    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: William J. Clinton (1993, Book I)]
    [July 22, 1993]
    [Pages 1157-1163]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    Interview With the New York and New Jersey Media
    July 22, 1993

        The President. Thank you very much, Mr. Vice President.
        I'm sorry we are a little bit late. We had an unavoidable problem
    come up in the office a few minutes ago that we had to deal with. But I
    do want to echo a couple of things the Vice President said and make one
    or two specific points.
        On Tuesday, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, Alan
    Greenspan, appeared before the House Banking Committee. And in his
    testimony he said the most important thing we could do would be to
    urgently pass this plan for deficit reduction because there's no
    question that it is the primary thing driving down long-term interest
    rates and that the economy could absorb $500 billion in deficit
    reduction. And that plus trying to do something about the ever-
    increasing costs of health care to the Government budget and to the
    American people generally were two things which could give us a very
    vibrant economy. And I think he used the phrase, something like we could
    have more prosperity than we'd had in decades.
        But I just want to emphasize that when you get outside of the
    political arena and you analyze this thing, there are Republicans as
    well as Democrats; there are small-, medium-, and large-sized
    businesses. Yesterday I had lunch with a significant number of small
    business people from around America, because most of the vocal support
    we had gotten for the economic plan had come from bigger businesses. And
    they were supporting the plan because of the capital gains incentives
    for investment in new businesses, enterprises that are capitalized at
    $50 million a year or less. They were supporting it because of the
    emphasis on research and de-

    [[Page 1158]]

    velopment. They were supporting it because, frankly, over 90 percent of
    the small businesses in the country are in a position to get a tax cut
    under this bill with the expensing provisions, which says that if you
    invest more you pay less tax. They pay no income tax increase, and they
    can reduce their tax burden if they invest more. Now, you never get any
    of that in the rhetoric of our opponent, but that is the fact.
        Let me make one other point. There's a lot of talk about spending
    cuts and people saying, well, there ought to be more spending cuts.
    Well, there are 200 specific spending cuts in this program, over 100 of
    them in excess of $100 million apiece. And when the Senate Finance
    Committee took up this economic plan and dealt with the spending cuts
    that were on the table, the Republicans on the committee did not offer
    one single spending cut in addition to the ones that we had put on the
    table. Not one, not one red cent. So it is very easy to talk in general
    terms about cutting spending and capping this and ``We'll figure out
    something else later,'' and quite another thing to say, ``This is where
    we're going to cut the spending.'' And that's what we have done. And
    therefore, I think we put together a good and balanced plan.
        I'm encouraged by the progress of the conference so far. There are
    still some difficult issues ahead and a lot of vote-getting to do, but
    the main thing is we have to resolve the uncertainty, keep the interest
    rates down, bring the deficit down, and get this economy moving again.
        And that's why we're doing a whole series of these, and I'm glad to
    have so many of you from New York and New Jersey here. And if you have
    questions, I'll try to answer them.

