    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: William J. Clinton (1993, Book I)]
    [May 17, 1993]
    [Pages 680-692]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    Remarks at a Town Meeting in San Diego
    May 17, 1993

        Moderator. Mr. President, these are the people of San Diego. We've
    got a lot of people out there watching right now that want to hear what
    you're talking about, and we have a lot of folks here in the studios who
    want to ask you questions directly.
        The President. May I say one word before we start? First I want to
    thank all of you for being here and to say I think this is probably the
    second town meeting I've done like this since I have been President, but
    I want to start scheduling them on a more regular basis now. I'd like
    just to take a couple of minutes by way of opening statements.
        Since I became your President, I have spent most of my time working
    on two things, the economy and the health care issue. We have worked
    very hard to present a budget to the Congress and the American people
    that would do two things, that would decrease the Government's deficit,
    which is very large as all of you know, and that would provide some
    targeted money for increases in areas that are very much needed here in
    southern California, in education and training and new technology,
    primarily. We also have developed a new policy on defense conversion to
    try to help provide jobs in areas hit by defense cutbacks, on making the
    most of our technology in America, and trying to get more jobs from
    technology. I presented a bill to the Congress, as I pledged in the
    campaign, to provide for a national service program to open the doors of
    college education to all Americans. And we will soon present our health
    care plan to control the cost of health care and provide basic health
    care to all Americans.
        That has been the basic agenda. There are lots of controversies in
    all these things, and I know you'll ask the questions, but I hope we'll
    get a chance to talk about what's in the budget and how I proposed a
    deficit trust fund so that we can't raise any taxes unless we also cut
    spending. I think that's very important. But I want to answer your
    questions and spend most of the time talking about what you want to talk
    about. I just wanted you to know what I've been doing for the last 4
    months.

    Middle Class Tax Cut

        Q. First, President Clinton, let me thank you for giving the
    opportunity for common folks like us to ask the President of the United
    States a question in person. It's an honor and a privilege, thank you.
        President Clinton, I believe that you were elected largely on the
    basis of your promise of a middle class tax cut. But for the last 90
    days or so, we've seen both you and the Congress transforming that
    promised middle class tax cut into an unprecedented round of more taxes
    and new spending. Our county has been in a deepening recession for the
    last 3 years. There's no end in sight, and a malaise is beginning to set
    in our county, like the Carter era. Please understand, Mr. President,
    San Diegans just don't have any more money to contribute to the coffers
    of Government. My question is, can you name one country that has ever
    taxed and spent itself back into prosperity? Thank you.
        The President. The answer to your question is, I can't. But you
    can't fairly characterize my program as that. I have cut more spending
    than my predecessor did. My budget calls for $250 billion-plus in
    spending cuts net. The first thing I did was cut the White House staff
    by 25 percent, even though I've already received more mail in 3\1/2\
    months than came to the White House in all of 1992. If any of you have
    written me and I haven't answered, that's why. [Laughter] I cut the
    administrative expenses of the Federal Government 14 percent across-the-
    board. I froze Federal employee pay in the first year and cut back their
    raises for 4 years. There have been massive spending cuts in this
    budget. So that's just a big myth that there hasn't been. I also worked
    hard to pass a budget resolution that would make it clear that we
    couldn't raise any taxes unless we cut spending.
        Now, let me address the middle class tax cut

    [[Page 681]]

    specifically. Number one, after the election, after the election, the
    previous administration announced that the Government deficit was going
    to be $50 billion a year bigger in 3 of the next 4 years, a year, after
    the election. Therefore, I concluded that I could not in good conscience
    give anybody an across-the-board tax cut in the first year of my
    Presidency. I still think there should be an evening-up of the tax
    burden.
        Secondly, it became clear to me that the best thing I could do for
    the middle class was to bring interest rates down and to try to get
    control of our budget. So I proposed a plan of budget cuts first and tax
    increases that are highly progressive. And let me just mention a couple
    of things that you may not know, having heard the press about the tax
    program I presented to the Congress. While it does raise about $250
    billion over a 5-year period, it also provides significant relief to
    small business. Expensing provisions in the Tax Code, for example, are
    raised from $10,000 to $25,000 a year. That will lower a lot of people's
    tax bills. For people with incomes under $30,000, we increased the
    earned-income tax credit so much that they will not be affected by this
    tax increase in any way. And over 70 percent of the money that will be
    raised in this program will come from people with incomes net above
    $100,000.
        So it's a progressive program; the burden is broadly spread. If we
    can bring the deficit down, we'll keep interest rates down. I'd just
    remind you folks that just since the election, when we announced our
    intention to seriously reduce the deficit, interest rates dropped
    dramatically. This year, 74 percent of people under 35 in a bipartisan
    poll said they thought they had a pretty good chance to buy their own
    home. Last year, the figure was 47 percent. That's because the interest
    rates are down. That will put another $100 billion back in the economy.
        Now, I've got 4 years. Give me 4 years to try to deliver on the
    middle class tax cut. But the first thing we need to do is drive the
    deficit down with cuts and some prudent revenue increases. Most of the
    people paying the taxes are people whose taxes were lowered while their
    incomes increased in the 1980's. And I think it's very important to get
    the budget back in balance.
        I will also tell you that all of our major competitors impose tax
    levies at higher rates than we do, and they manage to grow rather
    briskly. I don't like taxes. The State I ran, Arkansas, in all the years
    I was Governor, kept taxes in the bottom 5 of all of the States in the
    country as a percentage of income. I was very proud of that. I don't
    like this, but we've got to get a hold of this deficit. It's going to
    kill us if we don't.

