the Congress Transmitting the United States Arctic Research
Plan Revision
July 29, 1993


To the Congress of the United States:        Arctic Research Plan.
Pursuant to the provisions of the Arctic Research and Policy Act of 1984, as amended (15
U.S.C. 4108(a)), I hereby transmit the third bi-  The White House,
ennial revision (1994-1995) to the United States  July 29, 1993.


WILLIAM J. CLINTON


Nomination for Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy
July 29, 1993


The President today announced his intention
to nominate Steven Kelman, a Harvard professor
and advocate for cutting Government waste
through better purchasing policies, as Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy at the
Office of Management and Budget.
"With his background and commitment to
making the Government more efficient, I know


Steven Kelman will ensure Government purchases are made economically and with care,"
the President said.
NOTE: A biography of the nominee was made
available by the Office of the Press Secretary.


1237




July 29 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993
Nomination for Ambassador to Jamaica
July 29, 1993


The President today announced his intention
to nominate former Congresswoman Shirley
Chisholm to be the U.S. Ambassador to Jamaica.
"Shirley Chisholm is a true pioneer of American politics whose passion for social justice is
unparalleled," said the President. "I am honored
Interview With the Arizona Media
July 30, 1993
The President. Thank you for joining me by
satellite. I'm glad to have the opportunity to
speak with you and through you to the people
of Arizona. I'd like to make a brief opening
statement and then preserve as much time as
possible for your questions.
The Senate and the House conferees are
nearing agreement on a budget program which
preserves the essential principles that I began
with in this whole endeavor back in February.
First, it will reduce the deficit by about $500
billion with divisions equally between spending
cuts and revenue increases.
Secondly, it will restore fairness to the Tax
Code by asking 70 percent or more of the burden of the new revenues to be borne by people
with incomes above $200,000, the top 1.2 percent of our country, the people who received
most of the economic gains of the last 10 years
and got a tax reduction during that period.
Third, the burden on the middle class, people
with incomes above $30,000 for family incomes,
but less than $180,000, will be asked to pay
a modest fuel tax, about 4.3 cents, which will
be less than $50 a year on average for the average family.
Fourth, for the first time ever, we will be
able to say to working people with children that
if they work 40 hours a week, if they play by
the rules, they will not be taxed into poverty
but lifted out of it because of a dramatic expansion in the earned-income tax credit. This is
an essential downpayment on welfare reform,
really rewards work and family, and it's very,
very important.
And finally, and perhaps most important of


that she will be my Ambassador to Jamaica and
confident that she will do an outstanding job
in that position."
NOTE: A biography of the nominee was made
available by the Office of the Press Secretary.


all, this plan brings down the deficit and keeps
interest rates down and at the same time provides important new incentives for business investment and job growth and new incentive to
invest in small businesses capitalized at $50 million a year or less, very important to the hightech community; a huge increase in the
expensing provision for small businesses, meaning that 90 percent of the small businesses in
America will actually be eligible for a tax reduction under this program if they reinvest in their
businesses; third, an expansion of the research
and development tax credit, very important to
the growing economy; and fourth, something
that will affect Arizona because you've got a
lot of new people coming in there, some real
incentives to revitalize homebuilding and real
estate in ways that will generate a lot of a new
jobs.
So for all these reasons, I very much hope
that this plan will pass. The more the American
people know about it, the more they are likely
to support it. Almost all of the opposition has
been generated by false claims that this plan
has no deficit reduction, no spending cuts, and
too much of a tax burden on the middle class.
All three of those things are wrong.
And finally, let me say just one other point,
because I've had this conversation with Senator
DeConcini so often. There's a difference in this
plan and the plan that passed in 1990, which
didn't produce deficit reduction. First, we don't
have unrealistic revenue forecasts. We have
cold-blooded, hard facts in our projections that
are agreed to by all the expert analysts. Secondly, all this money goes into a trust fund


1238




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 30


and can only be spent for deficit reduction.
Thirdly, under the House version of the bill,
there is an actual enforcement mechanism so
that if we miss our deficit reduction target in
any of the next 5 years, the President would
be legally bound to correct the miss on the
target, because nobody can foresee the future
with absolute precision, and the Congress legally
bound to vote on it or vote on another proposal
to do the same thing.
So we have some protections here that have
not been there before, that will bring this deficit
down, revitalize our economy, and enable us
to go on to the other crucial issues facing this
country, including health care, welfare reform,
the crime bill, the immigration issue, a lot of
the other things we need to face. And I hope
that your Members of Congress will support it.
I thank Representative English for doing so the
first time around. I'll be glad to answer your
questions.
Deficit Reduction
Q. Mr. President, thank you very much for
being with us by satellite this afternoon. And
as we begin in the interest of fairness and full
disclosure to the viewing audience and to the
people listening on the radio, I think it's important to point out that the White House has
imposed a ground rule here today that there
will be no followup questions from reporters.
That being said, Mr. President, it's clear that
most Americans do want to see a deficit reduction here. The plan which is likely to come
out of the Senate Conference Committee,
maybe even yet today, is somewhat short of
your $500-billion-dollar-over-5-year target. Arizona Senator Dennis DeConcini, whom you
talked about just a moment ago, says that he
can't vote for it when it comes up for a full
Senate vote because there are, quote, no assurances that new taxes will be used for deficit
reduction-[inaudible]-retire the debt. Those
words were spoken by him this morning.
Now, I understand what you just said, but
obviously, he doesn't believe it's going to reduce
the deficit far enough. What's your response
to that?
The President. I have a twofold response. First
of all, they are arguing about the details. They
are talking about a deficit reduction package
somewhere in the range of $490 billion to $496
billion or $497 billion; anything in that range
would be 98 percent of where we are.


Secondly, the taxes will not legally be able
to be spent on anything other than deficit reduction. They will be put into a trust fund which
must be spent on deficit reduction. They can't
legally be spent on anything else.
Now, Senator DeConcini wants a strong
budget control mechanism to go into the plan.
But as he pointed out to me, I supported his
amendment, too, which is very much like the
one we passed in the House. The only reason
that the DeConcini amendment did not pass
in the Senate is that all the Republicans voted
against it because they don't want us to have
good budgetary control. I don't know why; you'll
have to ask them. But I'm going to have the
strongest possible controls to guarantee that all
the tax money goes to deficit reduction. If you
put it into a trust fund and if we have to make
annual corrections if we miss the targets, that's
about as well as we can do, I think.
Senior Citizens' Investments
Q. Mr. President, the readers of my newspaper are nearly all senior citizens. They've seen
the returns on their nest eggs decline considerably in recent years. Will your economic plan
strengthen their investments, and if so, how?
The President. I think it will strengthen their
investments by promoting economic growth. A
lot of senior citizens who have their investments
in primarily interest-earning accounts have had
earnings drop as interest rates have gone down.
But that's one of the reasons that you've had
in Arizona, for example, a big increase in homebuilding and more people working in construction.
But I think what you will see over the long
run is a very strong stock market, highly reliable
bonds, and interest rates that will be lower as
long as we can keep inflation low, but that will
grow with the economy. And I think over the
long run, what the senior citizens need is stable
economic growth. They may have to balance
their investment portfolios more between equities and plain bonds that depend on long-term
interest rates. But I think all of us are helped
over the long run if we can keep long-term
interest rates down.
Economic Program
Q. Mr. President, why did you decide to do
this in Arizona this afternoon? Is it because your
tax plan is in trouble here? Is it because this
morning Dennis DeConcini said again he


1239




July 30 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


wouldn't vote for it and because the Republicans
are busy running a bunch of radio ads encouraging Karan English to vote against it?
The President. Well, it's because I think that
I ought to answer these questions directly and
because, frankly, the Republicans have willfully
misrepresented the truth and the facts about
this all over the country and especially in Arizona. I have been doing this, however, in many
other States. You've actually-you helped to
support the Republican rhetorical campaign by
just what you said.
This is not a tax plan. This is an economic
plan. Fifty percent of the deficit reduction is
in spending cuts. We're cutting the Federal
work force by 150,000. We're cutting everything
from agriculture and veterans benefits to all
kinds of other programs, all across the board.
We have asked the wealthiest 1.2 percent of
the American people who got big tax cuts during
trickle-down economics to pay over 70 percent
of the tax burden. We've held families with incomes under $30,000 a year harmless. We have
actually rewarded the working poor of whom
there are many in Arizona with a change in
the Tax Code so that they'll be lifted out of,
not kept in, poverty by taxes. And we've got
big incentives for small business investment.
I will say this again: The Wall Street Journal
has now run three articles in the last 2 weeks
pointing out how a lot of these lobbying groups
have willfully misrepresented the facts of this
program to the small business community. Over
90 percent of the small businesses in the United
States of America will be eligible for a tax reduction under this program if they reinvest in
their businesses.
And I think when people know the factsSenator DeConcini pointed out to me in my
conversation with him 2 days ago-he said it's
really too bad that people don't know the facts.
He said, "This program had real support on
February the 18th when you spoke to the Nation and went through the facts, point by point
by point." And now the program is even better
for average Americans than it was then. We've
improved it. But all they've been told by the
Republicans is, no deficit reduction, all taxes.
Let me just point out one other thing for
all the Republican ads that are being run. When
this budget came up in the Senate Finance
Committee and the Republicans, with all their
talk about needing more budget cuts, were given
their chance, the Republicans did not offer one


nickel in budget cuts over the ones that I had
already offered, not one red cent.
When Senator Dole presented his plan in the
United States Senate it was a joke, from people
who thought we ought to have $500 billion of
deficit reduction. He had $100 billion less than
I did, and $66 billion of his spending cuts were,
quote, unspecified, meaning, "Trust me, I'll figure that out later. I don't want to make anybody
else mad."
Now, if you look at my spending cuts, they're
specific. There are 200 of them. We've got a
plan. All I want the people of Arizona to know
is the truth. When they get the facts, they can
make their own conclusions.
Small Business
Q. Mr. President, in the past week we've
heard from several small business groups who
say increasing taxes on the most successful small
businesses, which according to figures are 4 percent, would hurt those who are providing all
of the new jobs, especially here in Arizona. I
want to know your response to that.
The President. My response is that there are
700,000 small businesses that are organized and
pay taxes under the Tax Code as individual taxpayers. Of that, 94 percent of them will have
no income tax increase but will be eligible for
a very big increase in their expensing provisions,
which means they'll be eligible for a tax cut.
I think for the top 6 percent to say they
should have no responsibility in paying down
the deficit is wrong. And for them to say they're
the only ones creating new jobs is wrong. All
of them, anybody that's that big has the option
of converting to the regular corporate status,
and regular corporations don't pay a tax increase
in this until they have taxable income in excess
of $10 million. But people who get the benefits
that come from being taxed as individual taxpayers should be taxed as individual taxpayers.
They also have options to reinvest in their businesses and get tax benefits down the road, I
might add.
Economic Program
Q. Mr. President, in the past few weeks we've
had interviews with Al Gore, with Bruce Babbitt, with David Wilhelm. All were sent out to
Arizona or called on the telephone to talk about
this program. And now today we're getting to
speak with you. You seem to be expending a
tremendous amount of political capital over this


1240




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 30


program. I know you don't like to think about
this, but I wonder, if the worst happens and
this package loses, how big of a setback will
it be for your administration?
The President. It will be a big setback for
America. Let me remind you-this is an interesting thing-that we had 67 business executives
here in the White House a couple of days ago
endorsing this plan. About half of them were
Republicans. We had the heads of four energy
companies here. Lod Cook, who was one of
President Bush's cochairs in 1992, was here endorsing our economic program.
This is not a partisan issue. Alan Creenspan,
a Republican who is head of the Federal Reserve Board, has repeatedly said if we don't
pass this deficit reduction plan, it means higher
interest rates, a weaker economy, more uncertainty for America. What I'm trying to do is
to cut through the incredible partisan fog that
our adversaries have created and look at the
facts. Republican business people who have
looked at the facts are overwhelmingly supportive of this program. The Republican head of
the Federal Reserve Board is supportive of this
program.
When I represented the United States in
Tokyo recently and got an agreement from other
countries to lower tariffs on our manufactured
products which, if we can get everyone in the
General Agreement on Trade to sign off on
by the end of the year, will put hundreds of
thousands of manufacturing jobs into America.
I got that agreement because we were bringing
down our deficit. It was the first time in 10
years the leaders of the other industrialized
countries had not attacked America in their
statement, instead, they complimented us.
This has nothing to do with party or with
me personally. Look, I want to get on to other
things. I'll tell you what will happen if we don't
do that. We'll spend 60 days or 90 days fooling
around with this. You'll get less deficit reduction. You'll get higher interest rates. And the
United States Congress will not go on to deal
with health care, which every American has a
stake in seeing resolved so that we can stabilize
and make secure health care for all Americans
and bring costs within inflation. We won't go
on to welfare reform. We won't go on to the
crime bill. We'll just sit here and flail around,
and it'll be bad for America. I'll get up and
go to work the next day, try to get the Congress
to do its part. But I don't think that's going


to happen. I don't think the United States Congress is going to let interest rates go up because
of the fog of misinformation that's put out here.
I think they're going to trust their people, go
home and tell them the truth. And I'll tell you
something else: I think the Republicans will
begin to vote with us on other issues. You can
already see it now on national service. We're
going to pass the national service program I
campaigned so hard on next week with broad,
bipartisan support because people are tired of
all this partisanship.
Q. I'd like to go back to the question we
talked about a moment ago, and that is why
we're doing this. Half of our congressional delegation clearly will not vote for the plan, and
three of the Democrats either will not or may
not. I think we would all learn a little bit from
the kind of personal interaction you're having
with DeConcini, Coppersmith, and English to
try to get them to be on your side.
The President. Well, I've asked them all to
vote for the program, and I've told them that
I would do what I could to get the facts out.
But let me say this: There are two categories
of people who are holding out now and trying
to make up their mind how to vote. There's
one group of people who desperately believed
that this program ought to pass, but they're simply afraid that they'll never be able to convince
their own voters, because of all the sort of rhetoric that's come out of the Republicans, that
it's good for them. That is, I don't know how
many Members of Congress have said to me,
"This is a good deal for the people of my district. If they knew the facts, they would like
the program. I don't know if I'll ever be able
to get them the facts because of the dominance
of the sort of 'tax, tax, tax' attack on it." So
I think for those folks, I have to get out there
and give them the facts. That's what I'm trying
to do here today with you.
There are others who have certain specific
objections that I have tried to meet. One of
them is the objection that Senator DeConcini
always raises, that we can't go back to 1990.
If we have a deficit reduction package, the taxes
have to go to reduce the debt, and we have
to have an enforcement mechanism. And we
have done that, and we will do that.
Let me assure you: I'm doing this with a
lot of other States, too, for the same reasons.
I want to try to at least explain to people directly what the issues are and what the facts


1241




July 30 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


are so they can make up their own minds. And
I believe that, as President, I should be directly
accountable not only to the people but also to
press out in the country and not just depend
upon whatever the nightly controversy is that
dominates the evening news and the political
press corps here to get the information out,
to you. I think I owe you more than that, and
I'm just trying to do my job.
Manufacturing
Q. Mr. President, much of the economic projections we hear about have to do with growth
in the services industry. And yet many of the
economists tell us that America only moves its
engine forward when industry prospers, when
manufacturing is doing its thing. What plans do
you have for rejuvenating and improving the
manufacturing engine of the United States?
The President. Good question. Let me mention, if I might, three things. First, let me compliment you on the question. I do think that
services are important, but no great nation can
give up its manufacturing base. I'm working on
three things.
First of all, in this economic program, there
are plain incentives for manufacturers, tax incentives, to invest in new plant and equipment to
be more competitive, or to start new businesses,
especially in the high-tech area.
Secondly, in the budget we are actually
spending more on a couple of things. One of
the most important things is more money on
defense conversion to try to take advantage of
the incredible skills of these companies that
have lost their defense contracts but have the
capacity  to  produce  for  the  high-tech,
nondefense economy of the world.
The third thing we're trying to do is to find
more markets for our manufactured products.
The most important thing I did at Tokyo was
to get these other countries to agree to drop
their tariffs, in many cases eliminate their tariffs
on everything from pharmaceuticals to electronics so that Americans can sell more abroad.
And I might say that there is virtually no disagreement on this. Everybody agrees that if the
big seven nations can get what we agreed to
into a world trade agreement by the end of
the year, it will bring hundreds of thousands
of manufacturing jobs back to the United States.
So those are the three things we're really trying
to hammer.


Economic Program
Q. Mr. President, given the job that the opponents of this economic package have done in
selling it here in Arizona and elsewhere as a
tax-and-spend plan, and we have two freshman
Democrats who are sort of laying their careers
on the line if they vote for this, what specifically
can they tell their constituents, not in general
terms but in very specific terms, what can they
tell their constituents is in this package for
them?
The President. First of all, they can tell their
constituents that almost every small business in
their district will be eligible for a tax reduction
if they invest more in their business.
Secondly, they can tell their constituents that
California is a growing State with a vibrant population where a lot of new businesses will be
started. And this plan has dramatically increased
incentives for getting capital for new businesses.
Thirdly, they can tell their constituents who
are working hard for limited wages that this
plan holds them harmless if they're families with
incomes of less than $30,000 a year, and actually
if they're at a low income and still working
full time, they'll get a tax break out of this.
Those are personal, immediate benefits.
And finally they can say that all of them will
benefit from low interest rates. How many Arizonans have refinanced their homes since we've
been able to bring interest rates down by taking
on this deficit? How many more will be able
to do it in the next few years or get a lower
business loan or a lower car loan or a consumer
loan or a college loan? These are personal, immediate, tangible benefits.
The other thing they can say is that when
they do pay taxes to the Federal Government,
we won't have to spend so much of it paying
interest on the debt. We can spend more of
it investing in the future of Arizona and America. These are things that I hope your freshman
Congressmen can say.
But let me say that the opponents have a
lot easier case. If you don't care what the facts
are and you just want to say "tax and spend,"
it's an easy task. But let me just point out,
it was under Republican Presidents that the
debt of this country went from $1 trillion to
$4 trillion. And you can look at the evidence.
The Congress actually appropriated slightly less
money than those Presidents asked them to
spend over the last 12 years.


1242




Administration of William]. Clinton, 1993 / July 30


And a lot of the people that are raising all
this cain now helped us to get in the fix we're
in. I was a Governor during that period, and
you look at my record. My State was always
in the bottom five States in the country in the
percentage of income going to State and local
taxes. We never had to raise any money to pay
off a debt. I don't like this. I hate the idea
of raising taxes to reduce the deficit. But no
one seriously believes that we can do what we
need to do unless we reverse some of the things
that happened during the trickle-down years of
the eighties. I'm doing the best I can to take
the tough decisions now to free up our economy
as we move toward the 21st century. And I
hope that Republicans, independents, and
Democrats in Arizona who can think about that
in terms of the future will be supportive.
Health Care
Q. Good afternoon, Mr. President. This question maybe is not related to the budget plan,
but it's so important to the Hispanic community.
Three days ago, you asked the Congress for
$172 million in order to reinforce the immigration law and reduce the number of people that
is coming illegally to this country. The majority
of these people, Mr. President, are not criminals
but working people. They are paying taxes. And
they need medical care. My question, Mr. President, is, in your health care reform, is going
to protect community health centers who right
now treat illegal aliens here in Arizona? They
are the only one. Are you going to protect these
centers?
The President. The final shape of the health
care reform has not been decided. But I believe
that the likelihood is that American citizens will
be individually covered but that public health
centers will also be funded and that people who
come into their doors will be eligible for care.
That's what I think will happen. I think that
is the likelihood.
I don't think you can see that sort of entitlement, the health care card that Americans might
get otherwise, will go to illegal aliens. I think
that is probably not going to happen. But I
do think we will continue to fund public health
facilities, and I think we must. I think that there
are a lot of American citizens who would otherwise have no access to health care if we did
not do so, particularly in urban areas that are
quite poor or rural areas without access to other
health care.


Consumer Confidence
Q. Mr. President, I guess I want to go back
to something you said just a moment ago. You
said no one believes that we can change things
unless we reverse the policies of the eighties,
to paraphrase what you said. But there's something I don't understand, and that is why most
Americans or many Americans at least don't
seem to agree that the consumer outlook, the
economic outlook, is good. The consumer confidence level has dropped to its lowest point
in 10 months this July. And more importantly
as they look out over the next 6 months, consumers, according to most of the surveys, aren't
very optimistic about the economy and things
improving even with your economic plan.
The President. I think there are-[inaudible]-reasons for that. First of all, keep in mind,
America's economic difficulties that most Americans face-that is, most people are working
harder for lower wages and not keeping up with
inflation, while health care and education and
housing costs have outstripped inflation-those
trends have been in the making for 20 years
and are a function of our inability to adjust
as well as we should have over those 20 years
to the new challenges of the global economy.
Secondly, there was a great deal of optimism
right after I was elected, but you can't expect
results overnight. These forces have been in play
for years and years. You can't turn them around
overnight. Thirdly, most of these people have
been given an enormous amount of misinformation about what is actually in the economic plan.
And finally as I tried to say in response to a
lot of the very good questions which have been
asked, this economic plan alone is not the answer. It is an essential first step. We still have
to have a more aggressive trade policy to sell
our products. We've still got to reinvest in the
skills of our people. We've still got to have a
good defense conversion policy. We've cut all
these defense workers out without reinvesting
in their potential to contribute to the economy.
So there are many other things we have to
do. But once we do this, I think you'll see
an upturn in confidence: We can move on the
health care; we can move on the other jobcreating policies; we can move on to welfare
reform. And those things together will make a
real difference in the economy and a real difference in the outlook for most Americans.
But most folks in this country have had a


1243




July 30 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


pretty tough time for 20 years now. And I want
to turn it around, but it is not going to happen
overnight. And we have to have the courage
and the fortitude and the constancy to take on
a whole lot of issues and not expect a silver
bullet or an easy answer.
Q. Mr. President, I wish we had more time,
but thank you very much for being with us.
The President. Thank you, sir-[inaudible]Interview With the California Media
July 30, 1993
Q. I know you'd like to start out this afternoon with an opening remark, sir.
The President. I would, and thank you very
much for allowing me to join you in this way.
I hope I'll get back to the Central Valley in
person before long. I had some wonderful times
there during the election, and I'm glad to have
the chance to visit with you directly.
As you know, in the next few days the Congress will take up a final vote on the economic
plan, which they have been debating now since
February. So far the Congress has moved with
great speed in trying to deal with this plan and
trying to keep its essential features intact. I want
to just review those features today and why I
think it's important as a first step in our longterm efforts in redeveloping the American economy and the California economy.
First, the plan will reduce the deficit by very
close to $500 billion, equally divided between
spending cuts and revenue increases, put in a
trust fund so that the money cannot legally be
spent on anything else but deficit reduction.
Secondly, the plan will ask of the tax increases
that 70 percent at least of those come from
people with incomes above $200,000, the top
1.2 percent of our economy, people who got
most of the economic gains and a tax cut in
the 1980's.
Thirdly, the middle class burden will be quite
modest. I wish there didn't have to be any middle class tax, but the deficit has gotten much
larger just since the election, and we have to
address it now. And that burden will be for
a middle class family of four with an income
of between $40,000 and $60,000, less than $50
a year. Next, the plan holds working families


and thank you, ladies and gentlemen.
NOTE: The interview began at 4:44 p.m. The
President spoke via satellite from Room 459 of
the Old Executive Office Building. In his remarks,
he referred to Lodwrick M. Cook, chairman and
chief executive officer, ARCO, and David Wilhelm, chairman of the National Democratic Committee.


with incomes of under $30,000 a year harmless
and gives the working poor, those who still live
below the poverty line, actual tax relief so that
we'll be able to say for the first time, if you
work 40 hours a week and you have children
in your home, you'd be lifted above the poverty
line. This is a profoundly important thing.
And next, and perhaps most important for
California, the plan has real incentives for private sector business growth: Incentives that the
high-tech community in California wanted very
badly for investments in new companies with
$50 million a year or less in capitalization, big
cuts for them; an increase in the expensing provision for small business that will give over 90
percent of the small business operations-and
farms that qualify, too, I might add-a tax benefit, not a tax increase but a tax benefit when
they reinvest in their businesses; next, an increase in the research and development tax
credit; and finally, some incentives to invest in
areas that are traditionally underdeveloped, both
rural and urban areas, to get free enterprise
in there to do that job.
So for all these reasons, this economic plan
is good for the country, and it's good for California. It is not the end-all and be-all. We have
to move on to health care. We have to move
on to a trade policy that enables us to sell more
of our products and services abroad. We have
to move on to welfare reform. We have a crime
bill. We have an immigration initiative up. All
these things are important.
Secretary Babbitt is working with the farmers
in your area to resolve some of your water problems. But all these things cannot be brought
to fruition completely until we pass an economic


1244




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 30


plan and a budget and get this country moving
again, keep the deficit down, and keep the interest rates down.
Let me finally say that this plan has the support of an enormous number of Republicans
and independents who are not politicians and
have no stake in misrepresenting the facts. Earlier this week, about 67 business leaders from
around the country, including the heads of four
energy companies, equally divided pretty much
between Republicans and Democrats, endorsed
this plan. And one of the people who endorsed
it was Lod Cook, the chairman of ARCO, who
was a cochairman of President Bush's campaign.
So this is not a partisan effort on my part. It's
just a tough decision to deal with problems that
developed in Washington long before I showed
up. And I hope the people of California and
the Central Valley will support it.
I'll be glad to answer your questions.
Immigration
Q. Mr. President, you mentioned just a moment ago immigration. I'd like to ask you about
that. As you know, we in California are struggling with the problem of immigration, both
legal and illegal. One-third of all new arrivals
in the United States wind up in California. I
know you've asked for additional funds to speed
up asylum processing and hearings and also border patrol, but we're wondering if $172 million
in new dollars is enough. Can you offer any
specific additional Federal help for California
alone to try and deal with the immigration problem?
The President. Well, I'm glad you asked that.
Let me, first of all, just reiterate very briefly
what you said. We're trying to deal with, in
effect, three different problems. We're trying
to deal with the problem presented by the fact
that our airports are too porous and terrorists
or potential terrorists can get in, and we're trying to tighten up all those procedures in foreign
airports and here. We're trying to deal with the
problem of alien smuggling, which is something
California is familiar with, by tightening the control procedures and also increasing penalties for
that. And finally, we're trying to deal with illegal
aliens coming into the country generally. We
do have more border patrol people coming in,
600 of them. California will get a good number
of them. And Senator Feinstein and Senator
Boxer were both particularly active in this regard.


The second thing that I want to mention is
that before any of this was done, we had
changed some Federal laws in this economic
plan to give California some more money under
existing laws because it has a disproportionate
burden of immigrants. So we'll be giving you
some more money over and above this to handle
the immigrant burden that's already there. That
will free up some of your State money for other
problems there in California.
I know you've had a lot of terrible budget
problems. So we changed the formula by which
the Federal Government gives money to the
States to deal with immigration, to put more
money into California because of your extra
problems. And Leon Panetta, who, as you know,
used to serve California in the Congress and
is now my Budget Director, had a lot to do
with that. I hope that will help. I believe it
will.
Water Management
Q. Mr. President, I wanted to know-you
mentioned a moment ago Secretary Babbitt
coming to the Central Valley to talk about water
issues. And one of the big water issues for us
down here is the Endangered Species Act. What
I wanted to know is, is the Act going to be
changed at all in the next year or so to allow
for economic burdens that are being suffered
on the west side of the valley?
The President. Well, let me say first of all,
the Act as it's presently written has an economic
impact provision, which has not been used very
often but which plainly can be used. Secretary
Babbitt asked me before we commit to make
any changes in that to give him the chance
to work out the problems that the farmers had.
As you know, we've had a drought for many
years and the allocations this year, given the
amount of water that's out there since the
drought went away, has not satisfied a number
of the farmers. And we know there are some
other distributional issues. Some of them involve
the Endangered Species Act, but Bruce Babbitt
believes, anyway, that he can work out a fair
treatment for the farmers without an amendment to the Act. And I think I ought to give
him a chance to continue to work with the farmers before I commit to change it. So that's the
position I'm going to take. I want to wait and
see how he does with his negotiations with the
farmers first and how they come out.


1245




July 30 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


Crime
Q. Mr. President, we in Los Angeles, of
course, have been crippled in terms of quality
of life, and also economically, by burgeoning
crime and not enough more police to fight it.
Our new Mayor, Richard Riordan, was recently
in Washington, as was police chief Willie Williams, both of them begging for assistance. Is
there anything that your administration can do
to help?
The President. Absolutely, there is. We intend
to push a crime bill which, along with some
other legislation we're pushing, will have the
Federal Government help local communities to
put up to 100,000 more police officers on the
street in this country over the next 4 years.
This summer I got an emergency bill through
Congress which will provide funds to Los Angeles and other cities to rehire police officers that
have been laid off and otherwise staff up a little
bit. It's a down payment on that. As soon as
this budget-economic plan-is over in the Senate and in the House, I will be developing a
crime bill which will provide more funds to local
communities for this purpose. We have got to
get some more police officers on the street.
When your new chief was a police chief in
Philadelphia, he had some real success in lowering crime rates in very tough neighborhoods by
adopting community policing strategies that included people actually walking beats that previously had only been driven. I know this can
work. I actually walked down some of those
streets that the chief helped to change in Philadelphia, and I talked to the people who live
in the houses there. So I know it can make
a difference. I saw play yards that had formerly
been taken over by gangs and were unsafe for
children now open for basketball for the kids.
We can do this. We're going to have to have
more police. I hope that the crime bill will
enjoy broad bipartisan support. We can bring
it up if we can get this budget business done.
Agricultural Subsidies
Q. Mr. President, what farm policy have you
and Secretary Espy outlined or are outlining?
And would you consider any reductions or elimination of farm subsidies and irrigation subsidies?
The President. Well, let me say, first of all,
if you look at our budget this year, because
there are $250 billion in spending cuts over
the previous budget, we have reduced some of
the agricultural programs along with everything


else. We've cut just about everything, so there
is some reduction in agriculture. But I don't
think we should do any more until we have
an agreement on world trade. That is, I am
reluctant to have more unilateral reduction in
agricultural programs because I think that hurts
our competitive position. If we can reach agreement on a new trade agreement with our competitors in which those nations that subsidize
agriculture much more than we do also reduce
their subsidies, then I would also support doing
something here at home, because I'm convinced
that on a level playing field our farmers can
compete with anybody in the world.
So my answer to you, sir, would be I'm hoping we can get a new trade agreement by the
end of the year which will permit some reduction in agricultural subsidies but only because
our competitors will be reducing them even
more. Otherwise, I think we'll have to wait 'til
we reauthorize the farm bill in 1995 to look
at these issues.
I come from a farming State, and I really
want to see us maintain our competitive position
in agriculture. I had to cut agriculture some
this year. I cut everything, but I don't want
to cut it so much we are at a competitive disadvantage.
1990 Deficit Reduction Program
Q. Mr. President, I was wondering if you
believe that the deficit reduction plan of 1990
was successful in its goal of slashing the deficit.
And if not, how can you assure America that
this year's plan will work any better? What are
the differences between the two plans?
The President. There are several differences.
First of all, the 1990 plan was not completely
successful for a couple of reasons, and I'd like
to point out what was wrong with it. I'd also
like, in fairness, to tell you a couple of good
things about it.
The main thing that was wrong with it is
that the administration and its supporters in
Congress, the people who were in Washington
then, made too many claims for it. That is, they
said it would reduce the deficit by $480 billion,
and they based that on wildly optimistic revenue
growth forecasts. We have based our plan on
very conservative revenue forecasts, so that
when the recession continued, they didn't get
the money they thought they were going to get
out of any of the new revenues.
The second problem they had was that health


1246




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 30


care costs in particular increased at a far more
rapid rate than they had projected. We have
attempted to deal with that by having some
stricter controls on health care costs.
So those are the two things that really got
them in trouble. The third thing, of course, was
the economy just stayed in a slump for a long
time. Now, the one thing they did right that
we're also doing, except we're doing it even
tougher, is they had some pretty stiff caps on
spending programs, domestic spending programs. So there were some greater controls on
spending after 1990 than had been the case
in the past. I think I ought to give them credit
for that, and we're trying to live with those
now.
But we think we can do better. This plan
you have more specific budget cuts, better controls on health care spending, and more realistic
revenue estimates. And you've got all this money
being put in the trust fund, and furthermore,
another big difference is I will be under the
obligation if we miss the deficit reduction target
to come in on an annual basis and say, "Hey,
we missed it a little. Here's my plan to make
sure we make it. Here's where you've got to
cut more. Here's what else you have to do."
We're going to do that every year.
I think all Americans know it would be hard
for any business to estimate for 5 years in advance exactly what will happen, but we haven't
had to correct ourselves. Now we're going to
do that.
I will say this. Let me say this in my own
behalf. A reporter for the Philadelphia Inquirer
a couple of weeks ago went around to all the
budget experts for big private companies like
big private accounting firms, and asked them
what they thought of this. And the consensus
was that we had a very good chance to meet
our deficit reduction targets. The budget analyst
for Price Waterhouse, the big accounting firm,
said that it was the most honest budget presented to the Congress in more than a decade
and that the only thing he thought I was wrong
about is he thought we'd actually have more
deficit reduction than we're projecting.
So let's hope he's right. We've done our best
to be very tough about this.
Health Care
Q. Mr. President, you mentioned the importance of health care in the budget situation as
we went through the nineties and into the early


nineties we're in now. I'm wondering what specifically we can look forward to as regards to
health care reforms within the next 6 to 8
months.
The President. You can look forward to a plan
which will, first of all, protect the health care
benefits that Americans enjoy now and enable
people to move their jobs without losing their
health coverage. One real problem we've got
now is millions of Americans locked into their
jobs because somebody in their family's been
sick. So I think you can look forward to ending
the job lock. People will be able to move jobs.
We'll have a system that will enable people to
keep having health care for their families if they
lose their jobs through no fault of their own.
If all the plan passes, we will reorganize the
insurance markets so that farmers and self-employed people who are in nonfarm jobs will be
able to purchase health insurance at lower rates,
more generous insurance because they'll be able
to purchase it more on terms that people who
work for big employers purchase it today.
And we'll also have a system that, if it all
goes through, will actually dramatically lower the
rate of increase of health care. You know, health
care costs have been going up at roughly twice
the rate of inflation or 3 times the rate of inflation, and we've got to bring that within inflation
plus our population growth. And that will be
good for business, good for agriculture, and
good for individual Americans. So those are the
main things we're going to try to do. I think
we'll be able to do it. It's very, very important.
Let me say that if you look at the American
budget now, the only thing that's really going
up a lot in the Government's budget is health
care costs for Medicare and Medicaid. The only
way we can take this deficit from where it is
now down to zero, which is where I want it,
is to do something to control health care costs.
This plan will lower it for 4 or 5 years, after
which it starts to go up again, unless you control
health care costs. That is the thing that is strangling the American economy long-term. And I
believe we can do better. That's what the health
care plan is designed to do. And as soon as
the economic plan is over, we'll be able to begin
a great national discussion about that.
jobs
Q. Mr. President, Governor Wilson predicts
that in the next 2 years this State is going torather, in the next 5 years, this State is going


1247




July 30 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


to lose 2 million jobs. Your economic plan is
boasting 1.9 million jobs, yet we're seeing an
exodus of manufacturing jobs from the Central
Valley. What is your plan proposing to do to
try to keep some of these companies from leaving not only the State but the country and taking
jobs elsewhere? And what's also being done in
your plan to put more Californians to work?
The President. Let me talk about manufacturing specifically, if I might, about what we can
do and what you have to do. And I'd like to
establish my credentials. I was Governor of Arkansas for 12 years. When I became Governor
of my State, we had an unemployment rate
nearly 3 percentage points above the national
average; we were losing manufacturing jobs rapidly, plants closing down like crazy. And we
devised a plan to retrain our work force and
to make our State more attractive to manufacturing. At a time when they said we were going
to lose manufacturing jobs, we didn't even need
to try that. We were able to increase the percentage of our work force involved in manufacturing.
For the last 4 or 5 years we were among
the Nation's leaders in job growth. In 1992 we
ranked first or second in every month. And now
the State has an unemployment rate of about
5.2 percent. It took about 8 years to do that.
But we did it, and it worked. So you can increase your manufacturing base. Now, what does
the United States have to do to help California
do that? I think in your case, three things. Number one, we've got to do something to help
you with all these people who have been laid
off or lost their jobs because of defense cutbacks. We started defense cuts in America in
1987. I wasn't in Washington when it started,
but it was unconscionable to start cutting all
these contracts with no plans for conversion to
help companies, to help individuals, to help
communities to maintain a manufacturing base
in nondefense areas. We have an aggressive defense conversion plan that, if it's done right,
will be greatly beneficial to California. We have
already begun working on that.
Number two, our economic program has some
significant incentives to promote manufacturing:
incentives for bigger companies to invest in new
plant and equipment, incentives to start and
capitalize smaller manufacturing operations.
The third thing we're doing is finding new
markets for American manufacturing. When I
was in Tokyo recently, the world's seven indus

trial powers agreed to lower or eliminate tariffs
in a sweeping fashion, more than has been done
in years and years. And every independent analysis says that if we can get all the countries
of the world that are in our trading group, the
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, to
accept this by the end of the year, it will put
hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs
back into the American economy in the next
few years.
Now, if we do all that, that will help California. California also has to examine its situation.
Why would someone close a plant down in California and move it to another State? What do
you have to do to make the State more attractive? There are some things we can do on that.
Our apprenticeship programs, our worker training programs will help California. Our health
care cost control programs may help you not
only with health care but with the enormous
cost of worker's comp out there.
But a lot of these decisions need to be asked
and answered in California. If California is losing manufacturing jobs to other States, you need
to think through what changes can be made
there to make you more competitive.
Small Business
Q. Mr. President, you said that your economic
plan will provide most small businesses with a
tax break. Won't these breaks be offset and surpassed by what you're going to ask small business to pay to support your new health care
plan, and what kinds of increases can small business expect?
The President. No, well, let me answer-the
short answer is no. Seventy percent of the small
businesses in this country are providing some
health coverage for their employees. Many of
them may wind up with lower costs because
of the insurance reforms that we'll recommend.
Many of them are paying way too much for
limited coverage.
For those who provide no coverage at all,
I think there will be some requirement that
they make a contribution to the coverage of
their employees and that the employees provide
a contribution, too. But the burden is likely to
be far more modest than anything I've been
reading about. I've not signed off on all the
final provisions yet, but we're really working
hard to make sure anything we do is phased
in and the burden is kept as light as possible
on small businesses to help them maintain their


1248




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 30


ability to generate jobs.
But let me just point out to you that everybody in this country can eventually get some
health care, even if they have no health insurance. But if they don't have any health insurance, they often get it when it's too late and
too expensive and when it's paid for by someone
else. We are the only advanced nation that does
not have some system by which all people are
covered for health care. Most countries require
some contribution by employers and employees
across the board. We are also the only advanced
nation in the world that spends more than 10
percent of its income on health care. We spend
over 14 percent of our income on health care.
Only one other nation, Canada, is over nine.
Our major competitor, Germany, is just over
8 percent of their income. That means of every
dollar made by anybody in this country, we're
putting 6 cents more into health care. That is
a phenomenal amount of money that might be
reinvested to create manufacturing jobs, to
strengthen agriculture, to strengthen small business.
So I believe the small business community
as a whole will be dramatically strengthened by
this, and I'm going to do everything I can to
minimize the burden on those that presently
offer nothing to their employees. But it is not
responsible for those who offer nothing to ask
everybody else to pay for the hospitals, the clinics, the infrastructure of health care that they
then get to take advantage of when they need
it.
California Recovery
Q. Mr. President, you talk about economic
growth by creating new jobs in California. And
we're seeing, like we said earlier, we're seeing
a lot of jobs leaving the State. But from where
you stand and from some of the things you
pointed out, do you see a turnaround at all
for California in the next year?
The President. I do for a couple of reasons.
I think there will be a turnaround. I don't want
to pretend that this is going to be an easy,
quick miracle. I think there are some things
that are going to have to be done to preserve
your manufacturing base. I already said that.
But I think the likelihood is good that California will turn around for a couple of reasons.
First of all, you have enormous human and
physical resources. That is, a lot of these people
who have lost their jobs are very well-trained,


very well-educated people, are highly productive
workers, even if they don't have a lot of formal
education. And have a huge infrastructure that
can be revitalized, that was built up in part
by defense developments in the 1980's.
Secondly, more than any other State involving
trade, California's tied not only south of our
border but also to the Pacific, and the Pacific
is the area of the world most likely to revitalize
its economy quickest. One of the things that's
hurting you in California is that it's hard to
make a lot of money off manufacturing and service jobs tied to trade when Japan's in a recession, when Europe's in a recession. For the last
5 years, more than half of our new jobs in
America have been tied to trade. And if everything is flat everywhere else, it's hard for us
to grow when they're not. It is more likely that
the Pacific will grow more quickly and come
out of this recession more quickly than the rest
of the world. And that will disproportionately
benefit California.
So for all those reasons, I think there'll be
some turnaround by next year. But I don't want
to kid you. The California economy was built
up over the last 20 years, with some things
that will carry you right into the next century
and other things, like the defense base, which
have to be refigured if you're going to have
those folks doing well and making a contribution
to your economy.
So we're going to have to make some changes.
We can do it. But the intrinsic health of the
California economy, I think, is still there.
One last point about that. We're also going
to have to make an extra effort to help the
areas that have been really hurt by base closings.
The Bay Area, for example, which took a big
hit, I think that they'll wind up net economic
winners because of the enormous resources
there.
But we're going to have to plan to do that.
And we're going to have to have incentives to
invest in places like the distressed areas of Los
Angeles to bring free enterprise in there. And
I've offered a dramatic plan to create those
kinds of enterprise zones. I call them
empowerment zones. It goes far beyond what
previous administrations have recommended.
That plan is working its way through Congress,
and I think that will help.
Job Creation
Q. To go back to jobs, you're promising 8


1249




July 30 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


million jobs nationwide and about 1.9 million
in California. Smaller citywide programs like
Build in Baltimore cost millions and failed miserably, creating low-paying temp jobs with no
benefits. How is your plan going to succeed?
What kind of jobs are going to be created?
And do you have a timetable for the job creation?
The President. Most of the jobs that we believe, based on our economic analysis, will be
created are private sector jobs that will be fulltime jobs. The private sector has got to be the
engine of economic growth. If you look at this
economic plan, we do invest some more money
in partnerships for new technologies and in defense conversion and to help companies train
their workers. But most of the new jobs are
going to be created by the private sector. We
want to invest in more jobs, in infrastructure
building, road-building, and things of that kind.
But the great vast bulk of these jobs will
be private sector jobs. Let me just give you
some examples of how they'll be created. First
of all, to keep interest rates down, you'll create
more jobs. Secondly, this plan provides economic incentives for people to invest in new
plant and equipment, for people to invest more
in their small businesses, for people to do more
research and development. All those things are
directly related to job development. If you have
more investment in the private sector, you will
have more job development. So I see this as
a private sector job initiative.
And exactly on what timetable these jobs will
be created depends on the general recovery not
only of the American economy but of the global
economy. The one thing that could prevent us
from meeting this goal is if the other countries


of the world don't join us in a new trade agreement and pursue foolish economic policies and
collapse their own economies. In order to grow
the American economy, we need a growing
world economy. But I think we're going to have
some good success in coordinating our economic
policies to generate more jobs.
Let me just say this. In spite of all the fits
and starts in the economy since the beginning
of the year, through the first 6 months, we've
had about 900,000 new jobs created, over 90
percent of them private sector jobs. And I hope
that we can accelerate that pace in the months
and years ahead. I think we can if we can get
this economic plan passed and put the health
care plan out and, to respond to one of the
earlier questions, to allay the fears of some of
the people in the business community about
the health care plan so they can see it will
be good for business, not bad for business. Then
I think you'll see a lot more investment coming
out of the lower interest rates.
But most of this job growth is going to have
to come in the private sector. The Government
can't do it.
Q. Thank you, Mr. President. We've flat run
out of time. We were going to try and squeeze
in another couple of questions, but I guess we
can't do it.
The President. I'll stay if you can.
Q. Well, hey, we'll stay. We'll stay all night.
No satellite. We lost the satellite.
The President. They say we're going to lose
the satellite. I'm sorry.
NOTE: The interview began at 5:20 p.m. The
President spoke via satellite from Room 459 of
the Old Executive Office Building.