    Economic Program

        Q. This scenario, as we heard today, to paint the picture of not
    passing this an economic catastrophe, is that your strategy for the next
    couple of critical days or critical weeks?
        The President. No, I think we are going to pass it. But I think that
    if you look--there was an article in either the Times or the Wall Street
    Journal today, I can't remember which, which said there was a little
    bump up in the long-term interest rates yesterday because the bond
    markets, the people who set these interest rates were afraid that maybe
    the Congress wasn't serious. I think they are serious. I think they will
    pass it. There is not a serious alternative. And there is no question
    that the failure to pass the budget would be a destabilizing effect on
    the economy. It would lead to an increase in long-term interest rates,
    there's no question about that. But I'm not trying to talk in terms of
    Armageddon. I want the Congress to do something that will move the
    country forward, that'll get energy back in.
        I feel, frankly, quite good about what's happening. These are tough
    decisions. You know, the easy decisions had all been made by the time we
    got here. Anybody can write you a check and run the deficit up. It's
    quite another thing to try to have a disciplined plan to cut spending,
    increase revenues in a very fair way, and have a very targeted increase
    in investments in areas that will generate jobs. That's a much tougher
    thing to do.
        Q. In our briefings today we were led to believe that you are moving
    towards the Senate version of this plan. Is that accurate?
        The President. No, not quite. I think what is fair to say is, I
    think that any energy tax that comes out will be closer to the Senate
    version, not only in form but in dollars. It will be closer to the
    Senate version. But the House version has a lot of very important
    economic initiatives in it and one very important pro-work, pro-family
    provision that I believe should be in the final bill. And if I might,
    I'd like to just mention them very quickly, the things in the House bill
    which I believe should be either in the final bill, or the final bill
    should be more like the House bill than the Senate bill.
        Number one, both bills dramatically increase the earned-income tax
    credit, which is, in effect, a tax reduction for people of middle
    incomes and lower incomes who work and therefore earn income and pay
    income taxes. It was appropriate for the Senate to lower the earned-
    income tax credit a little bit, because the energy tax was lower and it
    was really designed to make sure that nobody with a family income of
    $30,000 a year or less would pay any new taxes under this program. But
    the other major thing is that we want to be able to say that anybody who
    works 40 hours a week and has children in the home will not be in
    poverty after this plan passes, that we're going to reward work, we're
    going to encourage people to get off welfare. And the way it starts is
    by saying if you do work 40 hours a week, if you have a child in the
    house, you won't be in poverty. Let me give you an idea of why that's so
    significant.

    [[Page 1159]]

    Eighteen percent of the American people in the work force today are
    living below the Federal poverty line. So I want some adjustment in the
    number that came out of the Senate so we'll be able to achieve that
    goal.
        The second thing is, I think the House bill had a lot of economic
    incentives that ought to be in there. By the way, the ones I mentioned,
    you shouldn't infer from that that anything I forget to mention, I don't
    care about whether it gets in. I can't remember every issue, but let me
    just give you a few. I'm confident that the conference report will
    include the new business, small business capital gains tax. It's been
    pioneered by the chairman of the Senate Small Business Committee,
    Senator Bumpers, from my home State, and others. It is not particularly
    expensive, but it gives a very significant incentive for people to
    invest in enterprises capitalized at less than $50 million a year. I
    think they will take the surcharge off capital gains, which I hope will
    be done. I think they will do more on the research and development tax
    credit and more to revitalize the real estate markets than the Senate
    bill does. I think all those changes will come in, and I think that will
    give more of a pro-growth, pro-investment, pro-business, and pro-jobs
    shape to the final bill.
        After all, keep in mind, the way the bill was structured was not
    simply to impose virtually all of the taxes on people with incomes above
    very high levels--now, the bill will clearly have 70 percent or more of
    the tax burden on people with incomes above $200,000--the bill also was
    designed to say to those people, ``But you can ease that tax burden if,
    but only if, you turn around and invest in job-generating activities in
    the American economy.''
        Yes, sir. You had a question back there.

    Energy Tax

        Q. There's a report out this morning from the Heritage Foundation
    that says the gas tax would affect eight or so States, in particular,
    New Jersey among the hardest. There are other statistics that a Senator
    like Frank Lautenberg looks at and says----
        The President. How could the gas tax affect New Jersey hardest? It's
    the most densely populated State in the country.
        Q. If you drive between Philadelphia and New York, I guess.
        The President. More single-car commuters?
        Q. I haven't seen the report myself. But at any rate, Senator
    Lautenberg takes this and says that this plan is a bad deal for New
    Jersey. Is there any response that you have to that?
        The President. Yes, I do have a response to that. Let me say, first
    of all, Senator Lautenberg's position is premised on two arguments. One
    is that New Jersey has a high per capita income. The second is that New
    Jersey gets a low per capita return in Federal aid. But the point I want
    to make to you is that those two things are inextricably related. That
    is, if New Jersey is the second highest State in the country in per
    capita income, obviously you will pay more taxes to the Federal
    Government, and you will get less Federal money in the income-based
    programs. Keep in mind, an awful lot of Federal money is spent on Social
    Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, and a lot of other things
    that are tied to income. So the richer you are, the lower you're going
    to be on the Federal payroll unless you happen to have a huge defense
    establishment. And even that, of course, is now ratcheting down.
        But look at it the other way. New Jersey also has a lot of high-tech
    companies, a lot of entrepreneurs, a lot of people who are trying to
    make the future. Frank Lautenberg himself created a high-tech company
    and became a very successful person financially by creating a company
    with an idea and with technology. This is the most protechnology
    economic plan I think our country has ever adopted. We just had a press
    conference out here this morning with people in the communications
    industry on the plan that's in this economic program to auction 200
    megahertz of communications in the spectrum, to open that up to
    commercial development. It's going to generate $7 billion to reduce the
    deficit and create up to 300,000 jobs in the next 10 years. The new
    business capital gains tax, the expensing provision for small business,
    more on research and development, the probusiness, pro-job growth
    aspects of this program, I think, have been largely lost. And to the
    extent that New Jersey has a better economic infrastructure than other
    places and an artificially high unemployment rate--both of which are
    true now, right?--historically low unemployment now high, strong
    economic infrastructure, New Jersey should do quite well from these
    economic incentives.
        So I don't believe in terms of private sector job growth that the
    State will be hurt. But I understand the force of his argument, and I

