[Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: William J. Clinton (1993, Book I)]
[March 5, 1993]
[Pages 241-245]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]



[[Page 241]]


Remarks on Mayoral Support for the Economic Program and an Exchange With 
Reporters
March 5, 1993

    The President. I want to thank all of the mayors who spoke, and all 
the ones who are here who have not spoken, for their strong support 
without regard to party or region or the size of the communities from 
which they come. As a matter of fact, when I heard the Mayor of York, 
Pennsylvania, speak, I was trying to decide whether his tie was a 
Republican or a Democratic tie. I think it is really an all-American 
tie. It's a bold tie, the Vice President said. [Laughter]
    I want to say a special word of thanks, too, to the Secretary of the 
Department of Housing and Urban Development, Henry Cisneros, who is with 
us, who has worked very closely with the mayors.
    I have just a few things I want to say about this. First of all, any 
mayor who has served for any length of time has been compelled to make 
the kinds of choices that are embodied in this economic program. If you 
look at the budgets of the cities of this country or the budgets of the 
States of this country over the last decade you will see the choices 
that have been imposed in order to balance books and keep the functions 
of our cities running, in order to deal with relative reductions in 
Federal assistance and all the economic crises that have ripped our 
communities. Mayors have learned to cut budgets and to shift funds away 
from inessential things toward investments in our futures.
    I know that that is one reason that mayors intuitively and without 
regard to party have responded to my efforts to increase investment and 
reduce the deficit at the same time. We have to do both. Today there was 
a report that the unemployment rate in February dropped to 7 percent, 
one-tenth of 1 percent, and that 365,000 jobs were created, an estimated 
365,000 jobs. That is good news. But if you look behind the numbers, it 
also reveals the stark challenges before us, for most of those jobs were 
part-time jobs, and we are still about 3 million jobs behind where we 
would ordinarily be in a recovery.
    Indeed, we are, according to the aggregate economic statistics, in a 
recovery in which, ironically, the unemployment rate is still higher 
than it was at the very bottom of the recession. That shows you that 
there is a fundamental restructuring going on in the American economy 
which requires an extraordinary approach to the creation of jobs in the 
short and in the long term.
    That's why these investments in repairing our streets and bridges, 
renovating our housing, rebuilding our water and sewer lines, improving 
mass transit, retooling our industrial parks, and protecting our 
environment are important parts of the larger plan also to invest in our 
people and their economic, educational, and technological futures.
    Through $3 billion in additional funding for highways, airports, and 
mass transit, $2.5 billion in community development block grants, which 
can be used to create new jobs and improve the quality of life, 
communities will be able to complete projects they've needed for years 
but haven't been able to finance. They will create new jobs today, but 
they will also build the foundations for broader economic growth in the 
private sector tomorrow.
    This plan also will create almost 700,000 new jobs this summer for 
unemployed young people, something that will be profoundly important 
again in sending the right signals. We all know, for example, that the 
financial markets, as Mayor Dinkins said, respond to the right signals, 
interest rates are down almost one full point now. And if we can keep 
them down for several months, we may well put another $100 billion in 
refinancing back into this economy for investment and growth. Why? 
Because the markets have responded to a signal.
    Well, people respond to signals, too. People in San Diego, where the 
unemployment has been so high, will respond to a signal. Will this 
stimulus program give a job to every person in San Diego? Of course not, 
but it will send a signal that America is on the move again. Will this 
stimulus program provide a summer job for every young person in south 
central Los Angeles that Mayor Bradley is so concerned about? Of course 
not, but it will sure send a signal that America is on the move again 
and coming together again.