Statement on Surgeon General Nominee Joycelyn Elders
July 30, 1993


I am pleased that the Senate Committee on
Labor and Human Resources has recognized the
talents and capabilities of Dr. Joycelyn Elders.
As Surgeon General, she will be an effective
advocate for clinical and educational programs
to address the fundamental health and social
problems that affect all Americans. I am espe

cially grateful to Chairman Kennedy for his
steady leadership during the committee's consideration of Dr. Elders' nomination. I look forward to her speedy confirmation by the full
Senate.


1250




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 31


Statement on Ending the Filibuster on National Service Legislation
July 30, 1993


By breaking the gridlock and ending the filibuster on national service today, the Senate
scored two victories. It won one for the American people, but it also won one for the Senate
itself, showing that when Democrats and Republicans work together, we can move America
ahead.
National service will be America at its best,
energizing our youth, meeting our Nation's
Remarks on the Economic Program
July 31, 1993
Good morning, and welcome to the Rose Garden.
My fellow Americans, 5 months ago when
I addressed the Congress in my State of the
Union Address, I pledged to the American people that I would do my best to change the
way Washington works; to revive our economy
by reducing our deficit; cutting spending; reversing trickle-down economics and asking the
wealthiest Americans to pay their fair share of
our tax burden; increasing incentives to business
to create new jobs; helping the working poor
to stay out of welfare and stay in the work
force; and renewing the skills and productivity
of our workers, our students, and our children.
I presented to Congress an economic plan designed to achieve those objectives.
Now the Members of both Houses of Congress are close to deciding on a final version
of an economic growth plan that meets these
objectives. The plan will contain the largest deficit reduction plan in our Nation's history, about
$500 billion, with nearly a quarter of a trillion
dollars in real and enforceable spending cuts.
The plan creates a trust fund in which all the
spending cuts and all the tax increases are
placed and dedicated by law for 5 years only
to reducing our Nation's debt. Every new dollar
of taxes will be matched by a dollar of spending
cuts. And now, thanks to the efforts of the last
few weeks, 80 percent of the new taxes will
come from individuals earning over $200,000 a


needs, and reuniting all of us in the common
work of citizenship. This legislation joins our
Nation's finest traditions of building community,
rewarding responsibility, and offering opportunity.
I want in particular to thank those Republicans who found the courage and vision to support this landmark legislation. When we put partisanship behind us and work together, we really
can change America.


year, the top 1.2 percent of our income bracket,
people who got most of the economic benefits
of the 1980's and, unlike most Americans, also
received tax cuts in that decade. No working
family earning less than $180,000 will pay a
penny more in income taxes. That will be a
real change from the trickle-down economics of
the past dozen years.
Average families, that is, people with family
incomes above $30,000 and below $180,000, will
be asked to pay but one tax, less than a dime
a day, or about now $33 a year, in an energy
tax devoted entirely to reducing our deficit. I
believe that is a modest and fair price to pay
for the change we seek and the progress it will
bring. I pledged always in the beginning of this
program to seek the least possible burden on
middle income taxpayers, and I believe this is
the least possible burden we can have and still
achieve meaningful deficit reduction.
Because we need the private sector to grow,
we also recommended investing in the job creating capacity of American business and in the
education and skills of our people. This plan
offers 90 percent of the small businesses in the
United States of America the chance to actually
reduce their tax burden if, but only if, they
invest more in their businesses to strengthen
their businesses and their capacity to hire new
people. The plan offers new incentives, especially to high-tech, high-growth companies, to
invest more in research and development. It


1251




July 31 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


offers incentives to larger companies to invest
more in new plant and equipment. It gives a
groundbreaking new incentive to people of all
kinds to invest in new companies to help them
grow the economy. A significant percentage of
new American jobs come from the creation and
expansion of new enterprises. And this plan will
open the door of college education to millions
of Americans by dramatically changing the way
the student loan programs works.
And next week when the national service plan
passes, these two plans together will enable us
to say to the young people of this country: If
you want to go to college now, you need not
fear the costs. You can borrow the money, but
you won't have to pay it back until you actually
have a job. And if the job is a lower paying
job, you will not be asked to pay more than
a certain fixed percentage of your income in
paying back the loan. But this time, you will
have to pay it back, because the tax system
will be used to help collect the loan. And if
you want to work the loan off, you can do some
of that by participating in a program of service
to your community before, during, or after college. That will give us the chance to solve a
lot of America's problems and educate a whole
new generation of young Americans. All this is
done without imposing harmful cuts on older
Americans. We build a better future for our
children without asking unreasonable sacrifice
from their grandparents.
It is time for Congress to pass this plan. It
is time for Washington to show the courage
to change. It is time for the Members of Congress to roll back the fog of misinformation that
has shrouded this whole debate for the last 5
months. To the people who have told the American people there is no deficit reduction, there
are no spending cuts, and the burden is on
the middle class, the facts of this plan stand
in stark contrast. This plan will keep interest
rates down and grow the American economy.
This week I had the honor of meeting with
many Americans from all walks of life who are
taking personal responsibility for their families,
their workplaces, and their country. On Monday,
I attended a conference that our administration
sponsored in Chicago where workers and managers talked about how they could work together
to improve the quality of their goods and services and increase the security of their jobs and
incomes. I met an executive from Missouri who
turned around a failing plant by sharing informa

tion and giving a sense of ownership to workers
who previously had been totally shut out of all
those decisions. Once he did that and the employees understood the big picture, they did better at their jobs, they turned the company
around. Their jobs and incomes were more secure, and they're making money. I met a widow
from Detroit with no prospect of a job, thinking
she would have to go on welfare because of
her children, perhaps forever. Instead, she found
a job as a machinist after enrolling in a 6-year
advanced training program. When she completes
that program, instead of being on welfare she'll
have the equivalent of a master's degree in engineering.
On Wednesday, I met with more than 60
corporate executives from all over America, from
all kinds of companies. Many of these executives
were Republicans who will have to pay higher
taxes under this plan. But they had made the
hard-headed decision that it was important to
pass this economic plan because they knew that
their companies, their shareholders, and their
country would be better off if we reduced the
Federal deficit, kept interest rates down, and
got investment going back into the American
economy. As the chief executive officer of one
of these corporations said, it's time to quit fooling around and act.
And I want to tell you about one more group
of people who are quiet heroes of this economy.
On Thursday, I met with three families who
work hard for low wages from the States of
Georgia, Kentucky, and Oklahoma. Thanks to
the earned-income tax credit in our Tax Code,
which reduces the tax burden on low income
workers, they are supporting their children instead of going on welfare. Now, this is very
important, because 18 percent, almost one in
five, of American workers today actually work
for wages that will not support a family of four
above the poverty line. This plan has a revolutionary expansion of the earned-income tax credit so that for the first time ever, we can say
to American workers: If you work full time and
you have children in your home, you will not
live in poverty. The tax system will lift you out
of poverty, not drive you into it. This is the
biggest incentive for people we have ever provided to get off welfare and go to work, to
reward work and family and responsibility. It
is not a partisan issue; it is an American issue.
And it will empower all kinds of Americans to
seize a better life for themselves.


1252




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 31


I'm proud a lot of Americans have decided
to do what is right for themselves and their
families. They're looking for new skills, looking
for new ways to work with their bosses in the
workplace. They're choosing work over welfare.
I'm proud so many people now are tired of
the old divisions in our country. They don't want
to see this country divided between labor and
management or Democrats and Republicans.
They want us to unite as Americans.
As your Senators and Representatives conclude work on this budget, I'd like to say a
special word to those of you here in the Rose
Garden and all of those listening to me across
the country. The time has come to act. Unless
the Congress acts on this budget, we cannot
remove the uncertainty that exists in the economy, we cannot continue to bring interest rates
down, and we cannot possibly move on to the
other challenges that await us. We still have
to provide security and health care to all Americans and bring the cost of health care down
within inflation. We still have to face the fact
that we have to reform our welfare system. We
still have to pass a crime bill to put 100,000
more police officers on the streets over the next
4 years. There are many challenges awaiting this
Congress and our Nation, and we cannot move
The President's Radio Address
July 31, 1993
Good morning. Five months ago in my State
of the Union Address to Congress, I pledged
to the American people that I would do my
best to fulfill the campaign commitment of 1992
to change the way Washington works. That
means reviving our economy by reducing our
deficit; cutting spending; reversing trickle-down
economics by asking the wealthiest Americans
to pay their fair share of taxes; increasing incentives to business to create new jobs; helping
the working poor; and renewing the skills and
productivity of our workers, our students, and
our children.
Now the Members of both Houses of Congress are preparing to decide on a final version
of my economic growth plan that meets the
objectives I discussed when I presented it 5
months ago. This plan will contain the largest


on unless we pass this plan. And most importantly, we will not have a framework within
which we can work for jobs and higher incomes
for the American people.
If you believe we ought to do it, now is the
time to make your voices heard. Your Senators
and Representatives have been subject to an
amazing amount of unfair pressure and flat
wrong and false information. I need your help.
Tell your Senators and your Representatives if
they have the courage to finally bring this deficit
down and turn the country in the right direction
and create jobs, you would appreciate it, you
will support it, and you will stand with them.
Now is the time to act. We have talked and
dawdled for long enough.
In 1980, this country had a $1 trillion national
debt after 200 years. Today, it is $4 trillion.
We have got to turn this around for our children, for our grandchildren. And funny enough,
this is something that will help us all today,
right now, too. I need your help, and I hope
you'll tell your Senators and your Representatives the time has come to move forward.
Thank you, and good morning.
NOTE: The President spoke at 8:52 a.m. in the
Rose Garden at the White House.


reduction in our deficit in the Nation's history.
With nearly one quarter of a trillion dollars in
real, enforceable spending cuts, every new dollar
of taxes will be matched by a dollar of spending
cuts. And 80 percent of the new taxes now will
be raised from individuals earning over $200,000
a year. No working family earning less than
$180,000 will pay more in income taxes. That
will be a real change from the trickle-down economics of the past dozen years. The average
family will pay only one tax, less than a dime
a day in an energy tax devoted entirely to deficit
reduction. That's about $33 a year for a family
of four with an income of $40,000 or $50,000
a year. I think that's a modest and fair price
to pay for the change we seek and the progress
we're making. We pledged to have the lightest
possible burden on the middle class; and I think


1253




July 31 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


that, we have done.
Because we need the private sector to grow,
the plan provides investments in job-creating capacities of American business and in the education and skills of our people. For example,
the plan supports small business by dramatically
increasing the tax incentive they get to invest
in their own operations. Under this plan, more
than 90 percent of the small businesses in
America will actually be eligible for a reduction
in their taxes. The plan also gives other incentives to business for new plant and equipment,
to invest in research and development for hightech firms, to invest in new fast-growing firms
that create so many of our jobs. And perhaps
most important to many middle class families,
this plan opens the doors of college for millions
of families by reforming the student loan program and making college affordable again to
all Americans.
We do all this without imposing harmful cuts
on programs that benefit older Americans, and
building a better future for our children without
asking unreasonable sacrifice from their grandparents. It's time for Congress to pass this plan.
It's time for Washington to show the courage
to change, just as people all across America are
showing that kind of courage.
This week I had the honor of meeting with
many Americans who are taking personal responsibility for making their lives and our country even better. On Monday, I attended a conference in Chicago where workers and managers
talked about how they can work together to
improve the quality of their goods and services,
increase the strength and security of their own
jobs and incomes. I met an executive from Missouri who turned around a failing plant by sharing information with employees about the company's performance. When the employees understood the big picture, they did even better
at their jobs. And I met a woman from Detroit
who got a job as a machinist after enrolling
in a 6-year advanced training program. When
she completes the program, she'll have the
equivalent of a master's degree in engineering.
On Wednesday, I met with more than 60
corporate executives who support my economic
growth plan. Many of them are Republicans who
will have to pay higher taxes under the plan.
But they made the hard-headed economic decision that their companies, their shareholders,
and their country will be better off with this


economic plan because it means lower deficits,
lower interest rates, and a more stable environment to grow. As the chief executive officer
of one of these corporations said, it's time to
quit fooling around and pass the plan.
And I want to tell you about one more group
of people who are quiet heroes in our economy.
On Thursday, I met with three families who
work hard for low wages. Thanks to the earnedincome tax credit, which under this plan reduces
the tax burden on low income workers, they
can support their children without going on welfare. This plan increases that earned-income tax
credit so that we can finally tell every working
parent in America: If you work full time and
you have children at home, we will lift you
out of poverty. This will have more to do with
encouraging people to get off welfare and go
to work than anything else we've done.
I'm proud that so many people have the courage to learn new skills, to choose work over
welfare, to look beyond the old divisions between labor and management, between Democrats and Republicans, to the things that unite
us as Americans. These people are ready to
change.
As your Senators and Representatives conclude work on our budget, I'd like to say a
special word to each of you listening to me
today. There's been a lot of misinformation
about this economic plan. Now you know the
truth: $500 billion in deficit reduction, equally
divided between cuts and revenues; 80 percent
of the new revenue is going to the top 1.2
percent of our people; a trust fund so that all
the money goes to reduce the deficit; real investments to help the working poor, to help
middle class families sending their children to
college, without undue cuts on the elderly.
This is a new economic direction for our
country. If you want it, if you want the jobs
it will provide and the growth for our economy,
you must make your voices heard. Tell your
Senators and Representatives that this plan, with
its deficit reduction, with its lower interest rates,
with its investment in private sector jobs, means
more jobs and a better future for America, and
it is time to pass it.
Thank you for listening.
NOTE: This address was recorded at 8:40 a.m. in
the Oval Office at the White House for broadcast
at 10:06 a.m.


1254




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / July 31


Statement on the Death of Representative Paul B. Henry
July 31, 1993


Hillary and I received the news of Congressman Paul Henry's passing with deep sadness.
It's tragic when such a productive and promising
life is cut short so much before its time. His


personal courage and bravery will be an inspiration for us. Our thoughts and prayers are with
his family.


1255








Appendix A-Digest of Other White House Announcements


The following list includes the President's public schedule and other items of general interest announced by
the Office of the Press Secretary and not included
elsewhere in this book.
January 20
Following the Inaugural luncheon at the Capitol,
the President and Hillary Clinton went by motorcade
along the parade route to the White House, where
they viewed the Inaugural parade from the reviewing
stand. In the evening, they attended several Inaugural
balls.
January 21
In the morning, the President and Hillary Clinton
held an open house for the American people in the
Diplomatic Reception Room at the White House.
In the afternoon, the President met with senior
staff members in the Roosevelt Room, after which
he and Hillary Clinton hosted a reception in the State
Dining Room for their family and friends from Arkansas.
January 22
In the morning, the President attended a reception
for Cabinet members.
January 23
In the morning, the President had telephone conversations with President Boris Yeltsin of Russia and
Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin of Israel.
The President later met with Chairman of the National Economic Council Robert E. Rubin.
January 25
In the afternoon, the President met at the White
House with the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
The President appointed John D. Hart as Deputy
Assistant to the President and Deputy Director of
the Office of Intergovernmental Affairs, and Arthur
Jones and Lorraine Voles as Deputy White House
Press Secretaries.
January 27
In the afternoon, the President met with Democratic congressional leaders.
January 28
In the morning, the President met with Federal
Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan, Secretary
of the Treasury Lloyd Bentsen, and Chairman of the
National Economic Council Robert E. Rubin.


Later in the morning, the President and Hillary
Clinton attended funeral services at the Washington
National Cathedral for Justice Thurgood Marshall.
In the afternoon, the President met with:
-Susan Maxman, president, American Institute of
Architects, and Kevin Roche, recipient of the
1993 medal of the American Institute of Architects;
-Richard English, a participant in the Make-AWish Foundation, and his family.
January 29
The President met at the White House with the
Vice President and Senator George J. Mitchell. Later,
he met with economic advisers.
January 30
In the morning, the President and Hillary Clinton
went to Camp David, MD, for a retreat with the
Cabinet and White House senior staff members.
January 31
In the afternoon, the President and Hillary Clinton
returned to the White House from Camp David, MD.
February 2
In the morning, the President met with Democratic
congressional leaders at the Capitol. In the afternoon,
he met with economic advisers at the White House.
February 4
In the morning, the President met with House
Democratic leaders at the Capitol.
In the afternoon, the President met at the White
House with:
-Girl Scouts from Los Angeles, CA;
-women athletes representing the Women's Sports
Foundation on National Women and Girls in
Sports Day;
-freshman Members of Congress.
February 5
In the afternoon, the President met in the Blue
Room with representatives of the American Association of Retired Persons.
The President designated the following persons for
the positions indicated:
James H. Quello, Chair of the Federal Communications Commission on an interim basis;
Elizabeth Anne Moler, Chair of the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission on an interim basis;
Gail C. McDonald, Chair of the Interstate Commerce Commission on an interim basis; and


1257




Appendix A / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


John A. Gannon, Acting Chairperson of the National
Council on Disability.
February 8
The President appointed Kathleen McGinty as Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of the
White House Office on Environmental Policy.
February 10
In the afternoon, the President traveled to Detroit,
MI, where he attended private receptions at WXYZTV. He returned to Washington, DC, in the evening.
February 11
In the morning, the President met with:
-the Washington, DC, Mardi Gras queen;
-the Vice President, for lunch;
-congressional leaders.
February 12
In the morning, the President and Hillary Clinton
toured the Fenwick Center health clinic in Arlington,
VA.
February 14
In the morning, the President went to Haines Point
in East Potomac Park, where he signed the proclamation designating February as American Heart Month
and then ran in the American Heart Association's Run
for Heart.
February 15
In the morning, the President had a telephone conversation with President Frangois Mitterrand of
France.
February 16
In the afternoon, the President toured a road construction site at South Dakota Avenue NE and met
with construction workers.
February 17
At noon, the President had lunch with news media
anchors. In the afternoon, he met with Secretary of
State Warren Christopher and later had a telephone
conversation with Ross Perot.
February 18
In the afternoon, the President traveled to St. Louis,
MO. In the evening, he traveled to Chillicothe, OH.
February 19
In the morning, the President held interviews with
local TV stations in Chillicothe.
In the afternoon, the President traveled to Hyde
Park, NY, where he visited the Franklin D. Roosevelt
Library and held interviews with local media before
returning to Washington, DC, in the evening.


February 20
The President announced that he will nominate
Mary Jo Bane to be Assistant Secretary of Health
and Human Services for Children and Families.
February 21
In the morning, the President traveled to Santa
Monica, CA, and in the afternoon, he traveled to
Los Angeles and San Jose.
In the evening, the President had dinner with chief
executive officers of California-based companies in Los
Gatos, CA.
February 22
In the morning, the President toured Silicon Graphics in Mountain View, CA. In the afternoon, he traveled to Everett, WA, and he returned to Washington,
DC, in the evening.
The President announced his nomination of Frank
Wisner to be Under Secretary for Policy at the Department of Defense. He also announced his intention
to nominate the following individuals for the posts
listed:
Department of Defense
John Deutch, Under Secretary for Acquisition
Department of Energy
Thomas P. Grumbly, Assistant Secretary for Environmental Restoration and Management
Susan Fallows Tierney, Assistant Secretary for Domestic and International Energy Policy
Department of Health and Human Services
Walter Broadnax, Deputy Secretary
David Ellwood, Assistant Secretary for Planning and
Evaluation
Jerry Klepner, Assistant Secretary for Legislation
Avis LaVelle, Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs
Harriet Rabb, General Counsel
Fernando Torres-Gil, Commissioner on Aging, Administration on Aging
Department of the Interior
Robert Armstrong, Assistant Secretary for Land and
Mineral Management
Jim Baca, Director, Bureau of Land Management
Bonnie Cohen, Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and Budget
George Frampton, Assistant Secretary for Fish and
Wildlife and Parks
John Leshy, Solicitor
Elizabeth Reike, Assistant Secretary for Water and
Science
Leslie Turner, Assistant Secretary for Territorial and
International Affairs
Department of Labor
Geri Palast, Assistant Secretary for Congressional
and Intergovernmental Relations


1258




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Appendix A


Thomas Williamson, Jr., Solicitor
Department of the Treasury
Peggy Richardson, Commissioner of the Internal
Revenue Service
Jeffrey Shafer, Assistant Secretary for International
Affairs
February 24
In the evening, the President had a working dinner
with Prime Minister John Major of the United Kingdom.
February 25
In the morning, the President met at the White
House with:
-Representative Eva Clayton;
-representatives of the Business Council.
In the afternoon, the President met at the White
House with:
-the crew of the space shuttle Endeavour;
-members of the Wine Institute;
-members of Future Farmers of America;
-congressional leaders.
February 26
In the late morning, the President attended a reception at American University.
The White House announced that the President
has invited the following world leaders to the White
House for working visits: NATO Secretary General
Manfred Woerner (March 2), President Frangois Mitterrand of France (March 9), Prime Minister Yitzhak
Rabin of Israel (March 15), President Jean Bertrand
Aristide of Haiti (March 16), Prime Minister Albert
Reynolds of Ireland (March 17), Chancellor Helmut
Kohl of Germany (March 26), and President Hosni
Mubarak of Egypt (April 6).
The White House announced the following departmental appointments:
Diana Josephson, Deputy Under Secretary for
Oceans and Atmosphere, Department of Commerce;
Stephanie Solien, Assistant to the Secretary for Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs, Department of the Interior;
Judy Feder, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Planning
and Evaluation, Department of Health and
Human Services; and
Anne Lewis, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public
Affairs, Department of Health and Human Services.
March 1
In the morning, the President traveled to New
Brunswick, NJ, and he returned to Washington, DC,
in the afternoon.
March 2
In the morning, the President went to the Capitol,
where he met with House Republican leaders and


then attended a luncheon with Senate Republican
leaders in the afternoon.
Later in the afternoon, the President met with the
National Association of State Treasurers and with the
National Association of Counties.
The White House announced the following departmental appointments at the Environmental Protection
Agency:
Loretta Ucelli, Associate Administrator for Communications, Education and Public Affairs; and
Robert Hickmott, Associate Administrator for Congressional and Legislative Affairs.
March 4
In the afternoon, the President met at the White
House with:
-the Vice President, for lunch;
-former President Jimmy Carter;
-DC public school students;
-Westinghouse Science Talent Search finalists.
The President declared that a major disaster existed
in the State of Washington and ordered Federal aid
to supplement State and local recovery efforts in areas
struck by severe storms and high winds on January
20-21.
The President declared that a major disaster existed
in the State of Georgia and ordered Federal aid to
supplement State and local recovery efforts in areas
struck by tornadoes, high winds, and heavy rain on
February 21-22.
March 5
The White House announced that the President
transmitted to the Congress the 1993 Trade Policy
Agenda and the 1992 annual report on the Trade
Agreements Program.
March 8
The President had a telephone conversation with
former President George Bush to discuss the situation
in Russia.
In the afternoon, the President met with members
of the House Budget Committee. In the evening, he
met with former President Richard Nixon.
March 9
In the afternoon, the President met with Democratic Senators.
In the evening, the President attended a birthday
party for Senator Strom Thurmond at the J.W. Marriott Hotel.
March 11
In the morning, the President traveled to Linthicum, MD, where he toured the Westinghouse Electronic Systems plant. In the afternoon, he returned
to Washington, DC.
Later in the afternoon, the President met at the
White House with:
-departing White House military personnel;


1259




Appendix A / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


-Special Olympics international athletes;
-recipients of the Presidential Secondary Awards
for Excellence in Science and Mathematics
Teaching.
March 12
In the morning, the President traveled to the U.S.S.
Theodore Roosevelt at sea, where he toured the ship.
He returned to Washington, DC, in the afternoon.
The White House announced that Prime Minister
Giuliano Amato of Italy will meet with the President
at the White House on April 26.
The President announced his intention to nominate
Kenneth S. Apfel to be Assistant Secretary for Management and Budget and Philip R. Lee to be Assistant
Secretary for Health at the Department of Health
and Human Services.
March 15
The White House announced that Prime Minister
Kiichi Miyazawa of Japan will meet with the President
at the White House on April 16.
The President appointed Mary Ann Campbell as
Chair of the National Women's Business Council. She
is currently a member of the Council.
March 16
In the morning, the President met with Senators
from Western States.
March 17
In the morning, the President met with the governing board of the Electronics Industry Association.
In the afternoon, the President and Prime Minister
Albert Reynolds of Ireland attended the Friends of
Ireland St. Patrick's Day luncheon at the Capitol.
The President announced his approval for the following departmental appointments at the Department
of the Interior:
Brooks Yeager, Director of Program Resources
Management;
Kevin Sweeney, Director of Communications; and
Thomas Williams, Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Fish, Wildlife, and Parks.
The President announced his intention to nominate
the following individuals for the posts listed:
Eugene Branstool, Assistant Secretary of Agriculture
for Marketing and Inspection Services;
Lionel Skipwith Johns, Associate Director for Technology, Office of Science and Technology Policy;
Daniel Beard, Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation, Department of the Interior;
Mary Lou Keener, General Counsel, Department
of Veterans Affairs;
Edward Scott, Assistant Secretary of Veterans Affairs for Congressional Affairs; and
Joe Shuldiner, Assistant Secretary of Housing and
Urban Development for Public and Indian Housing.


March 18
In the morning, the President met with Democratic
Senators. Later, he toured the Department of the
Treasury.
In the afternoon, the President had lunch with the
Vice President and afterwards met with the Black
Publishers Association.
In the late afternoon, the President met with the
President of the Commission of the European Communities, Jacques Delors, and then with recipients of
the White House News Photographers Association
awards.
In the evening, the President attended the Radio
and Television Correspondents Association dinner at
the Washington Hilton.
The White House announced that the President
has invited the President of the European Council,
Prime Minister Poul Nyrup Rasmussen of Denmark,
and the President of the Commission of the European
Communities, Jacques Delors, to the White House
for the biannual Presidential consultations between the
European Community and the United States on May
7.
March 19
In the morning, the President traveled to Atlanta,
GA, and he returned to Washington, DC, in the
evening.
March 21
In the morning, the President traveled to Little
Rock, AR.
March 22
In the evening, the President returned to Washington, DC.
March 24
In the afternoon, the President met with Gov.
Pedro J. Rossello of Puerto Rico.
March 25
In the afternoon, the President had lunch with the
Vice President. He then met with:
-Foreign Minister Anatoliy Zlenko of Ukraine;
-Easter Seal Society representatives;
-the University of Alabama Crimson Tide football
team.
In the evening, the President hosted a working dinner for Members of the House of Representatives.
March 26
In the afternoon, the President hosted a White
House tour for Chancellor Helmut Kohl of Germany.
In the evening, the President hosted a working dinner for Members of the Senate.
The White House announced that the President
has assigned Secretary of Commerce Ronald H. Brown
to lead a Cabinet-wide effort on the application of
the President's national economic strategy to the specific economic problems of California.


1260




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Appendix A


March 27
In the evening, the President attended the Gridiron
dinner at the Capital Hilton.
March 28
In the morning, the President traveled to Little
Rock, AR.
March 30
In the afternoon, the President returned to Washington, DC.
The White House announced that the President
made available fiscal year 1993 emergency appropriations for the Departments of Agriculture and Education to provide assistance to victims of recent natural
disasters.
April 1
In the morning, the President traveled to Annapolis,
MD, where he had lunch with U.S. Naval Academy
midshipmen.
In the afternoon, the President traveled to Portland,
OR.
April 2
In the evening, the President met at the Oregon
Convention Center in Portland with a group of Governors who attended the Forest Conference.
The President declared that major disasters existed
in New York, following the February 26 bombing of
the World Trade Center, and in Nebraska, as a result
of severe March flooding and ice jams. The disaster
declarations allow the Federal Emergency Management Agency to provide public assistance grants to
affected municipalities in the two States.
The President announced that he intends to nominate the following individuals for the posts listed:
Victor Jackovich, Ambassador to Bosnia and
Herzegovina;
Walter Slocombe, Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Policy; and
Ellen Haas, Assistant Secretary of Agriculture for
Food and Consumer Services.
The President designated William Hathaway to be
Chair of the Federal Maritime Commission.
The President appointed William Timbers as Transition Manager at the U.S. Enrichment Corporation.
April 3
In the morning, the President traveled to Vancouver, Canada, where he met with Prime Minister
Brian Mulroney at the residence of the president of
the University of the British Columbia. Later in the
morning, President Clinton and President Boris Yeltsin
of Russia attended a luncheon hosted by Prime Minister Mulroney.
In the afternoon, President Clinton and President
Yeltsin toured the Museum of Anthropology.
In the evening, President Clinton hosted a working
dinner for President Yeltsin.


April 4
In the morning, the President attended Palm Sunday services at the First Baptist Church in Vancouver.
April 5
In the early morning, the President returned to
Washington, DC, from Vancouver, Canada.
The President approved the designation of Tony
E. Gallegos to chair the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on an interim basis. He is currently
a member of the Commission.
April 6
The President announced his approval of the appointments by Secretary of Commerce Ronald H.
Brown of Kent Hughes as Associate Deputy Secretary
and Wilbur Hawkins as Deputy Assistant Secretary
for Economic Development.
April 8
In the morning, the President met with Secretary
of Defense Les Aspin and the Joint Chiefs of Staff
at the Pentagon.
Later in the morning, the President and Hillary
Clinton traveled to Little Rock, AR.
April 9
In the afternoon, the President and Hillary Clinton
attended a memorial service for her father, Hugh
Rodham, at the First United Methodist Church in
Little Rock.
The White House announced that the President
would send to the Congress proposed legislation to
extend congressional fast track procedures to conclude
the Uruguay round of the multilateral trade negotiations.
April 10
In the morning, the President and Hillary Clinton
traveled from Little Rock, AR, to Scranton, PA, where
they attended funeral services for her father. In the
evening, they traveled to Camp David, MD, for the
weekend.
The White House announced that the President
has asked Gen. John W. Vessey, Jr., to travel to Vietnam on April 18-19 to assess Vietnamese cooperation
on accounting of American POW/MIA's and to seek
further progress.
April 12
In the morning, the President and Hillary Clinton
returned to the White House from a weekend stay
at Camp David, MD.
April 13
In the afternoon, the President attended the "Especially Arkansas" exhibit at the Willard Hotel.
In a ceremony on the State Floor, the President
received diplomatic credentials from Ambassadors Ricardo Luna Mendoza of Peru, Siragatour Ibrahim
Cisse of Mali, Teboho Ephraim Kitleli of Lesotho,


1261




Appendix A / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


Mohamad Al-Sabah of Kuwait, Jorge Montano of Mexico, Fayez Tarawneh of Jordan, Henrik Liljergren of
Sweden, Ojars Kalnins of Latvia, Helmut Turck of
Austria, Hafiz Pashayev of Azerbaijan, Itamar
Rabinovich of Israel, and Sheikh Abdulrahman alThani of Qatar.
April 15
In the morning, the President met with Gen. John
W. Vessey, Jr., Special Emissary for POW/MIA Affairs.
In the afternoon, he had lunch with the Vice President.
April 16
The White House announced the President's initiative on telecommunications encryption technology.
April 17
In the morning, the President traveled to Pittsburgh, PA, and he returned to Washington, DC, in
the afternoon.
April 19
In the evening, the President toured the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum.
The President announced his intention to appoint
Beth Nolan, currently serving in the White House
Counsel's Office, to the National Commission on Judicial Discipline and Removal.
April 20
In the morning, the President went jogging with
Senator Harris Wofford and members of the District
of Columbia National Service Corps.
The President appointed James A. Baker III to lead
the Presidential delegation to the state funeral of
President Turgut Ozal of Turkey in Ankara on April
21.
April 21
In the morning, the President went jogging with
Boston Mayor Raymond Flynn and six winners of the
Boston Marathon. Later, the President met with Gen.
John W. Vessey, Jr., Special Emissary for POW/MIA
Affairs.
In the afternoon, the President met at the White
House with:
-President Lech Walesa of Poland;
-President Chaim Herzog of Israel;
-President Mario Soares of Portugal;
-President Franjo Tudjman of Croatia;
-President Ion Iliescu of Romania;
-President Zhelyu Zhelev of Bulgaria;
-President Arpad Goncz of Hungary;
-President Milan Kucan of Slovenia;
-President Viclav Havel of the Czech Republic;
-President Michal Kovac of the Slovak Republic;
-Prime Minister Aleksandr Meksi of Albania;
-Prime Minister Andrei Nicholas Sangheli of
Moldova.


In the evening, the President and Hillary Clinton
hosted a private reception at Blair House.
April 23
The President announced his intention to nominate
the following individuals for the posts listed:
Robert Nordhaus, General Counsel at the Department of Energy;
Robert Hunter, Ambassador to NATO; and
Bruce Lehman, Assistant Secretary of Commerce
and Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks.
The President appointed Nan Hunter to be Deputy
General Counsel at the Department of Health and
Human Services.
The President announced his intention to nominate
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Henry
G. Cisneros, Assistant to the President Alexis M. Herman, and Secretary of Agriculture Michael Espy to
serve on the Martin Luther King, Jr., Federal Holiday
Commission.
The President designated Secretary of Commerce
Ron Brown to serve as Vice Chair of the National
Women's Business Council.
April 24
In the morning, the President and Hillary Clinton
traveled to Jamestown, VA, where they went sightseeing with several family members. Later, the President
traveled to Williamsburg, where he attended the Senate Democrats Conference.
April 25
In the morning, the President traveled from Williamsburg, VA, to Boston, MA. In the evening, he
returned to Washington, DC.
April 26
The President announced the establishment of a
National Biological Survey, to be created by reorganizing and upgrading current biological research programs within the Department of the Interior.
April 27
In the afternoon, the President met with congressional leaders.
In the evening, the President attended a reception
honoring Joe Moakley at the Hyatt Regency Hotel
and later attended the National Endowment for Democracy reception at the Capitol Hilton.
The President declared that major disasters existed
in the following States:
-Oklahoma, as a result of severe storms on April
24;
-Oregon, as a result of an earthquake on March
25; and
-Iowa, as a result of severe storms and flooding
on March 26.
In addition, the President approved expanded emergencies in Alabama and North Carolina, following se

1262




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Appendix A


vere snowstorms on March 15 and March 13-17, respectively.
April 28
In the afternoon, the President had lunch with the
Vice President. In the evening, he hosted a working
dinner for Members of the House of Representatives.
April 29
In the afternoon, the President and Hillary Clinton
met with King Juan Carlos I and Queen Sofia of
Spain.
In the evening, the President attended a reception
for representatives of G-7 member nations at Blair
House.
April 30
In the morning, the President traveled to New Orleans, LA, and he returned to Washington, DC, in the
evening.
May 1
In the evening, the President attended the White
House Correspondents' Association dinner at the
Washington Hilton.
The White House announced that the President
has appointed Secretary of Health and Human Services Donna E. Shalala to head the delegation to the
funeral of African National Congress leader Oliver
Tambo in Johannesburg, South Africa, on May 2.
May 3
The President announced that he has selected Adm.
David E. Jeremiah, Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff, as his special representative to the AustralianAmerican Friendship Week activities in Canberra,
Australia, from April 30 to May 8.
May 5
In the afternoon, the President hosted a working
lunch for a group of Democratic Senators.
The White House announced that the President
has asked Robin L. Raphel, a career Foreign Service
officer, to be his personal representative at the funeral
of slain Sri Lankan President Ranasinghe Premadasa
in Colombo, Sri Lanka, on May 6.
May 6
In the afternoon, the President hosted a working
lunch for a group of Republican Senators. In the
evening, he met with members of the Senate Finance
Committee.
May 7
In the evening, the President and Hillary Clinton
attended a reception in honor of the Commander in
Chief and a Marine Corps evening parade at the Marine Barracks.
The President designated Securities and Exchange
Commission member Mary Schapiro as Acting Chair
of the SEC pending the confirmation of Chair-designate Arthur Levitt, Jr.