    [[Page 1160]]

    understand that it has a lot of appeal to voters, too, the first time
    they hear it.

    Drug Policy Director

        Q. Mr. Clinton, I wonder whether we could move to another subject on
    the minds of a great deal of New Yorkers just for a moment.
        The President. We'll answer any questions. Let's let the plane go
    over. Thank you.
        Q. That's best for us because we're television.
        The State report on the Crown Heights riots was released earlier
    this week, which greatly criticized the performance of your now drug
    czar, Lee Brown. And we were wondering, first, whether you were worried
    that it may have damaged his credibility as drug czar. And also, as a
    secondary question, I was wondering what your general feelings are on
    the issue of the riots in New York and whether you might be paying a
    visit to perhaps help your embattled friend, Mayor Dinkins, there.
        The President. Well, I haven't had any conversations about that
    issue one way or the other. I'll tell you about the Lee Brown issue. The
    report obviously came in an extended period of time after the riots
    themselves occurred. And I have not read it or reviewed it. I know
    generally what its conclusions were. If you read it in the light most
    unfavorable to Lee Brown, in other words if you say, ``Well, they said
    that he didn't do a good job managing a riot with a police force,'' that
    wouldn't be the first police chief about whom you could say that. And it
    would do absolutely nothing to undermine the irrefutable facts that he
    did a good job as police chief in Atlanta and Houston and in New York
    and that because of the intense and increased neighborhood policing
    systems that were inaugurated during his tenure, the statistics show
    that there was a drop in crime in many major categories for the first
    time in more than three decades during the time that he served. So I
    think, on balance, the people of New York were still much better off
    having had him as police chief, even if you read the report in the light
    most unfavorable to him. Whether the report is accurate or not, I just
    have no way of knowing.
        Yes, sir.

    Energy Tax

        Q. Two questions, if you will, back on the economic subject. One is,
    by saying a moment ago that you think that any energy tax that comes out
    of this conference will be closer to a Senate version, are you saying
    that you're now ready to accept a gasoline tax?
        The President. I'm saying just exactly what I said. I think that the
    dollar value and perhaps the form, but certainly the dollar value, of
    the tax that comes out of that conference will, I believe, be closer to
    the Senate version. And I think it should be now, because we've got some
    more spending cuts that we've put into the bill.
        Yes, go ahead.

    Terrorism in the U.S.

        Q. The World Trade Center bombing brought a lot of attention to our
    political asylum laws. That was several months back. Since then there's
    been a lot of speeches made. But still, if someone arrives at JFK this
    afternoon, the situation is the same. What can you say to the people of
    the metropolitan area that are worried about this?
        The President. That they are right to be worried. We need to change.
    And just in the next few days we will have an announcement on that.
    We've had some people working on it for several weeks now. When I went
    to the G-7 summit in Tokyo, I asked the Vice President to try to
    coordinate their efforts a little better to make sure that we speeded up
    the process. And we'll have an announcement on that quite soon. That was
    a very good--it's very important.
        I'll take a couple more. Go ahead, and then we'll do a couple more.