[[Page 242]]

    Will it in the beginning provide enough funds for everybody to do in 
every city what Mayor Lanier and Mayor Freedman and others have done in 
parts of their communities with community policing? Of course not, but 
it will provide a beginning, and it will send a signal that we are 
moving in the right direction. And it will actually have an economic 
impact that is positive. These things are very important.
    I also don't want to forget the fact that a significant percentage, 
almost half, of this stimulus package is as incentives to the private 
sector for private investment in these same communities. Small 
businesses have created virtually all of the new jobs in our country in 
the last 10 years. Their inability to create more jobs than larger 
employers have been shedding is the central cause of stagnant employment 
in America. So the small business tax credit that we offer, the new 
business long-term capital gains tax, and the other incentives for 
businesses, both small and large, to create new jobs is very important.
    This plan is based on the idea that we all have to work together to 
build our future; the idea that we have to look at the long-run needs 
for the 365,000 or so kids that will be in Head Start, for the millions 
of young people who we want to provide for education and training, for 
all the people who have lost their jobs because of defense cutbacks or 
other industrial relocations; that they need intense efforts to reinvest 
in their community as well as to retraining opportunities; that we need 
to couple those long-term efforts with the short-term stimulus that will 
send the right signal, spark this economy, and get some job growth back 
into this recovery.
    This is not, as so many have said, a partisan issue. It is not a 
small town or a large city issue. It is something that we all have to 
face to get the job done. And I'm very grateful for the support that's 
been given.

Meeting With Russian President Yeltsin

    Now, before I answer questions, I'd like to make just a very brief 
announcement that I think the press here already knows about. But I want 
to formally announce that in Vancouver, Canada, on April 3d and 4th, I 
will meet with President Yeltsin of Russia to explore what the United 
States can do to support his efforts to strengthen democracy and to 
create a vibrant market economy, and to support our common interests in 
solving crises around the world in maintaining a general march toward 
peace and freedom and democracy.
    I will try to be rather specific at that time in terms of what the 
United States will be prepared to do, and we will try to offer some 
innovative solutions to the difficulties faced by the President and by 
the Russian people.
    I hope that this will be a very productive thing. I look forward to 
it. I'll be glad to answer a few questions about that, but I hope, too, 
that you recognize that the significance of this action today is that if 
we can have enough bipartisan support to pass an economic program in the 
Congress that will strengthen America. America, in turn, will be better 
able to deal with the problems that we face beyond our borders. Unless 
we're strong here, it's going to be very difficult for us to meet our 
responsibilities around the world.
    Q. Mr. President, the Soviets or the Russians have made it clear 
that what they need most at this point is U.S. financial aid. Are you 
planning to bring anything like that to the Vancouver summit?
    The President. There will be--obviously, money will be discussed, 
but it is not just a question of money, and it's certainly not money 
alone. I don't want to put a figure on it yet. We've made no decisions. 
But I can tell you we've discussed some rather innovative things that 
have not yet been on the table in these discussions in the past. This 
will not be a meet-and-greet meeting with President Yeltsin. We have met 
before, and we have talked several times since I have been in office. I 
am going there to try to have a very businesslike meeting. And as we get 
closer to the meeting, we'll be able to discuss more specifics.

Stimulus Package

    Q. Several economists already this morning were jumping on the 
unemployment figures to say that, no, in fact, the stimulus package 
isn't needed, despite your interpretation of these numbers. What does 
this do to the political environment that you face in getting this 
through as quickly as you need to?
    The President. That in part depends on whether the Members of the 
Congress listen to economists who have good jobs--[laughter]--and who 
have not had declining incomes, by and large, for the last 12 years, or 
whether they listen to people like the folks who are up here with me, 
without regard to party, who know

[[Page 243]]