    Justice System

        Q. Mr. President, it's been more than a year since the first King
    verdict out of Simi Valley and the riots that followed. Yet the
    perception lingers that justice is still not being administered
    evenhandedly in this country. I think that perception is especially
    strong where the victim or the accused of a crime is a member of a
    minority group. And this is true in the administration of justice from
    the streets to the courts. Sir, what specific steps is your
    administration taking to correct this terrible perception and this
    dismal reality? And I'd appreciate it if you would include the
    importance of greater African-American Federal judges and more
    appointments there, but not limit your response to that issue, sir.
        The President. I wouldn't limit it to that. I think, first of all,
    you can look at the appointment decisions I made. The woman I appointed
    Attorney General, Janet Reno, was the prosecutor in Dade County, Miami,
    one of the most ethnically diverse and difficult counties to deal with
    in the United States. I appointed her because I thought she would
    understand the importance of having all the communities in this country,
    including the minority communities, believe in the justice of the
    justice system. She and the other people we've appointed at the Justice
    Department I think will change the whole feeling about justice in this
    country. I think they will vigorously enforce the civil rights laws; I
    think they will move aggressively against abuse of power.
        The second thing we're trying to do is to change the dynamics on the
    streets in a lot of these communities with about three initiatives.
    Number one, we are determined to try to put as close as we can to
    100,000 more police officers on the street in the next 4 years,
    sensitive to the community, working in the communities in community
    policing settings. That leads to less police abuse and stronger
    relationships. Number two, we intend to spend more money in targeted
    ways to put our young people back to work and to educate them at the
    same time,

    [[Page 682]]

    not make-work jobs but really building opportunities. Number three, the
    empowerment proposal that I have recommended will dramatically increase
    the incentives that people in the minority and majority communities have
    to invest in these communities so that they can be brought back into the
    mainstream. All these things will change the way justice operates at the
    grassroots level, I believe.
        Q. What about more judges?
        The President. Well, I'm going to do that. I mean, I think that
    you've got to appoint judges and U.S. Attorneys that fairly reflect the
    diversity of America and meet a very high standard of excellence. And I
    don't think you have to sacrifice one to get the other.

    Immigration

        Q. I'm a taxpayer. My question is, why are my taxes going to
    subsidize the health care and the education of illegal immigrants while
    our own citizens are doing without?
        The President. That's a good question. I think there are two answers
    to that. One, frankly, is a practical one, and that is that the United
    States does not have the means at the present time to enforce its own
    immigration laws. And one of the things that I've asked the Attorney
    General to do is to conduct a nationwide search for the best person to
    head the Immigration and Naturalization Service, who can really make
    some changes there and then try to get more border patrol and more
    ability to enforce the immigration laws. One of the things that was in
    the jobs package that I proposed--the emergency jobs package that was
    voted down by the filibuster in the Senate--was money for several
    hundred more border patrol officers here in California. So we have to
    deal with that.
        The second reason is that the United States Government sets
    immigration policy but for as long as I can remember has left it up to
    the States to bear the burden of the immigration costs, or the
    localities, so that California, Texas, and Florida and, to a slightly
    lesser extent, New York pay huge bills for national decisions. So in
    spite of all the budgetary problems we have in this budget, we have
    recommended several hundred million more dollars to come into the State
    of California so that your local tax dollars will be freed up for
    education and for the other needs of the people in California.
        It is not fair the way you've been done by the National Government.
    And given our financial difficulties, we're doing as much as we can to
    change that. I've got to give a plug to a Californian, Leon Panetta,
    who's now the head of the Office of Management and Budget. He helped us
    to redraw the laws so that more of this money for medical care and other
    health-related and welfare-related costs of immigrants could be borne by
    the National Government, because it's the national policy. And so your
    tax dollars here can be freed up for urgent California needs for your
    own folks.

    Welfare Reform

        Q. I'm really frustrated with the welfare system. Right now, I'm a
    single parent, and I just moved into an apartment. Since I moved into
    the apartment, my benefits have been cut, and I figured I'd try to make
    a better life for my child and myself, so I started to go to school.
    Since I've been going to school, I can't get any child care benefits.
    And the question that I want to ask you: What changes are you willing to
    make within that welfare system so that people such as myself can make a
    better life for their child and themselves?
        The President. First of all, I'm glad you want to do that. And
    secondly, I'm glad you're here so that other people who may never have
    met anybody drawing a welfare check understand that most people on
    welfare would like to get off.
        I've spent an enormous amount of time in the last 6 or 7 years
    working on this, and I'll bet I have had more personal conversations
    with people on welfare than any other public official in America. Here's
    what I think should be done. And you may not agree with all of it, but
    let me say to you and to everyone here, you just said something that's
    very important. Most people on welfare do not stay because of the
    welfare check. They stay because the cost of child care or the cost of
    medical coverage for their children makes taking a job prohibitive.
    Because if you don't have a lot of education and you take a low-wage job
    and no benefits, what you give up is not the check, you give up the
    child care, because you've got to pay for that, and you give up the
    health insurance you get out of the Medicaid program. So what I propose
    to do is the following: I want to change the welfare system so that in
    any State in America, anybody who is on welfare has to go through an
    education and training program, then has to take a job, if offered, but
    gets child care

    [[Page 683]]

    and medical coverage when they do it. And furthermore, I want to make
    sure work always pays.
        So to go back to your question, one of the things we propose to do
    in this tax bill is to say, for everybody, families with an income of
    under $30,000, that you get an increase in what's called the earned-
    income tax credit. And if you're a working poor person, if you work 40
    hours a week and you've got children in your house, you would be lifted
    above the poverty line, so there would never be an incentive not to
    work.
        Now, the flipside of that is if after 2 years on welfare and going
    through the education program you don't have a job, then everybody under
    my plan would be required to go to work, either in a private sector job
    or a public sector job, in order to continue to draw the check. So we
    would end it, welfare as we know it, but we would give you the tools to
    succeed in the private sector. The tax system would support it, the
    child care system would support it, the health care system would support
    it. If we did that, you'd see a dramatic drop in the number of people on
    welfare and on food stamps. One in 10 Americans is on food stamps today.
    That is awful. And a lot of them are working people. So what we need to
    do is stop penalizing work. We need to reward work, and we need to
    reward responsible parenting. And I think that these changes will do
    that.
        That bill will be coming up. I'll be introducing that into the
    Congress sometime in the next few months as we try to work through all
    the details. But changing the welfare system could do more to strengthen
    family and work values in this country than just about anything else we
    could do.