May 8
In the morning, the President met with national
security advisers.
May 9
In the afternoon, the President and Hillary Clinton
toured an exhibit of French paintings at the National
Gallery of Art.
May 10
In the morning, the President traveled to Cleveland,
OH, and Chicago, IL.
May 11
In the afternoon, the President returned from Chicago, IL, to Washington, DC.
May 12
In the afternoon, the President traveled to New
York City, and he returned to Washington, DC, in
the evening.
The White House announced that the President
transmitted to the Congress amendments to fiscal year
1994 appropriations requests for the Departments of
Education and Agriculture.
May 13
In the afternoon, the President had lunch with the
Vice President. He then met with members of the
National Association of Private Enterprise and a group
of departing White House military aides.
The President announced his approval of the following departmental appointments:
John Horsley, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Transportation for Governmental Affairs;
Kathryn Kahler, Director of Communications at the
Department of Education;
Ken Thorpe, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Health
and Human Services for Planning and Evaluation;
and
Susan Levine, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the
Treasury for International Development and Debt
Policy.
The President declared the following States major
disaster areas:
-Vermont and Maine, as a result of lake and river
flooding caused by heavy rain and melting snow;
-Oklahoma, as a result of storms, tornadoes, and
flooding;
-Missouri, due to damage resulting from heavy
and continuous rainfall; and
-Iowa, due to severe storms and flooding.
May 14
In the afternoon, the President met with President
Mary Robinson of Ireland.
The President appointed Clifton H. Hoofman as
a member of the National Council on Surface Transportation and Frances M. Visco as a member of the
President's Cancer Panel.


1263




Appendix A / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


May 15
In the afternoon, the President and Hillary Clinton
attended the U.S. Air Force Thunderbirds aerial demonstration at Andrews Air Force Base in Camp
Springs, MD. Later, they traveled to New York City,
returning to Washington, DC, late that night.
May 16
In the afternoon, the President and Chelsea Clinton
attended a family picnic at Sidwell Friends School.
Later in the afternoon, the President attended a health
care meeting.
May 17
In the morning, the President traveled to Los Alamos, NM, where he toured the Supercomputer Center
and the Plasma Implantation Facility at the Los Alamos National Laboratory. In the afternoon, the President traveled to San Diego, CA.
May 18
In the morning, the President traveled from San
Diego to Los Angeles, CA, where he toured a laboratory at Los Angeles Valley College.
In the afternoon, the President visited a sporting
goods store in south central Los Angeles, where he
played basketball with community members. In the
evening, he returned to Washington, DC.
May 19
In the morning, the President met with members
of the Democratic Caucus and Democratic leaders
on Capitol Hill.
The White House announced that the President
has invited President Sam Nujoma of Namibia to meet
with him in Washington, DC, on June 16.
May 20
In the afternoon, the President had lunch with the
Vice President.
May 22
In the morning, the President traveled to Stratham,
NH, and he returned to Washington, DC, in the
evening.
May 25
In the morning, the President met with freshman
Democratic Members of Congress.
May 26
The President appointed Norman R. Augustine as
Chair and William T. Esrey as Vice Chair of the
President's National Security Telecommunications Advisory Committee (NSTAC). He also named Joseph
T. Gorman and Albert F. Zettlemoyer to the NSTAC.
May 27
In the afternoon, the President had lunch with the
Vice President. He then met with winners of the U.S.
FIRST science competition.


May 28
In the morning, the President traveled to Philadelphia, PA, where he attended private receptions, and
he returned to Washington, DC, in the evening.
May 29
In the morning, the President traveled to West
Point, NY, and he returned to Andrews Air Force
Base, MD, in the afternoon. The President and Hillary
Clinton then traveled to Camp David, MD, for the
weekend.
May 31
In the morning, the President and Hillary Clinton
returned to the White House from Camp David and
had breakfast with representatives of veterans groups.
Later in the morning, the President visited Arlington
National Cemetery, VA, where he placed a wreath
at the Tomb of the Unknowns. In the afternoon, the
President participated in a wreath-laying ceremony at
the Vietnam Veterans Memorial.
June 1
In the morning, the President traveled to Milwaukee, WI, and he returned to Washington, DC, in
the evening.
The White House announced that the President
signed H.R. 1378, Making Technical Corrections in
Defense-Related Laws.
June 2
In the morning, the President participated with
former Georgetown University classmates in a cleanup project sponsored by the Marshall Heights Community Development Organization at Watts Branch
Park.
June 3
In the morning, the President traveled to Frederick,
MD, and he returned to Washington, DC, in the
afternoon.
June 4
In the afternoon, the President met with:
-the Vice President;
-Justice Department officials;
-civil rights leaders.
The White House announced that the President
sent to the Congress requests for fiscal year 1993
supplemental appropriations.
June 5
In the evening, the President hosted a reunion gala
for former Georgetown University classmates.
June 6
In the evening, the President attended a reception
at Hickory Hill, the Kennedy estate in McLean, VA.


1264




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Appendix A


June 9
In the morning, the President and Hillary Clinton
attended Chelsea Clinton's eighth grade graduation
ceremony at Sidwell Friends School.
June 10
In the afternoon, the President met with:
-Jean Nickel, winner of the National Multiple
Sclerosis Society's Mother of the Year award;
-Bob Jester, winner of the National Multiple Sclerosis Society's Father of the Year award;
-Dana Stephenson and Beth Troutman, recipients
of America's National Teenager Scholarship Program;
-Gabrielle Fleekop, a participant in the Make-AWish Foundation program.
The President announced his intention to appoint
Merrill D. Peterson, Thomas Jefferson professor of
history emeritus at the University of Virginia, as Chairman of the Thomas Jefferson Commemoration Commission. The President also named the following persons as Commission members:
John T. Casteen III, president, University of Virginia;
James K. Golden, professor emeritus, Ohio State
University;
H. Draper Hunt, professor of history, University
of Southern Maine;
Russell E. Dickenson, former director, National
Park Service;
James R. Thompson, former Governor of Illinois;
and
George Taylor Stewart, president, the Foundation
for Jefferson's Poplar Forest.
June 11
In the afternoon, the President had lunch with
Judge Stephen Breyer.
Later in the afternoon, the President received diplomatic credentials from Ambassadors John de
Chastelain of Canada, Rouben Robert Shugarian of
Armenia, Edmond A. Mulet Lesieur of Guatemala,
Mukhamed Bobir Malikov of Uzbekistan, and Amos
Bernard Muvengwa Midzi of Zimbabwe.
The White House announced that the Domestic
Policy Council has formed a Working Group on Welfare Reform, Family Support, and Independence to
be chaired by Bruce Reed, Deputy Assistant to the
President for Domestic Policy; David Ellwood, Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services for Planning and Evaluation; and the Assistant Secretary of
Health and Human Services for Children and Families, after a nominee for that position is confirmed
by the Senate.
June 12
The President declared that a major disaster existed
in Minnesota following severe storms, flooding, and
tornadoes on May 6-19.


June 13
In the evening, the President and Hillary Clinton
hosted a reception for members of the White House
press corps.
June 14
The White House announced that the President
has directed Secretary of Energy Hazel Rollins
O'Leary to perform the duties of the Office of the
Nuclear Waste Negotiator.
The White House also announced that the President
will visit Seoul, South Korea, on July 10-11 to meet
with President Kim Yong-sam and visit American
troops stationed at the DMZ.
June 15
The White House announced that the President
sent to the Congress amendments to the fiscal year
1994 appropriations requests for international development assistance, the Legal Services Corporation, and
the Department of Justice.
The President announced the selection of physicists
Leon M. Lederman, Harold Brown, and John S. Foster, Jr., as winners of the 1992 Enrico Fermi Award.
June 17
In the afternoon, the President had lunch with the
Vice President.
The President announced the appointment of Jody
Greenstone as Special Assistant to the President and
Deputy to the Counselor to the President.
June 19
In the morning, the President traveled to Boston,
MA. In the afternoon, he traveled to Portland, ME,
and he returned to Washington, DC, in the evening.
June 23
In the afternoon, the President had lunch with business leaders.
In the evening, the President received diplomatic
credentials from Ambassadors Mohamed Benaissa of
Morocco, Roberto Mayorga-Cortes of Nicaragua,
Thomas Kahota Kargbo of Sierra Leone, Li Daoyu
of China, Han Sung-su of the Republic of Korea,
and Adriaan Pieter Roetert Jacobovits de Szeged of
The Netherlands.
June 24
In the afternoon, the President had lunch with the
Vice President. He later met with Joe Louis Barrow,
Jr.
In the evening, the President hosted a reception
for congressional leaders.
June 25
In the afternoon, the President had a telephone
conversation with Henry Leon Ritzenthaler.


1265




Appendix A / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


June 28
The President announced his intention to nominate
Einar Dyhrkopp of Shawneetown, IL, to be a member
of the U.S. Postal Service Board of Governors.
June 30
In the evening, the President, Hillary Clinton, and
Chelsea Clinton attended a performance of "The
Phantom of the Opera" at the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.
July 1
In the afternoon, the President had lunch with the
Vice President.
In the evening, the President and Hillary Clinton
had dinner with Senate Republican leader Robert
Dole and Ambassador and Mrs. Robert Strauss.
July 2
The President announced his intention to nominate
career Foreign Service officers Edward Perkins and
Victor Tomseth to be Ambassador to Australia and
Ambassador to Laos, respectively, and Toby Gati to
be Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence and
Research. In addition, the President has accorded the
personal rank of Ambassador to Robert Gosende in
his capacity as Special Envoy for Somalia.
The President announced his approval of the following Senior Executive Service appointments at the Department of Defense:
V. Larry Lynn, Deputy Under Secretary for Advanced Technology;
Maj. Gen. Frank Horton, Principal Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Command, Control, Communications, and Intelligence; and
Mari-Luci Jaramillo, Deputy Secretary for InterAmerican Affairs.
July 4
In the afternoon, the President traveled to Philadelphia, PA, where he participated in a Liberty Bell
ringing ceremony. Later in the afternoon, he traveled
to Eldridge, IA, where he surveyed damage caused
by severe flooding.
In the evening, the President traveled to San Francisco, CA.
July 5
In the afternoon, the President and Hillary Clinton
traveled from San Francisco, CA, to Tokyo, Japan.
July 6
After arriving in Tokyo in the late afternoon, the
President met with Prime Minister Kiichi Miyazawa
of Japan at the likura House.
July 7
In the morning, the President met with President
Soeharto of Indonesia at the U.S. Embassy. In the


afternoon, he met with Prime Minister John Major
of the United Kingdom at the Okura Hotel.
In the evening, the President attended a working
dinner at the residence of Prime Minister Miyazawa.
July 8
In the morning, the President attended sessions of
the economic summit and a working luncheon at the
Akasaka Palace. In the late afternoon, he met with
Chancellor Helmut Kohl of Germany.
In the evening, the President and Hillary Clinton
attended a dinner hosted by Emperor Akihito at the
Imperial Palace.
July 9
In the morning, the President attended sessions of
the economic summit at the Akasaka Palace.
In the afternoon, the President attended a working
luncheon with Prime Minister Kim Campbell of Canada at the residence of the U.S. Ambassador. He
then returned to the Akasaka Palace to attend final
sessions of the economic summit.
The President named Gerald Corrigan, president
and CEO of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York,
as Chairman of the Russian-American Enterprise
Fund.
July 10
In the late morning, the President and Hillary Clinton traveled from Tokyo, Japan, to Seoul, South
Korea.
July 11
In the morning, the President had breakfast with
President Kim Yong-sam of South Korea in the Blue
House garden.
In the evening, the President and Hillary Clinton
traveled to Honolulu, HI, crossing the international
dateline and arriving in Honolulu on the morning of
June 11.
After arriving in the early morning, the President
had breakfast with servicemen at the Pearl Harbor
Naval Base. After the breakfast, the President and
Hillary Clinton participated in a wreath-laying ceremony at the U.S.S. Arizona Memorial. The President
then attended briefings at the CINCPAC headquarters
at Camp H.M. Smith.
In the evening, the President and Hillary Clinton
attended a dinner for Gov. John Waihee of Hawaii.
July 13
In the late evening, the President traveled from
Honolulu, HI, to Des Moines, IA.
July 14
Following his arrival in Des Moines in the morning,
the President took a helicopter tour of areas damaged
by severe flooding in Iowa. In the evening, he returned to Washington, DC.
The President announced the addition of 87 more
counties in the State of Iowa to the Presidential major


1266




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Appendix A


disaster declaration of July 9, allowing flood victims
to be eligible for Federal assistance. The additions
brought to 99 the number of counties in Iowa eligible
for Federal assistance to affected residents and businesses.
July 15
In the afternoon, the President had lunch with the
Vice President.
The President announced his intention to nominate
Joseph Swerdzewski to be General Counsel of the
Federal Labor Relations Authority and Alice Dear to
be Executive Director of the African Development
Bank, and to renominate William Hathaway as a member and Chair of the Federal Maritime Commission.
July 17
In the morning, the President traveled to St. Louis,
MO, where he took a helicopter tour of areas damaged by severe flooding.
In the afternoon, the President traveled to Little
Rock, AR.
July 18
In the afternoon, the President returned to Washington, DC, from Little Rock, AR.
July 19
The President declared that major disasters existed
in Nebraska and South Dakota as a result of severe
storms and flooding and ordered the Federal Emergency Management Agency to provide assistance to
affected individuals and communities in those States.
July 22
The White House announced the President will
travel to Chicago, IL, on July 26 to address the Conference on the Future of the American Workplace
sponsored by the Departments of Commerce and
Labor
The President declared that a major disaster existed
in Kansas as a result of severe storms and flooding
and ordered the Federal Emergency Management
Agency to assist individuals and families in a fivecounty area.
The President announced the following Senior Executive Service appointments:
U.S. International Development Cooperation Agency
Richard McCall, Jr., Chief of Staff, Agency for
International Development
Department of Commerce
Will Martin, Special Adviser for International Affairs, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Department of Defense
Keith Gaby, Director of Intergovernmental Affairs
Jonathan Spalter, Special Assistant to the Principal
Deputy Under Secretary for Policy


Timothy Connelly, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Special Operations and Low Intensity
Conflict
Carol DiBattiste, Principal Deputy General Counsel
of the Navy
Sandra Stuart, Assistant to the Secretary for Legislative Affairs
Todd Weiler, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the
Army for Training
Wade R. Sanders, Deputy Assistant Secretary of
the Navy for Reserves
Joseph J. Kruzel, Deputy Assistant Secretary, European and NATO Policy
Department of Education
Howard Ray Moses, Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Special Education and Rehabilitative Services
Raymond C. Pierce, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Civil Rights
Thomas R. Wolanin, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Legislation and Congressional Affairs
Department of Energy
Dan W. Reicher, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Environmental Restoration and
Waste Management
Terry Cornwall Rumsey, Director, Office of Scientific and Technical Information
General Services Administration
Patrick Dorinson, Assistant Administrator for Public
Affairs
Emily Clark Hewitt, General Counsel
Kenneth Kimbrough, Commissioner of Building
Services
Department of Health and Human Services
Anna Durand, Deputy General Counsel
Ann Rosewater, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and External Affairs, Administration for Children, Youth and Families
Department of the Interior
Robert L. Baum, Associate Solicitor (Conservation
and Wildlife)
Anne H. Shields, Deputy Solicitor
Department of Justice
Samuel J. Dubbin, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Policy Development
George Havens, Special Assistant, Office of the Attorney General
Sheldon C. Bilchik, Assistant Deputy Attorney General
Robert Brink, Deputy Assistant Attorney General,
Office of Legislative Affairs
Department of State
Barbara Mills Larkin, Deputy Assistant Secretary
for Legislative Affairs


1267




Appendix A / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


Valerie A. Mims, Deputy Assistant Secretary for the
Bureau of Legislative Affairs
Department of Transportation
Theodore A. McConnell, Chief Counsel, Federal
Highway Administration
Department of the Treasury
Fe Morales Marks, Deputy Assistant Secretary (Financial Institutions)
Mozelle Willmont Thompson, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Government Finance
David A. Lipton, Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Eastern European and Former Soviet Union Policy
Office of the United States Trade Representative
Irving A. Williamson, Deputy General Counsel
Jennifer Hillman, Chief Textile Negotiator
July 23
In the morning, the President traveled to Little
Rock, AR, where he and Hillary Clinton attended
the funeral service for Deputy White House Counsel
Vincent Foster, Jr., at St. Andrew's Cathedral. In the
afternoon, they traveled to Hope, AR, where they
attended the burial service at Memory Gardens Cemetery.
July 24
In the early morning, the President and Hillary
Clinton returned to Washington, DC, from Little
Rock, AR.


July 26
In the morning, the President went jogging with
the Achilles Track Club. He then traveled to Chicago,
IL.
In the evening, the President attended a Democratic National Committee dinner at the Chicago Historical Society and then returned to Washington, DC.
The President declared that a major disaster existed
in North Dakota due to excessive rainfall and flooding
beginning June 22.
July 28
In the evening, the President met with the Democratic Study Group on Capitol Hill. He then had dinner with House Members in the House Longworth
Cafeteria.
July 29
In the afternoon, the President had lunch with the
Vice President. He then met with recipients of the
Enrico Fermi Award.
July 30
The White House announced that the President
added $1.3 billion to his request for supplemental
appropriations to cover emergency expenses related
to the Midwest flooding.


1268




Appendix B-Nominations Submitted to the Senate


The following list does not include promotions of members of the Uniformed Services, nominations to the
Service Academies, or nominations of Foreign Service
officers.
Submitted January 20
Warren Christopher,
of California, to be Secretary of State.
Lloyd Bentsen,
of Texas, to be Secretary of the Treasury.
Les Aspin,
of Wisconsin, to be Secretary of Defense.
Zoe Baird,
of Connecticut, to be Attorney General.
Bruce Babbitt,
of Arizona, to be Secretary of the Interior.
Mike Espy,
of Mississippi, to be Secretary of Agriculture.
Ronald H. Brown,
of the District of Columbia, to be Secretary of Commerce.
Robert B. Reich,
of Massachusetts, to be Secretary of Labor.
Donna E. Shalala,
of Wisconsin, to be Secretary of Health and Human
Services.
Henry G. Cisneros,
of Texas, to be Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.
Federico Pefia,
of Colorado, to be Secretary of Transportation.
Hazel Rollins O'Leary,
of Minnesota, to be Secretary of Energy.
Richard W. Riley,
of South Carolina, to be Secretary of Education.
Jesse Brown,
of the District of Columbia, to be Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
Madeleine Korbel Albright,
of the District of Columbia, to be the Representative
of the United States of America to the United Nations


with rank and status of Ambassador Extraordinary and
Plenipotentiary, and the Representative of the United
States of America in the Security Council of the United Nations.
Carol M. Browner,
of Florida, to be Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency.
Michael Kantor,
of California, to be United States Trade Representative, with the rank of Ambassador Extraordinary and
Plenipotentiary.
Leon E. Panetta,
of California, to be Director of the Office of Management and Budget.
Laura D'Andrea Tyson,
of California, to be a Member of the Council of Economic Advisers.
Roger Altman,
of New York, to be Deputy Secretary of the Treasury.
Hershel Wayne Gober,
of Arkansas, to be Deputy Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
Madeleine Kunin,
of Vermont, to be Deputy Secretary of Education.
Alice Rivlin,
of the District of Columbia, to be Deputy Director
of the Office of Management and Budget.
Clifton R. Wharton, Jr.,
of New York, to be Deputy Secretary of State.
R. James Woolsey,
of Maryland, to be Director of Central Intelligence.
Submitted January 25
John Howard Gibbons,
of Virginia, to be Director of the Office of Science
and Technology Policy, vice D. Allan Bromley, resigned.
Withdrawn January 26
Zoe Baird,
of Connecticut, to be Attorney General, which was
sent to the Senate on January 20, 1993.


1269




Appendix B / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


Submitted January 28
Lloyd Bentsen,
of Texas, to be U.S. Governor of the International
Monetary Fund for a term of 5 years; U.S. Governor
of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development for a term of 5 years; U.S. Governor of
the Inter-American Development Bank for a term of
5 years; U.S. Governor of the African Development
Bank for a term of 5 years; U.S. Governor of the
Asian Development Bank; U.S. Governor of the African Development Fund; and U.S. Governor of the
European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.
Submitted February 23
William J. Perry,
of California, to be Deputy Secretary of Defense, vice
Donald J. Atwood, resigned.
Frank G. Wisner,
of the District of Columbia, to be Under Secretary
of Defense for Policy, vice Paul Dundes Wolfowitz,
resigned.
Submitted February 26
Peter Tarnoff,
of New York, to be Under Secretary of State for
Political Affairs, vice Arnold Lee Kanter, resigned.
Janet Reno,
of Florida, to be Attorney General.
Submitted March 4
Russell F. Canan,
of the District of Columbia, to be an Associate Judge
of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia
for the term of 15 years, vice Ronald P. Wertheim,
retired.
Submitted March 5
Terrence R. Duvernay, Sr.,
of Georgia, to be Deputy Secretary of Housing and
Urban Development, vice Alfred A. DelliBovi, resigned.
Submitted March 8
James B. King,
of Massachusetts, to be Director of the Office of Personnel Management for a term of 4 years, vice Constance Berry Newman, resigned.
Jean Nolan,
of Maryland, to be an Assistant Secretary of Housing
and Urban Development, vice Mary Shannon Brunette.


Withdrawn March 9
The following named persons to be Commissioners
of the Copyright Royalty Tribunal for terms of 7 years,
which were sent to the Senate on January 5, 1993:
Edward J. Damich, of Virginia.
Bruce D. Goodman, of Pennsylvania.
Submitted March 15
Strobe Talbott,
of Ohio, to be Ambassador at Large and Special Adviser to the Secretary of State on the New Independent States.
Harriet C. Babbitt,
of Arizona, to be the Permanent Representative of
the United States of America to the Organization of
American States, with the rank of Ambassador.
Stephen A. Oxman,
of New Jersey, to be an Assistant Secretary of State,
vice Thomas Michael Tolliver Niles, resigned.
Submitted March 16
Joan E. Spero,
of New York, to be Under Secretary of State for
Economic and Agricultural Affairs, vice Robert B.
Zoellick.
James Lee Witt,
of Arkansas, to be Director of the Federal Emergency
Management Agency, vice Wallace Elmer Stickney,
resigned.
Submitted March 17
Robert M. Sussman,
of the District of Columbia, to be Deputy Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, vice
Frank Henry Habicht II, resigned.
Thomas E. Donilon,
of the District of Columbia, to be an Assistant Secretary of State, vice Margaret DeBardeleben Tutwiler,
resigned.
Submitted March 22
Jack R. DeVore, Jr.,
of Texas, to be an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury,
vice Desiree Tucker-Sorini, resigned.
Frank N. Newman,
of California, to be an Under Secretary of the Treasury, vice Jerome H. Powell, resigned.
Leslie B. Samuels,
of New York, to be an Assistant Secretary of the
Treasury, vice Fred T. Goldberg, Jr., resigned.


1270




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Appendix B


George Edward Moose,
of Maryland, a career member of the Senior Foreign
Service, class of Minister-Counselor, to be an Assistant
Secretary of State, vice Herman Jay Cohen, resigned.
Thomas P. Grumbly,
of Virginia, to be an Assistant Secretary of Energy
(Environmental Restoration and Management), vice
Leo P. Duffy, resigned.
Submitted March 25
John M. Deutch,
of Massachusetts, to be Under Secretary of Defense
for Acquisition, vice Donald Jay Yockey, resigned.
Submitted March 26
Eugene Allan Ludwig,
of Pennsylvania, to be Comptroller of the Currency
for a term of 5 years, vice Robert Logan Clarke.
Jamie S. Gorelick,
of Maryland, to be General Counsel of the Department of Defense, vice David Spears Addington, resigned.
Submitted March 29
Ronald K. Noble,
of New York, to be an Assistant Secretary of the
Treasury, vice Peter K. Nunez, resigned.
Thomas R. Pickering,
of New Jersey, a career member of the Senior Foreign
Service, with the personal rank of Career Ambassador,
to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary
of the United States of America to the Russian Federation.
Submitted March 30
Roberta Achtenberg,
of California, to be an Assistant Secretary of Housing
and Urban Development, vice Gordon H. Mansfield,
resigned.
Submitted April 1
Leslie M. Turner,
of New Jersey, to be an Assistant Secretary of the
Interior, vice Stella Garcia Guerra, resigned.
Avis LaVelle,
of Illinois, to be an Assistant Secretary of Health and
Human Services, vice Alixe Reed Glen.
Susan Fallows Tierney,
of Massachusetts, to be an Assistant Secretary of Energy (Domestic and International Energy Policy), vice
John J. Easton, Jr., resigned.


Submitted April 2
Harry J. Gilmore,
of Virginia, a career member of the Senior Foreign
Service, class of Minister-Counselor, to be Ambassador
Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States
of America to the Republic of Armenia.
Patrick Francis Kennedy,
of Illinois, to be an Assistant Secretary of State, vice
Arthur W. Fort, resigned.
Geri D. Palast,
of California, to be an Assistant Secretary of Labor,
vice Frances Curtin McNaught, resigned.
Steven Alan Herman,
of New York, to be an Assistant Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency, vice Herbert Tate.
David Gardiner,
of Virginia, to be an Assistant Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency, vice J. Clarence
Davies.
Submitted April 5
J. Brian Atwood,
of the District of Columbia, to be Administrator of
the Agency for International Development.
Jerry D. Klepner,
of Virginia, to be an Assistant Secretary of Health
and Human Services, vice Steven B. Kelmar.
Elizabeth Ann Reike,
of Arizona, to be an Assistant Secretary of the Interior,
vice John M. Sayre, resigned.
Submitted April 7
Webster L. Hubbell,
of Arkansas, to be Associate Attorney General, vice
Wayne A. Budd, resigned.
Drew S. Days III,
of Connecticut, to be Solicitor General of the United
States, vice Kenneth Winston Starr.
Marshall Fletcher McCallie,
of Tennessee, a career member of the Senior Foreign
Service, class of Counselor, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of
America to the Republic of Namibia.
Harriet S. Rabb,
of New York, to be General Counsel of the Department of Health and Human Services, vice Michael
J. Astrue, resigned.
Robert Armstrong,
of Texas, to be an Assistant Secretary of the Interior,
vice David Courtland O'Neal, resigned.


1271




Appendix B / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


Bonnie R. Cohen,
of Massachusetts, to be an Assistant Secretary of the
Interior, vice John Schrote, resigned.
Submitted April 19
Mark Johnson,
of Montana, a career member of the Senior Foreign
Service, class of Minister-Counselor, to be Ambassador
Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States
of America to the Republic of Senegal.
Marilyn McAfee,
of Florida, a career member of the Senior Foreign
Service, class of Minister-Counselor, to be Ambassador
Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States
of America to the Republic of Guatemala.
William Thornton Pryce,
of Pennsylvania, a career member of the Senior Foreign Service, class of Minister-Counselor, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the
United States of America to the Republic of Honduras.
E. Allan Wendt,
of California, a career member of the Senior Foreign
Service, class of Minister-Counselor, to be Ambassador
Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States
of America to the Republic of Slovenia.
Eric James Boswell,
of California, a career member of the Senior Foreign
Service, class of Minister-Counselor, to be Director
of the Office of Foreign Missions, with the rank of
Ambassador.
Mary A. Ryan,
of Texas, to be Assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs, vice Elizabeth M. Tamposi, resigned.
Conrad Kenneth Harper,
of New York, to be Legal Adviser of the Department
of State, vice Edwin D. Williamson, resigned.
Margaret Milner Richardson,
of Texas, to be Commissioner of Internal Revenue,
vice Shirley D. Peterson, resigned.
Kay Casstevens,
of Texas, to be Assistant Secretary for Legislation and
Congressional Affairs, Department of Education, vice
B. Robert Okun.
Norma V. Cantu,
of Texas, to be Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights,
Department of Education, vice Michael L. Williams.
Jim Baca,
of New Mexico, to be Director of the Bureau of
Land Management, vice Delos Cy Jamison, resigned.


Alicia Haydock Munnell,
of Massachusetts, to be an Assistant Secretary of the
Treasury, vice Sidney L. Jones, resigned.
Alvin P. Adams,
of Virginia, a career member of the Senior Foreign
Service, class of Minister-Counselor, to be Ambassador
Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States
of America to the Republic of Peru.
James R. Lyons,
of Maryland, to be an Assistant Secretary of Agriculture, vice James R. Moseley, resigned.
Richard E. Rominger,
of California, to be Deputy Secretary of Agriculture,
vice Ann M. Veneman, resigned.
Richard E. Rominger,
of California, to be a member of the Board of Directors of the Commodity Credit Corporation, vice Ann
M. Veneman, resigned.
John A. Rollwagen,
of Minnesota, to be Deputy Secretary of Commerce,
vice Rockwell Anthony Schnabel, resigned.
Sheila Foster Anthony,
of Arkansas, to be an Assistant Secretary of Commerce, vice Mary Jo Jacobi, resigned.
Clarence L. Irving, Jr.,
of New York, to be Assistant Secretary of Commerce
for Communications and Information, vice Gregory
F. Chapados, resigned.
D. James Baker,
of the District of Columbia, to be Under Secretary
of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere, vice John
A. Knauss, resigned.
Victor Marrero,
of New York, to be the representative of the United
States of America on the Economic and Social Council
of the United Nations, with the rank of Ambassador.
Victor Jackovich,
of Iowa, a career member of the Senior Foreign Service, class of Counselor, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of
America to the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Bob J. Nash,
of Arkansas, to be Under Secretary of Agriculture
for Small Community and Rural Development, vice
Roland R. Vautour, resigned.
Bob J. Nash,
of Arkansas, to be a member of the Board of Directors
of the Commodity Credit Corporation, vice Roland
R. Vautour, resigned.


1272




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Appendix B


Judith Heumann,
of California, to be Assistant Secretary for Special
Education and Rehabilitative Services, Department of
Education, vice Robert Refugio Davila, resigned.
Arati Prabhakar,
of Texas, to be Director of the National Institute
of Standards and Technology, vice John W. Lyons.
Wardell Clinton Townsend, Jr.,
of North Carolina, to be an Assistant Secretary of
Agriculture, vice Charles R. Hilty, resigned.
Submitted April 20
Wendy Ruth Sherman,
of Maryland, to be an Assistant Secretary of State,
vice Janet Gardner Mullins.
Douglas Joseph Bennet, Jr.,
of Connecticut, to be an Assistant Secretary of State,
vice John R. Bolton, resigned.
John Howard Francis Shattuck,
of Massachusetts, to be Assistant Secretary of State
for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs, vice Patricia Diaz Dennis, resigned.
Alexander Fletcher Watson,
of Massachusetts, a career member of the Senior Foreign Service, class of Career Minister, to be an Assistant Secretary of State, vice Bernard William Aronson,
resigned.
Nicolas P. Retsinas,
of Rhode Island, to be an Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, vice Arthur J. Hill, resigned.
Submitted April 21
Eugene Branstool,
of Ohio, to be an Assistant Secretary of Agriculture,
vice Jo Ann D. Smith, resigned.
Eugene Branstool,
of Ohio, to be a member of the Board of Directors
of the Commodity Credit Corporation, vice Jo Ann
D. Smith, resigned.
Kenneth D. Brody,
of New York, to be president of the Export-Import
Bank of the United States for a term of 4 years
expiring January 20, 1997, vice John D. Macomber,
resigned.
Sally Katzen,
of the District of Columbia, to be Administrator of
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, vice S. Jay Plager,
resigned.


Philip Lader,
of South Carolina, to be Deputy Director for Management, Office of Management and Budget, vice Francis
S.M. Hodsoll, resigned.
Submitted April 22
Pamela Harriman,
of Virginia, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to France.
James S. Gilliland,
of Tennessee, to be General Counsel of the Department of Agriculture, vice Alan Charles Raul, resigned.
Thomas P. Glynn,
of Massachusetts, to be Deputy Secretary of Labor,
vice Delbert Leon Spurlock, Jr., resigned.
Stephen H. Kaplan,
of Colorado, to be General Counsel of the Department of Transportation, vice Walter B. McCormick,
Jr., resigned.
John D. Leshy,
of Arizona, to be Solicitor of the Department of the
Interior, vice Thomas Lawrence Sansonetti, resigned.
Michael A. Stegman,
of North Carolina, to be an Assistant Secretary of
Housing and Urban Development, vice John C.
Weicher, resigned.
Submitted April 27
Kenneth S. Apfel,
of Maryland, to be an Assistant Secretary of Health
and Human Services, vice Arnold R. Tompkins, resigned.
Walter D. Broadnax,
of New York, to be Deputy Secretary of Health and
Human Services, vice Kevin E. Moley, resigned.
Jean E. Hanson,
of New York, to be General Counsel for the Department of the Treasury, vice Jeanne S. Archibald, resigned.
Bruce C. Vladeck,
of New York, to be Administrator of the Health Care
Financing Administration, vice Gail Roggin Wilensky.
Jeffrey Richard Shafer,
of New Jersey, to be a Deputy Under Secretary of
the Treasury, vice Olin L. Wethington, resigned.
Michael B. Levy,
of Texas, to be a Deputy Under Secretary of the
Treasury, vice Mary Catherine Sophos, resigned.


1273




Appendix B / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


Joan E. Spero,
of New York, to be U.S. Alternate Governor of the
International Bank for Reconstruction and Development for a term of 5 years; U.S. Alternate Governor
of the Inter-American Development Bank for a term
of 5 years; U.S. Alternate Governor of the African
Development Bank for a term of 5 years; U.S. Alternate Governor of the African Development Fund; U.S.
Alternate Governor of the Asian Development Bank;
and U.S. Alternate Governor of the European Bank
for Reconstruction and Development, vice Robert B.
Zoellick.
George Edward Moose,
an Assistant Secretary of State, to be a member of
the Board of Directors of the African Development
Foundation for the remainder of the term expiring
September 27, 1997, vice Herman Jay Cohen.
David T. Ellwood,
of Massachusetts, to be an Assistant Secretary of
Health and Human Services, vice Martin H. Gerry.
Lorraine Allyce Green,
of the District of Columbia, to be Deputy Director
of the Office of Personnel Management, vice Bill R.
Phillips, resigned.
Elinor G. Constable,
of the District of Columbia, a career member of the
Senior Foreign Service, class of Career Minister, to
be Assistant Secretary of State for Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, vice
E.U. Curtis Bohlen, resigned.
Jerry W. Bowen,
of Arkansas, to be Director of the National Cemetery
System, Department of Veterans Affairs, vice Allen
B. Clark, Jr., resigned.
Mary Lou Keener,
of Georgia, to be General Counsel, Department of
Veterans Affairs, vice James Ashley Endicott, Jr., resigned.
Edward P. Scott,
of New Jersey, to be an Assistant Secretary of Veterans Affairs (Congressional Affairs), vice Sylvia Chavez
Long, resigned.
D. Mark Catlett,
of Virginia, to be an Assistant Secretary of Veterans
Affairs (Finance and Information Resources Management), vice S. Anthony McCann, resigned.
Charlene Barshefsky,
of the District of Columbia, to be a Deputy U.S.
Trade Representative, with the rank of Ambassador,
vice Julius L. Katz.


Kathryn D. Sullivan,
of Texas, to be Chief Scientist of the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration, vice Sylvia Alice
Earle, resigned.
Mortimer L. Downey,
of New York, to be Deputy Secretary of Transportation, vice Arthur J. Rothkopf, resigned.
Rufus Hawkins Yerxa,
of the District of Columbia, to be a Deputy U.S.
Trade Representative, with the rank of Ambassador.
Marshall S. Smith,
of California, to be Under Secretary of Education
(new position).
Augusta Souza Kappner,
of New York, to be Assistant Secretary for Vocational
and Adult Education, Department of Education, vice
Betsy Brand, resigned.
Thomas S. Williamson, Jr.,
of California, to be Solicitor for the Department of
Labor, vice Marshall Jordan Breger, resigned.
Submitted April 28
Karl Frederick Inderfurth,
of North Carolina, to be the Alternate Representative
of the United States of America for Special Political
Affairs in the United Nations, with the rank of Ambassador.
Erskine B. Bowles,
of North Carolina, to be Administrator of the Small
Business Administration, vice Patricia F. Saiki, resigned.
Michael P. Huerta,
of California, to be Associate Deputy Secretary of
Transportation, vice Robert E. Martinez, resigned.
Rodney E. Slater,
of Arkansas, to be Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration, vice Thomas D. Larson, resigned.
George J. Weise,
of Virginia, to be Commissioner of Customs (new position).
George T. Frampton, Jr.,
of the District of Columbia, to be Assistant Secretary
for Fish and Wildlife, vice Mike Hayden, resigned.
Daniel P. Beard,
of Washington, to be Commissioner of Reclamation,
vice Dennis B. Underwood, resigned.
Eugene Moos,
of Washington, to be Under Secretary of Agriculture
for International Affairs and Commodity Programs,
vice Richard Thomas Crowder, resigned.


1274




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Appendix B


Eugene Moos,
of Washington, to be a member of the Board of Directors of the Commodity Credit Corporation, vice Richard Thomas Crowder, resigned.
Maria Echaveste,
of New York, to be Administrator of the Wage and
Hour Division, Department of Labor, vice Paula V.
Smith, resigned.
Ruth R. Harkin,
of Iowa, to be President of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, vice Fred M. Zeder II, resigned.
Thomas W. Payzant,
of California, to be Assistant Secretary for Elementary
and Secondary Education, Department of Education,
vice John T. MacDonald, resigned.
David A. Longanecker,
of Colorado, to be Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education, Department of Education, vice
Carolynn Reid-Wallace, resigned.
Roger W. Johnson,
of California, to be Administrator of General Services,
vice Richard G. Austin, resigned.
Daniel K. Tarullo,
of Massachusetts, to be an Assistant Secretary of State,
vice Eugene J. McAllister, resigned.
Submitted April 29
Sheila Foster Anthony,
of Arkansas, to be an Assistant Attorney General, vice
W. Lee Rawls, resigned.
Frank Hunger,
of Mississippi, to be an Assistant Attorney General,
vice Stuart M. Gerson, resigned.
Eleanor Acheson,
of Massachusetts, to be an Assistant Attorney General,
vice Stephen J. Markman, resigned.
Walter Dellinger,
of North Carolina, to be an Assistant Attorney General, vice Timothy E. Flanigan, resigned.
Anne Bingaman,
of New Mexico, to be an Assistant Attorney General,
vice James Franklin Rill, resigned.
Lani Guinier,
of Pennsylvania, to be an Assistant Attorney General,
vice John R. Dunne, resigned.
Steven S. Honigman,
of New York, to be General Counsel of the Department of the Navy, vice Craig S. King, resigned.


Joseph Shuldiner,
of California, to be an Assistant Secretary of Housing
and Urban Development, vice Joseph G. Schiff, resigned.
Ashton B. Carter,
of Massachusetts, to be an Assistant Secretary of Defense, vice David S.C. Chu, resigned.
Edwin Dorn,
of Texas, to be an Assistant Secretary of Defense,
vice Christopher Jehn, resigned.
Edward L. Warner III,
of Virginia, to be an Assistant Secretary of Defense,
vice Colin Riley McMillan, resigned.
Anita K. Jones,
of Virginia, to be Director of Defense Research and
Engineering, vice Victor H. Reis, resigned.
The following named persons to be members of the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for the terms
indicated:
James John Hoecker, of Virginia, for the remainder
of the term expiring June 30, 1995, vice Branko
Terzic, resigned.
William Lloyd Massey, of Arkansas, for the remainder of the term expiring October 20, 1993, vice
Martin Lewis Allday, resigned.
William Lloyd Massey, of Arkansas, for the term
expiring June 30, 1998 (reappointment).
Donald Farley Santa, of Connecticut, for the term
expiring June 30, 1997, vice Charles A. Trabandt,
term expired.
Ellen Weinberger Haas,
of New York, to be an Assistant Secretary of Agriculture, vice Catherine Ann Bertini, resigned.
Ellen Weinberger Haas,
of New York, to be a member of the Board of Directors of the Commodity Credit Corporation, vice Catherine Ann Bertini, resigned.
Marilynn A. Davis,
of New York, to be an Assistant Secretary of Housing
and Urban Development, vice Jim E. Tarro, resigned.
Aida Alvarez,
of California, to be Director of the Office of Federal
Housing Enterprise Oversight, Department of Housing and Urban Development, for a term of 5 years
(new position).
Withdrawn April 29
Sheila Foster Anthony,
of Arkansas, to be an Assistant Secretary of Commerce, vice Mary Jo Jacobi, resigned, which was sent
to the Senate on April 19, 1993.


