    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: William J. Clinton (1993, Book I)]
    [July 15, 1993]
    [Pages 1088-1090]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    Remarks and an Exchange With Reporters Following a Meeting With
    Congressional Leaders
    July 15, 1993

        The President. I wanted to just make a brief opening statement and
    then take a couple of questions. I had the opportunity today to brief
    the bipartisan leadership group in Congress about the trip to Japan and
    Korea in terms of what was achieved at the G-7 meeting and what was
    achieved in the new breakthrough on our trade relations with Japan and
    the national security issues, reaffirming America's role as a Pacific
    power and our commitment to the security of Japan, Korea, and our other
    allies in the region.
        I have just come from a bipartisan meeting of House Members and
    Senators from the States affected by the floods. And I was grateful to
    see the committee leaders there, even though many were from States not
    affected by the flood. I think it's fair to say that based on the
    leadership luncheon, or meeting, and the meeting I just came from, that
    there is a bipartisan commitment in the Congress to aggressively push
    the flood relief package. And for that I am grateful to Senator Mitchell
    and to Senator Dole and to the Speaker and Mr. Gephardt and Mr. Michel
    and the others. I think there's a real feeling that this is something we
    ought to do together as a nation. And I appreciate that.
        I want to reiterate that we will be aggressively working in the next
    few days with the Governors and the others in the respective States to
    work through the practical problems, as well as to get the most up-to-
    date damage estimates in the event that the bill moving through the
    Congress needs to be modified in its appropriations amounts.
        If there are any questions, I'd be glad to take them.

    Disaster Assistance

        Q. Mr. President, you've asked Congress for $2.5 billion in disaster
    relief. And yesterday the Director of FEMA and others have put that
    figure--[inaudible].
        The President. First of all, let me emphasize a couple of things.
    The Federal Government does not reimburse 100 percent of the losses of
    these programs. Some of that has to be done from private sources; some
    of it has to be done from local match. Secondly, the ongoing budgets of
    many of these Departments, the Agriculture Department, for example, and
    FEMA, for another, contain funds which will be in the ordinary course of
    business directed to the area where it's most needed. So some of the
    ongoing budget will take care of this.
        Now, in answer to your specific question, I have consulted with the
    leadership about that. The 1990 budget bill plainly concede of genuine
    emergencies being funded outside the budgetary process. And I think it's
    almost universally acknowledged now that even though we don't have the
    specific figure, this year's deficit will be quite a bit lower than it
    was estimated to be in January because we're working so hard at reducing
    the deficit that interest rates are down and therefore the cost of
    servicing our debt is down. So I think we can handle this.
        I have heard the general principle advanced, it would be nice if we
    paid for it all with offsets, but I haven't seen any specific
    suggestions. And in the absence of those, I think we should just take
    the '90 law and proceed as is. If Senator Mitchell or the Speaker or Mr.
    Gephardt or anyone else has a different idea, of course, I'd be glad to
    hear it. The most important thing is that we get the aid out to those
    folks as quickly as possible.

    Economic Program

        Q. [Inaudible]--and what advice are you giving to the leaders about
    how to resolve the----
        The President. What was that last question?
        Q. What advice are you giving to the leader-

    [[Page 1089]]