    Defense Cutbacks

        Moderator. This is a retired Marine Corps general.
        Q. Nice to see you.
        The President. You should have been with me last week. I was out at
    the Marine Barracks for the parade.
        Q. My son told me.
        The President. It was wonderful.
        Q. Sir, we're pretty much a service area here, and we're mindful
    that the United States is famous for building up its military in time of
    crisis and then dismantling it as soon as the crisis is over, with the
    result that the next crisis brings a lot of terrible white crosses. And
    it looks like we're doing that now. I hope that's not true, but it looks
    like we're doing it. My question is, how do your professional military,
    your Joint Chiefs of Staff, feel in the light of, first, the crisis that
    we face and the immense build-down that we're going through now?
        The President. Well, let me tell you that I have spent a lot of time
    with the Joint Chiefs of Staff since becoming President. I've had to,
    because of the work we've done not only with the defense budget but the
    crisis in Bosnia, the moving out of our commitment in Somalia--which was
    a real success--and a lot of other issues. I think it's fair to say that
    most of them have mixed feelings. They know that we have to reduce
    defense. They know that we don't need a 2-million or a 3-million-person
    Armed Forces, but they know there's a limit beyond which we should not
    go. And I can tell you that in my own mind, I'm very apprehensive about
    going below where these plans take us. I don't think we should go below
    about a 1.4-million-person armed services. That will still enable us to
    have a vibrant and diverse service in all of the service branches to
    keep them going.
        I think there are some weapon systems that we still need to continue
    to develop. We need more air and sealift capacity, for example, and we
    will have to do that. And I am very concerned, frankly, that we keep up
    a vibrant Reserve and Guard component so that if we have to bring people
    back in in a hurry, we can. But the general feeling is that we're right
    on the brink of what we can do, and we shouldn't go any further than
    this budget takes us. And in the foreseeable future, we should really be
    very reluctant to go much further, unless it is in dropping a particular
    weapon system that we think we shouldn't have. But we don't need to
    reduce the uniformed forces, I don't believe, any faster or any lower
    than this 5-year budget plan, that the Congress is voting on, proposes
    to do.
        A lot of people don't understand this, but the defense budget, which
    exploded in the eighties, has been going down for about 5 years now. And
    the reason the deficit keeps getting bigger is that even though defense
    is going down and we're not spending much new money on other things,
    you've had an explosion in health care costs, in costs associated with
    the bottom dropping out of the economy, I mentioned food stamps and
    interest on the debt.

    [[Page 684]]

    But there is a limit to how much you can cut defense responsibly.
        This country's still the world's only superpower. There are a lot of
    things only the United States can do. Even our allies in Europe, even
    the wealthier countries simply cannot do a lot of the things that we
    might be called upon as a free world to do, not the United States on its
    own. So I'm glad you asked the question. And we're watching it closely,
    and I promise you I will watch it every year when I'm there.

    Jobs and Training for Youth

        Moderator. Mr. President, of course, in all the major cities, San
    Diego being no exception, crime probably ranks second to the economy
    right now, and the gang problem specifically. We have with us right now
    Ariel Zuniga who in San Diego is a gang member.
        Q. Mr. President, I live in a gang community, and a lot of gang
    members want to get out of the gangs, but there's nowhere to go, there's
    nothing we can do. One big thing that could change a lot of gang
    members' minds is jobs. If you give us jobs, that will open our minds to
    live better. Now, that's one way. Do you have any other suggestions for
    gang intervention or to help gang members go somewhere when they want to
    get out of the lifestyle?
        The President. I'm just glad to hear you say a lot of people want to
    get out. My own belief is that we do need more jobs and that we do need
    jobs tied to continuing education and training. And if possible, we need
    jobs like a lot of the work done by the Los Angeles Conservation Corps,
    just to mention one example, where people, particularly people who are
    street-smart, who have been in gangs, can work in community projects
    with others so that they become accepted by their community, and they
    become a part of a different kind of gang, if you will. You know, all of
    us want to be in gangs. We just need to be in positive gangs, good
    gangs. We want to be part of something bigger than ourselves.
        One of the things that I asked for in this emergency jobs package,
    which was stopped by the minority in the Senate, was enough money for
    another 900,000 summer jobs, tied for the first time ever, tied to real
    training programs so that there would be education along with the jobs
    and tied to an effort to get the private sector into the program so they
    could match the jobs one for one so that when the summer was over, all
    the young people in the gangs, let's say, who had summer jobs would have
    relationships with people in the private sector who could help to
    continue to work with them.
        I still think these are the best things to do. And I'm going to come
    back and try to get some more funds for summer jobs, coupled with
    education. And then we're going to keep working with people all across
    the country to try to figure out how to create more jobs. I have
    presented to the Congress a program which doesn't spend a lot of
    Government money, but which gives real, meaningful incentives to people
    like the businessman, who was the first person who spoke, and others,
    whether big or small, to invest in areas to create jobs and then hire
    people like you and your colleagues. We'll give them big jobs tax
    credits for hiring you. We'll give them other tax incentives for trying
    to create economic opportunity.
        A lot of these places would not have as many gangs if there were
    more people who could get up every day and go make a living. And this is
    a great resource. There are a lot of people out there who have money in
    these distressed communities, but people wonder whether the streets are
    safe enough or whether you can really make a return on your investment.
    So this empowerment zone concept is designed to make sure that there's
    enough tax incentive in there to give people at least the nudge they
    need to try to get a return on their investment. And we'll keep working
    on it.
        I also think, frankly, it's not popular to say, but every country in
    the world now with an advanced economy, except Japan, which is more
    closed than we are--but if you look at Germany, if you look at Great
    Britain, if you look at France, you look at all the wealthy countries,
    they all have high unemployment rates. They're all higher than America's
    except for West Germany. And we have so many young people that we're
    going to have to use a Government-private partnership to put people back
    to work.
        You just think about it. I mean, I'm glad you came here. If
    everybody in this State who wanted a job had one, you'd have about half
    the problems you have, wouldn't you? But I do think it's important not
    that you just be given jobs when you're young, but also that we do an
    honest assessment of everyone's skill level and give them the education
    and training they need, because the average young person's going to have
    to change jobs seven or eight times