1275




Appendix B / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


Submitted May 7
Joseph D. Duffey,
of West Virginia, to be Director of the United States
Information Agency, vice Henry E. Catto, resigned.
Karen Beth Nussbaum,
of Ohio, to be Director of the Women's Bureau, Department of Labor, vice Elsie V. Vartanian, resigned.
Philip Benjamin Heymann,
of Massachusetts, to be Deputy Attorney General, vice
George J. Terwilliger III, resigned.
Douglas Kent Hall,
of Kentucky, to be Assistant Secretary of Commerce
for Oceans and Atmosphere, vice Jennifer Joy Wilson,
resigned.
Submitted May 10
Vicky A. Bailey,
of Indiana, to be a member of the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission for the term expiring June
30, 1996, vice Jerry Jay Langdon, term expired.
Submitted May 12
Christopher Finn,
of New York, to be Executive Vice President of the
Overseas Private Investment Corporation, vice James
David Berg, resigned.
Submitted May 14
Philip R. Lee,
of California, to be an Assistant Secretary of Health
and Human Services, vice James 0. Mason, resigned.
Penn Kemble,
of New York, to be Deputy Director of the United
States Information Agency, vice Eugene P. Kopp, resigned.
Submitted May 17
Andrew M. Cuomo,
of New York, to be an Assistant Secretary of Housing
and Urban Development, vice Skirma Anna Kondratas.
Submitted May 18
James Richard Cheek,
of Arkansas, a career member of the Senior Foreign
Service, class of Minister-Counselor, to be Ambassador
Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States
of America to Argentina.
Archer L. Durham,
of Maryland, to be an Assistant Secretary of Energy
(Human Resources and Administration), vice William
H. Young, resigned.


William J. Taylor III,
of Texas, to be an Assistant Secretary of Energy (Congressional, Intergovernmental, and International Affairs), vice Greg Ward, resigned.
William H. White,
of Texas, to be Deputy Secretary of Energy, vice
Linda Gillespie Stuntz, resigned.
Harold P. Smith, Jr.,
of California, to be Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Atomic Energy, vice Robert B. Barker, resigned.
Submitted May 19
John Francis Maisto,
of Pennsylvania, a career member of the Senior Foreign Service, class of Minister-Counselor, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the
United States of America to the Republic of Nicaragua.
Deborah Roche Lee,
of Maryland, to be an Assistant Secretary of Defense,
vice Stephen M. Duncan, resigned.
Emmett Paige, Jr.,
of Maryland, to be an Assistant Secretary of Defense,
vice Duane Perry Andrews, resigned.
Walter Becker Slocombe,
of the District of Columbia, to be Deputy Under
Secretary of Defense for Policy, vice I. Lewis Libby,
Jr., resigned.
Submitted May 20
Chas. W. Freeman,
of Rhode Island, to be an Assistant Secretary of Defense, vice James Roderick Lilley, resigned.
Olena Berg,
of California, to be an Assistant Secretary of Labor,
vice David George Ball, resigned.
John D. Donahue,
of Indiana, to be an Assistant Secretary of Labor,
vice Nancy Risque Rohrbach, resigned.
Lee Patrick Brown,
of Texas, to be Director of National Drug Control
Policy, vice Bob Martinez.
Albert J. Herberger,
of New York, to be Administrator of the Maritime
Administration, vice Warren G. Leback, resigned.
William Christie Ramsay,
of Michigan, a career member of the Senior Foreign
Service, class of Minister-Counselor, to be Ambassador
Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States
of America to the Republic of the Congo.


1276




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Appendix B


Sharon Porter Robinson,
of Kentucky, to be Assistant Secretary for Educational
Research and Improvement, Department of Education, vice Diane S. Ravitch, resigned.
Judith A. Winston,
of the District of Columbia, to be General Counsel,
Department of Education, vice Jeffrey C. Martin, resigned.
Lionel Skipwith Johns,
of Virginia, to be an Associate Director of the Office
of Science and Technology Policy.
Submitted May 24
Everett M. Ehrlich,
of Pennsylvania, to be Under Secretary of Commerce
for Economic Affairs, vice Jose Antonio Villamil, resigned.
Mary Jo Bane,
of Massachusetts, to be Assistant Secretary for Family
Support, Department of Health and Human Services,
vice Jo Anne B. Barnhart.
Submitted May 28
Thomas J. Downey,
of New York, to be a member of the Defense Base
Closure and Realignment Commission for a term expiring at the end of the first session of the 103d
Congress, vice Arthur Levitt, Jr., resigned.
Submitted June 1
Jean Kennedy Smith,
of New York, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and
Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to
Ireland.
Submitted June 7
William H. Dameron III,
of the District of Columbia, a career member of the
Senior Foreign Service, class of Counselor, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the
United States of America to the Republic of Mali.
Peter W. Galbraith,
of Vermont, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and
Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to
the Republic of Croatia.
Benjamin Leader Erdreich,
of Alabama, to be a member of the Merit Systems
Protection Board for the term of 7 years expiring
March 1, 2000, vice Daniel R. Levinson, term expired.
Benjamin Leader Erdreich,
of Alabama, to be Chairman of the Merit Systems
Protection Board, vice Daniel R. Levinson.


Tara Jeanne OToole,
of Maryland, to be an Assistant Secretary of Energy
(Environment, Safety and Health), vice Paul L.
Ziemer, resigned.
Victor P. Raymond,
of the District of Columbia, to be an Assistant Secretary of Veterans Affairs (Policy and Planning), vice
Jo Ann Krukar Webb.
Doug Ross,
of Michigan, to be an Assistant Secretary of Labor,
vice Roberts T. Jones, resigned.
Withdrawn June 7
Lani Guinier,
of Pennsylvania, to be an Assistant Attorney General,
vice John R. Dunne, resigned, which was sent to the
Senate on April 29, 1993.
Submitted June 8
Robert E. Hunter,
of the District of Columbia, to be U.S. Permanent
Representative on the Council of the North Atlantic
Treaty Organization, with rank and status of Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary.
June Gibbs Brown,
of Hawaii, to be Inspector General, Department of
Health  and  Human    Services, vice  Richard  P.
Kusserow, resigned.
Bruce A. Lehman,
of Wisconsin, to be Commissioner of Patents and
Trademarks, vice Harry F. Manbeck, Jr., resigned.
Withdrawn June 8
John A. Rollwagen,
of Minnesota, to be Deputy Secretary of Commerce,
vice Rockwell Anthony Schnabel, resigned, which was
sent to the Senate on April 19, 1993.
Submitted June 15
Robert Riggs Nordhaus,
of the District of Columbia, to be General Counsel
of the Department of Energy, vice John J. Easton,
Jr.
Submitted June 16
Raymond Leo Flynn,
of Massachusetts, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and
Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to
the Holy See.
Joseph A. Saloom III,
of Virginia, a career member of the Senior Foreign
Service, class of Minister-Counselor, to be Ambassador


1277




Appendix B / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States
of America to the Republic of Guinea.
Dennis C. Jett,
of New Mexico, a career member of the Senior Foreign Service, class of Counselor, to be Ambassador
Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States
of America to the Republic of Mozambique.
Steven E. Steiner,
of Maryland, a career member of the Senior Foreign
Service, class of Minister-Counselor, for the rank of
Ambassador during his tenure of service as U.S. Representative to the START Joint Compliance and Inspection Commission.
Jolene Moritz Molitoris,
of Ohio, to be Administrator of the Federal Railroad
Administration, vice Gilbert E. Carmichael, resigned.
Submitted June 17
Laurence Everett Pope, II,
of Maine, a career member of the Senior Foreign
Service, class of Minister-Counselor, to be Ambassador
Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States
of America to the Republic of Chad.
Howard Franklin Jeter,
of South Carolina, a career member of the Senior
Foreign Service, class of Counselor, to be Ambassador
Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States
of America to the Republic of Botswana.
Zachary W. Carter,
of New York, to be U.S. Attorney for the Eastern
District of New York for the term of 4 years, vice
Andrew J. Maloney, resigned.
The following named persons to be members of the
Board of Directors of the Tennessee Valley Authority
for the terms indicated:
Johnny H. Hayes, of Tennessee, for the remainder
of the term expiring May 18, 1996, vice Marvin
T. Runyon, resigned.
Craven H. Crowell, Jr., of Tennessee, for the term
expiring May 18, 2002, vice John B. Waters, term
expired.
Submitted June 18
Alan S. Blinder,
of New Jersey, to be a member of the Council of
Economic Advisers, vice David F. Bradford, resigned.
Joseph E. Stiglitz,
of California, to be a member of the Council of Economic Advisers, vice Paul Wonnacott, resigned.


Submitted June 22
Ruth Bader Ginsburg,
of New York, to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, vice Byron R.
White, retired.
Andrew J. Winter,
of New York, a career member of the Senior Foreign
Service, class of Minister-Counselor, to be Ambassador
Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States
of America to the Republic of The Gambia.
David Laurence Aaron,
of New York, to be the Representative of the United
States of America to the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development, with the rank of Ambassador.
G. Edward DeSeve,
of Pennsylvania, to be Chief Financial Officer, Department of Housing and Urban Development (new position).
Susan Gaffney,
of Virginia, to be Inspector General, Department of
Housing and Urban Development, vice Paul A.
Adams, resigned.
Submitted June 23
Patrick H. NeMoyer,
of New York, to be U.S. Attorney for the Western
District of New York for the term of 4 years, vice
Dennis C. Vacco, term expired.
Mary Jo White,
of New York, to be U.S. Attorney for the Southern
District of New York for the term of 4 years, vice
Otto G. Obermaier, resigned.
Submitted June 24
Ramon C. Cortines,
of California, to be Assistant Secretary for Intergovernmental and Interagency Affairs and for Human Resources and Administration, Department of Education.
Victor H. Reis,
of the District of Columbia, to be an Assistant Secretary of Energy (Defense Programs), vice Richard
A. Claytor, resigned.
Robin Lynn Raphel,
of Washington, a career member of the Senior Foreign Service, class of Counselor, to be Assistant Secretary of State for South Asian Affairs (new position).
Submitted June 29
Loretta L. Dunn,
of Kentucky,' to be an Assistant Secretary of Commerce, vice Mary Jo Jacobi, resigned.


1278




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Appendix B


James Patrick Connelly,
of Washington, to be U.S. Attorney for the Eastern
District of Washington for the term of 4 years, vice
William D. Hyslop, resigned.
John Thomas Schneider,
of North Dakota, to be U.S. Attorney for the District
of North Dakota for the term of 4 years, vice Stephen
D. Easton, resigned.
Alan H. Flanigan,
of Virginia, a career member of the Senior Foreign
Service, class of Minister-Counselor, to be Ambassador
Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States
of America to the Republic of El Salvador.
Robert Gordon Houdek,
of Illinois, a career member of the Senior Foreign
Service, class of Minister-Counselor, to be Ambassador
Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States
of America to Eritrea.
John T. Sprott,
of Virginia, a career member of the Senior Executive
Service, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to Swaziland.
Roland Karl Kuchel,
of Florida, a career member of the Senior Foreign
Service, class of Minister-Counselor, to be Ambassador
Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States
of America to the Republic of Zambia.
Richard Scott Carnell,
of Florida, to be an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, vice John Cunningham Dugan, resigned.
Submitted June 30
David Russell Hinson,
of Illinois, to be Administrator of the Federal Aviation
Administration, vice Thomas C. Richards, resigned.
Arthur Levitt, Jr.,
of New York, to be a member of the Securities and
Exchange Commission for the term expiring June 5,
1998, vice Richard C. Breeden, resigned.
Ada E. Deer,
of Wisconsin, to be an Assistant Secretary of the Interior, vice Eddie F. Brown.
Submitted July 1
Janet Ann Napolitano,
of Arizona, to be U.S. Attorney for the District of
Arizona for the term of 4 years, vice Linda A. Akers,
resigned.
M. Joycelyn Elders,
of Arkansas, to be Medical Director in the Regular
Corps of the Public Health Service, subject to quali

fications therefor as provided by law and regulations,
and to be Surgeon General of the Public Health Service, for a term of 4 years, vice Antonia Coello Novello.
Gordon J. Linton,
of Pennsylvania, to be Federal Transit Administrator,
vice Brian W. Clymer, resigned.
Submitted July 13
James J. Blanchard,
of Michigan, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and
Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to
Canada.
Walter C. Carrington,
of Maryland, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and
Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to
the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
Jeffrey Davidow,
of Virginia, a career member of the Senior Foreign
Service, class of Minister-Counselor, to be Ambassador
Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States
of America to the Republic of Venezuela.
Thomas J. Dodd,
of the District of Columbia, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States
of America to the Oriental Republic of Uruguay.
Stuart E. Eizenstat,
of the District of Columbia, to be Representative of
the United States of America to the European Communities, with the rank and status of Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary.
James E. Hall,
of Tennessee, to be a member of the National Transportation Safety Board for the term expiring December 31, 1997, vice Christopher A. Hart, term expired.
Donald C. Johnson,
of Texas, a career member of the Senior Foreign
Service, class of Counselor, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of
America to Mongolia.
Richard Menifee Moose,
of Virginia, to be Under Secretary of State for Management, vice J. Brian Atwood, resigned.
George Munoz,
of Illinois, to be an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury,
vice David M. Nummy, resigned.
George Munoz,
of Illinois, to be Chief Financial Officer, Department
of the Treasury, vice David M. Nummy, resigned.


1279




Appendix B / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


Mary M. Raiser,
of the District of Columbia, for the rank of Ambassador during her tenure of service as Chief of Protocol
for the White House.
Louise Frankel Stoll,
of California, to be an Assistant Secretary of Transportation, vice Kate Leader Moore, resigned.
Stanley G. Tate,
of Florida, to be Chief Executive Officer, Resolution
Trust Corporation, vice Albert V. Casey, resigned.
Charles Robert Tetzlaff,
of Vermont, to be U.S. Attorney for the District of
Vermont for the term of 4 years, vice George J.
Terwilliger III, resigned.
William David Wilmoth,
of West Virginia, to be U.S. Attorney for the Northern
District of West Virginia for the term of 4 years,
vice William A. Kolibash, term expired.
Submitted July 15
Aurelia Erskine Brazeal,
of Georgia, a career member of the Senior Foreign
Service, class of Minister-Counselor, to be Ambassador
Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States
of America to the Republic of Kenya.
John S. Davison,
of Maryland, a career member of the Senior Foreign
Service, class of Minister-Counselor, to be Ambassador
Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States
of America to the Republic of Niger.
James Robert Jones,
of Oklahoma, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and
Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to
Mexico.
Nelson A. Diaz,
of Pennsylvania, to be General Counsel of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, vice
Francis Anthony Keating II, resigned.
Submitted July 16
Mollie H. Beattie,
of Vermont, to be Director of the United States Fish
and Wildlife Service, vice John F. Turner, resigned.
Mary Lowe Good,
of New Jersey, to be Under Secretary of Commerce
for Technology, vice Robert Marshall White, resigned.
J. Joseph Grandmaison,
of New Hampshire, to be Director of the Trade and
Development Agency, vice Jose E. Martinez, resigned.


Donald J. McConnell,
of Ohio, a career member of the Senior Foreign Service, class of Minister-Counselor, to be Ambassador
Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States
of America to Burkina Faso.
Submitted July 20
Louis J. Freeh,
of New York, to be Director of the Federal Bureau
of Investigation for the term of 10 years, vice William
S. Sessions.
Gaynelle Griffin Jones,
of Texas, to be U.S. Attorney for the Southern District
of Texas for the term of 4 years, vice Ronald G.
Woods.
Karen Elizabeth Schreier,
of South Dakota, to be U.S. Attorney for the District
of South Dakota for the term of 4 years, vice Philip
N. Hogen.
Judith Ann Stewart,
of Indiana, to be U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Indiana for the term of 4 years, vice Deborah
J. Daniels.
Walter Michael Troop,
of Kentucky, to be U.S. Attorney for the Western
District of Kentucky for the term of 4 years, vice
Joseph M. Whittle.
Submitted July 22
Graham T. Allison, Jr.,
of Massachusetts, to be an Assistant Secretary of Defense, vice Stephen John Hadley, resigned.
Robert T. Watson,
of Virginia, to be an Associate Director of the Office
of Science and Technology Policy, vice Donald A.
Henderson, resigned.
Sheila E. Widnall,
of Massachusetts, to be Secretary of the Air Force,
vice Donald B. Rice, resigned.
Frank Eugene Kruesi,
of Illinois, to be an Assistant Secretary of Transportation, vice Stephen T. Hart.
Jay E. Hakes,
of Florida, to be Administrator of the Energy Information Administration, Department of Energy, vice Calvin A. Kent, resigned.
Submitted July 23
Walter F. Mondale,
of Minnesota, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and
Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to
Japan.


1280




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Appendix B


Submitted July 29
Richard Holbrooke,
of New York, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and
Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to
the Federal Republic of Germany.
James T. Laney,
of Georgia, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the
Republic of Korea.
Eric Himpton Holder, Jr.,
of the District of Columbia, to be U.S. Attorney for
the District of Columbia for the term of 4 years,
vice Jay B. Stephens, resigned.
Stephen Charles Lewis,
of Oklahoma, to be U.S. Attorney for the Northern
District of Oklahoma for the term of 4 years, vice
Tony Michael Graham, resigned.
Vicki Lynn Miles-LaGrange,
of Oklahoma, to be U.S. Attorney for the Western
District of Oklahoma for the term of 4 years, vice
Timothy D. Leonard, resigned.
Thomas Justin Monaghan,
of Nebraska, to be U.S. Attorney for the District of
Nebraska for the term of 4 years, vice Ronald D.
Lahners.


John W. Raley, Jr.,
of Oklahoma, to be U.S. Attorney for the Eastern
District of Oklahoma for the term of 4 years.
Randall K. Rathbun,
of Kansas, to be U.S. Attorney for the District of
Kansas for the term of 4 years, vice Morris Lee
Thompson, resigned.
Frederick WV. Thieman,
of Pennsylvania, to be U.S. Attorney for the Western
District of Pennsylvania for the term of 4 years, vice
Thomas WV. Corbett, Jr.
Michael Joseph Yamaguchi,
of California, to be U.S. Attorney for the Northern
District of California for the term of 4 years, vice
Joseph P. Russoniello, resigned.


Anne H. Lewis,
of Maryland, to be an Assistant
vice Steven I. Hofman, resigned.


Secretary of Labor,


Submitted July 30
Jeffrey E. Garten,
of New York, to be Under Secretary of Commerce
for International Trade, vice John Michael Farren,
resigned.


1281








Appendix C-Checklist of White House Press Releases


The following list contains releases of the Office of
the Press Secretary which are not included in this
book.
Released January 21
Transcript of a press briefing by Director of Communications George R. Stephanopoulos
Released January 22
List of Cabinet members to be sworn in
Transcript of a press briefing by Director of Communications George R. Stephanopoulos
Released January 23
Transcript of a press briefing by Press Secretary Dee
Dee Myers
Released January 25
Transcript of a press briefing by Director of Communications George R. Stephanopoulos
List of participants in economic policy meeting
Advance text of remarks at a meeting of the health
care working group
Statement by Director of Communications George R.
Stephanopoulos on the President's meeting with the
Joint Chiefs of Staff
Released January 26
List of participants in meeting with congressional leaders
Transcript of a press briefing by Director of Communications George R. Stephanopoulos
Released January 27
Transcript of a press briefing by Director of Communications George R. Stephanopoulos
Transcript of a press briefing by Press Secretary Dee
Dee Myers
Released January 28
Transcript of a press briefing by Press Secretary Dee
Dee Myers
Transcript of a press briefing by Director of Communications George R. Stephanopoulos


Released January 29
Transcript of a press briefing by Director of Communications George R. Stephanopoulos
Released February 1
Transcript of a press briefing by Director of Communications George R. Stephanopoulos
List of participants in meeting with National Governors' Association members
Announcement of Medicaid waiver streamlining directives
Released February 2
Transcript of a press briefing by Director of Communications George R. Stephanopoulos
Transcript of a press briefing on welfare reform by
Deputy Assistant to the President for Domestic Affairs
Bruce Reed
Transcript of a press briefing by Press Secretary Dee
Dee Myers
Released February 3
Transcript of a press briefing by Director of Communications George R. Stephanopoulos
Transcripts of two press briefings by Press Secretary
Dee Dee Myers
Released February 4
Transcript of a press briefing by Director of Communications George R. Stephanopoulos
Transcripts of two press briefings by Press Secretary
Dee Dee Myers
Released February 5
Transcript of a press briefing by Director of Communications George R. Stephanopoulos
List of participants in meeting with mayors
Released February 7
Transcript of a press briefing by Director of Communications George R. Stephanopoulos
Text of a letter from Kimba Wood to the New York
Times
Released February 8
Transcript of a press briefing by Director of Communications George R. Stephanopoulos


1283




Appendix C / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


Transcript of a press briefing by Press Secretary Dee
Dee Myers
Background information on unemployment insurance
extension
Fact sheet on the new environmental policy
Released February 9
Transcript of a press briefing by Press Secretary Dee
Dee Myers
Transcript of a press briefing on White House reorganization by Chief of Staff Thomas F. McLarty III
Fact sheet on White House reorganization
Transcript of a press briefing by Director of Communications George R. Stephanopoulos
List of participants in meeting with Boy Scouts of
America representatives
Released February 10
Transcript of a press briefing by Director of Communications George R. Stephanopoulos
Transcript of a press briefing by Press Secretary Dee
Dee Myers
Released February 11
Transcript of a press briefing by Director of Communications George R. Stephanopoulos
Transcript of a press briefing by Press Secretary Dee
Dee Myers
Released February 12
Transcript of a press briefing by Director of Communications George R. Stephanopoulos
Released February 15
Transcripts of two press briefings by Press Secretary
Dee Dee Myers
Transcript of a press briefing by Director of Communications George R. Stephanopoulos
Released February 16
Transcript of a press briefing by Press Secretary Dee
Dee Myers
Transcript of a press briefing by Director of Communications George R. Stephanopoulos
Released February 17
Transcripts of two press briefings by Press Secretary
Dee Dee Myers
Transcript of a press briefing on the President's economic program by Director of the Office of Management and Budget Leon E. Panetta, Secretary of the
Treasury Lloyd Bentsen, and Chairman of the Council
of Economic Advisers Laura D'Andrea Tyson


Announcement of travel schedule for Cabinet members to promote the economic recovery program
List of participants in meeting with congressional leaders
Released February 18
Transcript of a press briefing by Press Secretary Dee
Dee Myers
Released February 22
Statement by Press Secretary Dee Dee Myers announcing the President's meeting with United Nations
Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali
Outline of the President's comprehensive new technology initiative
Released February 23
Joint statement with United Nations Secretary-General
Boutros Boutros-Ghali
Biographies of nominees for 21 sub-Cabinet posts
Transcript of two press briefings by Press Secretary
Dee Dee Myers
Transcript of a press briefing by Director of Communications George R. Stephanopoulos
Transcript of a press briefing on technology policy
by Assistant to the President for Science and Technology Policy John H. Gibbons and Deputy Assistant
to the President for Economic Policy W. Bowman
Cutter
Released February 24
Transcript of a press briefing by Press Secretary Dee
Dee Myers
Transcript of a press briefing by Director of Communications George R. Stephanopoulos
Released February 25
Transcripts of two press briefings by Press Secretary
Dee Dee Myers
Transcript of a press briefing by Director of Communications George R. Stephanopoulos
List of Philadelphia and Houston business and labor
leaders endorsing the President's economic program
Announcement of the President's planned meeting
with space shuttle Endeavour astronauts
Released February 26
List of American business and labor leaders endorsing
the President's economic program
Statements by American business and labor leaders
supporting the President's economic program
Transcript of a press briefing by Director of Communications George R. Stephanopoulos


1284




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Appendix C


Released March 2
Transcripts of two press briefings by Press Secretary
Dee Dee Myers
Transcript of a press briefing by Director of Communications George R. Stephanopoulos
Statement by Press Secretary Dee Dee Myers on the
President's meeting with NATO Secretary General
Manfred Woerner
Released March 3
Transcripts of two press briefings by Press Secretary
Dee Dee Myers
Transcript of a press briefing by Director of Communications George R. Stephanopoulos
Released March 4
Transcript of a press briefing by Press Secretary Dee
Dee Myers
Transcript of a press briefing by Director of Communications George R. Stephanopoulos
Transcript of a press briefing on the inner-city crisis
by former President Jimmy Carter
Released March 5
Transcripts of two press briefings by Press Secretary
Dee Dee Myers
Transcript of a press briefing by Director of Communications George R. Stephanopoulos
Released March 8
Transcripts of two press briefings by Press Secretary
Dee Dee Myers
Transcript of a press briefing by Director of Communications George R. Stephanopoulos
Released March 9
Transcript of two press briefings by Press Secretary
Dee Dee Myers
Transcript of a press briefing by Director of Communications George R. Stephanopoulos
Released March 10
Transcript of a press briefing by Press Secretary Dee
Dee Myers
Transcripts of two press briefings by Director of Communications George R. Stephanopoulos
White House statement announcing the Forest Conference
Released March 11
Transcript of a press briefing by Press Secretary Dee
Dee Myers


Transcript of a press briefing by Director of Communications George R. Stephanopoulos
Transcript of a press briefing on defense conversion
by Gene B. Sperling, Deputy Assistant to the President for Economic Policy; Dorothy Robyn, Special
Assistant to the President for Technology Policy; Steve
Jones, Director for Defense Policy, National Security
Council; Don Gessaman, Deputy Associate Director
for National Security, Office of Management and
Budget; and David Lane, Director for Defense Conversion Policy, National Security Council
Released March 15
Transcript of a press briefing by Press Secretary Dee
Dee Myers
Transcript of a press briefing by Director of Communications George R. Stephanopoulos
Released March 16
Transcript of a press briefing by Press Secretary Dee
Dee Myers
Transcript of a press briefing by Director of Communications George R. Stephanopoulos
Released March 17
Transcripts of two press briefings by Press Secretary
Dee Dee Myers
Transcript of a press briefing by Director of Communications George R. Stephanopoulos
Released March 18
Transcript of a press briefing by Press Secretary Dee
Dee Myers
Transcript of a press briefing by Director of Communications George R. Stephanopoulos
Released March 20
Transcript of a press briefing by Director of Communications George R. Stephanopoulos
White House statement on President Boris Yeltsin of
Russia
Released March 22
Transcripts of two press briefings by Press Secretary
Dee Dee Myers
Transcript of a press briefing by Director of Communications George R. Stephanopoulos
Released March 23
Transcript of a press briefing by Press Secretary Dee
Dee Myers
Released March 24
Transcript of a press briefing by Press Secretary Dee
Dee Myers


1285




Appendix C / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


Transcript of a press briefing by Director of Communications George R. Stephanopoulos
Released March 25
Transcripts of two press briefings by Press Secretary
Dee Dee Myers
Transcript of a press briefing by Director of Communications George R. Stephanopoulos
Released March 26
Transcript of a press briefing by Press Secretary Dee
Dee Myers
Transcript of a press briefing by Director of Communications George R. Stephanopoulos
List of working group members for the President's
Task Force on National Health Care Reform
Released March 29
Transcript of a press briefing by Press Secretary Dee
Dee Myers
Transcript of a press briefing by Director of Communications George R. Stephanopoulos
Released March 30
Transcripts of two press briefings by Press Secretary
Dee Dee Myers
Transcript of a press briefing by Director of Communications George R. Stephanopoulos
Released March 31
Transcript of a press briefing by Press Secretary Dee
Dee Myers
Transcript of a press briefing by Director of Communications George R. Stephanopoulos
Released April 1
Transcript of a press briefing by Press Secretary Dee
Dee Myers
Fact sheet on the "Comprehensive Child Immunization Act of 1993"
Advance text of remarks to the American Society of
Newspaper Editors
Released April 2
Transcript of remarks by the Vice President on opening the Forest Conference in Portland, Oregon
Released April 3
Transcript of a press briefing by Director of Communications George R. Stephanopoulos
Released April 4
Vancouver Declaration: Joint Statement of the Presidents of the United States and the Russian Federation


Fact sheet on humanitarian/health assistance and food
sales to Russia
Fact sheet on private sector development in Russia
Fact sheet on the Democracy Corps initiative for Russia
Fact sheet on the officer resettlement initiative for
Russia
Fact sheet on the energy and environment initiative
for Russia
Fact sheet on trade and investment in Russia
Fact sheet on Food for Progress credit sales to Russia
Fact sheet on Russia and the GATT
Fact sheet on the Generalized System of Preferences
Fact sheet on the Safe, Secure Dismantlement (SSD)
Initiative with Russia
Fact sheet on the Safe, Secure Dismantlement (SSD)
Initiative with Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine
Fact sheet on the START I/NPT (Lisbon Protocol)
Released April 5
Transcript of a press briefing by Director of Communications George R. Stephanopoulos
Released April 6
Transcript of a press briefing by Press Secretary Dee
Dee Myers
Released April 7
Transcript of a press briefing by Press Secretary Dee
Dee Myers
Transcript of a press briefing by Director of Communications George R. Stephanopoulos
Released April 8
Transcript of a press briefing by Press Secretary Dee
Dee Myers
Transcript of a press briefing by Director of Communications George R. Stephanopoulos
Transcript of a press briefing on the budget by the
Vice President, Secretary of the Treasury Lloyd Bentsen, Director of the Office of Management and Budget Leon E. Panetta, and Chairman of the Council
of Economic Advisers Laura D'Andrea Tyson
Released April 9
Transcript of a press briefing by Press Secretary Dee
Dee Myers
Released April 10
Statement by Press Secretary Dee Dee Myers announcing a mission to Vietnam by the President's Special Emissary for POW/MIA Affairs


1286




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Appendix C


Released April 12
Transcript of a press briefing by Press Secretary Dee
Dee Myers
Transcript of a press briefing by Director of Communications George R. Stephanopoulos
Released April 13
Transcript of a press briefing by Press Secretary Dee
Dee Myers
Transcript of a press briefing by Director of Communications George R. Stephanopoulos
Released April 14
Transcript of a press briefing by Director of Communications George R. Stephanopoulos
Office of Media Affairs press releases sent to Pennsylvania, New York, Maine, Vermont, Oregon, and
Missouri media on jobs directly created by the stimulus plan
Released April 15
Transcript of a press briefing by Press Secretary Dee
Dee Myers
Transcript of a press briefing by Director of Communications George R. Stephanopoulos
Statement by Press Secretary Dee Dee Myers announcing the President's trip to Pennsylvania
Statement by Director of Communications George R.
Stephanopoulos on the President's Federal income tax
return
Released April 16
Transcript of a press briefing by Press Secretary Dee
Dee Myers
Transcript of a press briefing by Director of Communications George R. Stephanopoulos
Statement by Press Secretary Dee Dee Myers announcing the President's initiative on telecommunications encryption technology
Released April 17
Statement by the President on the jury verdict in
the Rodney King case
Released April 19
Transcripts of two press briefings by Press Secretary
Dee Dee Myers
Transcript of a press briefing by Director of Communications George R. Stephanopoulos
Released April 20
Transcript of a press briefing by Press Secretary Dee
Dee Myers


Transcript of a press briefing by Director of Communications George R. Stephanopoulos
Released April 21
Transcript of a press briefing by Press Secretary Dee
Dee Myers
Transcript of a press briefing by Director of Communications George R. Stephanopoulos
Fact sheet on the "Goals 2000: Educate America Act"
Released April 22
Transcript of a press briefing by Press Secretary Dee
Dee Myers
Transcript of a press briefing by Director of Communications George R. Stephanopoulos
Released April 23
Transcript of a press briefing by Press Secretary Dee
Dee Myers
Released April 26
Transcript of a press briefing by Press Secretary Dee
Dee Myers
Transcript of a press briefing by Director of Communications George R. Stephanopoulos
White House statement on the establishment of a
National Biological Survey
Released April 27
Transcript of a press briefing by Press Secretary Dee
Dee Myers
Transcript of a press briefing by Director of Communications George R. Stephanopoulos
List of Members of Congress meeting with the President on Bosnia
Released April 28
Transcript of a press briefing by Press Secretary Dee
Dee Myers
Transcript of a press briefing by Director of Communications George R. Stephanopoulos
Released April 29
Transcript of a press briefing by Press Secretary Dee
Dee Myers
Transcript of a press briefing by Director of Communications George R. Stephanopoulos
Transcript of a press briefing on Bosnia by Chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Colin Powell
Transcript of a press briefing on Bosnia by Secretary
of State Warren M. Christopher


1287




Appendix C / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


Released May 1
Statement by Press Secretary Dee Dee Myers on the
delegation to attend the funeral of African National
Congress leader Oliver Tambo on May 2
Transcript of a press briefing on Bosnia by Secretary
of State Warren M. Christopher
Released May 3
Transcript of a press briefing by Press Secretary Dee
Dee Myers
Transcript of a press briefing by Director of Communications George R. Stephanopoulos
Statement by Director of Communications George R.
Stephanopoulos on the President's remarks concerning
Senator Dole at the White House Correspondents'
Association dinner
Released May 4
Transcript of a press briefing by Press Secretary Dee
Dee Myers
Transcript of a press briefing by Director of Communications George R. Stephanopoulos
Released May 5
Transcript of a press briefing by Press Secretary Dee
Dee Myers
Transcript of a press briefing by Director of Communications George R. Stephanopoulos
Released May 6
Transcript of a press briefing by Press Secretary Dee
Dee Myers
Transcript of a press briefing by Director of Communications George R. Stephanopoulos
Released May 7
Transcript of a press briefing on campaign finance
reform by Special Assistant to the President for Policy
Coordination Michael Waldman
Statement by Director of Communications George R.
Stephanopoulos on Ross Perot's remarks concerning
the President's decisions on Bosnia
Released May 8
Transcript of a press briefing by Director of Communications George R. Stephanopoulos
Released May 12
Transcript of a press briefing by Press Secretary Dee
Dee Myers
Released May 13
Transcript of a press briefing by Press Secretary Dee
Dee Myers


Transcript of a press briefing by Director of Communications George R. Stephanopoulos
Released May 14
Transcript of a press briefing on the economic program by Director of the Office of Management and
Budget Leon E. Panetta, Secretary of the Treasury
Lloyd Bentsen, and Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers Laura D'Andrea Tyson
Released May 17
Announcement of Presidential Faculty Fellows Program award recipients
President's financial disclosure report
Released May 19
Transcript of a press briefing by Press Secretary Dee
Dee Myers
Released May 20
Transcript of a press briefing by Press Secretary Dee
Dee Myers
Transcript of a press briefing by Director of Communications George R. Stephanopoulos
Released May 21
Transcript of a press briefing by Director of Communications George R. Stephanopoulos
Statement by Director of Communications George R.
Stephanopoulos on White House travel services
Announcement of President's Task Force on National
Health Care Reform audit and list of participants
Released May 24
Transcript of a press briefing by Director of Communications George R. Stephanopoulos
Released May 25
Transcript of a press briefing by Director of Communications George R. Stephanopoulos
Statement by White House Counsel Bernard W. Nussbaum on the White House Travel Office
Released May 26
Transcript of a press briefing by Press Secretary Dee
Dee Myers
Transcript of a press briefing by Director of Communications George R. Stephanopoulos
Released May 28
Transcript of a press briefing on most-favored-nation
trade status for China by Assistant Secretary of State
for East Asian and Pacific Affairs Winston Lord


1288




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Appendix C


Released May 29
Transcript of a press briefing on White House staff
changes by Chief of Staff Thomas F. McLarty III
and Counselor to the President David R. Gergen
Released June 1
Statement by Press Secretary Dee Dee Myers on the
President's signing of H.R. 1378, Making Technical
Corrections in Defense-Related Laws
Announcement by the Office of Presidential Correspondence on public access to the White House
electronic mail system
Released June 2
Transcript of a press briefing by Senior Policy Adviser
George R. Stephanopoulos
List of business leaders attending a luncheon with
the President
Released June 3
Statement by Press Secretary Dee Dee Myers on the
President's planned meeting with Lani Guinier
Released June 4
Transcript of a press briefing by Senior Policy Adviser
George R. Stephanopoulos
Announcement of transmittal of supplemental appropriations requests
List of officials and civil rights leaders meeting with
the President
Released June 7
Transcript of a press briefing by Counselor to the
President David R. Gergen and Director of Communications Mark D. Gearan
Transcript of a press briefing by Press Secretary Dee
Dee Myers
Statement by Chief of Staff Thomas F. McLarty III
on White House staff changes
Released June 8
Transcript of a press briefing by Press Secretary Dee
Dee Myers
Statement by Press Secretary Dee Dee Myers on the
President's meeting with Federal Reserve Board
Chairman Alan Greenspan
Released June 9
Statement by Press Secretary Dee Dee Myers on Kuwait's lifting of the boycott of companies dealing with
Israel
Transcript of a press briefing by Press Secretary Dee
Dee Myers


Transcript of a press briefing on the President's economic program by Director of the Office of Management and Budget Leon E. Panetta
Released June 10
Transcript of a press briefing by Press Secretary Dee
Dee Myers
Fact sheet on the National Institutes of Health Revitalization Act
Announcement of appointment of Chairman and
members of the Thomas Jefferson Commemoration
Commission
Released June 11
Transcript of a press briefing by Press Secretary Dee
Dee Myers
Statement by Press Secretary Dee Dee Myers on the
establishment of a working group on welfare reform,
family support, and independence
Released June 15
Announcement of international broadcasting reorganization
Announcement of scheduled courtesy calls by Judge
Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Released June 16
Transcript of a press briefing by Press Secretary Dee
Dee Myers
Released June 17
Announcement of the space station Freedom redesign
decision
Fact sheet on the space station Freedom program redesign
Released June 18
Transcript of a press briefing by Press Secretary Dee
Dee Myers
Fact sheet on the alien smuggling policy
Released June 21
Transcript of a press briefing on the economic program by Secretary of the Treasury Lloyd Bentsen
Released June 22
Transcript of a press briefing by Press Secretary Dee
Dee Myers
Released June 23
Transcript of a press briefing by Press Secretary Dee
Dee Myers
Transcript of a press briefing on the economic program by Director of the Office of Management and
Budget Leon E. Panetta


1289




Appendix C / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993


Released June 24
Transcript of a press briefing by Press Secretary Dee
Dee Myers
Released June 25
Transcript of a press briefing by Press Secretary Dee
Dee Myers
Announcement of nomination for two U.S. Attorneys
Statement by Chief of Staff Thomas F. McLarty III
on White House staff changes
Released June 28
Transcript of a press briefing by Press Secretary Dee
Dee Myers
Announcement of nomination for two U.S. Attorneys
Released June 30
Transcript of a press briefing by Press Secretary Dee
Dee Myers
Transcript of a press briefing on the court decision
requiring a NAFTA environmental impact statement
by U.S. Trade Representative Mickey Kantor
Statement by U.S. Trade Representative Mickey
Kantor on the court decision requiring a NAFTA environmental impact statement
Released July I
Transcript of remarks by the Vice President, Secretary
of the Interior Bruce Babbitt, Secretary of Agriculture
Mike Espy, Secretary of Labor Robert B. Reich, Secretary of Commerce Ronald H. Brown, and EPA Administrator Carol M. Browner in an announcement
of the Forest Conservation Plan
Transcript of a press briefing on the economic summit
by Secretary of the Treasury Lloyd Bentsen
Released July 2
Transcript of a press briefing on the White House
Travel Office management review by Chief of Staff
Thomas F. McLarty III
Transcript of a press briefing on the economic summit
by Secretary of State Warren M. Christopher
Announcement of nomination of Janet Napolitano to
be U.S. Attorney for the District of Arizona
Released July 3
White House statement on U.S. policy on nuclear
testing and a comprehensive test ban
Released July 6
Transcript of a press briefing on the economic summit
by Secretary of State Warren M. Christopher and
Counselor to the President David R. Gergen


Released July 7
Transcript of a press briefing by Counselor to the
President David R. Gergen
Transcript of a press briefing on the economic summit
by Secretary of State Warren M. Christopher and Secretary of the Treasury Lloyd Bentsen
Transcript of a press briefing on the economic summit
by U.S. Trade Representative Mickey Kantor
Released July 8
Transcripts of three press briefings by Counselor to
the President David R. Gergen
Transcript of a press briefing on aid to Russia by
Secretary of the Treasury Lloyd Bentsen
Released July 9
Transcript of a press briefing on the President's visit
to Japan and the economic summit by Counselor to
the President David R. Gergen, Under Secretary of
State Joan E. Spero, Under Secretary of the Treasury
Lawrence H. Summers, and Special Assistant to the
President Bob Fauver
Transcript of a press briefing on the President's visit
to Japan and the economic summit by Counselor to
the President David R. Gergen
Announcement on implementation of Vancouver initiatives
Announcement on U.S.-Russia expanded bilateral cooperation
Announcement on the Russian-American Enterprise
Fund
Released July 10
Transcript of a press briefing on the Japan-U.S. economic framework agreement by Counselor to the
President David R. Gergen, Deputy Assistant to the
President for Economic Policy W. Bowman Cutter,
Deputy   U.S.   Trade   Representative  Charlene
Barshefsky, Under Secretary of State for Economic
and Agricultural Affairs Joan E. Spero, Deputy Secretary of the Treasury Roger C. Altman, and Under
Secretary of the Treasury for International Affairs
Lawrence H. Summers
Released July 12
Statement by Press Secretary Dee Dee Myers on the
Presidential delegation to Vietnam
Released July 15
Statement by Press Secretary Dee Dee Myers on Surgeon-General-designate Joycelyn Elders
Transcript of a press briefing by Press Secretary Dee
Dee Myers