    Campaign Promises

        Q. Mr. President, one of the issues that's come up with gays in the
    military resolution and on this issue of the gas tax or Btu tax is when
    is a compromise appropriate and prudent? When is it a broken promise?
    And I'm curious to hear you talk a little bit about, in terms of judging
    your Presidency, should it be judged anymore on ``Putting People First''
    and on all 232 pages there, what you fulfilled? When is a compromise, in
    your mind, on those issues legitimate? When is it a broken promise? And
    how does one judge a Presidency like your own?
        The President. Well, the only commitment that I have myself
    abandoned on my own initiative was the one that I went before the
    American people and told them about on February 17th, and that was the
    commitment not to have any sort of tax burden on the middle class.

    [[Page 1161]]

    We're now down to about $50 a year. And I explained to the American
    people why I did that: because the deficit was written up so much bigger
    after I got elected, and because I thought it was important to get the
    deficit down, and I thought they'd be better off over the long run, and
    that I still believe that the tax system ought to be changed to be more
    fair to middle class families, especially those with children, and I had
    a 4-year term to try to get it done. And I think when a President has to
    break a campaign commitment, the best way to do it is to go before the
    American people and say, ``Here's what I had to do and why.''
        Now, we also, frankly, clearly delayed what I said I would do on
    immigration of Haitians. And I've already explained why on that. But we
    are working through this whole immigration policy in a way that I think
    will allow us to return to the policy I advocated in the campaign.
        When you compromise, I think the question is almost always: What are
    your alternatives, and are the people you're trying to help and the
    objectives you're seeking to further better off? I can hardly add
    anything to what Barney Frank said in his op-ed piece on the gays in the
    military, for example, in the Washington Post, I mean, the idea that no
    President in the history of this country has ever tried to take on this
    issue, no candidate running for President had ever really spoken to the
    issue before I did. I don't ask for any kudos for that, that's just a
    fact. I think the consciousness of the American people is different and
    broader as a result, and I think that the question of the compromise
    here is a pretty clear one.
        If you look at it in words, the compromise is more restrictive than
    what I wanted and what I would like to do today. I think people ought to
    be able to say they're gay and serve and obey all the rules. But I
    couldn't get that past the Joint Chiefs, who are bound to follow my
    orders, but they're also bound by law to tell the Congress the truth
    about what they think when asked by Congress. That's also the law of the
    land, and that would have led to a certain reversal of the policy by the
    Congress. Everyone who lives in this town knows that. So--let me
    finish--on the other hand, as a practical matter, the Joint Chiefs and
    the Secretary of Defense, working together and then with me, agreed to
    provide much more practical protection for the privacy and associational
    rights of all members of the armed services, without regard to their
    sexual orientation, than existed before in ways that will clearly
    advance the cause that we all know is a fact: that there are homosexuals
    who serve in the Armed Forces with great distinction.
        So the question is: Was it a good compromise or an abandonment of
    principle? Should I have made everybody feel better for a day and then
    watch their hopes dashed and see Congress maybe even return to the
    status quo ante, which was--the first battle we won on that was getting
    the Joint Chiefs to stop asking at the beginning of the year. Is it
    better off? I have nothing to add to what Barney Frank said. I think
    that it was an honorable compromise by honorable people, and we did the
    best we could.
        And on the economic plan, what I said about that in the campaign,
    and the only thing I ever said about that with regard to the gas tax,
    was that I thought raising the gas tax a nickel a year in a 5-year
    budget plan was too much. And I still believe that. The gas tax now
    being debated is a lower tax on fuel than the Btu tax which passed the
    House. It is a lower tax on fuel than the Btu tax that passed the House.
    Therefore, there is nothing dishonorable or dishonest about what would
    happen.
        I think if you look at what this administration has done--we've
    taken on the deficit; we're taking on health care; we're taking on
    welfare reform. We're about to get national service, being debated in
    both Houses today. We passed a campaign finance reform bill, a lobby
    bill, and the line-item veto, all things I advocated, through one of the
    two Houses of Congress. If you go back to the last several years, it
    would be hard to find a 6-month period early in a Presidency in which
    more had been done on more issues to fulfill the specific commitments I
    made in the campaign and to actually get things done that will change
    the lives of the American people.
        So I think it is indeed a strange measure of the progress of our
    administration that these negative comments would come out. I mean, my
    predecessor had been Vice President for 8 years and didn't announce a
    foreign policy until August. You know, I got out here, and I got up here
    every day and went to work, and that's what I'm going to keep doing. But
    anyway, that would be my distinction between those two things.