    [[Page 685]]

    in a lifetime. So it's not just important that you have work but that
    you be able to get other work. We're going to have to retrain a lot of
    these defense workers. A lot of them are 50, 55 years old. So that's
    important, too. It's not just work, but it's education and training.
        Q. [Inaudible]--summer jobs aren't good enough----
        The President. Because they're over, right?
        Moderator. You have a more permanent--is that what you're saying?
        Q. Yes.
        The President. Absolutely, that's what I'm saying. But what we've
    tried to do with this summer jobs program, let me explain again, is to
    try to make sure we brought the business community into the program
    more, so it wasn't just a bunch of Government jobs, and try to make sure
    we had a good educational component.
        And the other thing I want to say to you is that if the national
    service plan I propose to Congress passes, then all the young people in
    your neighborhood will be able to earn credit to go to college or a 2-
    year training program by working in your community. And if you choose,
    you can borrow all the money you need to go to college and then not have
    to pay it back until you actually go to work and then at a small
    percentage of your income, something that we've never done in this
    country before. So I'll also be able to go in those neighborhoods and
    say, look, even if you can't get a job in this neighborhood, you can go
    to college. You can borrow the money to live on and to pay your
    expenses, and you don't have to pay it back until you go to work. And
    here's a system that you'll always be able to afford to pay it back.
    That has also never been the case. A lot of people in this country think
    they'll never go to college. And even if they go, the dropout rate's
    more than twice the dropout rate from high school because of the cost.
    But I don't think there are any easy answers. I think it's work and
    education. I don't think there's any simple shortcut.

    Defense Conversion

        Moderator. Mr. President, you mentioned laid-off defense workers.
    Well, coincidentally, we just happen to have a couple, both of whom are
    laid-off defense workers.
        Q. Before I ask my question, I would like to say, it's a pleasure to
    be in the same room with the President.
        The President. Thank you. I work for you. It's a pleasure for me to
    be in the room with you.
        Q. We've heard of the conversion plan. What is the conversion plan,
    and how is it supposed to help those of us who are employed? And what is
    it supposed to convert us into except jobless, homeless, and hungry?
        The President. That's a good question. First of all, let me make one
    thing clear right away, because I owe it to the people of California who
    had been harder hit by the defense cuts than anyone else--the Marine
    general, the retired general that was talking about cutbacks.
    California's been hit hard in two ways: first, by base closing but even
    harder by cutbacks in contracts so that people who work for defense
    companies lost their jobs, a lot of our high-wage base manufacturing,
    and that's you guys.
        One of the problems that we have in California is that when we
    started cutting defense as a nation back in '87, there should have been
    in place right then a conversion program so that you wouldn't have to
    wander around for 2 or 3 years out of work with no real strategy. So
    there is a catchup here to be done. I'm having to play catchup because
    we're starting in 1993 something that should have been started in 1987.
        Now having said that, defense conversion normally means three
    things, and I'll tell you what we're doing and what I hope to get out of
    it. Number one, in some cases industries themselves can convert. That
    is, the employers can find new things to do to keep either all or part
    of their work force working. The second thing it means is communities
    converting. That is, communities can figure out how they're going to
    recruit or start or finance new economic activities which will hire the
    people who were laid off at the old place. Number three, it means total
    retraining for workers. I know in my State where an airbase closed and
    we lost tons of jobs, sometimes people retrained and went to work in the
    local steel mill or started their own small businesses or started
    something entirely different.
        So when you hear defense conversion, it means three things, not one
    thing. It means: Can the company do something different and keep you
    working? If they can't, can the community find a way to start new
    businesses? And regardless, is there some retraining program that would
    put you back into the work force fairly

    [[Page 686]]

    quickly at more or less the same income you were making before? Those
    are the three things.
        We have released this year alone $500 million in a technology
    initiative designed to try to really focus on creating jobs for people
    on the theory that if the jobs are there, people figure out how to get
    trained. That's what our focus is. This year we're going to try to spend
    about $1.7 billion in all three kinds of activities. But California
    should benefit primarily from the technology focus. There's been a lag
    time; I admit it. We waited 6 years too late as a Nation to do this. But
    I think you're going to see an enormous number of jobs created in this
    State in the next 4 or 5 years in new uses of technology. I mean, right
    here in San Diego, there is a consortium trying to figure out, for
    example, how to use old defense technology to build bridges that won't
    break in an earthquake. If they could do that, you could go through and
    rebuild or support bridges, create tens of thousands of jobs, not just
    people working on the bridges but in all the plants making all the
    materials and designing and everything. That's just one tiny example.
    There are an unlimited number of things like that, if we will get at it.
    So that's what we're trying to do.