1290




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Appendix C


Transcript of a press briefing on deficit reduction by
Director of the Office of Management and Budget
Leon E. Panetta and Deputy Secretary of the Treasury
Roger C. Altman
Released July 16
Transcript of a press briefing by Press Secretary Dee
Dee Myers
Released July 17
Joint Statement Between the United States and Russia
on Cooperation in Space
Released July 19
Transcript of a press briefing by Press Secretary Dee
Dee Myers
Announcement of nomination for four U.S. Attorneys
Directive by Secretary of Defense Les Aspin on the
policy on homosexuals in the Armed Forces
Released July 20
Transcript of a press briefing by Press Secretary Dee
Dee Myers
Released July 21
Transcript of remarks by the Vice President to small
business owners in Clinton, MD
Transcript of a press briefing on the economic program by Small Business Administrator Erskine B.
Bowles
Transcript of a press briefing by Chief of Staff Thomas
F. McLarty III and Director of Communications Mark
D. Gearan
Statement by Chief of Staff Thomas F. McLarty III
on the death of Deputy White House Counsel Vincent
Foster, Jr.
Obituary of Deputy White House Counsel Vincent
Foster, Jr.
Transcript of remarks by White House Counsel Bernard W. Nussbaum at a White House staff meeting
Released July 22
Transcript of a press briefing by Press Secretary Dee
Dee Myers


Joint declaration on relations between the United
States and the Republic of Belarus
Released July 23
Transcript of a press briefing on the economic program by the Vice President, Chairman of the Council
of Economic Advisers Laura D'Andrea Tyson, Secretary of the Department of Labor Robert B. Reich,
and Secretary of Commerce Ronald H. Brown
Released July 26
Transcript of a press briefing by Press Secretary Dee
Dee Myers
White House statement on the arrangement by the
Presidential Inquiries Branch with U.S. Soldiers' and
Airmen's Home to continue processing White House
mail
Released July 27
Transcript of a press briefing by Press Secretary Dee
Dee Myers
Fact sheet on the "Expedited Exclusion and Alien
Smuggling Enhanced Penalties Act of 1993"
List of participants in meeting with Conservative
Democratic Forum members
Released July 28
Statement on the signing of the Liberia peace agreement
Released July 29
Transcript of a press briefing by Press Secretary Dee
Dee Myers
Announcement of nomination for eight U.S. Attorneys
Statement on the request for additional funding for
Midwest disaster assistance
Released July 30
Transcript of a press briefing by Press Secretary Dee
Dee Myers
Transcript of a press briefing on national service legislation by Assistant to the President for National Service Eli J. Segal


1291








Appendix D-Presidential Documents Published in the Federal Register
This appendix lists Presidential documents released by the Office of the Press Secretary and published in the
Federal Register. The texts of the documents are printed in the Federal Register (F.R.) at the citations listed
below. The documents are also printed in title 3 of the Code of Federal Regulations and in the Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents.
PROCLAMATIONS
Proc.        Date.                                          58 F.R.
No.         1993                                         Subect                                      page
6525        Jan. 20     National Day of Fellowship and Hope, 1993...........................  5917
6526        Jan. 24     Death of Thurgood Marshall...................................... 6187
6527        Feb. 3      National Women and Girls in Sports Day, 1993........................ 7477
6528        Feb. 14     American Heart Month, 1993......................................8691
6529        Feb. 18     National Visiting Nurse Associations Week, 1993.......................10937
6530        Feb. 23     American Wine Appreciation Week, 1993............................11361
6531        Feb. 25     National FFA Organization Awareness Week, 1993.....................11951
6532        Mar. 5      Save Your Vision Week, 1993.....................................13185
6533        Mar. 6      Irish-American Heritage Month, 1993...............................13187
6534        Mar. 6      To Revoke Proclamation No. 6491 of October 14, 1992..................13189
6535        Mar. 17     American Red Cross Month, 1993..................................15411
6536        Mar. 17     National Poison Prevention Week, 1993............................. 15413
6537        Mar. 19     Women's History Month, 1993....................................15751
6538        Mar. 20     National Agriculture Day, 1993....................................15753
6539        Mar. 25     Greek Independence Day: A National Day of Celebration of Greek and
American Democracy, 1993.....................................16609
6540        Apr. 2      Education and Sharing Day, U.S.A., 1993............................17773
6541        Apr. 9      National Former Prisoner of War Recognition Day, 1993.................19315
6542        Apr. 9      National Preschool Immunization Week, 1993.........................19317
6543        Apr. 9      To Extend Special Rules of Origin Applicable to Certain Textile Articles
Woven or Knitted in Canada....................................19319
6544        Apr. 13     To Modify Duty-Free Treatment Under the Andean Trade Preference Act,
To Modify the Generalized System of Preferences, and for Other Purposes..................................................... 19547
6545        Apr. 14     Pan American Day and Pan American Week, 1993.....................  21093
6546        Apr. 17     National Volunteer Week, 1993................................... 21341
6547        Apr. 22     National Credit Education Week, 1993..............................25537
6548        Apr. 23     Nancy Moore Thurmond National Organ and Tissue Donor Awareness
Week, 1993................................................ 25539
6549        Apr. 23     Cancer Control Month, 1993..................................... 25541
6550        Apr. 28     Jewish Heritage Week, 1993......................................26219
6551        Apr. 28     National Crime Victims' Rights Week, 1993.......................... 26221
6552        Apr. 28     Death of Cesar Chavez..........................................26223
6553        Apr. 30     National Day of Prayer..........................................26499
6554        Apr. 30     National Arbor Day, 1993........................................26501
6555        Apr. 30     Law Day, U.S.A., 1993..........................................26503
6556        May 1       Loyalty Day, 1993............................................. 26505
6557        May 3       Asian/Pacific American Heritage Month, 1993.........................26909
6558        May 6       National Walking Week, 1993.....................................27649
6559        May 7       Mother's Day, 1993............................................ 27917
6560        May 7       Be Kind to Animals and National Pet Week, 1993......................27919
6561        May 14      Small Business Week, 1993.......................................28915
6562        May 19      National Defense Transportation Day and National Transportation Week,
1993......................................................29519
6563        May 19      World Trade Week, 1993........................................29775
6564        May 21      National Maritime Day, 1993.....................................29949
6565        May 25      Older Americans Month, 1993.................................... 30935
6566        May 28      Prayer for Peace, Memorial Day, 1993.............................. 31325


1293




Appendix D / Administration oJ William J. Clinton, 19J93


PROCLAMATIONS-Continued


Proc.      Date
No.       1993


Subject


6567
6568
6569
6570
6571
6572
6573
6574


May 28
May 31
June 3
June 4
June 4
June 14
June 17
June 21


Emergency       Medical Services Week, 1993 and                1994.......................................
Time for the National Observance of the Fiftieth Anniversary of World
War II, 1993...................................................................................................
Suspension of Entry as Immigrants and Nonimmigrants of Persons who
Formulate or Implement Policies that are Impeding the Negotiations
Seeking the Return to Constitutional Rule in Haiti....................................
National Safe Boating Week, 1993...................................................................
Lyme Disease Awareness Week, 1993 and 1994.............................................
Flag Day and National Flag Week, 1993.........................................................
Father's Day, 1993.............................................................................................
Suspension of Entry as Immigrants and Nonimmigrants of Persons Who
Formulate or Implement Policies That are Impeding the Transition to
Democracy in Zaire or Who Benefit From                    Such Policies..........................
To Modify Duty-Free Treatment Under the Generalized System of Preferences and for Other Purposes...................................................................
National Youth Sports Program              Day, 1993......................................................
Agreement on Trade Relations Between the United States of America and
Romania..........................................................................................................
National Literacy Day, 1993 and              1994.............................................................
To Implement an Accelerated Tariff Schedule of Duty Elimination and To
Modify Rules of Origin Under the United States-Canada Free-Trade
Agreement.......................................................................................................
Captive Nations Week, 1993.............................................................................
National Veterans Golden Age Games Week, 1993........................................
40th Anniversary of the Korean Armistice.......................................................
Death of General Matthew              B. Ridgway............................................................


58 F.R.
page
31893
31895
31897
32041
32267
33185
33753
34209
34855
36117
36301
36585
36839
38659
40031
40717
41169


6575      June 25
6576      July 1
6577      July 2
6578      July 2
6579      July 4
6580      July 15
6581      July 22
6582      July 27
6583      July 29


EXECUTIVE ORDERS


E.O.       Date
No.       1993


12834
12835
12836
12837
12838
12839
12840
12841
12842
12843
12844
12845
12846
12847
12848
12849
12850
12851
1294


Jan. 20
Jan. 25
Feb. 1
Feb. 10
Feb. 10
Feb. 10
Mar. 9
Mar. 9
Mar. 29
Apr. 21
Apr. 21
Apr. 21
Apr. 25
May 17
May 19
May 25
May 28
June 11


Subject
Ethics Commitments by Executive Branch Appointees.................................
Establishment of the National Economic Council..........................................
Revocation of Certain Executive Orders Concerning Federal Contracting...
Deficit Control and Productivity Improvement in the Administration of the
Federal Government......................................................................................
Termination and Limitation of Federal Advisory Committees.......................
Reduction of 100,000 Federal Positions...........................................................
Nuclear Cooperation With EURATOM............................................................
Adjustments to Levels IV           and V   of the Executive Schedule...........................
International Development Law              Institute........................................................
Procurement Requirements and Policies for Federal Agencies for Ozonedepleting Substances......................................................................................
Federal Use of Alternative Fueled Vehicles.....................................................
Requiring Agencies to Purchase Energy Efficient Computer Equipment.....
Additional Measures With Respect to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
(Serbia and Montenegro)...............................................................................
Amending Executive Order No. 11423............................................................
Federal Plan To Break the Cycle of Homelessness........................................
Implementation of Agreement With the European Community on Government Procurement.........................................................................................
Conditions for Renewal of Most-Favored-Nation Status for the People's
Republic of China in 1994.............................................................................
Administration of Proliferation Sanctions, Middle East Arms Control, and
Related Congressional Reporting Responsibilities.......................................


58 F.R
Page
5911
6189
7045
8205
8207
8515
13401
13529
17081
21881
21885
21887
25771
29511
29517
30931
31327
33181




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993 / Appendix D


EXECUTIVE ORDERS-Continued


E.O.       Date
No.       1993


Subject


12852           June 29         President's Council on Sustainable Development..............................
12853           June 30         Blocking Government of Haiti Property and Prohibiting Transactions With
H aiti..................................................................................................................
12854            July 4         Implementation of the Cuban Democracy Act................................................
12855            July 19        Amendment to Executive Order No. 12852.....................................................


58 F.R
Page
35841
35843
36587
39107


OTHER PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS


Doc.
No.


Date
1993


Subject


Jan. 22
Jan. 22
Jan. 22
Jan. 22
Feb. 3
93-18      Mar. 31
93-19      Apr. 15
93-20       May 3
May 17
93-22       May 19
May 25
93-23       May 28
93-24       May 31
93-25       June 2
93-26       June 3
93-27      June 24
June 25
93-28      June 25
93-29      June 29
93-30       July 2
93-32       July 19
July 20


Memorandum: Privately funded abortions at military hospitals......................
Memorandum: The title X "gag rule"...............................................................
Memorandum: Federal funding of fetal tissue transplantation research........
Memorandum: Importation of RU-486............................................................
Memorandum: Delegation of authority with respect to reports concerning
Russian    m ilitary  exports..................................................................................
Presidential Determination: Certification for major narcotics producing and
transit  countries...............................................................................................
Presidential Determination: Export-Import Bank loan to China....................
Presidential Determination: Funding for enforcement of sanctions against
Serbia  and    M ontenegro..................................................................................
Permit:    Authorizing    the   Canadian     National    Railway    Company,      Grand
Trunk Corporation and any subsidiaries to construct, operate, and maintain a replacement international railway tunnel at the international
boundary line between the United States of America and Canada............
Presidential Determination: Funding for assistance to refugees and conflict
victims in Bosnia and Croatia.........................................................................
Notice: Continuation of emergency with respect to the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro).............................................................
Presidential Determination: Continuation of most-favored-nation trade status   for  C hina....................................................................................................
Presidential Determination: Withdrawal of Russian armed forces from Lithuania,  Latvia,  and   Estonia..............................................................................
Presidential Determination: Trade with Albania, Mongolia, Romania, and
certain states of the Former Soviet Union....................................................
Presidential Determination: Trade with Bulgaria.............................................
Presidential Determination: Disaster assistance in Ecuador...........................
Memorandum: Actions concerning the Generalized System of Preferences.
Presidential Determination: Haiti Reconstruction and Reconciliation Fund.
Presidential Determination: Delegation of authority concerning trade action
taken    against  Japan..........................................................................................
Presidential Determination: Trade with Romania............................................
Presidential Determination: Certification of free, fair, and democratic elections  in   A ngola.................................................................................................
Notice: Continuation of Iraqi emergency..........................................................


58 F.R
Page
6439
7455
7457
7459
8203
19033
21889
28757
29513
31463
30693
31329
32269
33005
33007
49175
34861
37631
35357
43785
40309
39111


1295




I




Subject Index


Abortion-7-11, 131, 278, 749, 835, 850
Academic Decathlon, U.S.-929
Acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS). See
Health and medical care
ACTION-575
Administration. See other part of subject
Adult Learning Center, New Brunswick, NJ-217
Advisory committees, Federal. See Government agencies and employees
Aeronautics and Space Administration, National-621,
850, 874, 876, 902, 908, 918, 926, 962, 1153
Aerospace industry. See Aviation industry
AFL-CIO. See Labor & Congress of Industrial Organizations, American Federation of
Africa. See specific country
African-American History Month, National-28
African Development Bank-1267
Agency. See other part of subject
Aging, Administration on. See Health and Human
Services, Department of
Aging, Federal Council on the-820
Aging, White House Conference on-732
Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service.
See Agriculture, Department of
Agriculture
Crop insurance system-1000, 1077, 1098, 1100
Disaster assistance-959, 966, 996, 1000, 1032,
1074, 1077, 1082, 1099, 1103, 1125
Farm financial assistance-1080, 1192
International government subsidies-957, 1005,
1039, 1246
Water management-1245
Agriculture, Department of
Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service-1082
Assistant Secretaries-256, 264, 1260, 1261
Budget-1263
Commodity Credit Corporation-1082, 1137
Deputy Secretary-256
Disaster assistance funding-1261
General Counsel-284
Meat inspection, role-80
Rural Electrification Administration-119, 606
Secretary-68, 80, 546, 959, 966, 996, 1000-1002,
1004, 1005, 1032, 1076, 1078, 1097, 1098, 1103,
1108, 1192, 1235, 1262
Soil Conservation Service-1082
Under Secretaries-256, 264
AID. See Development Cooperation Agency, U.S.
International
AIDS. See Health and medical care
AIDS Policy Coordinator, Office of the National932
Air Force, Department of the
See also Armed Forces, U.S.


Air Force, Department of the-Continued
Air Force Academy, U.S.-582
General Counsel-1083
Homestead Air Force Base, FL-77, 287, 288
Investigation of major general's remarks-851, 862
Secretary-992
Thunderbirds precision fying team-1264
Airline Industry, National Commission to Ensure a
Strong Competitive-412, 416, 539, 725
Airline industry. See Aviation industry
Alabama
Governor-  151
News media-1149
Snowstorms-1262
Alabama, University of-1260
Albania
Prime Minister-1262
Trade with U.S.-807
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, Bureau of. See Treasury, Department of the
Ambassadors. See specific country
American. See other part of subject
American University-206
Amtrak. See Railroad Passenger Corporation, National
Angola, U.S. recognition-704
APEC. See Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum
Architects, American Institute of-1257
Arctic Research Plan, U.S.-1237
Argentina
Arms control negotiations and agreements-954
President-953, 954
Trade with U.S.-953, 954
U.S. Ambassador-366
Arizona, news media-1238
Arkansas Land and Farm Development Corp.-482
Arkansas, President's visits-367, 1169, 1261, 1267,
1268
Arkansas, University of-511, 928
Armed Forces, U.S.
See also specific military department; Defense and
national security
Assignment of women-623
Ban on homosexuals in the military-13, 18-20, 23,
74, 78, 153, 337, 338, 352, 511, 610, 756, 919,
1109, 1113, 1138, 1146, 1161, 1203
Base closings-77, 288, 292, 296, 300, 301, 973,
1012, 1142, 1153, 1187, 1189
Health care-8, 11
International role. See specific country or region
National Guard-1033, 1092, 1093, 1098
Personnel reduction-286, 973
POW's/MIA's-491, 688, 786, 990, 1221, 1261, 1262
Radio address-283
Armenia
Ambassador to U.S.-1265


A-1




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993
Armenia-Continued
Trade with U.S.-807
U.S. Ambassador-313
Arms and munitions
See also Defense and national security; Nuclear
weapons
Arms control negotiations and agreements-525
Chemical and biological weapons-471, 525, 774,
1054, 1166
Export controls-173, 397, 402, 524
Missile systems-1054
Nonproliferation-261, 531
Plastic explosives, control and detection-958
Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, U.S.-656,
995
Army, Department of the
See also Armed Forces, U.S.
Chemical weapons materials-471
Corps of Engineers-1033, 1079, 1082, 1097
Deputy Assistant Secretary-1267
Military Academy, U.S.-779
Arts and the Humanities, National Foundation on the,
Humanities, National Endowment for the-429, 882
ASEAN. See South East Asian Nations, Association
of
Asia-Pacific  Economic  Cooperation  forum-1023,
1051, 1055, 1106, 1196
Asia-Pacific region
See also specific country
Defense and security-439, 1016, 1018, 1020, 1039,
1053, 1055, 1063
Economic growth-1020
Trade with U.S.-977, 1013, 1021, 1106
U.S. military role 1054
Asia, South, regional nonproliferation, report-531
Asian Democracy Radio. See Information Agency, U.S.
Asian Development Bank-1072
Asian/Pacific American Heritage Month-553
Association. See other part of subject
Atomic Energy Agency, International. See United Nations
Australia
Environment Minister-468
U.S. Ambassador-1266
Australian-American Friendship Week-1263
Austria, Ambassador to U.S.-1262
Automobile industry-730
Aviation Administration, Federal. See Transportation,
Department of
Aviation industry, growth and competitiveness-76,
181, 184, 263, 289, 412, 416, 539, 725, 755
Awards. See other part of subject
Azerbaijan
Ambassador to U.S.-1262
Trade with U.S.-807
Banking-265, 650, 687, 726, 931, 948, 982, 1080,
1084, 1087, 1210
Belarus
Arms control negotiations and agreements-1165
Chairman, Supreme Soviet-1165
Export controls-524
Trade with U.S.-807


Bicentennial Commission-124, 141
Biological Survey, National. See Interior, Department
of the
Black Publishers Association-1260
Board. See other part of subject
Boeing Corp.-180, 184, 185
Bosnia-Herzegovina
Arms embargo-593, 594, 622, 660, 663, 849, 851,
984, 1025
Conflict resolution-45, 54-56, 79, 198, 200, 245,
259, 350, 363, 364, 379, 410, 411, 438, 441, 444,
484, 486-488, 499, 505, 551, 552, 566, 576, 590,
593, 594, 622, 631, 660, 663, 667, 713, 724, 735,
833, 852, 868, 869, 874, 981, 984, 985, 988, 1043,
1144, 1155, 1212-1214, 1218
Humanitarian assistance-162, 195, 197, 199, 206,
244
No-fly zone-363, 429
President-363, 1214
U.S. Ambassador-1261
U.S. military, potential role-552, 594
Botswana, U.S. Ambassador-527
Boys Nation-1174
Branch Davidian religious sect standoff-454, 459,
461, 485, 488
Broadcasting, Board for International-437, 857
Btu tax. See Taxation, energy tax
Budget, Federal
See also specific agency; Economy, national
Congressional votes-355, 740, 763, 931, 1201, 1206
Defense spending-119, 269, 285, 292, 298, 308,
336, 620, 683, 755, 1125
Deficit-3, 4, 60, 74, 86, 105, 119, 134, 140, 179,
203, 262, 343, 499, 518, 603, 640, 652, 672, 675,
722, 732, 761, 768, 790, 813, 817, 823, 824, 827,
829, 854, 867, 869, 871, 872, 885, 887, 890, 895,
903, 906, 914, 936, 945, 980, 1003, 1012, 1037,
1049, 1078, 1089, 1118, 1119, 1124, 1129, 1142,
1143, 1145, 1150, 1156, 1157, 1162, 1163, 1200,
1207, 1218, 1227, 1229, 1238, 1246, 1251
Entitlement spending-704, 1202, 1218
Fiscal year 1994-1263, 1265
Line-item veto-520, 827, 1232
Rescissions and deferrals-215, 465, 811
Spending cuts-119, 123, 134, 146, 204, 205, 230,
251, 256, 262, 326, 641, 671, 680, 742, 755, 768,
792, 798, 799, 824, 868, 884, 890, 901, 905, 921,
1004, 1011, 1121, 1122, 1132, 1158, 1204, 1205,
1216, 1240
Supplemental appropriations, fiscal year 1993-494,
995, 1082, 1264, 1268
Building and Construction Trades Department. See
Labor & Congress of Industrial Organizations,
American Federation of
Bulgaria
Export controls-524, 525
President-1262
Trade with U.S.-808, 1136
U.S. Ambassador-839
Bureau. See other part of subject
Burma
Human rights-705, 1135


A-2




Subject Index


Burma-Continued
National League for Democracy, leader-1135
Business and industry
See also specific company or industry
Cooperative production ventures-278, 833
Corporate tax increase-120
Credit availability-248, 265, 650, 687, 726, 931,
948
Economic recovery, role-86
Enterprise zones. See Enterprise zones
Government contracts-27
Industry conversion and job retraining-77, 81, 270,
285, 291, 295, 300, 302, 420, 685, 891, 917, 966,
973
Manufacturing-1242, 1248
Private sector partnership with Government-382
Productivity and competitiveness-1010, 1177
Research and development-278, 834, 1177, 1230
Small and minority business-265, 634, 648, 662,
687, 727, 944, 951, 1248
Summer jobs program-425, 430, 684, 698, 915
Tax deductions and subsidies. See Taxation
Youth apprenticeship program-129, 426
Business Council-1259
Business Roundtable-822
Cabinet
See also specific position
Meeting-6
Swearing-in ceremony-5
Cable News Network-1081
California
Economic conditions-108, 1210, 1249, 1260
Federal aid for immigrant burden-1245
Governor-41
Los Angeles mayoral election-673, 700
Los Angeles police trial. See Justice, Department
of
News media-296, 1244
President's visits-165, 171, 677, 680, 693, 700, 702,
1008, 1258, 1264
Winter storms-41
Canada
Ambassador to U.S.-1265
President Clinton's visit-391-393, 401, 1261
Prime Minister Campbell-1035, 1266
Prime Minister Mulroney-52, 53, 202, 391, 799,
1261
Trade with U.S.-52, 53, 130, 569, 580, 1035, 1036,
1219
U.S. Ambassador-764
Cancer Panel, President's-1263
Cancer Society Courage Awards, American-480
Caribbean region
See also specific country
Environment, convention-466
U.S. private sector investment-978
CBS News-346, 760
CBS "This Morning"-742
Central Arkansas Radiation Therapy Institute-866
Central Intelligence Agency-938, 940
Central State University-806


Chad, U.S. Ambassador-554
Chamber of Commerce, Korean-1059
Chamber of Commerce, New Jersey-46
Chamber of Commerce, U.S.-185, 425, 1033, 1059
Chemical weapons. See Arms and munitions
Children and Families, Administration for. See Health
and Human Services, Department of
Children and youth
See also specific subject
Child care-82, 324
Immunization programs-97, 116, 132, 253, 274,
383, 418, 569
Children's Defense Fund-272
China
Ambassador to U.S.-1265
Arms control negotiations and agreements-774
Democracy initiative in Hong Kong-553
Emigration and foreign travel-772
Human rights-750, 770, 773, 775
Illegal immigration to U.S.-879, 1195
Tibet. See Tibet
Trade with U.S.-553, 750, 770, 772
Churches, National Council of-346
CIA. See Central Intelligence Agency
Cities
See also State and local governments
Enterprise zones. See Enterprise zones
Federal aid-916
Mayors, meetings with President-57, 241, 913
Private sector investment in inner city areas-148
Cities, National League of-57, 249
Civil rights
See also specific subject
Discrimination-13, 18-20, 23, 78, 153, 403, 444,
487, 504, 510, 1110
Sexual harassment-490, 492
Violations-448, 450
Voting rights-706, 809, 877
Civil Rights, Leadership Conference on-624
Cleveland City Club-602, 610
Close Up Foundation-584
Coast Guard, U.S. See Transportation, Department of
COCOM. See Coordinating Committee for Multilateral Security Export Controls
College Democrats of America-853
Colleges and universities. See specific institution; Education
Colorado, Governor-27
Commerce, Department of
Assistant Secretaries-100, 434
Associate Deputy Secretary-1261
Deputy Assistant Secretaries-925, 1261
Deputy Secretaries-23, 1046
Deputy Under Secretaries-925, 1259
Export Administration, Bureau of-526
Export controls, administration-524
General Counsel-964
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National-359, 925, 1267
Patent and Trademark Office-1262
Public Affairs Director-925
Secretary-304, 448, 578, 579, 662, 679, 686, 695,
701, 702, 755, 1101, 1103, 1260-1262


A-3




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993
Commerce, Department of-Continued
Standards and Technology, National Institute of359
Under Secretaries-100, 256, 739, 858
Commerce, international
See also specific country or subject; Economy, international
Exports, U.S.-577
Free and fair trade-212, 261, 439, 440
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT)54, 365, 380, 417, 580, 591, 831, 910, 912, 979,
982, 987, 993, 1023, 1031, 1059, 1060, 1106, 1261
Generalized System of Preferences (GSP)-935
Group of Seven nations (G-7)-212, 257, 381, 394,
439, 580, 591, 831, 941, 961, 976, 979, 1016,
1018, 1021, 1030-1032, 1035-1037, 1039, 1044,
1045, 1055, 1057, 1059, 1093, 1119, 1123, 1188,
1263, 1266
Military exports. See Arms and munitions
North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)53, 54, 115, 130, 212, 340, 490, 580, 666, 692,
800, 831, 832, 852, 880, 896, 906, 911-913, 956,
977, 988, 1004, 1035, 1126, 1147, 1189, 1217,
1218
Trade negotiations and agreements-115, 175, 199,
212, 569, 687, 787, 838, 853, 989, 993, 1022,
1031, 1035, 1037, 1039, 1049, 1052, 1058, 1093,
1106, 1119, 1123, 1188, 1241, 1248, 1259
Commission. See other part of subject
Commodity Credit Corporation. See Agriculture, Department of
Communications
Airwaves reallocation-1156
Broadcasting programs, international-857, 858, 862
Electronic media-820
News media. See specific State or news organization
Telecommunications-1156, 1262
Communications Commission, Federal-960, 1156,
1257
Community development. See Banking; State and local
governments, Federal block grants
Community Service, Commission on National and575
Competitiveness Council-4, 62
Comptroller of the Currency. See Treasury, Department of the
Computers. See Science and technology
Conference. See other part of subject
Congo, U.S. Ambassador-527
Congress
See also specific subject
Black Caucus-862, 875
Budget votes —355, 763, 931, 1201
Campaign finance reform. See Elections
Caucuses, meetings with President-1201, 1268
Lobby reform-118, 584, 597, 600, 746, 816, 889
Members, meetings with President-3, 322, 355,
1117
Speaker of the House of Representatives-184
Congressional Record-820
Connecticut, news media-291
Conservation
See also Environment


Conservation-Continued
Federal lands-747, 1231
Forest preservation-160, 269, 342, 385, 387, 762,
964
Water-1245
Wilderness and wildlife preservation-160, 163, 466,
691
Construction industry, Government contracts-27
Cooper Union for the Advancement of Science and
Art-638
Cooperative Production Amendments of 1993, National-833
Coordinating Committee for Multilateral Security Export Controls-397, 402, 524
Corporation. See other part of subject
Corps of Engineers. See Army, Department of the
Council. See other part of subject
Counties, National Association of-1259
County Officials, National Association of-1104, 1259
Court. See other part of subject
Crime. See Law enforcement and crime
Croatia
President-1262
U.S. Ambassador-656
CSCE. See Security and Cooperation in Europe, Conference on
Cuba
Democracy and freedom-290, 340, 709, 858, 1221
Economic sanctions-1221
Independence Day anniversary-709
Trade with Russia-400
Customs Service, U.S. See Treasury, Department of
the
Cyprus
Conflict resolution-358, 476, 714
President Clerides-477, 714
President Vassiliou-477
Presidential election-476, 477
U.S. Ambassador-839
U.S. Special Coordinator-476
Czech Republic
Export controls-524
President-465, 1262
Dallas Cowboys-24, 246
Defense   Advanced  Research   Projects  Agency
(DARPA). See Defense, Department of
Defense and national security
See also Arms and munitions; Nuclear weapons
Defense-related laws-1264
Laws and practices relating to the former Soviet
Union-493, 1048
Military strength and deterrence-281, 284, 676,
781, 1062, 1063
Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission77, 289, 292, 973, 1142, 1153
Defense conversion. See Business and industry;
Science and technology
Defense, Department of
Assistant Secretaries-369, 370, 404, 429
Assistants to Secretary-417, 1267
Budget-119, 269, 285, 292, 293, 298, 308, 336
Comptroller-963


A-4




Subject Index


Defense, Department of-Continued
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
(DARPA)-271
Deputy Assistant Secretaries-434, 925, 926, 963,
1267
Deputy Secretaries-42, 1266
Deputy Under Secretaries-404, 926, 1083, 1261,
1266
General Counsel-215
Inspector General-490, 492
Intergovernmental Affairs Director-1267
Joint Chiefs of Staff-13, 18, 20, 23, 429, 1110,
1111, 1114, 1138, 1142, 1153, 1161, 1257, 1261,
1263
Legislative Affairs Deputy Director-925
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretaries-926, 1266,
1267
Principal Deputy Comptroller-434
Program Analysis and Evaluation Director-404
Research and Engineering Director-370
Secretary-8, 11, 20, 23, 270, 288, 296, 300, 439,
511, 784, 919, 974, 1110, 1111, 1114, 1138, 1142,
1153, 1161, 1214, 1261
Special Assistant to Principal Deputy Under Secretary-1267
Under Secretaries-1258
Deficit, Federal. See Budget, Federal
Delta Service Corps-542
Democracy, National Endowment for-1262
Democratic Governors Association-29, 343
Democratic National Committee-644, 942, 1268
Democratic Party
Congressional dinner-561
Presidential galas-644, 942
Denmark, Prime Minister-591
Department. See other part of subject
Deposit Insurance Corporation, Federal-266
Development, Agency for International. See Development Cooperation Agency, U.S. International
Development Cooperation Agency, U.S. International
Development, Agency for International (AID)-8,
10, 368, 925, 964, 971, 1091, 1267
Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC)369, 434
Trade and Development Agency-821
Diplomatic corps-856
Disability, National Council on-596, 1258
Disabled persons-219, 220, 1198, 1200
Disaster assistance
Agriculture-959, 966, 996, 1000, 1032, 1074, 1077,
1082, 1099, 1103, 1125
Alabama snowstorms-1262
California winter storms-41
East coast winter storm-302
Emergency funding-1261
Florida winter storm-302
Georgia tornadoes-1259
Hurricane Andrew-77, 287, 996
Hurricane Iniki-996, 1065
Iowa flooding-1262, 1263, 1266
Kansas flooding-1267
Louisiana flooding-35, 36


Disaster assistance-Continued
Maine flooding-1263
Midwest flooding-959, 966, 1000, 1002, 1007,
1032, 1058, 1074-1076, 1079, 1082, 1088, 1089,
1092, 1093, 1095, 1108, 1124, 1140, 1198, 1211,
1224, 1235, 1236, 1267, 1268
Minnesota flooding-959, 1265
Missouri flooding-1263
Nebraska flooding-1261, 1267
New York World Trade Center bombing-1261
North Carolina snowstorms-1262
North Dakota flooding-1268
Oklahoma storms, tornadoes, and flooding-1262,
1263
Oregon earthquake-1262
South Dakota flooding-1267
Vermont flooding-1263
Washington storms and high winds-239, 240, 1259
Discrimination. See Civil rights
District of Columbia
Budget-729
Statehood-751, 909, 1146
Superior Court-240
Domestic Policy Council-832, 879, 933, 1265
Downtown Child Development Center, Atlanta, GA324
Drug abuse and trafficking
See also Law enforcement and crime
International cooperation-619, 968
Narcotics control certification-59
Prevention efforts-84, 528, 968
Treatment programs-159, 528
Drug Control Policy, Office of National-527, 619,
967, 1160
Earth Day-468
Easter egg roll at the White House-419
Easter Seal Society-1260
EC. See European Community
Economic Advisers, Council of-359
Economic Cooperation and Development, Organization for-515
Economic Council, National-12, 271, 579, 917, 1050,
1257
Economic summit, international-976, 979, 983, 993,
999, 1012, 1016, 1018, 1030, 1031, 1035-1037, 1040,
1044, 1045, 1055, 1057, 1059, 1093, 1119, 1123,
1144, 1188, 1266
Economy, international
See also specific country; Commerce, international
Environmental policies, impact-845
Growth-207, 213, 365, 380, 439, 838, 897, 906,
960, 971, 976, 979, 982, 1009, 1012, 1020, 1023,
1034, 1183
Tokyo economic summit. See Economic summit,
international
Economy, national
See also Banking; Budget, Federal; Commerce,
international
Bankruptcy laws-686
Environmental policies, impact-845, 978


A-5




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993
Economy, national-Continued
Growth-60
Inflation and interest rates-328, 516, 662, 681, 696,
753, 768, 793, 802, 804, 812, 863, 869, 884, 887,
945, 946, 1132, 1173, 1231, 1239
Stimulus plan-63, 64, 102, 104, 110, 113, 122,
125, 137, 145, 165, 175, 177, 181, 186, 201, 202,
204, 211, 216, 241, 247, 250, 274, 286, 291, 302,
319, 322, 324, 326, 330, 335, 339, 343, 347, 355,
366, 369, 373, 389, 403, 405, 409, 413-415, 419,
421, 434, 435, 437, 443, 445, 446, 449, 451, 455,
456, 469, 474, 484, 492, 495, 498, 501, 508, 509,
596, 610, 613, 916
Ecuador
Trade with U.S.-428
U.S. Ambassador-527
Education
See also specific institution
Adult education-218
College loans-117, 128, 217, 221, 227, 506, 540,
546, 550, 574, 601, 607, 616, 618, 698, 723, 855,
889, 996
Disabled students-154, 220
Foreign language instruction-690
Funding-218, 700
Goals, national-425, 477, 657, 758, 924, 1014
Home schooling-152
National service program-45, 117, 128, 216, 217,
221, 224, 483, 507, 540, 543, 548, 551, 574, 601,
607, 611, 616, 685, 698, 855, 865, 889, 915, 924,
1100, 1163, 1168, 1176, 1223, 1251, 1252
Post-secondary and job training-723, 758, 1014,
1182
Quality-657, 929
Safe schools initiative-151
Summer jobs program-425, 430, 684, 698, 915
Teachers-460, 690, 1260
Tuition tax credits-135
Youth apprenticeship program-129, 426
Education Association, National-1008
Education, Department of
Assistant Secretaries-232, 247, 264, 368, 532
Budget-1263
Chief Financial Officer-1223
Communications Director-1263
Deputy Assistant Secretaries-1267
Disaster assistance funding-1261
General Counsel-446
Secretary-425, 433, 489, 546, 657, 729, 924, 1014
Under Secretary-264
Egypt, President-405, 406, 1259
El Salvador, U.S. Ambassador-527
Elections
Communications, equal access for candidates-585,
597, 601, 746, 762
Congressional campaign financing-41, 118, 342,
584, 588, 597, 600, 746, 762, 816, 863, 865, 866,
875, 877, 889
Presidential campaign financing-342, 584
State and local. See specific State
Voter registration-695, 706
Electronics Industry Association-1260


Emergency Management Agency, Federal-35, 36, 41,
42, 101, 239, 240, 287, 302, 959, 1032, 1076, 1077,
1082, 1097, 1099, 1100, 1102, 1108, 1125, 1235,
1236, 1261, 1267
Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance Fund
(ERMA)-232
Emergency Unemployment Compensation Amendments of 1993-237, 239
Employment and Training Administration. See Labor,
Department of
Employment and unemployment
See also Economy, national
Family leave-19, 49, 50, 74
Federal employees. See Government agencies and
employees
Job creation-86, 114, 131, 241, 266, 328, 366, 403,
413, 415, 419, 427, 432, 447, 451, 456, 469, 501,
578, 603, 686, 853, 900, 937, 944, 974, 977, 980,
995, 1012, 1037, 1041, 1120, 1127, 1151, 1173,
1177, 1203, 1230, 1248, 1250
Job training-758
Rates-60, 64, 238, 239, 241, 243, 1012, 1042
Summer jobs program-425, 430, 684, 698, 915,
996
Unemployment benefits-64, 237, 239, 494
Union dues-27
Workers' compensation-699, 951
Employment Standards Administration. See Labor,
Department of
Empowerment zones. See Enterprise zones
Endeavour. See Space program, shuttle
Endowment. See other part of subject
Energy
Alternative fuels-471
Conservation-472
Nuclear-1042
Energy, Department of
Assistant Secretaries-446, 483, 614, 1258
Deputy General Counsel-926
Deputy Secretary-412
Energy Information Administration-532
Energy Regulatory Commission, Federal-422, 1257
Energy Research Director-1090
General Counsel-1262
Intelligence and National Security Director-354
Minority Economic Impact Director-1090
Nuclear weapons testing-995
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretaries-926, 1267
Public Affairs Director-614
Scientific and Technical Information Director1267
Secretary-68, 471, 1265
Energy Information Administration. See Energy, Department of
Energy Regulatory Commission, Federal. See Energy,
Department of
Enrichment Corporation, U.S.-1261
Enrico Fermi Award-1265, 1268
Enterprise zones-115, 555, 651, 702, 826, 871, 891,
915, 927, 946
Environment
See also Conservation


A-6




Subject Index


Environment-Continued
Air quality-154
Biological diversity, convention-470
Economic growth, impact-469, 845, 978
Global climate change-470
Hazardous materials and waste-155, 404, 471
International cooperation-469, 845
Ozone layer depletion-471, 962, 1136
Recycling-472
Superfund program-124, 190, 830
Water quality-788
Environmental Policy, White House Office on-62,
1258
Environmental Protection Agency-62, 124, 190, 232,
469, 471, 830, 1090, 1115, 1259
Environmental Quality, Council on-63
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission-1261
Eritrea, U.S. Ambassador-964
European Atomic Energy Community (EURATOM)263
European Community-590, 591, 1073, 1260
Export Administration, Bureau of. See Commerce, Department of
Export-Import Bank of the U.S.-28, 576
Exports, U.S. See specific commodity or subject; Commerce, Department of; Commerce, international
Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993-49, 50, 74,
117
Family leave. See Employment and unemployment
FBI. See Justice, Department of
Federal. See other part of subject
Federal Register-820
Federation. See other part of subject
FEMA. See Emergency Management Agency, Federal
Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. See Interior, Department of the
Fishery agreements. See Maritime affairs
Flag Day and National Flag Week-841
Flooding. See Disaster assistance
Florida
Governor-77, 302
Hurricane Andrew-77, 287
News media-287
Winter storm-302
Food and Drug Administration. See Health and
Human Services, Department of
Foreign Assets Control, Office of. See Treasury, Department of the
Foreign policy, U.S. See specific country, region, or
subject
Foreign Service. See State, Department of
France
President-257, 294, 323, 581, 1042, 1258, 1259
Prime Minister —853, 979, 986
U.S. Ambassador-345
Freedom. See Space program, space station
Freedom, Presidential Medal of-572, 921
Future Farmers of America-1259
Gambia, U.S. Ambassador-527
Gambling
Gaming on Indian lands-689