    [[Page 1162]]

    Business Entertainment Deduction

        Q. Some may think the business reduction tax is elitist. But in New
    York City, that is the heart and soul of New York. Some analysts say
    that over 1,000 jobs may be lost, and these are middle class jobs.
        The President. The business entertainment tax, you mean?
        Q. Yes. And these are middle class jobs.
        The President. Absolutely they are.
        Q. Busboys, dishwashers, waiters. How can you do something in such a
    town that really needs this? We're in the middle of a recession in New
    York. We're not slipping into one; we are in a recession.
        The President. First of all, New York needs a lot of things. And my
    own judgment is--not just New York, New Jersey, Arkansas, you name it.
    California is in terrible shape. We've got a lot of things to do in this
    country.
        My response would be twofold. Number one, I think that New York will
    gain far more from a stable, credible deficit reduction plan and the
    other business incentives that we are putting into the law than you will
    lose by a restriction on the entertainment deduction. Number two, when
    the entertainment deduction was reduced before from 100 to 80 percent,
    the same claims were made against the reduction. And afterward a study
    concluded there was no loss of jobs. I believe the American people will
    continue to travel, and I believe more and more American people will
    continue to eat out as more families have two income earners and work
    longer hours. I think there are large social forces at work here which
    make it highly unlikely that a job loss will occur.
        Yes, sir.

    Deficit Reduction

        Q. Chairman Greenspan the other day said that $500 billion of
    deficit reduction was about the right size as a first installment, that
    you have to revisit this issue. Do you expect to be proposing another
    deficit reduction plan of this magnitude in your first term here?
        The President. Well, I think that we will point the way toward
    eliminating it altogether. And let me explain what I mean by that.
    Chairman Greenspan and I have discussed this at great length, and we
    discussed whether there was an analogy here to what Japan did from the
    mid-seventies to the mid-eighties when they had a comparable operating
    deficit to ours. And they took it down to zero and actually began to run
    a surplus. But they took, as I recall, somewhere between 9 and 11 years
    to do it. I can't remember exactly. But I saw a chart in one of the
    papers here represented, I just can't remember which one, which showed
    how long they took.
        I believe that in order to move the deficit down beyond where it is
    now, if you look at it, it's clear what you have to do. You have to pass
    a health reform plan that brings health care costs in line with
    inflation plus population growth. That's what you have to do. If you go
    back and look at this budget, if you look at discretionary domestic
    spending, it's flat for 5 years now. That is, everything we increase in
    education, in technology, in defense conversion, we cut in some other
    area. Defense goes down. The only thing that's really going up in this
    budget besides cost-of-living increases for Social Security and much
    more modest pay increases for military and civilian employees, is a 9
    percent increase in health care costs, which is down from the projected
    12 percent per year increase in the budget before I took office. So
    Greenspan is right. If you want to get this deficit down, the next thing
    is to bring health care costs down to inflation plus population.
        The other point I would make is there is the chance that this
    deficit reduction will be greater than we think because of lower
    interest rates, if we can keep them down long and if we can have good
    economic growth. I noticed the other day in an article in the
    Philadelphia Inquirer, a lot of budget analysts were interviewed on the
    validity of this plan, and the one for Price Waterhouse said that this
    was the most honest budget plan presented to the Congress in more than a
    decade, and the only thing I might be off on is it might well produce
    more deficit reduction. So we just don't know.

    Deputy Counsel Vincent Foster,  Jr.

        Q. Can we just ask you about Mr. Foster? Is there anything more----
        The President. No.
        Q. Have you learned anything at all?
        The President. No, and I don't think there is anything more to know.
    His family, his friends, his coworkers, we've been up real late two
    nights in a row now, remembering and crying and laughing and talking
    about him. I don't think there is anything else.

    [[Page 1163]]

    Note: The President spoke at 3:54 p.m. in the East Garden at the White
    House. He was introduced by the Vice President.