    Economic Redevelopment Strategies

        Q. My question is a little bit different. What is available as help
    for those of us that have been forced into the processes of bankruptcy
    and foreclosures to stop these proceedings against us and to help us
    maintain our credibility until we are able to obtain gainful employment?
        The President. Well, it's interesting because the bankruptcy laws
    were, in a way, reformed to make it easier for people to file bankruptcy
    so they wouldn't lose everything. But the practical matter is if you
    were basically a wage earner in a factory, it doesn't work that way, as
    you know. So I'm afraid the answer is right now there isn't anything
    available. But those are the kind of things we're trying to put in
    place. That is, we believe that local community groups--and I know
    you've got somebody working in San Diego on this--that every community
    that's had a significant displacement because of defense cutbacks should
    have a community strategy for redevelopment. And among that should be
    that if you're getting job training and if there's a real effort to
    create new economic opportunities, then we think at the local level
    people should be working on creditors to exercise forbearance to try to
    keep from having people losing their homes and things of that kind. And
    I believe a lot of that could be negotiated at the local level if people
    think things are happening.
        One of the reasons a lot of people like you are suffering so badly
    is that people don't sense that they're part of the big plan to turn
    this whole thing around. So they just treat case by case. And let me
    say, in an attempt to accelerate that, I've asked the Secretary of
    Commerce, Ron Brown, basically to head up a team with five or six other
    Cabinet Departments just to focus on California, because I think if we
    can turn California around, we can turn the country around. California
    has 12 percent of the country's population, 21 percent of the defense
    spending. That will tell you why you boomed in the eighties and why
    you're getting the shaft in the nineties. Okay, so we're working on
    things just like that. And if you've got any specific ideas about what
    we ought to do, maybe you can give them to me after the show. But my
    thought is that that has to be handled community by community. And what
    we're going to try to do is make sure every community has a committee
    that could work with people like you as long as we're moving forward.

    Shipbuilding Subsidies

        Q. My question kind of relates to the defense cutbacks from a
    different angle. During that past 10 years, 50 percent of American
    shipyards have gone away, basically disappeared because of the foreign
    countries that subsidize their shipyards with billions of dollars. Do
    you plan in the next 10 years or during your term to allow the remaining
    shipyards to completely disappear? Are we going to start----
        The President. The answer to your question is, I'm going to do what
    I can to avoid that. It's difficult, with a big Government deficit like
    we have, to start a subsidy program. But there's no question--if you go
    back and look at the history of what happened in the eighties--and this
    is the same thing to me with farmers or anything else--we unilaterally,
    that is, all by ourselves without asking anybody else to do anything,
    cut our shipbuilding subsidy. Our major competitors either kept them the
    same or increased them. So what do you think the result was? I mean,
    predictably, if the government by artificial means in another country
    lowers the cost of production and people are going to buy

    [[Page 687]]

    the least expensive ship, America got the shaft.
        One of the things that we are doing at the present time is, by the
    way, reviewing our whole posture on all these shipping issues and
    especially in connection with California. As you probably know, I was
    out at the NASSCO yard during the campaign. They turned the whole place
    out for me--it was wonderful--just because of some specific issues they
    were interested in that I had taken a position on.
        On the question of the subsidy, I think there are two issues here,
    two possibilities: We can either have some sort of tax incentive for
    those companies, or in the alternative, we can put the subsidies for
    shippers on the table when we negotiate with the Japanese, with the
    other shipbuilders in the other countries. It can be a big issue. You
    know, I've been criticized for saying I wanted to bargain more toughly
    with some of our trading partners, but a lot of these folks are doing as
    well or better than we are now in some of these areas, and I think we
    have to be pretty firm. We don't have to fall out with the Japanese in
    the whole range of areas where we share the same values, we have
    security interests. I admire them and care a lot about them. But I think
    we have to have tough bargaining on the trade issues with all these
    countries. So we are trying to decide what the best way to go is. But
    the answer to your question is, I'll be sick 10 years from now if we're
    not making any ships in America.

    Small Business Loans

        Q. Mr. President, availability of funds for minority small
    businesses through SBA loans and commercial banks is generally
    agonizing, then followed by defeat. What my question is, is what can you
    do to change this or to correct this so that we can acquire loans in the
    future?
        The President. I can tell you what we're trying to do. And first,
    let me say this is a big issue for small business, generally. There has
    been a credit crunch in California and in New England and in Florida and
    a lot of other places in the country, but heavily concentrated, which
    means that small business people, especially people who aren't
    traditionally good sources of credit or haven't gotten a lot of credit
    in the past, had real trouble, and that's a nationwide thing.
        So we try to basically do three things. Number one, we've got all
    the financial Agencies, the Treasury Department, Comptroller of the
    Currency, all those folks together, and we came up with a plan to reduce
    the credit crunch, to simplify the ability of banks to make character
    loans to people that look like they'd be good risks. And we're trying to
    make sure every bank in America understands that there are new rules
    that they can follow to exercise good sense in doing that.
        Number two, I appointed, the first time in a good while, a person to
    head the Small Business Administration whose job in life before he
    became head of the Small Business Administration was to start small
    businesses. That's what he did, he went out and raised money for people
    who wanted to start small businesses. It was not a political
    appointment; he was a serious business person. And we are trying now to
    make the Small Business Administration a real job creator. We have
    slashed the rules and regulations; it's going to be a lot simpler to
    apply for loans. It's going to be very different.
        The third thing we have to do, and this will affect minority
    business people especially, I think is to create a national network of
    community development banks, either within existing banks or separate
    institutions, that are set up to make loans to people who traditionally
    have not gotten them but are good risks, modeled on a bank in Chicago
    called the South Shore Development Bank. And I set up one in rural
    Arkansas, too. And they made loans to minorities, to women, to low-
    income people, people who had a good reputation, who had a good product
    or service, who seemed like a good risk. And they have been quite
    successful in bringing free enterprise to places where they haven't
    been.
        So, community development banks, a different Small Business
    Administration, ending the credit crunch, those are the things we're
    trying to do. I hope it works. Write me in a year and tell me if it is.