Gambling-Continued
Legalization-295
Gay and lesbian rights. See Civil rights, discrimination
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). See
Commerce, international
General Services Administration-70, 71, 368, 706,
1267
Generalized System of Preferences (GSP). See Commerce, international
Georgia
News media-1200
President's visit-324, 325
Tornadoes-1259
Georgia, Republic of, trade with U.S.-807
German American Academic Council-360
Germany
Chancellor-359, 360, 988, 1041, 1259, 1260, 1266
Foreign Minister-45
Interest rate reduction-971
President-728
U.S. Ambassador-964
Girls Nation-1163
Glass Ceiling Commission. See Labor, Department of
Goodwill Industries of America, Inc.-582
Government agencies and employees
See also specific agency
Advisory committees, Federal-67
Alternative fueled vehicle use-471
Contracts, Federal-27
Cost control-67, 103, 118
Disaster areas, excused absences-1224
Energy efficient computer equipment use-472
Hazardous waste and pollution prevention-471
Information, electronic access-820
Lobby reform-586
Mandates on State and local governments-1106,
1154, 1208
Ozone-depleting substances use-471
Partnership with private sector-382
Perquisites reduction-67, 69, 103
Personnel reductions-67, 103, 118, 1232
Recycling and recycled products use-472
Reform-233, 326, 335, 949, 952
Regulatory review and reform-4, 949, 1106, 1202,
1208
Salary freeze-118, 1232
Senior Executive Service-925
Transportation restrictions-67, 69, 70
Government Printing Office-820
Governors' Association, National-23, 25, 26, 32, 531
Greece
Cyprus conflict. See Cyprus
Prime Minister —358
U.S. Ambassador-964
Greek Independence Day-357
Gridiron Club-1261
Group of Seven nations (G-7). See Commerce, international
Guatemala
Ambassador to U.S.-1265
President-739
Suspension of constitutional rights-739
U.S. Ambassador-313


A-7




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993
Guinea, U.S. Ambassador-554
Gun control. See Law enforcement and crime
Haiti
Civil conflict-55, 56, 84, 162, 290, 309, 489, 810,
873, 972, 997, 1035, 1068, 1154, 1155
Economic assistance-309, 972
Economic sanctions-810, 873, 875, 961, 1068
Human rights-231
President-55, 56, 85, 231, 290, 309, 489, 810, 873,
875, 972, 997, 1035, 1068, 1071, 1072, 1154,
1155, 1259
Prime Minister-55
Refugees-84, 230, 231, 310
Suspension of U.S. entry of certain nationals-811
United Nations Security Council resolutions-961,
962
U.S. national emergency-1069
U.S. Special Envoy-1069
Hawaii
Governor-29, 1065, 1266
Hurricane Iniki-996, 1065
President's visit-1063, 1064, 1266
Head Start. See Health and Human Services, Department of
Health and Human Services, Department of
Aging, Administration on-732, 1258
Assistant Secretaries-9, 732, 1258, 1260, 1265
Children and Families, Administration for-1265
Civil Rights Director-570
Deputy Assistant Secretaries —354, 926, 1259, 1263,
1267
Deputy General Counsels-1262, 1267
Deputy Secretary-1258
Food and Drug Administration-8, 11, 355
General Counsel-1258
Head Start-116, 253, 275, 825
Health Care Financing Administration-26, 247
Health, National Institutes of-7, 9, 834, 933
Inspector General-384
Intergovernmental Affairs Director-926
Medicare and Medicaid-26, 27, 120, 129, 132, 329,
732, 829
Public Health Service-312, 1141, 1250
Secretary-7-11, 99, 275, 312, 383, 418, 569, 894,
1098, 1263
Health and medical care
Abortion. See Abortion
Acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS)161, 835, 932
Cancer-480
Drug abuse, treatment programs. See Drug abuse
and trafficking
Drugs, prescription-8, 11, 132
Family planning-7, 8, 10
Fetal tissue research-7-9, 835
Health care reform-13, 26, 80, 81, 83, 116, 133,
135, 148, 158, 159, 260, 329, 338, 339, 351, 436,
481, 503, 519, 537, 567, 582, 601, 608, 664, 690,
704, 732, 744, 752, 755, 756, 759, 797, 812, 817,
830, 855, 870, 873, 903, 920, 947, 950, 1107,
1142, 1190, 1192, 1202, 1210, 1243, 1247, 1248


Health and medical care-Continued
Immunization programs-97, 116, 132, 253, 274,
383, 418, 569
Insurance-81, 83, 158, 159, 260, 351, 690, 752,
759, 1192, 1247, 1248
Medical malpractice 133
Physicians-133
Reproductive health-7
Women and minorities, inclusion in research populations-835
Workers' compensation-699, 951
Health Care Financing Administration. See Health and
Human Services, Department of
Health Care Reform, President's Task Force on National-14, 26, 62, 236, 268, 536, 690, 745, 750,
812, 920, 1142
Health, National Institutes of. See Health and Human
Services, Department of
Heart Month, American-1258
Highway Administration, Federal. See Transportation,
Department of
Holocaust Memorial Council, U.S.-473, 717
Holocaust Memorial Museum, U.S.-472, 478
Holy See, U.S. Ambassador-483
Homeless persons-156, 158, 757
Honduras, U.S. Ambassador-366
Hong Kong
Democracy initiative-553
Governor-552, 771
Housing and Urban Development, Department of
Assistant Secretaries-36, 256, 264, 359, 964, 1260
Chief Financial Officer-656
Community development grants-1082
Deputy Secretary-36
General Counsel-656
Housing Enterprise Oversight, Office of Federal354
Housing programs and grants-57, 252, 287
Inspector General-330
Secretary-57, 68, 241, 287, 288, 499, 546, 753,
757, 1065, 1102, 1103, 1108, 1262
Housing, Federal programs and grants-57, 156, 158,
252, 287
Housing industry-804
Human rights. See specific country
Humanities, National Endowment for the. See Arts
and the Humanities, National Foundation on the
Hungary
Export controls-524
President-1262
IAEA. See United Nations, Atomic Energy Agency,
International
Iceland, U.S. Ambassador-882
Illinois
Democratic Party event-1268
Flooding-1007, 1074, 1093
Governor-1098, 1102
President's visits-614, 1007, 1177, 1185, 1186,
1268
IMF. See Monetary Fund, International
Immigration and naturalization
See also specific country


A-8




Subject Index


Immigration and naturalization-Continued
Alien smuggling-879, 1194, 1197
Federal policy-301, 682, 691, 697, 880, 1194, 1197,
1208, 1245
HIV-positive persons, entry-835
Immigration and Naturalization Service. See Justice,
Department of
Immigration Reform, Commission on-1194
Immunization Week, National Preschool-418
Inauguration, Presidential
Address to the Nation-1
Inaugural balls-1257
Luncheon-3
Parade-4, 1257
Independence Day-959
Independent Business, National Federation of-944
Indiana, news media-1186
Indians, American
Gambling rights-689
Tribal recognition-164
Indonesia, President-1266
Information Agency, U.S.-437, 561, 857, 858, 862,
1091
Infrastructure-115, 193
Institute. See other part of subject
Interest rates. See Economy, national
Interior, Department of the
Assistant Secretaries-628, 1258
Assistant to Secretary-1259
Associate Solicitors-628, 1267
Biological Survey, National-1262
Communications Director-1260
Deputy Assistant Secretaries-412, 926, 1260
Deputy Solicitor-1267
Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S.-703
Land Management, Bureau of-1258
Park Service, National-718
Program Resources Management Director-1260
Reclamation, Bureau of-1260
Secretary-68, 691, 844, 846, 851, 966, 1244, 1245
Solicitor-1258
Internal Revenue Service. See Treasury, Department
of the
International. See other part of subject
Interstate Commerce Commission-1257
Investigation, Federal Bureau of. See Justice, Department of
Iowa
Flooding-960, 1000, 1074, 1075, 1081, 1093, 1262,
1263, 1266
Governor-960, 1002, 1005, 1006, 1074, 1098, 1099,
1101, 1103
President's visits-999, 1074, 1075, 1081, 1266
Iran
U.S. national emergency-669
Weapons proliferation-350
Iraq
Assassination attempt on former President Bush938, 940, 955, 985, 1025
Economic sanctions-332, 881, 882
Human rights-333, 1167
Humanitarian assistance-333


Iraq-Continued
Intelligence  headquarters, U.S. strike-938-940,
955, 958, 985, 987, 1025, 1036
Iraq National Congress-334, 717
Missile sites, U.S. air strike-1227
No-fly zones-333, 716, 955, 1167
Nuclear weapons development-332, 715, 1166
President-350, 716, 938, 940, 988
Reparations to Kuwait-716
United Nations Security Council resolutions-332,
715, 1040, 1166
U.S. national emergency-110, 1135
Ireland
President-662, 663, 668
Prime Minister-312, 314, 662, 663, 1259, 1260
U.S. Ambassador-315
Ireland Fund, American-312
Ireland, Northern. See Northern Ireland
Israel
Ambassador to U.S.-1262
President-473, 1262
Prime Minister-263, 303, 408, 409, 1257, 1259
U.S. Ambassador-883
Italy
Prime Minister-1260, 1027
U.S. Ambassador-858, 1027
Jamaica, U.S. Ambassador-1238
Japan
Emperor-1266
Foreign Minister-90
President Clinton's visit-1015, 1018, 1019, 1027,
1030-1033, 1035, 1037, 1043, 1046, 1048, 1266
Prime Minister-91, 392, 438, 837, 838, 1015, 1018,
1022, 1029, 1030, 1039, 1043, 1048, 1260, 1266
Security alliance with U.S.-439
Supercomputer safeguard agreement with U.S.525
Trade with U.S.-341, 439, 440, 442, 444, 831, 838,
906, 977, 984, 1016, 1019, 1021, 1022, 1028,
1034, 1035, 1038, 1043, 1044, 1049, 1059, 1065,
1106, 1119, 1123
U.S. Ambassador-837
oint Chiefs of Staff. See Defense, Department of
Jordan
Ambassador to U.S.-1262
King-880-882
Judicial Discipline and Removal, National Commission
on-1262
Judiciary. See specific court
ustice, Department of
Acting Attorney General-249
Assistant Attorneys General-536, 661, 669, 802,
808
Assistant Deputy Attorney General-1267
Associate Attorney General-389, 666
Attorney General-20, 91, 279, 310, 338, 341, 357,
436, 454, 459, 461-464, 488, 534, 558, 681, 697,
744, 747, 809, 877, 917, 926, 938, 940, 1112,
1113, 1195, 1199
Attorney General candidate-60, 65, 83
Attorney General nominee-5, 7, 8
Attorneys, U.S.-357, 381, 1031


A-9




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993
Justice, Department of-Continued
Budget-1265
Civil Rights Division-661, 669, 802, 808, 877
Deputy Assistant Attorneys General-1267
Deputy Attorney General-389
Employees-534
Enterprise zone programs-558
Immigration and Naturalization Service-231, 682,
697, 878, 1195, 1197
Investigation, Federal Bureau of (FBI)-215, 454,
461-463, 488, 734, 747, 1112, 1115, 1140
Los Angeles police trial-448, 450
Representative Ford trial, action-249
Solicitor General-389
Special Assistant to Attorney General-1267
KABC Radio-895
Kansas, flooding-1236, 1267
Kazakhstan
Export controls-524
Trade with U.S.-807
KDKA Radio-448
Kentucky, Governor-556
Kenya, U.S. Ambassador-527
Korea, North
Arms control negotiations and agreements-351,
443, 839, 1018, 1055, 1061
Nuclear weapons development-308, 351, 443,
1018, 1025, 1051, 1061
Korea, South
Ambassador to U.S.-1265
Arms control negotiations and agreements-1055
National Assembly-1053
President-1050, 1053, 1057, 1059, 1061, 1265,
1266
President Clinton's visit-1050, 1053, 1057, 1059 -1061, 1266
Trade with U.S.-1052
U.S. Ambassador-993
U.S. military role-1054, 1062
KRLD Radio-900
Kuwait
Ambassador to U.S.-1262
Kyrgyzstan
President-713
Trade with U.S.-807
Labor & Congress of Industrial Organizations, American Federation of-455
Labor, Department of
Assistant Secretaries-460, 692, 936, 972, 1083,
1258
Deputy Secretary-144
Employment and Training Administration-460
Employment Standards Administration-936
Glass Ceiling Commission-404
Labor Statistics, Bureau of-936
New American Workplace Office Director-404
Occupational Safety and Health Administration972
Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration-460
Secretary-68, 129, 237, 426, 433, 891, 915, 1101
Solicitor-1259
Wage and Hour Division-404


Labor, Department of-Continued
Women's Bureau-467
Labor issues
See also specific industry
Federal contractors with union agreements-27
Replacement of workers on strike-1006
Labor Relations Authority, Federal-1267
Labor Relations Board, National-941
Labor Statistics, Bureau of. See Labor, Department
of
Land Management, Bureau of. See Interior, Department of the
Lands, Federal. See Conservation
Laos
POW's/MIA's, cooperation with U.S.-991
U.S. Ambassador-1266
Latin America
See also specific country
Democracy and freedom-910, 912
Trade with U.S.-956
"Latino USA" radio program-573
Latvia
Ambassador to U.S.-1262
Fishery agreement with U.S.-878
Law enforcement and crime
See also Drug abuse and trafficking
Alien smuggling and illegal immigration-879, 1194,
1197
Anticrime legislation-76, 94, 117, 926
Child support enforcement-165, 1107
Federal funding-435, 535, 926, 996, 1246
Gun control-76, 117, 151, 153, 223
Memorial ceremony for law enforcement officers654
Safe schools initiative-151
League. See other part of subject
Lebanon, U.S. Ambassador-839
Legal Services Corporation-1265
Legion, American-1163, 1174
Lesotho, Ambassador to U.S.-1261
Libya
Economic sanctions-1066
Pan Am Flight 103 bombing, role-410
U.S. national emergency-1066
Lobby reform. See Congress; Taxation
Los Alamos National Laboratory-674
Los Angeles police trial. See Justice, Department of
Los Angeles Valley College-693
Louisiana
Flooding-35, 36
Governor-36
News media-1129
President's visit-540, 543
Macedonia, Former Yugoslav Republic of
Name dispute-358
U.S. military, role-833, 850, 1045
Maine
Flooding-1263
President's visit-888
Maine, University of-454
Make-A-Wish Foundation-1257, 1265
Mali
Ambassador to U.S.-1261


A-10




Subject Index


Mali-Continued
U.S. Ambassador-527
Management and Budget, Office of-4, 37, 68-71,
144, 170, 189, 233, 301, 308, 818, 819, 901, 949,
1033, 1076, 1082, 1102, 1237
Marine Corps, U.S. See Navy, Department of the
Maritime Administration. See Transportation, Department of
Maritime affairs
Atlantic tunas conservation, convention-466
Fishery agreements-878
Maritime Commission, Federal-1261, 1267
Martin Luther King, Jr., Federal Holiday Commission-1262
Maryland, President's visits-269, 371, 372, 379, 403,
803, 805, 1259
Massachusetts, President's visits-496, 505, 885
Mauritania
Trade with U.S.-935
Worker rights-935
Mayors, U.S. Conference of-57, 241, 913
Medal. See other part of subject
Mediation and Conciliation Service, Federal-1083
Medical care. See Health and medical care
Medicare and Medicaid. See Health and Human Services, Department of
Memorial Day-785, 786
Merit Systems Protection Board-549
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments435
Mexico
Ambassador to U.S.-1262
Binational Commission, U.S.-Mexico-910, 912
Finance Secretary-580
Foreign Minister-911, 913
Illegal immigration to U.S.-880
President-130, 801, 832, 910, 912, 978, 1004, 1147
Taxation convention with U.S.-710
Trade with U.S.-130, 212, 340, 580, 666, 801, 831,
852, 880, 897, 907, 911, 913, 978, 1004, 1126,
1147, 1189, 1219
U.S. Ambassador-803
MIA's. See Armed Forces, U.S.
Michigan, President's visit-71, 73
Middle East
See also specific country
Peace efforts-44, 262, 303, 304, 406, 408-410, 473,
881, 882, 1193, 1213, 1214
U.S. Special Coordinator-883
Military, U.S. See Armed Forces, U.S.
Mining, Federal lands, use-747, 1231
Minnesota
Flooding-959, 1074, 1093, 1265
Governor-959, 1101
Minority business. See Business and industry
Mississippi, prison deaths-341
Missouri
Flooding-960, 1074, 1093, 1236, 1263
Governor-122, 960, 1097
President's visits-122, 1095, 1267
Moldova
Prime Minister-1262
Trade with U.S.-807


Monetary Fund, International-713, 990
Mongolia
Trade with U.S.-807
U.S. Ambassador-931
Montenegro
Economic sanctions-514, 735
Government assets held by U.S.-735
United Nations Security Council resolutions-735
U.S. national emergency-734, 735
Morocco, Ambassador to U.S.-1265
Mozambique, U.S. Ambassador-527
Multiple Sclerosis Society, National-1265
Namibia
President-859, 860, 1264
U.S. Ambassador-417
NASA. See Aeronautics and Space Administration, National
National. See other part of subject
Native Americans. See Indians, American
NATO. See North Atlantic Treaty Organization
Navy, Department of the
See also Armed Forces, U.S.
Assistant Secretaries-971
Deputy Assistant Secretary-1267
General Counsel-527
Marine Corps, U.S.-711
Naval Academy, U.S.-371
Principal Deputy General Counsel-1267
Secretary-478, 490
Sexual harassment investigation-490, 492
Submarine incident off Russian coast-398
U.S.S. Theodore Roosevelt-280, 283, 360, 371
Nebraska
Flooding-1261, 1267
Governor-1102
Netherlands
Ambassador to U.S.-1265
Taxation convention with U.S.-648
Nevada, news media-1227
New American Schools Development Corp.-658
New Hampshire, President's visit-720, 724
New Hampshire Technical College-720
New Jersey
Congressional delegation-46
Governor-48, 222, 223, 225
News media-1157
President's visit-217, 224
New Mexico
Governor-674
President's visit-674, 1264
New York
Democratic Party event-644
Governor-137, 215, 414
News media-1157
President's visits-137, 638, 644, 779, 1258, 1264
Terrorist attempt to bomb New York City sites927, 933, 936
World Trade Center bombing-215, 221, 222, 236 -238, 245, 410, 1261
Newport Jazz Festival-883
News media. See specific State or news organization
Newspaper Association of America-496, 505
Newspaper Editors, American Society of-372, 379


A-1




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993
Nicaragua
Ambassador to U.S.-1265
U.S. Ambassador-366
Niger, U.S. Ambassador-527
Nigeria, U.S. Ambassador-1031
North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). See
Commerce, international
North Atlantic Treaty-428
North Atlantic Treaty Organization-230, 429, 868,
1027, 1055, 1213, 1218, 1259, 1262
North Carolina, snowstorms-1262
North Carolina, University of-522
North Dakota
Flooding-1268
Governor-1101, 1102
Northeastern University-885
Northern Ireland
Conflict resolution-314, 316
Sinn Fein leader, denial of U.S. visa-662, 663,
669
Nuclear Waste Negotiator, Office of the-1265
Nuclear weapons
See also Arms and munitions; Defense and national
security
Arms control negotiations and agreements-340,
351, 356, 375, 377, 390, 394, 402, 443, 493, 656,
774, 839, 994, 1018, 1040, 1048, 1055, 1061, 1165
Export controls-524
Nonproliferation-261, 263, 308, 351, 443, 531, 774,
782, 839, 1166
Testing-994
Nurses Week, National-567
OAS. See States, Organization of American
Occupational Safety and Health Administration. See
Labor, Department of
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National.
See Commerce, Department of
Office. See other part of subject
Ohio, President's visits-125, 598, 602, 610, 1258
Oklahoma
Governor-29
Storms, tornadoes, and flooding-1262, 1263
Older Americans Month-731
Oregon
Earthquake-1262
President's visit-385-387
Organization. See other part of subject
Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC). See
Development Cooperation Agency, U.S. International
Panama, government assets held by U.S.-475
Park Service, National. See Interior, Department of
the
Patent and Trademark Office. See Commerce, Department of
Peace Corps-972
Pennsylvania, President's visits-446, 448, 450, 767,
997, 1261, 1266
Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration. See
Labor, Department of
Performance Review, National. See Government agencies and employees, reform


Personnel Management, Office of-16, 412
Peru
Ambassador to U.S.-1261
U.S. Ambassador —313
Pharmaceutical industry-98, 133
Physical Fitness and Sports, President's Council on894, 921
Poland
Export controls-524
President-1262
Police Organizations, National Association of-926
Political action committees. See Elections, congressional campaign financing
Pollution. See Environment
Portugal, President-1262
Postal Service, U.S.-1266
POW's. See Armed Forces, U.S.
Prayer Breakfast, National-42
Presidential. See other part of subject
President's. See other part of subject
Private Enterprise, National Association of-1263
Public Broadcasting, Corporation for-711, 942
Puerto Rico
Governor-1260
Self-determination-1146
Qatar, Ambassador to U.S.-1262
Radio and Television Correspondents Association1260
Radio Free Europe. See Information Agency, U.S.
Radio Liberty. See Information Agency, U.S.
Radio Marti. See Information Agency, U.S.
Railroad Administration, Federal. See Transportation,
Department of
Railroad Passenger Corporation, National-739
Railroads, safety, report-467
Realtors Association, National-515
Reclamation, Bureau of. See Interior, Department of
the
Recycling. See Environment
Red Cross, American-1100
Refugees. See specific country or region
Regulatory reform. See Government agencies and employees
Reinventing Government. See Government agencies
and employees, reform
Research and development. See Business and industry;
Science and technology
Reserve System, Federal-266, 1157, 1257
Resolution Trust Corporation-1073
Retired Persons, American Association of-1257
Romania
Export controls-524, 525
President-1262
Trade with U.S.-807, 989
Rotary International-236
Rural Electrification Administration. See Agriculture,
Department of
Russia
Arms control negotiations and agreements-375,
377, 390, 394


A-12




Subject Index


Russia-Continued
Economic assistance-213, 242, 243, 259, 345, 346,
348, 364, 367, 374, 376, 390-393, 396, 397, 401,
443, 490, 506, 513, 581, 797, 862, 941, 980, 986,
1035, 1038, 1043, 1046, 1059
Energy and Space, U.S.-Russian Joint Commission
on-393
Exchange programs with U.S.-399
Export controls-524
Foreign Minister-335, 345, 346, 713, 725
Nuclear energy, safety-1042
President-55, 198, 242, 243, 258, 277, 294, 307,
334, 335, 339, 345, 346, 349, 363, 371, 372, 374,
376, 381, 390-393, 399, 401, 488, 490, 493, 506,
512, 530, 725, 743, 941, 980, 983, 986, 1038,
1039, 1042, 1044, 1046, 1063, 1257, 1261
Prime Minister-393, 986
Summit with U.S. in Vancouver, Canada-390-393,
401
Trade with Cuba-400
Trade with U.S.-376, 397, 402, 807, 1048
U.S. Ambassador-16, 199
U.S. laws relating to the former Soviet Union493
U.S. naval submarine incident-398
Vice President-350
Russian-American Enterprise Fund-1266
Rutgers University-224
Rwanda, U.S. Ambassador-527
St. Patrick's Day-314, 1260
Scholars, Presidential-729, 923
Scholars, White House Commission on Presidential626, 729, 923
Scholarship Program, America's National Teenager1265
School Principal of the Year-17
Science and technology
Communications. See Communications
Computers-820
Environmental role-470
Military and defense technology, civilian uses-270,
286, 293, 295, 676
Research and development-192, 278, 834
Space program. See Space program
Super collider-850, 864, 902, 905, 908, 930, 1134,
1152, 1216, 1223
Technology policy, Vice President's remarks-178
Technology reinvestment programs and grants-420
Science and Technology Policy, Office of-821, 1260
Science Foundation, National-1073
Securities and Exchange Commission-532, 1263
Security and Cooperation in Europe, Conference on737
Security Council, National
Assistant to President for National Security Affairs939
Efforts to combat alien smuggling-879
Security telecommunications committee. See Telecommunications Advisory Committee, President's
National Security
Senegal, U.S. Ambassador-313


Serbia
Economic sanctions-244, 245, 351, 363, 364, 405,
412, 514, 576, 735
Government assets held by U.S.-735
President-405, 410, 590, 660
United Nations Security Council resolutions-735
U.S. national emergency-734, 735
Service, Corporation for National-575
Service program, national. See Education
Shipbuilding industry-686, 891
Sierra Leone, Ambassador to U.S.-1265
Silicon Graphics-171, 185, 209
Slovak Republic
Export controls-524
President-1262
U.S. Ambassador-1031
Slovenia
President-1262
U.S. Ambassador-313
Small business. See Business and industry
Small Business Administration-314, 453, 634, 650,
687, 726, 948, 996, 1080, 1082, 1097, 1099, 1100,
1125, 1236
Small Business Person of the Year-634
Small Business, White House Conference on-951
Social Security-120, 128, 732, 824, 830
Society. See other part of subject
Soil Conservation Service. See Agriculture, Department of
Somalia
Attack on United Nations forces-839, 849, 862,
867, 870, 969
Civil disorder-836, 839, 862, 867, 870, 872, 1028
Humanitarian assistance-150, 565, 836, 840, 849,
987, 1028
United Nations Security Council resolutions-836
U.S. military, role-102, 162, 565, 836, 839, 849,
870, 969, 1029
U.S. Special Envoy-1266
South Africa
African National Congress-991, 997, 1015
Economic sanctions-992
President-991, 997, 1015
South Carolina, Governor-27
South Dakota
Flooding-1267
Governor-1101
South East Asian Nations, Association of-1055
Soviet Union, former
See also specific country
Arms control negotiations and agreements-656
U.S. Ambassador at Large to former Republics199
Space program
Funding-183, 190
Satellites-918, 962
Shuttle-918, 962, 1259
Space station-190, 621, 850, 866, 874, 876, 902,
905, 908, 918, 930, 1151, 1216, 1222
Spain, King-1263
Special Olympics-1260
Spending cuts. See Budget, Federal
Sports
Baseball-403, 894


A-13




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993
Sports-Continued
Basketball-522, 653, 893, 928
Boxing-893
Football-24, 246, 582, 806
Golf-893
Ice hockey-454
Track-511, 806, 893
Sports Awards, National-892
Sri Lanka, President-551
Standards and Technology, National Institute of. See
Commerce, Department of
START. See Nuclear weapons, arms control negotiations and agreements
State and local governments
See also specific State or subject; Cities
Federal block grants-452, 1101, 1209
Federal mandates-1106, 1154, 1208
Welfare reform-32-35
State, Department of
Ambassador at Large to former Soviet Republics199
Ambassadors. See specific country
Assistant Secretaries-232, 247, 279, 330, 570, 839,
991, 1072
Chief of Protocol-763
Deputy Assistant Secretaries-584, 1267, 1268
Deputy Chief of Protocol-763
Deputy Under Secretary-584
Foreign Missions Office Director-247
Foreign Service-279
Legal Adviser-247
Secretary-44, 45, 262, 303, 307, 441, 494, 515,
552, 576, 577, 589, 590, 593, 713, 717, 724, 736,
771, 810, 811, 883, 962, 1026, 1069, 1193, 1195,
1212-1214, 1258
Special Middle East Coordinator —883
START Joint Compliance and Inspection Commission, U.S. Representative-554
Treaties and conventions, reports-466, 710, 958
Under Secretaries-692, 1050
State Legislatures, National Conference of-277, 1207
State Treasurers, National Association of-1259
States, Organization of American-231, 810, 910, 912,
954, 961, 1068
Steel industry-1188
Student Loan Marketing Association-617
Summit meetings
Tokyo economic summit. See Economic summit,
international
Vancouver summit. See Russia
Super collider. See Science and technology
Superfund program. See Environment
Supreme Court of the U.S.-323-325, 337, 341, 353,
414, 818, 842, 846, 847, 850, 851, 855, 864, 1140
Surface Transportation, National Council on-1263
Surgeon General of the Public Health Service. See
Health and Human Services, Department of
Suriname, U.S. Ambassador-839
Sustainable Development, President's Council on844
Swaziland, U.S. Ambassador-527
Sweden, Ambassador to U.S.-1262


Syria, President-408
Tailhook incident. See Navy, Department of the, sexual harassment investigation
Tajikistan, trade with U.S.-807
Task Force. See other part of subject
Taxation
See also Budget, Federal; Economy, national
Alternative minimum tax-852, 899
Business entertainment deduction-1162
Business subsidies-120
Capital gains-651, 875, 899, 1150
Earned-income credit-600, 608, 697, 871, 890,
1107, 1126, 1133, 1158, 1183, 1220, 1224, 1252
Energy tax-104, 121, 132, 142, 168, 612, 696, 722,
819, 828, 833, 869, 901, 903, 1132, 1133, 1159,
1160, 1209, 1214, 1216, 1219, 1230, 1231
Enterprise zones. See Enterprise zones
Family tax credits-82
International agreements. See specific country
Legislation-75, 89, 115, 120, 134, 142, 517, 521,
631, 654, 672, 678, 681, 708, 710, 718, 722, 740,
742, 768, 779, 792, 798, 813, 817, 818, 826, 868,
884, 890, 895, 946, 1003, 1011, 1120, 1124, 1128 -1130, 1132, 1143, 1144, 1150, 1172, 1181, 1186,
1201, 1205, 1219, 1222, 1228, 1251, 1253
Lobbying expense deduction-585, 597, 600, 606,
816
Low-income housing credit-753
Sales tax, national-132, 436, 612, 746
School tuition tax credits-135
Small business investment deduction-115, 650,
699, 853, 871, 890, 899, 946, 1143, 1150, 1182,
1186, 1240, 1251
Voluntary campaign checkoff-586
Teacher of the Year, National-460
Technology. See Science and technology
Telecommunications. See Communications
Telecommunications Advisory Committee, President's
National Security-1264
Television, program violence warnings-963
Tennessee Valley Authority-596
Terrorism. See specific State, country, or region
Texas
Governor-24, 29
News media-1215
Waco tragedy. See Branch Davidian religious sect
standoff
Texas Tech University-522
Texas, University of-653
Thailand, U.S. Ambassador-991
Thomas Jefferson Commemoration Commission-1265
Thrift Supervision, Office of. See Treasury, Department of the
Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building legislation-65
Tibet
Dalai Lama-531, 770, 775
Human rights-773
Protection of religious and cultural heritage-770,
773
Timber industry-160, 269, 342, 385, 388, 762, 964


A-14




Subject Index


Tokyo economic summit. See Economic summit, international
Trade. See specific country; Commerce, international
Trade and Development Agency. See Development
Cooperation Agency, U.S. International
Trade Promotion Coordinating Committee-579
Trade Representative, Office of the U.S.-321, 417,
428, 787, 831, 1031, 1032, 1050, 1268
Transit Administration, Federal. See Transportation,
Department of
Transportation. See specific industry
Transportation, Department of
Assistant Secretaries —528, 692, 1046
Associate Deputy Secretary-354
Aviation Administration, Federal-656, 926
Coast Guard, U.S.-880
Deputy Assistant Secretary-1263
Deputy Secretary-321
General Counsel-334
Highway Administration, Federal-354, 1082, 1268
Highway and motor vehicle safety, reports-467
Maritime Administration-434
Public Affairs Director-628
Railroad Administration, Federal-422
Secretary-184, 414, 416, 701, 1102
Transit Administration, Federal-692
Transportation Safety Board, National-713
Treasury, Department of the
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, Bureau of-215,
319, 461, 463, 488
Assistant Secretaries-144, 417, 671, 1259
Comptroller of the Currency-266
Customs Service, U.S.-334, 526, 670, 738, 1071
Deputy Assistant Secretaries-417, 1263, 1268
Deputy Secretary-1050
Employees-318
Foreign Assets Control, Office of-ll, 670, 736,
1066-1068, 1070-1072
General Counsel-215
Internal Revenue Service-547, 1225, 1259
Secretary-13, 111, 318, 417, 494, 515, 736, 811,
817-819, 828, 833, 871, 901, 903, 962, 1257
Thrift Supervision, Office of-266
Turkey
Cyprus conflict. See Cyprus
President-63, 358, 453
Prime Minister-358
Turkmenistan, trade with U.S.-807
TV Marti. See Information Agency, U.S.
Ukraine
Arms control negotiations and agreements-340,
356, 377, 402, 1048
Export controls-524
Foreign Minister-356, 402, 1260
President-340, 402
Trade with U.S.-807
United Kingdom
Northern Ireland. See Northern Ireland
Prime Minister-195, 196, 315, 1266
United Nations
Atomic Energy Agency, International-308, 332,
351, 715, 1055, 1166


United Nations-Continued
Regional conflicts. See specific country or region
Secretary-General-195, 476, 839, 970, 1213, 1218
Security Council-290, 429, 836, 938, 940, 988,
1045
U.S. Representatives-256, 465, 939, 940
U.S. See other part of subject
U.S. FIRST-1264
Universities and colleges. See specific institution; Education
University. See other part of subject
Uruguay, U.S. Ambassador-882
Uzbekistan
Ambassador to U.S.-1265
Trade with U.S.-807
Value added tax (VAT). See Taxation, sales tax, national
Vancouver summit. See Russia
Vatican. See Holy See
Venezuela, U.S. Ambassador-839
Vermont, flooding-1263
Veterans Affairs, Department of
Assistant Secretaries-308, 330, 964, 1260
Cemetery System, National-330
Deputy Assistant Secretaries-926
Deputy Secretary-764, 766, 991
General Counsel-1260
Secretary-784
Veterans Health Administration-764
Vice President
Energy and Space, U.S.-Russian Joint Commission
on, role-393
Federal Government reform, role-233
Immigration policy, role-1194
Meeting with Iraq National Congress representatives-717
Technology policy, remarks-178
Vietnam
Economic sanctions-1221
POW's/MIA's, cooperation with U.S.-890, 990,
1221
Virginia
Governor-223
President's visits-97, 430, 785, 814, 1262
Voice of America. See Information Agency, U.S.
Voluntarism-482, 540, 548, 575
Volunteer Action Award, National-482
Voter Registration Act of 1993, National-706
Waco tragedy. See Branch Davidian religious sect
standoff
Waseda University-1019
Washington
Governor-240
President's visit-180, 184
Storms and high winds-239, 240, 1259
Washington, DC. See District of Columbia
WCBS Radio-902
Weapons. See Arms and munitions; Nuclear weapons
Welfare system, reform-32-35, 117, 138, 192, 608,
682, 788, 794, 805, 871, 1107, 1125, 1127, 1133,
1265
Westinghouse Electric Corp.-269


A-15




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993
Westinghouse Science Talent Search-1259
WFAN Radio-628
WGEM Radio-1091
White House Correspondents' Association-1263
White House fellows-741, 867
White House Fellowships, President's Commission
on-711, 742
White House News Photographers Association-1260
White House Office
Assistants to President
Communications, Director-4, 231
National Security Affairs-939
Public Liaison-951, 1262
Chief of Staff-6, 560, 733, 747, 776, 1096, 1100
Correspondence-840
Counselor to President-776
Deputy Assistant to President and Press Secretary812, 920, 941, 972, 991, 1155, 1165
Deputy Assistants to President
Domestic Policy-1265
Environmental Policy, Director-1258
Intergovernmental Affairs, Deputy Director1257
Deputy Press Secretaries-1257
Senior Adviser for Policy and Strategy-776
Special Assistants to President
Deputy to Counselor to President-1265
Intergovernmental Affairs-435
Staff reduction and reorganization-66
White House press corps-1265
White House Travel Office-714, 730, 733, 741, 746,
760


WHO Radio-1075
Wine Institute-1259
Wisconsin
Flooding-960, 1074, 1093
Governor-960, 1099, 1126
News media-1123
President's visit-787, 796, 798
Welfare reform-788, 1125
WJR Radio-898
WMAL Radio-908
Women and Girls in Sports Day, National-1257
Women Voters, League of-815
Women's Bureau. See Labor, Department of
Women's Business Council, National-308, 1262
Worker rights. See specific country
Workplace, Conference on the Future of the American-1177, 1185
World Trade Center bombing. See New York
World War II, 50th anniversary observance-783
Young American Medals for Service and Bravery1233
Yugoslavia
Macedonia. See Macedonia, Former Yugoslav Republic of
Montenegro. See Montenegro
Serbia. See Serbia
Zambia, U.S. Ambassador-740
Zimbabwe, Ambassador to U.S.-1265


A-16




Name Index


Aaron, David Laurence-515, 1278
Abdul-Jabbar, Kareem-893
Abercrombie, Neil-1065
Abraham, Katherine G.-936
Abramson, Jerry-913, 916, 917
Acheson, Eleanor Dean-536, 1275
Achtenberg, Roberta-36, 1271
Adams, Alvin P.-313, 1272
Adams, Gerry-663, 668
Adler, Phil-900
Aideed, Mohamed Farah-839, 862, 867, 870, 872,
970, 987, 1028
Akaka, Daniel K.-1065
Akayev, Askar-713
Albright, Madeleine K.-6, 465, 486, 505, 939, 940,
1269
Alchuleta, Nancy-649
Ali, Muhammad —893
Alioto, Michelle-596
Allen, James-308
Allison, Graham T., Jr.-370, 1280
Althaus, Bill-558, 913, 916, 917
Altman, Roger-318, 1050, 1269
Alvarez, Aida-354, 1275
Alvarez-Machain, Humberto-529
Amacher, Ryan-653
Amato, Giuliano-1260
Anderson, Bernard-936
Anderson, Bette B.-539
Andrews, Thomas H.-891
Angelou, Maya-472
Anthony, Paul T.-742
Anthony, Sheila Foster-100, 536, 1272, 1275
Apfel, Kenneth S.-1260, 1273
Archbishop Desmond Tutu-704, 705
Archbishop Iakovos-357
Aristide, Jean-Bertrand —55, 56, 85, 162, 231, 290,
309, 489, 810, 873, 875, 972, 997, 1025, 1035, 1068,
1071, 1154, 1155, 1259
Armacost, Michael-837
Armstrong, Michael-703
Armstrong, Robert-1258, 1271
Armstrong, Robin-866
Asad, Hafiz al- -408
Ashe, Arthur-61, 894, 921
Aspin, Les-8, 20, 233, 270, 288, 289, 293, 296-301,
317, 337, 338, 439, 505, 511, 784, 919, 974, 1110,
1111, 1114, 1128, 1142, 1146, 1153, 1161, 1214,
1261, 1269
Atwood, J. Brian-368, 1271
Augustine, Norman R.-1264
Aung San Suu Kyi-705, 1056, 1135
Avent, Loretta-250, 435
Aziz, Tariq-969


Babbitt, Bruce-68, 469, 691, 844, 846, 851, 965, 966,
1231, 1244, 1245, 1269
Babbitt, Harriet C.-1270
Babbitt, J. Randolph-539
Baca, Jim-1258, 1272
Bai Hua-773
Bailey, Tracey Leon-460, 628
Bailey, Vicky A.-422, 1276
Baird, Zoe-5, 7, 8, 65, 94, 744, 1269
Baker, Chris-583
Baker, D. James-100, 1272
Baker, James A., III-773, 1262
Baker, Jarvis-583
Baliles, Gerald L.-539, 658, 726
Balladur, Edouard-853, 979, 986
Bane, Mary Jo-1258, 1277
Bao Zunxin-773
Barclay, Charles M.-539
Barram, David-1046
Barrett, Bill-788
Barrow, Joe Louis, Jr.-1265
Barshefsky, Charlene —321, 1050, 1274
Bartholomew, Reginald-505, 858, 1027, 1214
Bartlett, Donald-769
Baum, Robert L.-1267
Baylor, Don-403
Beard, Daniel P.-1260, 1274
Beattie, Mollie H.-703, 1280
Becker, Suzanne Rose-742
Bekavac, Nancy Y.-712, 742
Bellamy, Carol-972, 1176
Benaissa, Mohamed-1265
Beneke, Patricia-628
Bennet, Douglas Joseph, Jr.-247, 573, 1273
Bennett, Marian-1091
Benson, Frederick S., III —712
Benton, Marjorie-712
Bentsen, Lloyd-13, 89, 120, 187, 213, 318, 319, 417,
494, 613, 635, 817-819, 827-829, 833, 871, 873,
901, 903, 908, 946, 1031, 1059, 1132, 1257, 1269,
1270
Berg, E. Olena-460, 1276
Bernthal, Frederick M.-420
Bertsch, Waylon Dean-1234
Beschloss, Michael-712
Betts, Ginny Trotter-567
Biden, Joseph R., Jr.-96, 278, 833, 847
Bilbray, James H.-1229
Bilchik, Sheldon C.-1267
Bingaman, Anne K.-536, 1275
Bingaman, Jeff-674
Bir, Cevik-565, 839, 1029
Birch, David-944
Bishop, Ann-73