    ship about----
        The President. Well, first of all, there is a general consensus that
    we ought to make this the biggest deficit reduction package the
    country's had, and that means hard numbers and good figures. The number
    that was adopted in 1990, I think, is now generally conceded was not as
    firm as it might have been. And also there was a big economic slowdown,
    and the health care cost increases were greater than originally thought.
    But I think this is going to be a more solid plan.
        How it's resolved is something that the conference will have to work
    out. I'm going to be giving them some advice, but it won't be
    inconsistent with what I've said before. I want a very progressive plan.
    I want the deficit reduction. I want people who can afford to pay, whose
    taxes went down in the eighties, to pay their fair share now. I very
    much want some of the incentives in this plan that were in the House
    bill. I hope some of them can be put back in the Senate bill. I think
    that it's important that people who work 40 hours a week and have
    children in the home be able to be lifted out of poverty rather than
    taxed into it. I think it is very important that we have incentives to
    grow the high-technology sector of our economy, that's the R&D and the
    new venture capital-gains tax that Senator Bumpers has long championed,
    along with others. There are several things in there. The empowerment
    zone issue is very important to me. It goes very closely with the
    community development bank proposal we made today to generate jobs and
    growth.
        Keep in mind the ultimate purpose of deficit reduction is to improve
    the economy by getting interest rates down, freeing up tax funds that we
    would otherwise have to spend on serving the debt, and improving the
    climate for new jobs. It's also clear that we have to have some
    investment incentives. People have to take this money that we're going
    to save through reducing the deficit, turn around and invest it in the
    economy. And if you raise tax rates on upper income people and then you
    provide only a very targeted way to in effect lower their tax burden by
    having them create jobs, then you win either way, because either way you
    reduce the deficit and you improve the economy. That's what we're going
    to try to do.
        Q.  [Inaudible]--part of the reason you supported obviously is for
    the--[inaudible]. You haven't talked very much about other reasons why
    you might want--[inaudible]. What are the other reasons----
        The President. Well, I think it's sound policy. We have the world's
    lowest energy levies. And we're trying to promote conservation and a
    pure and cleaner environment, which is the reason we proposed it in the
    first place. But it was proposed, obviously, to help close the gap to
    meet our deficit reduction targets also. And the conferees know how I
    feel about it.
        But the number one thing is we have got to produce a growing
    economy. And the deficit reduction package is absolutely critical to
    that. Let me back up and say this is the first time in 10 years plus,
    the first time since 1981 an American President has gone to a meeting of
    the world's seven great industrial powers and not been criticized
    because of the American budget deficit. This time the statement
    complimented the United States for taking aggressive action to bring
    down the deficit and acknowledged the responsibility of other nations to
    try to help us grow the global economy. That would not have happened if
    the House and the Senate hadn't passed versions of this deficit
    reduction package.
        And that is the central message out there. People think, who have
    observed things for years, that we are doing something serious to change
    the climate in Washington, to improve the economy, and to move us off
    dead center. I don't want to say too much to prejudge the enormously
    difficult work the conferees have to do to reconcile the differences
    between the Senate and the House version. I want to see how they can do.
    And I will give them my advice, but I think the more, right now, they
    can be left free to do their work and consult with me, the better off
    we'll be.

    Disaster Assistance

        Q. Mr. President, a followup on both the numbers. On the flood bill,
    you all sent up a package of $2.5 billion but concede it will go much
    higher. Now, the new numbers are $5 billion, as high as $10 billion. Are
    you all working with a new number?
        The President. Those numbers are numbers for estimated aggregate
    damage in the area. Let me say again, point one, the Federal Government
    has never compensated natural disasters a dollar-for-dollar for every
    kind of disaster loss. There are some personal losses, for example, that
    you can only have low-interest loans for,

    [[Page 1090]]

    the actual out-of-pocket costs of which are less than the loan. There
    are other costs that have to be matched by State and local government,
    although the Federal Government has the power under certain extreme
    circumstances to waive some or all of it. There are other losses that
    simply aren't covered by any Federal law. So there is a big distinction
    to be drawn between the aggregate loss and what is normally compensable
    by our Federal programs. The second thing I want to emphasize in this,
    that some of these losses can be covered by the ongoing programs in the
    Federal Government. And I guess I should add a final point, which is
    that we won't know the total dimensions of the Federal--excuse me, the
    agricultural losses, until very near the beginning of the next fiscal
    year. So some of them may come in the next fiscal year as well.
        Thank you very much.

    Note: The President spoke at 5:20 p.m. at the Capitol. A tape was not
    available for verification of the content of these remarks.