    POW/MIA's

        Q. Mr. President, this is my brother, Colonel Charles Sharpe. He was
    captured in North Vietnam October 1st, 1965, and I have very good reason
    he is still alive today. Mr. President, you promised a clean sweep when
    you became President. The POW families have been stonewalled for more
    than 20 years by the same people in power. The gridlock continues. And
    at the same time, the Vietnamese Government, the policy of the
    Vietnamese Government, ``we can

    [[Page 688]]

    keep you forever,'' continues. But it could end with the removal of the
    old guard and replacement of a new guard. My question, Mr. President,
    will you extend this same clean sweep as promised to our POW's, change
    in the gridlock? And why haven't you signed an Executive order releasing
    information to the families so the truth can finally be told and to pave
    the way for the return of our alive prisoners?
        The President. Well, I think we have made public a lot of
    information. And I will go back and check and see what the status of
    that is. Let me say, first of all, if you have any information about
    your brother you want to give me, I will do my best to run it down.
        Q. I would be happy to, sir.
        The President. Secondly, let me say that I have sent or supported a
    number of Vietnam veterans going over to Vietnam in the last several
    weeks to try to get more and more information. For the first time, when
    General Vessey was over there the last time, just a few weeks ago, we
    actually got a list. They gave us their list, which appears to be a very
    authentic list of every POW and MIA that they knew and what happened to
    them, with a lot of information that they had never even revealed that
    they had before. So I think they are moving forward. Our big stick now
    is they want to make money, they want to do business with us. And the
    United States, unlike a lot of other countries--France, which colonized
    Vietnam and in a way got us into it, is over there doing business with
    them. The United States has no intention of doing that, at least I
    don't, until we have a full accounting of the POW's and MIA's.
        So I do believe we're making progress. We have more information by
    far, just in the last few months, than we've ever had before. We are
    trying to run down all these cases. All I can tell you is, I'm going to
    do the very best I can to run down every case and to make sure that no
    family is denied access to reasonable information. And I'll follow up on
    that last question you made. But if you'll give me whatever information
    you have, I'll have it run down. We have people going over there all the
    time now and digging around. And we're doing our best. And they've
    finally begun to open some files to us that have never before been
    opened.
        Q. Because the right questions have not been asked in the past.
        The President. You tell me what questions you want asked, and I'll
    get them asked.
        Q. If you would give the opportunity and promise to go into detail--
    I've been in this for 27 years with my brother, worked with both
    Governments and the families and the American Legion and all the
    friends--if you would take some of our suggestions. Thank you.
        Moderator. Mr. President, we've got a very bright young San Diegan
    who has a question for you.
        The President. You've got a nice tie, too.
        Moderator. Yes. I think that it rivals the President's tie tonight,
    don't you think so? He's a sixth grader here in San Diego.

    Prospects for the Future

        Q. Hello, President Clinton. My question is, my birthday is tomorrow
    and I'm 12 years old tomorrow, and my question is, what kind of future
    am I going to have in store for me and the country?
        The President. That's a neat question, isn't it? I think you've got
    a very bright future. The world you will live in will be freer of the
    threat of total destruction than any world we've ever known. It will be
    smaller, in the sense it will be in closer touch more quickly with
    people around the world of all different races and ethnic groups and
    economic systems. The volume of knowledge will double more quickly. And
    you will know more and do more with technology than any group of
    Americans or any group of people ever have. So if you get a good
    education, by the time you're grown, we will have worked through a lot
    of the terrible problems we're facing now. And I think you will be part
    of a new burst of American prosperity, if we fix the problems the
    country has now.
        But our job, my generation's job, is not to leave you saddled with a
    huge debt, no investment in your future, and an economy that doesn't
    work and a society that's coming apart, where there's too much crime,
    too much division, too much violence. If we can simply face our problems
    today and deal with them like grownups, be honest about them--it's okay
    to differ, it's okay if we differ about how we should do things, but if
    we just work on our problems, I think you're going to have a great
    future. I believe that by the time you get out of high school, that
    America will really be on the move again and things will be looking
    great and you'll feel great about your future. That's why I ran for
    President, to make sure that happens. I'm going to be really
    disappointed if it doesn't.

    [[Page 689]]

        Moderator. What kind of a tax rate might he expect to see when he
    grows older?
        The President. I think about what it is now, maybe even a little
    less, depending. You know, one of the things that we don't know, that
    we're looking at now, and I meant to go back to the first question you
    asked, we've got a second round of budgetary changes that I think could
    come along about September when the Vice President finishes this review
    I've asked him to undertake about the way Government operates and
    whether we should just stop doing some of the things we're doing and
    change the whole way the Government operates. I think that it is
    conceivable by the time he becomes a taxpayer that technology will
    render a lot of governmental functions totally irrelevant. And I think
    that the cost of Government might actually go down.
        Now, the cost of health care will be there, the cost of Social
    Security will be there, and the need to continue to invest in new
    technologies will be even greater, and the need to educate people will
    be greater. But a lot of the things that we think of as Government
    bureaucracy, if this thing is properly managed, could be handled with
    computers and cards and a lot of the hassle that you think of as
    Government, everything from waiting for your driver's license to
    applying for a loan, to dealing with the farm programs, could just be
    obliterated, if we manage the thing right and get the technology right.