B-1




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993
Blackshere, Margaret R.-627
Blair, Diane-942
Blanchard, James J.-764, 1278
Blinder, Alan S.-359, 1278
Blitzer, Wolf-1081
Bond, Christopher S.-49, 714, 1099
Bonds, Bill-73
Bonior, David E.-322
Bonner, Francis J., Jr.-627
Boren, David L.-34, 586-588, 708, 740, 800, 828,
901, 928, 1155
Borg, Parker W.-882
Borski, Robert A.-540
Bostic, James E., Jr.-712
Boswell, Eric James-247, 1272
Boucher, Richard A.-839
Boutros-Ghali, Boutros-102, 195, 429, 476, 839
Bowen, Jerry W.-330, 1274
Bowles, Erskine B.-314, 634, 650, 687, 835, 948,
951, 1100, 1274
Boxer, Barbara-108, 1194, 1208, 1245
Bradley, Bill-222, 224, 641, 652, 852, 894
Bradley, Tom-556
Brancoli, Rodolfo-983
Branstad, Terry E.-960, 1002, 1074, 1077, 1098
Branstool, Eugene-1260, 1273
Brazeal, Aurelia E.-526, 1280
Breaux, John B.-339, 828, 1133
Breyer, Stephen —844, 851, 1265
Brickhouse, Eugene A.-964
Brink, Robert-1267
Bristo, Marca-596
Britton, Thomas E.-627
Broadnax, Walter D.-1258, 1273
Brody, Kenneth D.-28, 579, 1273
Brooks, Jack-278, 833, 1194
Brown, Hank-414
Brown, Harold-1265
Brown, Jesse-784, 1269
Brown, June Gibbs-384, 1277
Brown, Lawrence, Jr.-596
Brown, Lee Patrick-527, 528, 535, 559, 619, 651,
912, 939, 967, 1160, 1276
Brown, Ronald H.-304, 448, 469, 578, 679, 686, 695,
701, 702, 755, 965, 1101, 1103, 1178, 1183, 1260 -1262, 1269
Brown, Willie L., Jr.-108
Browner, Carol M.-469, 965, 1269
Brownhill, David-526
Broxton, Kelly Elizabeth-1234
Bryan, Richard H.-1229, 1232
Buckley, Jill-925
Bumpers, Dale-651, 727, 1089
Burke, Bud-1209
Bush, George —, 12, 41, 77, 102, 219, 230, 403, 476,
513, 514, 524, 526, 717, 874, 901, 938, 940, 1259
Buzenberg, Bill-573
Byrd, Robert C.-343, 437, 445
Byrne, Larry E.-964
Cabranes, Jose E.-712
Campbell, Carroll A., Jr.-27


Campbell, Harold N.-851, 862
Campbell, Kim-1035, 1296
Campbell, Mary Ann-1260
Canan, Russell F.-240, 1270
Cannon, Jonathan-1090
Cantu, Norma V.-247, 1272
Cantwell, Maria-540
Caper, Thomas R.-33
Caputo, Dante-55, 56, 310, 489, 810, 1154
Cardin, Benjamin L.-1200
Carlson, Arne H.-960, 1102
Carnahan, Mel-122, 960, 1097
Carnell, Richard Scott-671, 1279
Carpenter, Margaret V.W.-1091
Carrier, Joyce-416
Carrington, Walter C.-1031, 1278
Carter, Ashton B.-429, 1275
Carter, Barry-925
Carter, Jimmy-513, 1259
Carter, Tom-883
Carter, Zachary W.-1278
Casellas, Gilbert-1083
Casey, Dan-930
Casey, Robert P.-997
Casstevens, Kay-232, 1272
Casteen, John T., III-1265
Castle, Michael N.-32, 35
Castleman, Deborah-434
Castro, Fidel-340
Catlett, D. Mark-330, 1274
Cedras, Raoul-1035
Chambers, Julius L.-712
Chambers, Ray-544
Channing, Carol-25
Chavez, Cesar-494
Chee, William-703
Cheek, James R.-366, 1276
Cheney, Dick-293, 1109
Chernomyrdin, Viktor-393, 986
Chiles, Lawton-77, 288, 302
Chisholm, Dennis, Jr.-1234
Chisholm, Shirley-1238
Chow, Edward-926
Christopher, Warren M.-44, 45, 52, 55, 69, 79, 200,
262, 279, 303, 305, 307, 309, 336, 441, 494, 505,
552, 566, 576, 589, 593, 594, 713, 717, 724, 810,
811, 883, 1026, 1031, 1059, 1155, 1193, 1196, 1212 -1214, 1258, 1269
Chu, Sunny-930
Chung, Connie-760
Chyba, Christopher Frank-742
Ciampi, Carlo Azeglio-552, 1027
Cindoruk, Hussametin-453
Cisneros, Henry G.-57, 59, 68, 287, 288, 499, 546,
712, 753, 757, 1065, 1102, 1103, 1108, 1262, 1269
Cisse, Siragatour Ibrahim-1261
Clark, Floyd-1113
Clark, Wesley Kanne-712
Clay, William-122
Clayton, Eva M.-203, 1259
Clerides, Glafcos-477, 714


B-2




Name Index


Clinger, William F., Jr.-62
Clinton, Chelsea-46, 147, 152, 157, 530, 583, 759,
907, 918, 1145, 1264, 1265
Clinton, Hillary Rodham-4, 14, 15, 80, 93, 116, 143,
152, 164, 315, 419, 481, 536, 612, 642, 665, 699,
710, 783, 809, 855, 870, 920, 1026, 1041, 1047,
1065, 1074, 1145, 1148, 1149, 1190, 1261, 1263,
1265, 1268
Clinton, Roger-159
Coats, Dan-49
Cohen, Bonnie R.-1258, 1272
Cohen, William S.-454
Cole, Johnetta-166
Combs, Nancye-430
Conley, Mike-511
Connally, John-856
Connelly, James Patrick-1279
Connelly, Timothy-1267
Connor, Robert-1208
Conroy, Pat-1008
Constable, Elinor G.-232, 1274
Cook, Denise-727, 728
Cook, Lodwrick M.-1241
Cook, Suzan Denise Johnson-742
Corrigan, Gerald-1296
Cortines, Ramon C.-532, 1278
Cosby, Bill-166
Crabb, Juanita-917
Crowell, Craven H., Jr.-596, 1278
Culbreath, Josh-807
Cummis, Clive S.-712
Cuomo, Andrew M.-36, 559, 1276
Cuomo, Mario M.-215, 221, 222, 246, 337, 415, 642
Cureton, S.C.-627
Cutter, W. Bowman-1050
Dalai Lama-531, 770, 775
Daley, Richard M.-557
Dalton, John-478, 490
D'Amato, Alfonse-449
Dameron, William H., III-527, 1277
Damich, Edward J.-1270
Danforth, John C.-540, 928
Daniell, Robert F.-539
Dart, Justin-624
Davenport, Ronald R.-712
Davidow, Jeffrey —839, 1278
Davidson, John-527, 627
Davis, Marilyn A.-359, 1275
Davison, John S.-1280
Days, Drew S., 111-389, 1271
de Chastelain, John-1265
de Klerk, Frederik Willem-991, 992, 997, 1015
de la Torre, Adela-712
de Leon, Sylvia A.-539
Dear, Alice-1267
Dear, Joseph A.-972
DeBerry, Fischer-583
DeConcini, Dennis-1239-1241
Deer, Ada-628, 1279
Dellinger, Walter-536, 1275
Dellums, Ronald V.-301


Delors, Jacques-590, 591, 593, 1260
Demirel, Suleyman-358
Deng Xiaoping-772
Denktash, Rauf-477
Denman, Gary L.-420
Derrick, Butler-322
DeSeve, G. Edward-656, 1278
Deutch, John M.-1258, 1271
Devereux, Sean-314
DeVore, Jack R., Jr.-1270
Diaz, Nelson A.-656, 1280
DiBattiste, Carol-1267
Dickenson, Russell E.-1265
Dingell, John D.-1156
Dinkins, David-215, 245, 558, 913, 916
DiVincenzo, Joseph D.-627
Djerejian, Edward P.-883
Dochterman, Clifford-236
Dodd, Christopher J.-49
Dodd, Thomas J.-882, 1279
Dole, Bob-3, 113, 201, 437, 449, 455, 491, 566,
819, 919, 1088, 1150, 1240, 1266
Dole, Elizabeth-1100
Domenici, Pete V.-1202
Dominic, Virgil-761
Donahue, John D.-692, 1276
Donilon, Thomas E.-1270
Donnelly, Anne Cohn-712
Dorgan, Byron L.-234
Dorinson, Patrick-1267
Dor, Edwin-370, 1275
Dosio, Frank-764
Downey, Mortimer L.-321, 1274
Downey, Thomas J.-1277
Dubbin, Samuel J.-1267
Duffey, Joseph D.-207, 437, 858, 1276
Duffy, Brian-918
Duffy, Gloria-925
Dunn, Loretta L.-434, 1278
Durand, Anna-1267
Durenberger, Dave-1100
Durham, Archer L.-483, 1276
DuVal, Fred-763
Duvalier, Jean-Claude-810
Duvernay, Terrence R., Sr.-36, 1270
Dyhrkopp, Einar V.-1266
Eastwood, Clint-354, 1138
Echaveste, Maria-404, 1275
Eckhart, Jeri A.-712
Edgar, Jim-1098
Edwards, Edwin W.-36
Ehrlich, Everett M.-256, 1277
Eizenstat, Stuart E.-1073, 1279
Ekeus, Rolf-715
Elders, M. Joycelyn-1141, 1184, 1250, 1279
Ellwood, David T.-1258, 1265, 1274
Emperor Akihito-1024, 1266
Empress Michiko-1024
Engler, Bill, Jr.-637
English, Karan-1239
English, Richard-1257


B-3




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993
Erdreich, Benjamin Leader-549, 1277
Erichs, Christopher Paul-1234
Espy, Mike-68, 80, 469, 546, 959, 965, 966, 996,
1000-1002, 1074, 1076, 1078, 1093, 1097, 1101,
1103, 1108, 1192, 1262, 1269
Esrey, William T.-1264
Exon, J. James-540
Faris, Jack-944
Farr, Sam —1191
Feder, Judy-14, 1259
Feingold, Russell D.-794, 796, 1127
Feinstein, Dianne-108, 1194, 1208, 1245
Finch, Louis-926
Finn, Christopher-434, 1276
Fish, Hamilton, Jr.-833
Fixx, John-902
Flake, Floyd H.-1084, 1087
Flanigan, Alan H.-527, 1279
Fleekop, Gabrielle-1265
Fleury, Jeremy-480
Florio, Jim-48, 222, 223, 626, 645, 729, 923
Floyd, Jami-742
Flynn, Raymond Leo-317, 483, 1262, 1277
Foley, John-929, 930
Foley, Thomas S.-3, 49, 184, 322, 586, 933, 1088
Ford, Gerald R.-513
Ford, Harold E.-249
Ford, Wendell H.-587, 820
Ford, William D.-49, 224, 865
Forrest, Carolyn-712
Foster, John S., Jr.-1265
Foster, Vincent, Jr.-1148, 1149, 1162, 1168, 1171,
1217, 1268
Fotter, Jim R.-627
Frachon, Alain-983
Frampton, George T., Jr.-1258, 1274
Frank, Barney-933, 1084, 1112, 1139, 1161
Fraser, Graham-983
Freeh, Louis J.-1115, 1140, 1280
Freeman, Chas. W.-369, 1276
Friebert, Susan F.-627
Frost, Ellen-322
Frost, Martin-653
Fuerth, Leon-484
Fujisawa, Hidetoshi-989
Fulbright, J. William-207, 562, 570
Fuller, Greg-720
Gaby, Keith-1267
Gaertner, Susan E.-627
Gaffney, Susan-330, 1278
Galbraith, Peter W.-656, 1277
Gallegos, Tony E.-1261
Gallucci, Robert-279, 839
Gamble, Roger R.-839
Gannon, John Anthony-596, 1258
Gao Shan-773
Garamendi, John-165, 699
Gardiner, David-232, 1271
Garten, Jeffrey E.-858, 1281
Garvey, Jane-354


Gati, Toby T.-1266
Gauldin, Michael-614
Gebbie, Kristine M.-932
Gejdenson, Sam-586, 588
Gelbard, Robert S.-1072
Georgine, Robert A.-456
Gephardt, Richard A.-122, 322, 540, 1088, 1096,
1099
Gerchick, Mark-926
Gergen, David R.-776, 900
Gerson, Stuart-249, 279
Gervais, Felicia-627
Gibbons, John Howard-174, 420, 469, 876, 1269
Gicale, Louis-926
Gillam, Joyce-930
Gilliland, James S.-264, 1273
Gilmartin, William J.-964
Gilmore, Harry J.-313, 1271
Gingrich, Newt-540
Ginsburg, Ruth Bader-842, 846, 847, 850, 851, 855,
864, 930, 1140, 1278
Glynn, Thomas P.-144, 939, 1273
Gober, Hershel-766, 991, 1269
Golden, James K.-1265
Goldwater, Barry M.-1111
Goncz, Arpad-1262
Gonzalez, Henry B.-1084
Good, Mary Lowe-739, 1280
Goodman, Bruce D.-1270
Goodman, Sherri Wasserman-404
Goodridge, Matilda-480
Gordon, William-649
Gore, Albert, Jr.-43, 62, 63, 67, 169, 173, 178, 204,
233, 309, 355, 363, 393, 468, 469, 473, 489, 537,
561, 578, 588, 611, 624, 632, 713, 717, 765, 820,
831, 833, 844, 876, 924, 942, 965, 986, 1032, 1058,
1087, 1093, 1096, 1152, 1153, 1160, 1186, 1194 -1196, 1202, 1208, 1209
Gore, Pauline-712
Gore, Tipper-537
Gorelick, Jamie S.-215, 1271
Gorman, Joseph T.-1264
Gorton, Slade-540
Goryachev, Sergei-989
Gosende, Robert-1266
Gould, W. Scott-742
Gould, William B., IV-941
Grabe, Ronald-918
Graham, Billy-42
Graham, Bob-288, 460
Gramm, Phil-905, 1134, 1216
Grandmaison, J. Joseph-821, 1280
Grant, Tagg-930
Grassley, Charles E.-1077
Green, Earnest-147
Green, Lorraine Allyce-412, 1274
Greensfelder, Sarah Elizabeth-1235
Greenspan, Alan-17, 213, 872, 1156, 1157, 1162,
1257
Greenstone, Jody-1265
Grimes, Kevin Vincent-742


B-4




Name Index


Grisham, Henry O.-1169-1171
Grumbly, Thomas P.-1258, 1271
Grzywinski, Ron-1086
Guinier, Lani-536, 624, 661, 669, 802, 808, 1275,
1277
Gunn, David-278
Haas, Ellen Weinberger-1261, 1275
Hackney, Sheldon-429
Hakes, Jay E.-532, 1280
Hall, Douglas Kent-100, 1276
Hall, James E.-713, 1279
Halperin, Morton H.-370
Halton, David-989
Hambley, Mark Gregory-839
Hamilton, Arthur M.-1208
Hamre, John J.-963
Han Dongfang-773
Han Sung-su-1265
Hanson, Jean E.-215, 1273
Hardimon, William-526
Harkin, Frank-1199
Harkin, Ruth R.-369, 1275
Harkin, Tom-927, 1077, 1199
Harper, Conrad Kenneth-247, 1272
Harriman, Pamela-345, 1273
Hart, John D.-1257
Hatch, Orrin G.-847
Hatfield, Ken —583
Hatfield, Mark 0.-449
Hathaway, William D.-1261, 1267
Hatton, Janie R. Hill-17
Havel, Vaclav-465, 1262
Havens, George-1267
Hawkins, Wilbur-1261
Hayashi, Dennis-570
Hayes, Jim-653
Hayes, Johnny H.-596, 1278
Hayes, Rita-925
Haysbert, Raymond-557
Height, Dorothy-624
Heinemann, Harry N.-427
Helmke, Paul-916
Hemming, Dionne-807
Henderson, Irving-1086
Hendrix, Freman-627
Henry, Patricia Jean-627
Henry, Paul B.-1255
Herberger, Albert J.-434, 1276
Herman, Alexis-951, 1262
Herman, Steven Alan-232, 1271
Hernandez, Antonia-712
Herzog, Chaim-473, 1262
Heumann, Judith-264, 1273
Hewitt, Emily Clark-1267
Heymann, Philip Benjamin-389, 1276
Hickmott, Robert-1259
Hillman, Jennifer-1268
Hinson, David Russell-656, 1279
Hoecker, James John-422, 1275
Holbrooke, Richard-964, 1281
Holder, Eric Himpton, Jr.-1281


Hollings, Ernest F.-540, 1156
Holmes, Genta Hawkins-279
Holt, Barbara-627
Honigman, Steven S.-527, 1275
Hoofman, Clifton H.-1263
Horsley, John-1263
Horton, Frank-553, 1266
Horvitz, Paul-983
Hou Xiaotian-773
Houdek, Robert Gordon-964, 1279
Howard, Allen-762
Hoyer, Steny H.-1198
Hubbell, Webster L.-96, 389, 637, 666, 1148, 1271
Huerta, Michael P.-354, 1274
Hughes, Kent-1261
Hundt, Reed E.-960
Hunger, Frank W.-536, 1275
Hunt, H. Draper-1265
Hunter, Nan-1262
Hunter, Robert E.-1262, 1277
Hussein, Saddam-111, 112, 350, 716, 938, 940, 988
Hutchinson, Kay Bailey-1134, 1216
Hwang Yung Cho-1056
Hyde, Henry-896
Hyde, MarLeice-924
Iliescu, Ion-1262
Illouz, Jean-Marc-989
Imus, Don-628
Inderfurth, Karl Frederick-256, 1274
Inouye, Daniel K.-1065, 1156
Irvin, Pat-925
Irving, Clarence L., Jr.-100, 1272
Irving, Michael-246
Izetbegovic, Alija-363, 1214
Iackovich, Victor-1261, 1272
ackson, Gloria-627
Jackson, Jesse-403, 448
Jackson, Michael-895
Jacobovits de Szeged, Adriaan Pieter-1265
Jaramillo, Mari-Luci-1266
Jarrett, Valerie-557
Jeffers, Octavius-430
Jefferson, Thomas-422
Jeffords, James M.-49, 449
Jennings, Peter-146
Jeremiah, D.E.-1263
Jess, Omar-870
Jester, Bob-1265
Jeter, Howard Franklin-527, 1278
Jett, Dennis C.-527, 1278
Joe, Billy-1806
Johns, Lionel Skipwith-1260, 1277
Johnson, Donald C.-931, 1279
Johnson, Eddie Bernice-567
Johnson, Jessica Ann-1234
Johnson, Jimmy-24, 246
Johnson, Mark-313, 1272
Johnson, Michelle-1164
Johnson, Roger W.-368, 1275
Johnston, J. Bennett-1133


B-5




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993
Johnston, Robert B.-565
Jones, Anita K.-370, 1275
Jones, Arthur-1257
Jones, Brereton C.-556
Jones, David-544, 558
Jones, Gaynelle Griffin-1280
Jones, James Robert-1280
Jones, Jerry-24, 246
Jones, Jim-803
Jones, Meredith-925
Josephson, Diana-1259
Joyner, Florence Griffith-894, 921
Joynt, Ann-929
Kagen, Robert L.-712
Kahler, Kathryn-1263
Kainrad, John-240
Kalnins, Ojars-1262
Kanjorski, Paul E.-1084
Kantor, Michael (Mickey)-181, 321, 831, 915, 1031,
1269
Kaplan, Stephen H.-334, 1273
Kappner, Augusta Souza-264, 1274
Kaps, Carola-983
Karadzic, Radovan-238, 576, 985
Kargbo, Thomas Kahota-1265
Kasich, John R.-1206
Kasper, Daniel M.-540
Katzen, Sally-308, 1273
Keener, Mary Lou-1260, 1274
Keith, Anne-1077
Keliher, John-354
Kelleher, Herbert D.-539
Kelly, Sharon Pratt-240, 729
Kelman, Steven-1237
Kelso, Frank B., II-623
Kemble, Penn-561, 1276
Kennedy, Edward M.-49, 224, 865, 886, 1184, 1194,
1250
Kennedy, Joseph P., II-1084
Kennedy, Patrick Francis-232, 1271
Kennedy, Robert F.-814
Kennedy, Roger-718
Kerrey, J. Robert-1111
Kerry, John F.-991, 1111
Kesin, Judy-217
Kiley, Robert-739
Kim Yong-sam-1050, 1053, 1057, 1059, 1061, 1265,
1266
Kimbrough, Kenneth-1267
Kime, J. William-1112
King Hussein I-880-882
King, James B.-16, 712, 1270
King Juan Carlos I-1263
King, Larry-905, 1137
King, Rodney-277, 448, 450
Kinkel, Klaus-45
Kirkland, Joseph Lane-456
Kitleli, Teboho Ephraim-1261
Klecka, Gerald-788
Klepner, Jerry D.-1258, 1271
Klug, James-926


Knopman, Debra-926
Kohl, Helmut-278, 359, 360, 552, 979, 988, 1041,
1043, 1259, 1260, 1266
Kohl, Herb-794, 796, 1127
Koon, Stacey C.-448, 450
Koop, C. Everett-99
Korb, Lawrence-1111
Koresh, David-459, 461-464, 485, 486, 488
Kovac, Michal-1262
Kovner, Victor A.-712
Kozyrev, Andrey-335, 336, 345, 346, 713, 725
Kravchuk, Leonid-340, 402
Krebs, Martha Anne-1090
Krueger, Bob-232, 234, 661
Kruesi, Frank Eugene-628, 1280
Kruzel, Joseph J.-1267
Kucan, Milan-1262
Kuchel, Roland Karl-740, 1279
Kunin, Madeleine-845, 1269
Kuriyama, Takakazu-571
LaCour, Nathaniel Hawthorne-627
Lader, Philip-144, 189, 233, 1273
Lake, Anthony-939
Lal, Dhyan-627
Lambertson, David-991
Lancaster, Carol J.-971
Lane, Neal F.-1073
Laney, James T.-993, 1281
Larkin, Barbara Mills-1267
Larson, Charles-1064
Lautenberg, Frank R.-1159
LaVelle, Avis-1258, 1271
Lawrence, Jeffrey-926
Laws, Elliot-1090
Le Bleu, Conway-319
Le Duc Anh-1221
Leahy, Patrick J.-278, 833
LeaMond, Nancy-321
Lederman, Leon M.-1265
Lee, Deborah Roche-404, 1276
Lee, Philip R.-1260, 1276
Lehman, Bruce A.-1262, 1277
Lerman, Miles-717
Leshy, John D.-1258, 1273
Lesieur, Edmond A. Mulet-1265
Levey, Bob-908
Levin, Jerry-430
Levine, Susan-1263
Levitt, Arthur, Jr.-532, 1263, 1279
Levy, Michael B.-1273
Levy, Michael Nathaniel-742
Lew, Ginger Ehn-964
Lewis, Anne-1259
Lewis, Anne H.-692, 1281
Lewis, Stephen Charles-1281
Li Daoyu-1265
Li Honglin-773
Liebowitz, Ronnie Fern-627
Liljergren, Henrik-1262
Linton, Gordon J.-692, 1279
Lippert, Patrick-1083


B-6




Name Index


Lipton, David A.-1268
Littlefield, Warren-963
Liu Quing-773
Logue-Kinder, Joan-416
London, Paul-925
Longanecker, David A.-368, 1275
Longuemare, R. Noel-1083
Lord, Winston-991
Low, David-919
Lowenberg, Bill-473
Lowry, Mike-240
Ludwig, Eugene Allan-1271
Luffborough, Doug-886, 924, 969
Lugar, Richard G.-589, 594
Lugato, Giuseppe-989
Luo Haixing-773
Luzzatto, Anne-321
Lynch, George-523
Lynn, V. Larry-1266
Lynn, William-404
Lyons, James-264, 1272
Maddox, David M.-1045
Magaziner, Ira-14, 537
Maisto, John Francis-366, 1276
Major, John-195, 196, 315, 552, 1259, 1266
Malcolm, Pat-781
Malikov, Mukhamed Bobir-1265
Malkovich, John-1145
Mandel, Ruth-717
Mandela, Nelson-991, 992, 997, 1015
Manley, Martin-1083
Mansfield, Mike-562, 837
Maresca, John J.-476
Markey, Edward J.-1156
Marks, Fe Morales-1268
Marler, Steve-238
Maroni, Alice-434
Marrero, Victor-256, 1272
Marshall, Bill-627
Marshall, Thurgood-12, 65, 1257
Martin, Jurek-983
Martin, Will-1267
Massey, William Lloyd-422, 1275
Mathews, Jessica Tuchman-584
Mathias, Jane-925
Matsui, Robert T.-275
Maurio, Vincent-764
Mauro, Garry-471
Maxman, Susan-1257
Mayorga-Cortes, Roberto-1265
Mazzoli, Romano L.-1194
McAfee, Marilyn-313, 1272
McCain, John-991
McCall, Richard, Jr.-1267
McCallie, Marshall Fletcher-416, 1271
McCarthy, J.P.-898
McCarthy, Karen-1209
McColl, Hugh-1086, 1087
McConnell, Donald J.-1280
McConnell, Theodore A.-1268
McCown, Gaynor-742


McCracken, Ed-174
McCurdy, Dave-544
McDermott, Jim-933
McDonald, Carlton-583
McDonald, Gail C.-1257
McDonald, Trevor-989
McDonnell, John-511
McGee, Robert M.-712
McGinty, Kathleen A.-63, 469, 965, 1258
McGovern, Mary-930
McKeehan, Todd-319
McLarty, Thomas F. (Mack)-6, 382, 560, 691, 705,
730, 733, 741, 747, 776, 1096
McMillen, Tom-894, 921
McPeak, Merrill A.-862
Mead, Dana-712
Meed, Benjamin-473
Meissner, Doris-878, 1195
Meksi, Aleksandr-1262
Mendoza, Ricardo Luna-1261
Menem, Carlos Saul-953, 954
Mensah, Elsa Luffborough —886
Metzenbaum, Howard M.-927
Metzenbaum, Shelly-1090
Meyer, Russell W., Jr.-539
Meyerhoff, Harvey M.-473, 478
Mica, Daniel-437, 858
Michel, Robert H.-113, 249, 413, 1088
Mickelson, Jan-1075
Midzi, Amos Bernard Muvengwa-1265
Mikulski, Barbara A.-1102, 1108
Miles-LaGrange, Vicki Lynn-1281
Miller, Gail-727, 728
Miller, Joyce-404
Miller, Penny-627
Miller, Sandy-627
Miller, Walter-1100
Milosevic, Slobodan-405, 410, 590, 660, 985
Mims, Valerie A.-1268
Minge, David-1100
Mink, Patsy T.-1065
Mintz, Richard-628
Mitchell, Arthur-712
Mitchell, George J.-20, 21, 49, 355, 437, 445, 454,
455, 492, 586-588, 770, 817, 819, 833, 847, 889,
927, 931, 942, 1088, 1257
Mitsotakis, Constantine-358
Mitterrand, Francois-257, 294, 323, 552, 581, 1042,
1258, 1259
Mittleman, Portia-926
Miyazawa, Kiichi-392, 438, 591, 837, 1015, 1018,
1022, 1029, 1030, 1039, 1044, 1048, 1106, 1260,
1266
Moakley, John Joseph-1262
Moler, Elizabeth Anne-422, 1257
Molinari, Susan-49
Molitoris, Jolene Moritz-422, 1278
Monaghan, Thomas Justin-1281
Monahan, John-926
Monahan, Marilyn-627
Mondale, Joan-837


B-7




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993
Mondale, Walter F.-837, 1280
Monk, Thelonious, Jr.-883
Montano, Jorge-1262
Montgomery, Jim-454
Montgomery, Thomas-839
Montgomery, William Dale-839
Montoya, Regina-250
Montross, Eric-523
Moody, Corlis-1090
Moore, Gwen-1210
Moore-Brown, Parris-548
Moos, Eugene-256, 1274, 1275
Moose, George Edward-1271, 1274
Moose, Richard Menifee-692, 1279
Morales, Dan-627
Morella, Constance A.-933
Morris, Daniel-627
Moseley, Henderson-807
Moseley-Braun, Carol-615, 1184
Moses, Edwin C.-712
Moses, Howard Ray-1267
Mottur, Ellis-172, 925
Moynihan, Daniel Patrick-33, 138, 177, 641, 642,
817, 819, 833, 847, 875, 889, 902, 903, 931, 1141,
1181
Mubarak, Hosni-405, 406, 1259
Mulroney, Brian-52, 53, 196, 201, 202, 391, 552,
799, 1261
Munnell, Alicia Haydock-1272
Munoz, George-416, 1279
Murphy, Steve-1077
Murphy, Thomas S.-963
Murray, Patty-540, 942, 966
Musial, Stan-581
Napolitano, Janet Ann-1279
Nash, Bob J.-264, 1086, 1272
Natcher, William H.-322, 864
Neal, Stephen L.-1084
Nelson, E. Benjamin-1102
Nelson, Jean-1115
NeMoyer, Patrick H.-1278
Newell, Kara-705
Newman, Frank N.-318, 1270
Nichel, Jean-1265
Nichols, Mary Dolores-1090
Nicholson, Jack-354
Nides, Tom-322
Nigut, Bill-73
Niles, M.T.-964
Nixon, Patricia Ryan-920
Nixon, Richard M.-243, 257, 513, 920, 1259
Noble, Ronald K.-1271
Nolan, Beth-1262
Nolan, Jean-36, 1270
Nordhaus, Robert Riggs-1262, 1277
Novello, Antonia C.-312
Nujoma, Sam-859, 860, 874, 1264
Nunn, Sam-18, 20, 21, 75, 94, 270, 326, 337, 544,
589, 594, 1114, 1139, 1201, 1202
Nussbaum, Bernard W.-62, 63
Nussbaum, Karen Beth-467, 1276


Nuxoll, Carla-628
O'Day, Bonnie-596
O'Hara, James-354
O'Leary, Hazel Rollins-68, 354, 420, 469, 471, 1265,
1269
OToole, Tara Jeanne-446, 1277
Owen, David-55, 56, 551
Owen, Faylene Curtis-712
Oxman, Stephen A.-1270
Ozal, Turgut-63, 358, 453, 1262
Paige, Barbara-742
Paige, Emmett, Jr.-404, 1276
Palast, Geri D.-1258, 1271
Palmer, Arnold-893
Palmer, Steve-1046
Panetta, Leon E.-109, 120, 170, 298, 301, 343, 523,
533, 682, 818, 819, 827, 829, 873, 901, 908, 1033,
1076, 1082, 1102, 1198, 1200, 1245, 1269
Pang, Frederick F.Y.-971
Parker, David-637
Parker, Kimberly-354
Pashayev, Hafiz-1262
Patenaude, Ken-765
Patten, Chris-552, 771
Payzant, Thomas W.-264, 1275
Pease, Don-739
Pelosi, Nancy-511, 770, 933
Peiia, Federico-184, 354, 414, 416, 450, 469, 701,
1102, 1269
Perciasepe, Robert-1090
Perea-Henze, Raul-742
Perkins, Edward Joseph-1266
Perot, Ross-113, 381, 485, 491, 741, 801, 896, 1134,
1147, 1258
Perry, William J.-42, 1270
Peterpaul, John-539
Peterson, Douglas (Pete)-991
Peterson, Merrill D.-1265
Pezzullo, Lawrence-309, 310, 489, 810, 1154
Phillips, James Dixon-634
Pianalto, Sandra-539
Pickering, Thomas R.-16, 199, 1271
Pierce, Raymond C.-1267
Piercy, Jan 0.-712
Pitts, Otis, Jr.-287, 288
Place, Valerie-314
Poling, Harold A.-194
Pollitz, Karen-354
Pomerance, Rafe-584
Pope, Laurence Everett, II-554, 1278
Porter, Roger B.-712
Powell, Colin L.-79, 199, 206, 230, 352, 487, 505,
533, 712, 867, 1045, 1112, 1203
Powell, Laurence M.-448, 450
Prabhakar, Arati-359, 1273
Premadasa, Ranasinghe-551, 1263
Preston, Colleen-404
Primus, Wendell-354
Prince Naruhito-1024, 1045
Princess Masako-1024, 1045


B-8




Name Index


Pryce, William Thornton-366, 1272
Pryor, David-732, 1170
Purifoy, R.D.-655
Quainton, Anthony-279
Queen Sofia-1263
Quello, James H.-1257
Rabb, Harriet S.-1258, 1271
Rabin, Yitzhak-263, 303, 408, 1257, 1259
Rabinovich, Itamar-1262
Rae, Carol-637
Raiser, Mary M.-763, 1280
Raley, John W., Jr.-1031, 1281
Ramirez, Leslie-742
Ramsay, William-527, 1276
Rangel, Charles B.-530
Raphel, Robin Lynn-570, 1263, 1278
Rasco, Carol-14, 220
Rasco, Hamp-154
Rasmussen, Poul Nyrup-590-595, 1260
Rathbun, Randall K.-1281
Rather, Dan-346, 760
Rawson, David P.-527
Raymond, Victor P.-308, 1277
Reagan, Ronald-114, 139, 513, 536, 642, 790
Reed, Bruce-1265
Reed, Howard-322
Reed, Jack-782
Reedy, George E.-712
Regar, Charles-526
Rehnquist, William H.-3, 6
Reich, Robert B.-64, 68, 129, 237, 426, 430, 433,
891, 915, 939, 965, 1014, 1101, 1178, 1183, 1269
Reicher, Dan W.-1267
Reid, Harry-1229, 1232
Reike, Elizabeth Ann-1258, 1271
Reis, Victor H.-614, 1278
Renaud, Dale-926
Reno, Janet-91, 277, 279, 310, 338, 357, 436, 448,
454, 459, 461-464, 488, 527, 528, 534-536, 681,
697, 744, 747, 809, 877, 878, 917, 926, 938, 940,
1112-1114, 1195, 1199, 1270
Retsinas, Nicolas P.-264, 1273
Reynolds, Albert-312, 314, 662, 663, 1259, 1260
Rhodes, David-742
Richards, Ann W.-24, 29, 246
Richards, Charles-404
Richardson, Bill-674
Richardson, Margaret Milner-1259, 1272
Ride, Sally K.-712
Ridgway, Matthew B.-1211
Riegle, Donald W., Jr.-579, 1084
Riggs, Jack-926
Riley, Richard W.-425, 430, 433, 460, 489, 546, 657,
729, 923, 924, 1008, 1014, 1269
Riordan, Richard-701
Ritzenthaler, Henry Leon-904, 912, 919, 1265
Rivlin, Alice-486, 1269
Roberti, David-108
Robinson, Mary-662, 663, 668, 1263


Robinson, Reginald L.-742
Robinson, Sharon P.-368, 1008, 1277
Robson, John E.-540
Roche, Kevin-1257
Rockefeller, John D., IV-226, 275
Rockefeller, Winthrop Paul-1170
Rodham, Hugh-1261
Rodham, Hugh, Jr.-93, 159
Rohatyn, Felix G.-539
Rollwagen, John A.-23, 1272, 1277
Romer, Roy-27
Romero, David-527
Rominger, Richard E.-256, 1272
Rose, Charlie-820
Rosewater, Ann-1267
Ross, Dennis-883
Ross, Douglas-460, 1277
Rossello, Pedro J.-1260
Rostenkowski, Dan-615, 654, 740, 1117, 1141, 1181,
1193
Roth, Stanley-925
Roukema, Marge-49
Royer, Charles T.-712
Rubin, Robert E.-13, 748, 827, 873, 1257
Ruda, Jose Maria-671
Rudolph, Wilma-893
Rumsey, Terry Cornwall-1267
Rush, Bobby L.-1084
Russell, Theodore E.-1031
Russo, Rene-1145
Rutskoy, Aleksandr-349
Ryan, Mary A.-232, 1272
Ryan, Michael E.-991
Sabah, Mohamad Al- -1262
Sabin, Albert-235
Sabo, Martin Olav-322
Salazar, Tony-556
Salinas, Carlos-130, 340, 801, 832, 910, 912, 1004,
1147, 1189
Saloom, Joseph A., III-554, 1277
Sam, Paul-649
Samuels, Leslie B.-144, 1270
Sanders, Bernard-1204
Sanders, Wade R.-1267
Sangheli, Andrei Nicholas-1262
Santa Anna, Yvonne-308
Spnta, Donald Farley-422, 1275
Sasser, Jim-355, 931
Saxon, John-712
Schaefer, Mark —821
Schafer, Edward-1101
Schapiro, Mary-1263
Scheld, Tim-902
Schmidt, John Roggen-416
Schmoke, Kurt-557
Schneider, John Thomas-1279
Schramm, Ken-73
Schreier, Karen Elizabeth-1280
Schroeder, Patricia-49, 275
Schuker, Jill-925


B-9




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993
Schumer, Charles E.-641, 652
Schweizer, Jochen-989
Scott, Edward P.-1260, 1274
Scully, John-826
Segal, Eli J.-217, 1168
Serrano, Jorge-739
Sessions, William S.-93, 215, 338, 486, 488, 1112,
1140
Sewall, Sarah-925
Sexton, Brian-972
Shafer, Jeffrey Richard-1259, 1273
Shalala, Donna E.-7, 8, 99, 275, 312, 354, 418, 486,
569, 894, 1098, 1099, 1263, 1269
Shapiro, Ira-321
Shapiro, Michael-429
Sharp, John-233, 234
Sharp, Marcia-523
Shattuck, John Howard Francis-232, 1273
Shelby, Richard C.-1150, 1153
Shen Tong-772
Sheridan, Brian-926
Sherlock, Nancy-919
Sherman, Wendy Ruth-232, 1273
Shields, Anne H.-1267
Shima, Osamu-983
Shimoura, James-628
Shockley, Brenda-556
Shon, Debbie-321
Shriver, Robert Sargent, Jr.-226
Shrontz, Frank-184
Shugarian, Rouben Robert-1265
Shuldiner, Joseph-1260, 1275
Shushkevich, Stanislav-1154, 1165
Shuster, Bud-540
Simon, Paul-300, 615, 616
Simpson, Alan K.-1194
Simpson, Robert-558
Skofield, Melissa-926
Slater, Rodney E.-354, 1274
Slayton, Donald (Deke)-847
Slocombe, Walter Becker-1261, 1276
Sluder, Gennie Sue-1235
Smith, Dean-523
Smith, Eddie L., Jr.-628
Smith, Harold P., Jr.-417, 1276
Smith, Harry-743
Smith, Jean Kennedy-315, 1277
Smith, Kenneth-703
Smith, Marshall S.-264, 1274
Smith, Sherdon-807
Soares, Mario-1262
Soeharto-580, 1266
Sofaer, Abraham D.-539
Solana, Fernando-911, 913
Solien, Stephanie-1259
Spalter, Jonathan-1267
Specter, Arlen-449, 452, 846, 997
Spero, Joan E.-1050, 1270, 1274
Sprott, John T.-527, 1279
Stafford, M. Douglas-1091
Stallings, Jerry-655