    Indian Gambling Rights

        Q. Mr. President, the Governor's opposition to the Indian gaming act
    is full of misinformation. As a former Governor, Mr. President, we know
    you've heard their side of the issue. Would you be willing, in the next
    60 days, to meet with a select group of tribal leaders for a briefing on
    the matter as it relates to economic impact, jobs, and Native American
    sovereignty?
        The President. Oh yes, I would do that. I have a little different
    approach to this, and I don't want to take a lot of the program on it
    because I intended to do that, but I have a little different approach
    and a little different perspective, I think, than either the Indian
    tribes or the Governors. The Governors are worried--you all probably
    don't know what we're talking about. Basically, the Indians who live on
    Indian lands have been able for many years to have some kind of
    gambling, like bingo parlors. A Federal magistrate ruled several months
    ago that if any kind of gaming could occur on Indian lands, then all
    kinds of gaming could, basically, right? So that means that,
    essentially, if they so chose, that any Indian land could become Las
    Vegas, could do any kind of gambling. So the Governors are all real
    nervous about that, partly because they think that they'll have to turn
    their States into Nevada because the pressure to give the gambling
    rights to everybody else will get so great, and that the whole thing
    will get out of hand. So they argue for restrictions which would enable
    the States to restrict the range of gaming. The Native American tribes
    don't want that; they want to have this maximum amount of flexibility.
        I have a different perspective. I'll just give it to you, but I
    intend to meet with tribal leaders; I welcome that. I grew up in a town
    with the largest illegal gambling operation in America when I was a kid.
    Hot Springs, Arkansas, had the biggest gambling operation except for Las
    Vegas anywhere in the country. A young man, the age of that fellow that
    just asked me the question, could walk in any restaurant and put a
    nickel in a slot machine. There were open casinos. What my belief is, is
    that it is a lousy basis for an economy, past a certain point. The
    Indian reservations have been kept dependent for too long, have suffered
    from the patronizing attitude of the Federal Government, have never been
    empowered to seize control of their own destiny. And I do not blame the
    tribes for wanting the maximum possible flexibility on gambling. But
    what I'd like to see is a whole range of different initiatives so we can
    have real long-term economic prosperity, because there is a limit to how
    much gambling the country can absorb. There's a limit to how many Las
    Vegases can be successful. So we need to talk about it, and I would be
    happy to see some tribal leaders about it.

    Health Care Reform

        Q. The finest medicine in the world is practiced in the United
    States. Eighty-five percent of our population has access to this medical
    care, either through private insurance, Medicare, or Medicaid. And most
    of these are very happy with their physician, with the way he works up
    their problem, and with the outcome of their situation. Fifteen percent
    of our population, of course, is outside this mainstream. My question to
    you is, really, how do you want to get that

    [[Page 690]]

    15 percent into the mainstream, how do you plan to finance it, and
    what's the way it could be done with minimal perturbations in our
    current system?
        The President. Well, let me first of all say what you already know,
    which is that the Health Care Task Force that my wife is chairing is, at
    the moment, trying to finalize their recommendations so they can then
    take it to the doctors, to the hospitals, the nurses, to the business
    community, to the labor community, everybody, and try to let them
    evaluate it and then bring it back to me so I can introduce it in the
    Congress.
        I would like to just reshape what you said just a little bit. I
    agree we have the finest medicine in the world for people who can access
    it. I agree that we ought to keep a system where people can have some
    real choice of their doctors, particularly their primary providers whom
    they know. I agree that we need to keep medical care in private hands. I
    think that's all very important. It's a little more complicated than
    that just 15 percent have no health insurance. About 100,000 Americans a
    month lose their health insurance and either fall into the category of
    uncompensated care or onto the Government's Medicare and Medicaid rolls.
    We also have medical inflation rates at far higher than the world
    average, and we spend a third more of our income on health care than any
    other country, even though we don't insure some of our people.
        So what I think we need to do is to find ways to reorganize the
    insurance market so that you can't lose your health insurance if you've
    had somebody in your family sick and you've got a preexisting condition
    and you have to change jobs. I think that employers should bear some
    responsibility for their employees, but I think employees should pay
    some of their own health care costs, too, because if they don't, there's
    a tendency to overuse the system, which I'm sure you've seen. It's very
    important to point out that everybody gets, I'm sure you would
    acknowledge, everybody gets health care in this country, but it's too
    late, too expensive, and often at the emergency room. And if the
    employers who don't do anything for their employees say, well, they
    shouldn't have to, the truth is that those who do are paying the bill,
    as you know. Employers who provide health insurance are paying not only
    for their employees but everybody else, too. And their cost goes up. So
    what I want to do is to see a system where we phase in the requirements
    on employers who don't cover their employees in very reasonable way,
    where the Government basically provides for the nonemployed uninsured
    and where we have insurance reforms that will simplify billing and
    regulation and dramatically reduce your paperwork burden. The average
    doctor--let me just say another thing--a lot of people complain to me
    and say, ``Well, these doctor fees are going up so fast.'' You need to
    know that in 1980--let me just say this, this is real important--in
    1980, the average doctor took home 75 percent of all the income that he
    or she generated into a clinic. In 1992, that figure is down to 52
    percent. Twenty-three cents on the dollar gone, mostly to bureaucracy
    and paperwork and regulation and insurance costs, right?
        Q. Right.
        The President. So, what I think we have to do is to reorganize the
    system so it's much more simple from an administrative point of view and
    so we all take some responsibility for our own health care, including
    all the employers. But we have to be very sensitive to the small
    business sector and phase that in. That's basically where we're going
    with it.

    Multilingual Education

        Q. Hello. I'm a teacher of English to students who speak another
    language, and I have observed that those students that do well are those
    students who feel good about their native language, about being
    bilingual. I therefore believe that teachers as professionals, as role
    models, need to be required to have at least a conversational ability in
    a second language. I'd like you to respond to that.
        The President. I think it would be a good thing if all teachers did,
    but it would take a good deal of time to get that done with the present
    American teacher corps. And my own view is that that decision should be
    made at the State level, not nationally. I think the National Government
    should facilitate and support the development of multilingualism among
    our teachers. But since over 90 percent of the money is raised for
    education at the State and local level, I think if there's going to be a
    regulation about it, it ought to be done at the State or local level. I
    think the United States should support more language instruction, and I
    have vigorously done that in my State. We tripled

    [[Page 691]]

    the number of kids in foreign language courses in my State because of
    the standards we adopted. And I agree it would help if more teachers did
    it. But I have to tell you, I don't think the National Government should
    mandate it.
        Q. I like your diverse tie.
        The President. Thanks. This is the Save the Children tie. I just got
    it last week. A 12-year-old student designed it.

    Endangered Species and the Economy

        Q. Mr. President, the economy of San Diego is probably the hardest
    hit in the country. Our construction industry has an unemployment of
    about 40, 50 percent, yet the Federal Endangered Species Act has put
    about 200,000 acres on hold. That could impact about 150,000 jobs,
    billions of dollars to the economy. And within the last month, three
    projects were stopped because someone saw or thought they saw a bird, a
    gnatcatcher, fly through the project area. That eliminated about 200
    jobs on the spot and millions of dollars to the economy here in San
    Diego. What will you do to give us a better balance?
        The President. Well, you know, just north of here, I thought the
    Secretary of the Interior had made an agreement that allowed
    construction to go forward there. And so what I think we have to do--I'm
    glad you told me this because I didn't realize there were any issues
    continuing down here about that. One of the reasons I asked Bruce
    Babbitt to be Secretary of the Interior is that he'd been a Governor, he
    had practical sense, he'd been in business, his family had been, and he
    believed in the environment. But he had common sense about it. And I
    thought the deal that he hammered out on the gnatcatcher up north, north
    of here, would have general application and would stop this kind of
    problem. I didn't know about it. All I can tell you is I'll get on it.
        Q. Thank you very much.
        The President. I think a lot of these problems--let me say one other
    thing. I think as long as we have a big and complex society, you can't
    make all of the problems go away on the front end. But one of the things
    that I'm trying to do at the White House and one of the reasons I asked
    perhaps my oldest friend to be my Chief of Staff, a man who made his
    whole career in business, building new businesses and starting things,
    is to try to make sure that the White House could maybe be a place that
    could break some of these bureaucratic logjams and change things. And I
    tried to appoint a Cabinet full of really practical people who could
    solve these kind of problems. You've told me something I didn't know.
    I'll go to work on it. And if you'll give me a card or something before
    you leave tonight, we'll get back in touch with you next week.

    Immigration

        Moderator. Mr. President, we've only got about 3 minutes left. I'd
    ask you one quick question on my behalf here, something that hasn't been
    touched on this evening. Our border here with Mexico has become somewhat
    of a sieve lately. We even have Chinese immigrants trying to get across
    our border. To what extent do you favor closing off that border, or do
    you favor it?
        The President. I think that the immigration laws, we have to try to
    enforce them. And let me say, to go back to this lady's question--and if
    you're going to have laws that you don't even try to enforce, you don't
    have the resources to enforce, then you shouldn't expect the State to
    pick up the tab. So even though we're broke and in trouble, I did, as I
    said earlier, try to get the Federal Government to pick up more of the
    tab for California this coming year than we did before.
        But my own view is that there have to be some limitations on
    immigration and that once those limitations are concluded, once we agree
    as a society on whatever they are, then we ought to try to enforce the
    law, knowing that it's hard to do. And I say that as a person who
    basically believes America has been greatly strengthened by its
    immigrants. Almost everybody in this room, except for the Native
    Americans, were once immigrants. And even most of them had forebears
    tens of thousands of years ago that came from someplace else, when the
    land was connected someplace else. So I am basically in favor of a
    vibrant, diverse immigrant population, but there are limits to what we
    can afford to do. And once we accept that, then I think we ought to try
    to enforce the law.
        I thought you were going to ask me about the problems with the
    sewage treatment in Tijuana. I'm also going to try to deal with that.
    San Diego got the shaft on that in the Congress last year. I'll try to
    see if I can't fix that this year.

    [[Page 692]]

    Tijuana Sewage Treatment

        Moderator. Real quickly, any suggestions?
        The President. On what?
        Moderator. On how to fix that.
        The President. I just think--it's not that much money, it's about $3
    million a year. And we'll just see if we can't, when that particular
    appropriation comes up, we'll see if we can help on that. I think we
    should do that. Again, that's something that's not your fault.
        Moderator. Mr. President, we're down to one minute, unfortunately.

    NAFTA

        Q. The question is, with the NAFTA agreement, will you mandate that
    when a person loses their job as a result of this agreement which our
    Government entered into, that they would be guaranteed any new job that
    is created?
        The President. I don't think I could do that, but what I think I can
    do is to identify areas which are likely to be hurt and do more to
    direct Government investment there and other incentives to hire people
    back. And I would certainly do that. But I have to tell you, I think
    California will gain a lot more jobs than you'll lose if we have the
    right kind of trade agreement. Mexico is now our second biggest
    purchaser of manufactured products. California wins big on that. I think
    we will win more than we lose. But some will lose, and we need to have
    offsetting investments. I agree with that.
        Thank you.
        Moderator. Thank you very much, Mr. President. The people of San
    Diego thank you.
        The President. Thank you.

    Note: The town meeting began at 8 p.m. at the KGTV studio. In his
    remarks, the President referred to Erskine Bowles, Small Business
    Administrator; Gen. John Vessey, Special Emissary for POW/MIA Affairs;
    and Thomas F. McLarty, White House Chief of Staff.