Stark, Martha E.-742
Starkloff, Max-712
Stasch, Julia-706
Stayman, Allen P.-412
Steel, Dawn-628
Steele, James-769
Steenburgen, Mary-712
Stegman, Michael A.-256, 1273
Steiner, Steven E.-554, 1278
Stenholm, Charles W.-652, 1200, 1219, 1221, 1227
Stephanopoulos, George-4, 63, 776
Stephens, Jay-381
Stephenson, Dana-1265
Sterling, Carolyn-807
Stevens, Elizabeth Guest-712
Stevens, Ted-1156
Stewart, George Taylor-1265
Stewart, Judith Ann-1280
Stiglitz, Joseph E.-359, 1278
Still, Jack-1171
Stith, Charles R.-1087
Stockman, David-274, 642, 1191, 1205
Stoll, Louise Frankel-692, 1280
Strauss, Robert-1266
Stringer, Howard-963
Stroger, John-1104, 1108
Stuart, Sandra-1267
Studds, Gerry E.-933, 1112, 1139
Sudarkasa, Niara-628
Sullivan, Bill-762
Sullivan, Jane-548
Sullivan, Kathryn D.-359, 1274
Sulzer, Joe-136
Summers, Lawrence H.-318
Sussman, Robert M.-232, 1270
Sweeney, Kevin J.-1260
Swerzewski, Joseph-1267
Swoopes, Cheryl-522
Talbott, Strobe-493, 1270
Tambo, Oliver-1263
Tarawneh, Fayez-1262
Tarnoff, Peter-1270
Tarullo, Daniel K.-330, 1275
Tate, Stanley G.-1073, 1280
Taylor, William J., III-446, 1276
Tetzlaff, Charles Robert-1031, 1280
Thani, Sheikh Abdulrahman al- -1262
Thieman, Frederick W.-1281
Thomas, Gina F.-539
Thompson, James R.-1265
Thompson, Mozelle Willmont-1268
Thompson, Tommy G.-960, 1099, 1126
Thorpe, Ken-1263
Thurmond, Strom-633, 847, 1259
Thurow, Lester-320, 725
Tidball, William C.-35, 41, 239
Tierney, Susan F.-1258, 1271
Timbers, William-1261
Todd, Bruce-427
Tomseth, Victor L.-1266


B-10




Name Index


Torres, Gerald-536
Torres-Gil, Fernando M.-732, 1258
Torricelli, Robert G.-290
Townsend, Wardell Clinton, Jr.-256, 1273
Tran, Phung-653
Troop, Walter Michael-1280
Troutman, Beth-1265
Tsongas, Paul-358
Tudjman, Franjo-1262
Turck, Helmut-1262
Turner, Leslie M.-1258, 1271
Turner, Stansfield-713
Turner, Ted-963
Tyson, Cicely-713
Tyson, Laura D'Andrea-540, 1269
Ucelli, Loretta-1259
Ulmer, Todd-742
Unsoeld, Jolene-966
Vacca, Francis-256
van der Stoel, Max-333, 716, 1167
Vance, Cyrus-55, 56
Vander Schaaf, Derek J.-490
Vassiliou, George-476
Vento, Bruce F.-1100
Verderber, Nancy-628
Vessey, John W.-491, 688, 990, 1261, 1262
Vest, Charles-876
Villella, Larry-179
Visco, Frances M.-1263
Vladeck, Bruce C.-247, 1273
Voles, Lorraine-1257
Volkmer, Harold L.-1099
Von Lipsey, Roderick-742
Voss, Janice-918
Vradenburg, George-963
Waihee, John David-29, 713, 1065, 1066, 1266
Walesa, Lech-1262
Walker, Bailus, Jr.-232
Walker, Hughey-596
Wallerstein, Mitch-963
Walters, David-29
Wandner, Steve-238
Wang Dan-773
Wang Ruoshui-773
Wang Ruowang-773
Wang Xizhe-773
Wang Youcai-773
Wang Zhixin-773
Warner, Edward L., III-369, 1275
Washington, Craig-810
Watanabe, Michio-90
Waters, Maxine-1084
Watson, Alexander Fletcher-232, 1273
Watson, Jeff-288
Watson, Robert T.-821, 1280
Weiler, Todd-1267
Wein, George-883
Weinberg, Jeshajahu-473
Weise, George J.-334, 1274


Weiss, Mara-930
Weiss, Marina-416
Weizsicker, Richard Von-728
Weld, William F.-502
Wells, John Calhoun-1083
Wellstone, Paul D.-927
Wen Yuankai-773
Wendt, E. Allan-313, 1272
Wesely, Don-1210
Wexler, Anne-207
Wharton, Clifton R., Jr.-1269
Whillock, Margaret M.-628
White, Byron R.-280, 323, 324, 338, 842
White, Mary Jo-1278
White, Michael D.-598, 602, 606
White, William H.-412, 1276
Whitely, Mike-448
Widnall, Sheila E.-992, 1280
Wiesel, Elie-481
Wilder, L. Douglas-76, 223, 430
Williams, Arthur E.-1097
Williams, Betty-705
Williams, Christopher-842
Williams, Donald-523
Williams, Lawrence-548
Williams, Robert-319
Williams, Ted-894
Williams, Thomas-1260
Williamson, Irving A.-1268
Williamson, Molly-925
Williamson, Thomas S., Jr.-1259, 1274
Willis, Steve-319
Wilmoth, William David-1031, 1280
Wilson, John-706
Wilson, Michael-930
Wilson, Pete-41, 108
Winston, Judith A.-446, 1277
Winter, J. Andrew-527, 1278
Wisner, Frank G.-1258, 1270
Wisoff, Jeff-918
Witt, James Lee-101, 959, 1074, 1076, 1077, 1079,
1093, 1097, 1098, 1103, 1108, 1270
Woerner, Manfred-230, 1259
Wofford, Harris-34, 226, 451, 544, 1262
Wolanin, Thomas R.-1267
Wolf, Steven-703
Wolters, Katie Pew-596
Woo, Michael-673, 700
Wood, Kimba-60, 64, 83
Woolsey, R. James-938, 940, 1269
Worsham, Jack-930
Wurtz, Donald R.-1223
Wysocki, Ted-557
Xiong Yan-773
Xu Wenli-773
Yamaguchi, Michael Joseph-1281
Yang, Linda Tsao-1072
Yang Wei-773
Yazzie, Robert-713


B-11




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993
Yeager, Brooks B.-1260
Yeltsin, Boris-198, 213, 242, 243, 277, 294, 307, 334,
335, 337, 339, 349, 356, 363, 371, 372, 376, 381,
390, 392, 393, 415, 439, 443, 488, 490, 493, 506,
512, 513, 530, 552, 725, 743, 848, 853, 941, 980,
986, 1038, 1039, 1042, 1044, 1046, 1056, 1128,
1257, 1261
Yeltsin, Niana-1047
Yerxa, Rufus Hawkins-321, 1274
Yim, Joan-434
Young, Eugene-764


Yu Haocheng-773
Yunis, Mohammed-1086
Yzaguirre, Raul-624
Zahn, Paula-742
Zandian, Reza-526
Zettlemoyer, Albert F.-1264
Zhang Weiguo-773
Zhelev, Zhelyu-1262
Zhu Xingqing-773
Zlenko, Anatoliy-402, 1260


B-12




Document Categories List


Addresses to the Nation
Economic program-104
Inaugural Address-1
Iraq, U.S. strike on intelligence headquarters-938
Joint session of Congress-113
Addresses and Remarks
See also Addresses to the Nation; Bill Signings;
Interviews With the News Media; Meetings With
Foreign Leaders and International Officials
Adult Learning Center, New Brunswick, NJ-217
AIDS Policy Coordinator, announcement-932
American Cancer Society Courage Awards, presentation ceremony-480
American Ireland Fund, dinner-312
American Legion Boys Nation-1174
American Legion Girls Nation-1163
American Society of Newspaper Editors, Annapolis,
MD-372, 379
American University-206
Americans with Disabilities Act anniversary —1198,
1199
Angola, U.S. recognition-704
Asian/Pacific American Heritage Month, proclamation signing ceremony-553
Blue ribbon schools-657
Boeing Corp., Everett, WA-180, 184
Bosnia-724
Budget resolution, telephone conversation with Senators Mitchell and Sasser-355
Budget vote by the House of Representatives-740,
763
Building and Construction Trades Department,
AFL-CIO-455
Business community, Atlanta, GA-325
Business leaders-85, 202, 802, 863, 1212
Business Roundtable-822
Cabinet
Meetings-6, 67
Swearing-in ceremony-5
California economic conference-108
Campaign finance reform-584
Central Arkansas Radiation Therapy Institute-866
Central State University NAIA champion athletic
teams-806
Children's Defense Fund-272
Chillicothe, OH-125
Cleveland, OH
Cleveland City Club-602, 610
Community-598
College Democrats of America-853
Communications technology demonstration-1156
Community development banking and finance initiative, announcement-1084


Addresses and Remarks-Continued
Congressional barbecue —821
Congressional leaders, meeting-1088
Cooper Union for the Advancement of Science and
Art, New York City-638
Credit crunch alleviation initiative-265
Cuban Independence Day-709
Death of Deputy White House Counsel Vincent
Foster, Jr.-1148, 1149
Defense conversion plan, announcement-973
Democratic Congressional dinner-561
Democratic Governors Association-29, 343
Democratic Members of the House of Representatives-1117
Democratic  National  Committee,  Presidential
galas-644, 942
Detroit, MI, arrival at Selfridge Air National Guard
Base-71
Diplomatic corps, reception-856
Downtown Child Development Center, Atlanta,
GA-324
"Drive American Quality" presentation-730
Earned-income tax credit-1224
Earth Day-468
Economic advisers' meeting-63
Economic program-832, 922, 1251
Empowerment zones, teleconference-555
Environmental Policy Office establishment, announcement-62
Export-Import Bank conference-576
Family and medical leave legislation, teleconference-19
FBI Director
Dismissal announcement-1112
Nomination announcement-1115
Fenwick Center, Arlington, VA-97
Flag Day, proclamation signing ceremony-841
Forest Conference in Portland, OR-385-387
Forest conservation plan, announcement-964
Fredericktown Village in Frederick, MD-803
Fulbright, J. William, tribute-570
Future of the American Workplace Conference in
Chicago, IL-1177, 1185
Greek Independence Day, proclamation signing
ceremony-357
High school students, Bensonville, IL —614
Homosexuals in the military, policy announcement-1109
Honolulu, HI-1064
House of Representatives Members, breakfast-322
House Ways and Means Committee members,
meeting-532
Hyde Park, NY-137
Immigration policy, announcement-1194


C-1




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993
Addresses and Remarks-Continued
Inaugural luncheon-3
Inaugural parade groups-4
Independence Day ceremony in Philadelphia, PA997
Japan, U.S. Ambassador, announcement-837
Justice Department
Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, nomination withdrawal-808
Attorney General, swearing-in ceremony-279
Employees-534
Immigration and Naturalization Service, Commissioner, nomination announcement-878
Kennedy, Robert F., memorial Mass in Arlington,
VA-814
Korea, South
American and Korean Chambers of Commerce,
Seoul-1059
Korean National Assembly, Seoul-1053
State dinner in Seoul-1057
U.S. troops at Camp Casey-1061
Labor leaders-202
"Latino USA" reception-573
Law enforcement officers, memorial ceremony-654
Law enforcement organizations-435
Leadership Conference on Civil Rights-624
League of Women Voters-815
Los Alamos, NM-674
Los Angeles, CA-702
Los Angeles mayoral race endorsement in Van
Nuys, CA-700
Los Angeles Valley College, Van Nuys, CA —693
Mayors conferences-57, 241
Medical research and reproductive health memorandums, signing ceremony-7
Memorial Day ceremonies
Arlington National Cemetery-785
Vietnam Veterans Memorial-786
Midwest flooding
Flood Aid telethon-1235
Governors, meeting-1198
Missouri-Kansas telethon-1236
Roundtable discussion in Arnold, MO-1095
Town meeting in Eldridge, IA-999
Water distribution site in Des Moines, IA-1074
Milwaukee, WI-787, 798
Moline, IL-1007
National Association of County Officials, teleconference-1104
National Association of Police Organizations-926
National Commission to Ensure a Strong Competitive Airline Industry-725
National Conference of State Legislatures-1207
National Drug Control Policy Office, Director
Appointment announcement-527
Swearing-in ceremony-967
National Economic Council establishment, Executive order signing ceremony-12
National Education Association, San Francisco,
CA-1008
National Federation of Independent Business-944
National Governors' Association-23, 25, 32
National League of Cities-249


Addresses and Remarks-Continued
National Nurses Week-567
National Performance Review, announcement-233
National Prayer Breakfast-42
National Realtors Association-515
National service program
Legislation-1168
Remarks in New Orleans, LA-540, 543
National Sports Awards, reception-892
National Teacher of the Year Award, presentation
ceremony-460
National Volunteer Action Awards, ceremony-482
NCAA champion basketball teams-522
New Hampshire Technical College, Stratham,
NH-720
New Jersey congressional delegation-46
Newport Jazz Festival, 40th anniversary celebration-883
Newspaper Association of America, Boston, MA496, 505
Northeastern University, Boston, MA-885
Office of Management and Budget employees-37
Older Americans Month, proclamation signing ceremony-731
Philadelphia, PA-767
Pittsburgh, PA-450
Portland, ME-888
Preschool immunization-418
Presidential correspondence volunteers-840
Presidential scholars, awards presentation ceremony-923
President's Council on Sustainable Development,
announcement-844
President's Task Force on National Health Care
Reform
Announcement-13
Reception-536
Radio addresses-60, 102, 145, 215, 247, 283, 285,
330, 366, 389, 446, 495, 550, 597, 671, 718, 778,
812, 839, 884, 936, 993, 1032, 1057, 1093, 1172,
1253
Rotary International-236
Russia, Presidential election-512
Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ-224
St. Louis, MO-122
St. Patrick's Day ceremony-314
San Diego, CA, arrival at North Island Naval Air
Station-677
Santa Monica, CA-165
School Principal of the Year-17
Silicon Graphics, Mountain View, CA-171
Small Business Administration
Administrator, swearing-in ceremony-634
Microloan program-726
Small business leaders-648
Small Business Person of the Year Award, presentation ceremony-634
Space shuttle Endeavour crew, telephone conversation-918
Summer jobs conference in Arlington, VA-430
Super Bowl champion Dallas Cowboys-24, 246


C-2




Document Categories List


Addresses and Remarks-Continued
Supreme Court of the U.S., Associate Justices
Nomination announcement-842
Retirement-323
Technology reinvestment project, conference-420
Thomas Jefferson, 250th birthday observance-422
Tokyo, Japan
American Chamber of Commerce-1033
Japanese leaders, reception-1018
Market access agreement-1031
Waseda University-1019
Town meetings
CBS 'This Morning"-742
Children's-146
Detroit, MI-73
Goals 2000-425
Midwest flooding in Eldridge, IA-999
San Diego, CA-680
Treasury Department employees-318
Unemployment compensation-63
U.S. Academic Decathlon winners-929
U.S. Air Force Academy football team, trophy presentation ceremony-582
U.S. Armed Forces, radio address-283
U.S. Chamber of Commerce-185
U.S. Conference of Mayors, teleconference-913
U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, opening-472,
478
U.S.-Mexico Binational Commission-910
U.S. Military Academy, West Point, NY-779
U.S. military personnel returning from Somalia, welcome-565
U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, MD-371
U.S.S. Arizona Memorial, Honolulu, HI-1063
U.S.S. Theodore Roosevelt crew-280
University of Arkansas champion track team-511
University of Maine champion ice hockey team454
University of Texas-Arlington champion wheelchair
basketball team-653
Veterans in VA medical centers-764
Villella, Larry, telephone conversation-179
Westinghouse Electric Corp., Linthicum, MD-269
White House Easter egg roll-419
White House staff changes-66, 776
World War II 50th anniversary observance-783
Young American Medals winners-1233
Announcements
See also Addresses and Remarks; Statements by the
President; Statements Other Than Presidential;
Digest (Appendix A); Nominations Submitted
(Appendix B); Checklist (Appendix C)
Presidential scholars-729
Appointments and Nominations
See also Addresses and Remarks; Digest (Appendix
A); Nominations Submitted (Appendix B); Checklist (Appendix C)
Agriculture Department
Assistant Secretaries
Administration-256


Appointments and Nominations-Continued
Agriculture Department-Continued
Assistant Secretaries-Continued
Congressional Relations-256
Natural Resources and Environment-264
Deputy Secretary-256
General Counsel-264
Under Secretaries
International Affairs and Commodity Programs-256
Small Community and Rural Development264
AIDS Policy Coordinator-932
Air Force Department
General Counsel-1083
Secretary-992
Asian Development Bank, Executive Director-1072
Board for International Broadcasting, Chairman437
Commerce Department
Assistant Secretaries
Communications and Information-100
Import Administration-434
Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs-100
Oceans and Atmosphere-100
Deputy Secretary-23, 1046
General Counsel-964
National Institute of Standards and Technology,
Director-359
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Chief Scientist-359
Under Secretaries
Economic Affairs-256
International Trade-858
Oceans and Atmosphere-100
Technology-739
Corporation for Public Broadcasting, member-942
Council of Economic Advisers, members-359
Defense Department
Assistant Secretaries
Command, Control and Communications-404
Democracy and Human Rights-370
Nuclear Security and Counter-Proliferation429
Personnel and Readiness-370
Plans and Policy-370
Regional Security-369
Reserve Affairs-404
Strategy and Resources-369
Assistant to Secretary (Atomic Energy)-417
Comptroller-963
Defense Research and Engineering, Director370
Deputy Assistant Secretaries
Command, Control and Communications-434
Counterproliferation-963
Deputy Secretary-42
Deputy Under Secretaries
Acquisition-404, 1083
Environmental Security-404
General Counsel-215
Principal Deputy Comptroller-434
Program Analysis and Evaluation, Director-404
District of Columbia Superior Court, associate
judge-240


C-3




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993
Appointments and Nominations-Continued
Education Department
Assistant Secretaries
Civil Rights-247
Educational Research and Improvement-368
Elementary and Secondary Education-264
Intergovernmental and Interagency Affairs532
Legislation and Congressional Affairs-232
Postsecondary Education-368
Special Education and Rehabilitative Services264
Vocational and Adult Education-264
Chief Financial Officer-1223
General Counsel-446
Under Secretary-264
Energy Department
Assistant Secretaries
Congressional and Legislative Affairs-446
Defense Programs-614
Environment, Safety, and Health-446
Human Resources and Administration-483
Deputy Secretary-412
Energy Information Administration, Administrator-532
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Chair-422
Commissioners-422
Office Directors
Energy Research-1090
Intelligence and National Security-354
Minority Economic Impact-1090
Public Affairs-614
Environmental Protection Agency
Assistant Administrators
Administration and Resources Management1090
Air and Radiation-1090
Enforcement-232
Policy Planning and Evaluation-232
Research and Development Office-232
Solid Waste and Emergency Response-1090
Water-1090
Associate Administrator (Regional Operations and
State/Local Relations)-1090
Chief Financial Officer-1090
Deputy Administrator-232
General Counsel-1115
Export-Import Bank of the U.S., President and
Chairman-28
Federal Communications Commission, Chairman960
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Director-101
Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, Director-1083
General Services Administration
Administrator-368
Deputy Administrator-706
Health and Human Services Department
Civil Rights Office, Director —570
Deputy Assistant Secretaries
Legislation (Congressional Liaison)-354
Legislation (Health)-354


Appointments and Nominations-Continued
Health and Human Services DepartmentContinued
Deputy Assistant Secretaries-Continued
Planning and Evaluation-354
Food and Drug Administration, Associate Commissioner-354
Health Care Financing Administration, Administrator-247
Inspector General-384
Housing and Urban Development Department
Assistant Secretaries
Administration-359
Community Planning and Development-36
Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations-964
Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity-36
Federal Housing Commission-264
Policy Development and Research-256
Public Affairs-36
Chief Financial Officer-656
Deputy Secretary-36
Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight Office, Director-354
General Counsel-656
Inspector General-330
Interior Department
Assistant Secretary (Indian Affairs)-628
Associate Solicitor (Energy and Resources)-628
Deputy Assistant Secretary (Territorial and International Affairs)-412
Fish and Wildlife Service
Deputy Director-703
Director-703
National Park Service, Director-718
Justice Department
Assistant Attorneys General
Antitrust Division-536
Civil Division-536
Civil Rights Division-536
Environment and Natural Resources Division536
Legal Counsel Office-536
Legislative Affairs-536
Policy Development Office-536
Associate Attorney General-389
Attorney General-91
Deputy Attorney General-389
Federal Bureau of Investigation, Director-1115
Immigration and Naturalization Service, Commissioner-878
Solicitor General-389
U.S. Attorneys-1031
Labor Department
Assistant Secretaries
Employment and Training Administration-460
Employment Standards Administration-936
New American Workplace Office-1083
Occupational Safety and Health Administration-972
Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration460


C-4




Document Categories List


Appointments and Nominations-Continued
Labor Department-Continued
Assistant Secretaries-Continued
Policy-692
Public Affairs-692
Bureau of Labor Statistics, Commissioner-936
Deputy Secretary-144
Glass Ceiling Commission, Executive Director404
New American Workplace Office, Director-404
Wage and Hour Division, Administrator-404
Women's Bureau, Director-467
Merit Systems Protection Board, Chairman-549
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments,
White House Liaison-435
National Commission to Ensure a Strong Competitive Airline Industry, Chair and members-539
National Council on Disability, Chair and members-596
National Drug Control Policy Office, Director-527
National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities, National Endowment for the Humanities
Chair-429
General Counsel-429
National Labor Relations Board, member-941
National Railroad Passenger Corporation, Board of
Directors, members-739
National Science Foundation, Director-1073
National Transportation Safety Board, member713
Navy Department
Assistant Secretaries
Acquisition-971
Manpower and Reserve Affairs-971
General Counsel-527
Secretary-478
Office of Management and Budget
Deputy Director (Management)-144
Federal Procurement Policy Office, Administrator-1237
Information and Regulatory Affairs Office, Administrator-308
Office of Personnel Management
Deputy Director-412
Director-16
Office of Science and Technology Policy
Assistant Director (Environment)-821
Associate Director (Environment)-821
Office of the U.S. Trade Representative
Assistant U.S. Trade Representatives
Congressional Affairs-321
Intergovernmental Affairs and Public Liaison321
Public Affairs-321
Counselor-321
Deputy U.S. Trade Representatives-321
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade talks,
Uruguay Round Coordinator-417
General Counsel-321
Special Counsels
Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs321
Financial and Investment Policy-321


Appointments and Nominations-Continued
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, U.S. Representative-515
Peace Corps
Director-972
General Counsel-972
President's Commission on White House Fellowships, Chair and members-711
President's Council on Physical Fitness and Sports,
Cochairs-921
President's Task Force on National Health Care
Reform, Chair-13
Resolution Trust Corporation, Chief Executive Officer-1073
Securities and Exchange Commission, Chairman532
Senior Executive Service positions-925
Small Business Administration, Administrator-314
State Department
Ambassadors
Argentina-366
Armenia-313
Bosnia-Herzegovina-1261
Botswana-527
Bulgaria-839
Canada-764
Chad-554
Congo-527
Croatia-656
Cyprus-839
Ecuador-527
El Salvador-527
Eritrea-964
France-345
Gambia-527
Germany-964
Greece-964
Guatemala-313
Guinea-554
Holy See-483
Honduras-366
Iceland-882
Ireland-314
Israel-883
Italy-858
Jamaica-1238
Japan-837
Kenya-527
Lebanon-839
Mali-527
Mexico-803
Mongolia-931
Mozambique-527
Namibia-417
Nicaragua-366
Niger-527
Nigeria-1031
Peru-313
Russia-16
Rwanda-527


C-5




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993
Appointments and Nominations-Continued
State Department-Continued
Ambassadors-Continued
Senegal-313
Slovak Republic-1031
Slovenia-313
South Korea-993
Suriname-839
Swaziland-527
Uruguay-882
Venezuela-839
Zambia-740
Assistant Secretaries
Administration-232
Consular Affairs-232
Diplomatic Security-279
Economic and Business Affairs-330
Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs-232
Inter-American Affairs-232
International Environmental and Scientific Affairs-232
International Narcotics Matters-1072
International Organization Affairs-247
Legislative Affairs-232
Politico-Military Affairs-279
South Asian Affairs-570
Chief of Protocol-763
Deputy Assistant Secretary (Environment, Health,
and Natural Resources)-584
Deputy Chief of Protocol-763
Deputy Under Secretary (Global Affairs)-584
European Community, U.S. Representative1073
Foreign Missions Office, Director-247
Foreign Service, Director General and Director
of Personnel-279
Legal Adviser-247
Special Middle East Coordinator-883
START Joint Compliance and Inspection Commission, U.S. Representative-554
Under Secretary (Management)-692
Supreme Court of the U.S., Associate Justice-842
Tennessee Valley Authority, Board of Directors,
Chairman and members-596
Transportation Department
Assistant Secretaries
Budget and Programs-692
Governmental Affairs-1046
Transportation Policy-628
Associate Deputy Secretary-354
Deputy Secretary-321
Federal Aviation Administration, Administrator656
Federal Highway Administration
Administrator-354
Deputy Administrator-354
Federal Railroad Administration, Administrator422
Federal Transit Administration, Administrator692
General Counsel-334
Maritime Administration
Administrator-434


Appointments and Nominations-Continued
Transportation Department-Continued
Maritime Administration-Continued
Deputy Administrator-434
Public Affairs Office, Director-628
Treasury Department
Assistant Secretaries
Financial Institutions-671
Management-417
Tax Policy-144
Chief Financial Officer-417
Deputy Assistant Secretaries
Health-417
Public Affairs-417
Public Liaison-417
General Counsel-215
U.S. Customs Service, Commissioner-334
United Nations
Economic and Security Council, U.S. Representative-256
Special Political Affairs, U.S. Alternate Representative-256
U.S. Holocaust Memorial Council
Chair-717
Vice Chair-717
U.S. Information Agency
Deputy Director-561
Director-437
Inspector General-1091
U.S. International Development Cooperation Agency
Agency for International Development
Administrator-368
Assistant Administrators
Asia-1091
Food and Humanitarian Assistance-1091
Associate Administrator (Finance and Administration)-964
Deputy Administrator-971
Overseas Private Investment Corporation
Executive Vice President-434
President-369
Trade and Development Agency, Director-821
Veterans Affairs Department
Assistant Secretaries
Finance and Information Resources Management-330
Human Resources and Administration-308,
964
Policy and Planning-308
Public and Intergovernmental Affairs-308
National Cemetery System, Director-330
White House Commission on Presidential Scholars,
Chair and members-626
White House fellows-741
White House Office, Deputy Assistant to President
and Director of Environmental Policy Office62
Bill Signings
See also Digest (Appendix A); Checklist (Appendix
C)
Airline industry commission establishment legislation
Remarks-412
Statement-416


C-6




Document Categories List


Bil Signings-Continued
Emergency supplemental appropriations legislation,
statement-494
Emergency Unemployment Compensation Amendments of 1993
Remarks-237
Statement-239
Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993
Remarks-49
Statement-50
GATT negotiations, fast track procedures legislation,
statement-993
Government Printing Office Electronic Information
Access Enhancement Act of 1993, statement820
National Cooperative Production Amendments of
1993, remarks-833
National Institutes of Health Revitalization Act of
1993, remarks-834
National Voter Registration Act of 1993, remarks706
Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1993, statement-995
Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building designation legislation, statement-65
Communications to Congress
Aeronautics and space activities, message transmitting report-962
Albania, Mongolia, Romania, and certain states of
the former Soviet Union, trade with the U.S.,
letter-807
Atlantic tunas international conservation convention,
message transmitting protocol-466
Bosnia-Herzegovina, no-fly zone report, letter-429
Bulgaria, trade with the U.S.
Letter-808
Message transmitting report-1136
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, message transmitting report-569
Caribbean region, environmental convention, message transmitting protocol-466
Child immunization, message transmitting proposed
legislation-383
China, trade with the U.S.
Letter transmitting report-772
Report-772
Commodity Credit Corporation, messages transmitting reports-1137
Community development banking and finance, message transmitting proposed legislation-1087
Corporation for Public Broadcasting, message transmitting report-711
Cyprus conflict report, letter-476
District of Columbia, budget requests, message
transmitting-729
Economic stimulus package, letter-445
Ecuador, trade with the U.S., letter-428
Education goals, message transmitting proposed legislation-477


Communications to Congress-Continued
Export control regulations continuation report, message-524
Federal budget
National deficit adjustment, message-3
Rescissions and deferrals
Letter —811
Messages-215, 465
Federal Council on the Aging, message transmitting
report-820
Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, letter1045
Haiti, economic sanctions
Letter-1068
Message-961
Hazardous materials transportation, message transmitting report-404
Highway and motor vehicle safety, message transmitting reports-467
Illegal immigration, message transmitting proposed
legislation-1197
Iran, U.S. national emergency, message-669
Iraq
Compliance with United Nations Security Council
resolutions, letters-332, 715, 1166
U.S. national emergency, messages-110, 1135
U.S. strike on intelligence headquarters, letter940
Justice Department, action on trial of Representative Ford, letter-249
Latvia, fishery agreement with the U.S., message
transmitting-878
Libya, economic sanctions, letter-1066
Mauritania, trade with the U.S., letter-935
Mexico, taxation convention with the U.S., message
transmitting-710
Midwest flooding, emergency supplemental appropriations, letter transmitting requests-1082
Montreal protocol on ozone-depleting substances,
message transmitting amendment-1136
Narcotics producing and transit countries certification, letter-59
National Endowment for the Humanities, message
transmitting report-882
National service program and student loan reform,
message transmitting proposed legislation-574
Netherlands, taxation convention with the U.S.,
message transmitting-648
North Atlantic Treaty, letter transmitting report428
Nuclear cooperation with EURATOM, letter-263
Panama, Government assets held by the U.S., letter-475
Plastic explosives, convention on marking for purposes of detection, message transmitting-958
President's Task Force on National Health Care
Reform, letter-62
Railroad safety, message transmitting report-467
Romania, proclamation on trade agreement with the
U.S., letter transmitting-989


C-7




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993
Communications to Congress-Continued
Serbia and Montenegro
Economic sanctions, messages-514, 735
U.S. national emergency, message-734
Somalia, U.S. military operations, letters-836, 969
South Asia, nonproliferation, letter transmitting report-531
Soviet Union, former, treaty compliance, letter
transmitting report-656
Superconducting super collider, letter-864
U.S. Arctic research plan revision, message transmitting-1237
Communications to Federal Agencies
See also Presidential Documents Published in the
Federal Register (Appendix D)
Abortions in U.S. military hospitals, private funding,
memorandum-11
Agency for International Development (AID) family
planning grants/Mexico City policy, memorandum-10
Disaster assistance declarations
California, letter-41
Louisiana, letter-35
Washington, letter-239
Family planning clinics, Federal funding, memorandum-10
Federal employees, excused absences in disaster
areas, memorandum-1224
Fetal tissue transplantation research, memorandum-9
Fiscal responsibility and perquisites reduction,
memorandum-69
Government aircraft, restricted use, memorandum69
Government vehicles, use, memorandum-70
Regulatory review, memorandum-4
RU-486 importation, memorandum-11
Trade agreements, competitiveness concessions,
memorandum-787
U.S. Armed Forces, ending discrimination, memorandum-23
Interviews With the News Media
See also Addresses and Remarks
Exchanges with reporters
Arlington, VA-97
Atlanta, GA-325
Capitol-1088
Demilitarized Zone, South Korea-1060, 1061
Des Moines, IA-1074
En route to Baltimore, MD-403
Everett, WA-184
Frederick, MD-803, 805
Hope, AR-1169
Little Rock, AR-367
Manchester, NH-724
Milwaukee, WI-796
National Air and Space Museum-731
New Orleans, LA-543
Seoul, South Korea-1050, 1059
Tokyo, Japan-1030, 1031, 1043


Interviews With the News Media-Continued
Exchanges with reporters-Continued
Van Nuys, CA-700
Vancouver, Canada-391, 392
White House-7, 12, 13, 16-18, 40, 41, 43, 45,
52, 63, 67, 90, 100-102, 104, 107, 110, 113,
195, 202, 206, 230, 232, 236, 237, 241, 245,
255-257, 268, 277, 278, 303, 308, 309, 312, 314,
323, 345, 346, 355, 356, 359, 369, 370, 405,
412, 418, 435, 438, 454, 465, 474, 480, 512,
522, 527, 531, 532, 536, 552, 555, 566, 567,
581, 582, 590, 637, 652, 653, 668, 703, 704,
708, 713, 714, 728, 730, 733, 740, 741, 767,
776, 799, 802, 808, 818, 819, 832, 837, 846,
853, 859, 860, 863, 866, 867, 878, 880, 881,
910, 918, 921, 922, 926, 928, 929, 932, 939,
953, 960, 966, 969, 973, 1112, 1115, 1117,
1154, 1165, 1168, 1193, 1194, 1198, 1211,
1212, 1224
Interviews
Alabama media-1149
Arizona media-1238
Cable News Network, Des Moines, IA-1081
California media-296, 1244
CBS News-346, 760
Connecticut media-291
Foreign journalists-976, 983
Georgia media-1200
Indiana media, Chicago, IL-1186
KABC Radio of Los Angeles, CA-895
KDKA Radio, Pittsburgh, PA-448
KRLD Radio of Dallas, TX-900
Larry King-905, 1137
Louisiana media-1129
Nevada media-1227
New York and New Jersey media-1157
Russian journalists, Vancouver, Canada-401
Southern Florida media-287
Texas media-1215
WCBS Radio of New York City-902
WFAN Radio of New York City-628
WGEM Radio, Quincy, IL —1091
WHO Radio, Des Moines, IA-1075
Wisconsin media-1123
WJR Radio of Detroit, MI-898
WMAL Radio of Washington, DC-908
Joint news conferences
Argentina, President Menem-954
Canada
Prime Minister Campbell-1035
Prime Minister Mulroney-53
Egypt, President Mubarak-406
European Community, Commission President
Delors and Council President Rasmussen-591
France, President Mitterrand-257
Germany, Chancellor Kohl-360
Israel, Prime Minister Rabin-303
Italy, Prime Minister Ciampi-1027
Japan, Prime Minister Miyazawa-438, 1015
Russia, President Yeltsin-393, 1046
United Kingdom, Prime Minister Major-196
News conferences
No. 1 (January 29)-20


C-8




Document Categories List


Interviews With the News Media-Continued
News conferences-Continued
No. 2 (February 5)-53
No. 3 (February 11)-91
No. 4 (February 24)-196
No. 5 (March 9)-257
No. 6 (March 15)-303
No. 7 (March 23)-334
No. 8 (March 26)-360
No. 9 (April 4)-393
No. 10 (April 6)-406
No. 11 (April 16)-438
No. 12 (April 20)-461
No. 13 (April 23)-484
No. 14 (May 7)-591
No. 15 (May 14)-659
No. 16 (June 15)-847
No. 17 (June 17)-867
No. 18 (June 29)-954
No. 19 (July 6)-1015
No. 20 (July 7)-1027
No. 21 (July 9)-1035
No. 22 (July 9)-1037
No. 23 (July 10)-1046
Letters and Messages
See also Communications to Congress; Communications to Federal Agencies
Attorney General nominee, letter accepting withdrawal-5
Disaster assistance
California, letter to Governor-41
Louisiana, letter to Governor-36
Washington, letter to Governor-240
Independence Day, message-959
National African-American History Month, message-28
Television program violence warnings, letter to network executives-963
Meetings With Foreign Leaders and International
Officials
Albania, Prime Minister Meksi-1262
Argentina, President Menem-953, 954
Belarus, Chairman Shushkevich-1165
Bosnia-Herzegovina, President Izetbegovic-363
Bulgaria, President Zhelev-1262
Canada
Prime Minister Campbell-1035, 1266
Prime Minister Mulroney-52, 53, 799, 1261
Croatia, President Tudjman-1262
Cyprus, President Clerides-714
Czech Republic, President Havel-465, 1262
Egypt, President Mubarak-405, 406
European Community
Commission President Delors-590, 591, 1260
Council President Rasmussen-590, 591
France
President Mitterrand-257
Prime Minister Balladur-853
Germany
Chancellor Kohl-359, 360, 1260, 1266


Meetings With Foreign Leaders and International
Offici-Continued
Germany-Continued
Foreign Minister Kinkel-45
President von Weizsacker-728
Haiti, President Aristide-309, 1154, 1155
Hong Kong, Governor Patten-552
Hungary, President Goncz-1262
Indonesia, President Soeharto-1266
Ireland
President Robinson-668
Prime Minister Reynolds-314, 1260
Israel
President Herzog-1262
Prime Minister Rabin-303
Italy, Prime Minister Ciampi-1027
Emperor Akihito-1266
Foreign Minister Watanabe-90
Prime Minister Miyazawa-438, 1015, 1030,
1048, 1266
Jordan, King Hussein —880-882
Korea, South, President Kim-1050, 1057, 1266
Kyrgyzstan, President Akayev-713
Moldova, Prime Minister Sangheli-1262
Namibia, President Nujoma-859, 860
North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Secretary General Woerner-230
Poland, President Walesa-1262
Portugal, President Soares-1262
Romania, President Iliescu-1262
Russia
Foreign Minister Kozyrev-345
President Yeltsin-392, 393, 1046, 1261
Slovak Republic, President Kovac-1262
Slovenia, President Kucan-1262
South Africa
ANC President Mandela-991, 997
Archbishop Tutu-704
President de Klerk-991, 997
Spain, King Juan Carlos 1-1263
Tibet, the Dalai Lama-531
Turkey, President Ozal-63
Ukraine, Foreign Minister Zlenko-1260
United Kingdom, Prime Minister Major-195, 196,
1259, 1266
United Nations, Secretary-General Boutros-Ghali195
Resignations and Retirements
Supreme Court of the U.S., Associate Justice-323,
324
Statements by the President
See also Appointments and Nominations; Bill
Signings
Attorney General
Candidate withdrawal-60
Nomination withdrawal-5
Bosnia-Herzegovina
Airdrops —06
Prospects for peace-551


C-9




Administration of William J. Clinton, 1993
Statements by the President-Continued
Burma
Anniversary of the arrest of Aung San Suu Kyi1135
Human rights situation-705
Campaign finance reform legislation-865, 877
Canada, resignation of Prime Minister Mulroney202
China, trade with the U.S.-770
Credit availability-931
Deaths
Ashe, Arthur-61
Chavez, Cesar-494
Connally, John-856
Foster, Vincent, Jr.-1148
Gunn, David-278
Henry, Paul B.-1255
Lippert, Patrick-1083
Marines, in helicopter crash-711
Marshall, Thurgood-12
Nixon, Patricia Ryan-920
Ozal, Turgut, President of Turkey-453
Premadasa, Ranasinghe, President of Sri Lanka551
Ridgway, Matthew-1211
Sabin, Albert-235
Slayton, Donald (Deke)-847
Wilson, John-706
Economic program, Senate action-931
Federal contracting, revocation of Executive orders-27
Florida, disaster assistance-302
Forest Conference, announcement-269
Germany, reduction of interest rates-971
Haiti, economic sanctions-810
International broadcasting programs-857
Joint production venture legislation-278
Korea, North, nuclear nonproliferation talks-839
Los Angeles mayoral race endorsement-673
March for Lesbian, Gay, and Bi Equal Rights510
Middle East, Secretary of State's trip-44


Statements by the President-Continued
Midwest flooding-959
National Commission to Ensure a Strong Competitive Airline Industry-539
National service legislation-865, 1223, 1251
Russia and other new independent states, relations
with the U.S.-493
Space station program-876
Supreme Court of the U.S., retirement of Associate
Justice-324
Surgeon-General nominee-1250
U.S.-Mexico Binational Commission meeting-912
Vietnam, U.S. policy-990
Voting Rights Act of 1965-877
Waco, TX, tragedy-459
Statements Other Than Presidential
See also Announcements
Belarus, meeting with Chairman Shushkevich-1165
Guatemala, suspension of constitutional rights-739
Haiti
Meeting with President Aristide-1155
U.S. assistance-972
U.S. refugee policy and human rights initiatives231
Jordan, meeting with King Hussein-882
Kyrgyzstan, meeting with President Akayev-713
North Atlantic Treaty Organization, meeting with
Secretary General Woerner-230
Presidential Medal of Freedom, posthumous award
to Arthur Ashe-921
President's Task Force on National Health Care
Reform-812, 920
Russia, telephone conversation with President
Yeltsin-941
South Africa, meetings with leaders-991
Technology initiative-178
Tibet, meeting with the Dalai Lama-531
United Nations, meeting with Secretary-General
Boutros-Ghali-195


C-10








DATE DUE
UPI 261-2505 G                    PRINTED IN U.S.A.








BATES COLLEGE LIBRARY
3 5033 00277 5443