what's happening on the streets out there.
    The assumption is--look, nothing would make me happier than to know 
that just the efforts to bring interest rates down and the extraordinary 
efforts by American business-people in the private sector to increase 
productivity would generate 365,000 jobs a month for 2 or 3 years. That 
would be a wonderful thing.
    But I would say again, the unemployment rate in this country is 7 
percent. That is very high in our economy because it's an open economy 
without the sort of huge support you have in some of the European 
economies that are built for higher unemployment rates in a way. And a 
lot of those jobs were part-time jobs. That, again, speaks to the need 
to address the health care issue because one of the reasons so many of 
these jobs are part-time jobs is that employers can't afford to hire 
full-time employees because they can't pay the health care bill.
    But I just simply don't agree. I mean, there are people who see one 
month of--the employment rate dropped one-tenth of a point. That is not 
an enormous drop. These jobs were not all, or even most, full-time jobs. 
I am very grateful for it, but it seems to me that, if anything, the 
continued persistence of relatively high unemployment is a good argument 
for the stimulus package.
    Q. Politically, you are trying to buck a trend here, right? I mean, 
the political indicators are going the other way.
    The President. The economic indicators are not. I think the 
political indicators are going the other way because I have challenged 
the Congress to cut spending. And so since there hasn't been a response 
in terms of ``Here's our list,'' the easiest thing to do is to say, 
``Well, let's just don't hire any kids this summer in Los Angeles or New 
York or Cincinnati or Cleveland or whatever.''
    You know, this is about jobs. This economic recovery is about jobs. 
How anybody could go to any State in this country, and particularly to 
some of those in real duress, and say that we're in the midst of a 
strong recovery is a mystery to me.

Aid to Russia

    Q. One of the things that's plagued the U.S.-Russia relationship 
when it comes to this aid question for the last couple of years has been 
this kind of chicken and egg situation: We want Yeltsin to make the 
reforms, and we'll give him the aid. He says, ``I need the aid first. 
Then I'll make the reforms.'' How can we get out of that situation? And 
is it time for the West to maybe consider lowering the goalpost a little 
bit in terms of the prior conditions he has to implement before we come 
through with our aid?
    The President. Let me try to answer the question in this way: I 
believe that he is a man of real courage and real commitment to 
democracy. I believe, indeed, even his parliamentary opponents, who 
often say things with which I disagree, are engaged in the messy process 
of democracy which many other countries trying to move to a market 
economy, for example, have decided to postpone until they get the market 
reforms underway.
    So I believe that they've made enough effort for us to try to engage 
them in specific actions that will produce economic results. Now, I 
don't want to make any sweeping commitments that would indicate that I 
would disregard a move toward reform or disregard issues that have been 
at play before, proliferation issues and others. But I'm going there to 
this meeting with the intention of trying to more aggressively engage 
the United States in the economic and political revitalization of 
Russia. I agree, frankly, with the general thrust of President Nixon's 
article in the New York Times today.

Mayoral Support

    Q. Mr. President, why would you expect Members of Congress to be 
swayed by this event here today when big-city mayors would obviously 
support your package? It's a veritable goody basket for them.
    The President. A veritable what?
    Q. Goody basket.
    The President. Well, I disagree with that. It is not nearly as much 
money as most of them believe we should need. And not all of them here 
are big-city mayors.
    The fundamental issue is really here whether you believe there is a 
distinction between investing in infrastructure and technology, in 
people, and just continuing present Government spending patterns and 
whether you really believe that 7 percent unemployment and another 
decade of stagnant wages is an acceptable economic course for America. I 
just think that this notion that--let me tell you what I really think is 
going on. [Laughter] Let me tell you what I really think is going on, 
and I say this to compliment

[[Page 244]]

the Congress to some extent on this issue.
    I think the American people liked it when I offered 150 specific 
spending cuts, and they said they wanted more. But if you do a poll, the 
people are still trying to come to grips with the reality of the budget. 
They'll also say, do you want us to spend more on jobs, education, and 
health care? Eighty percent will say yes. Do you want Congress to find 
more budget cuts? Eighty percent will say yes.
    So the issue is not whether there should be more budget cuts. 
Indeed, the process that I announced, the 6-month process that I 
announced for the national performance review that the Vice President is 
overseeing, will produce more reductions in spending. There is no 
question about it. The issue is whether under the general shield of 
saying we need to reduce spending, we'll step away from investment. Just 
because a mayor wants to do it doesn't make it wrong, doesn't make it 
pork, and doesn't make it useless. I mean, we have tried ignoring the 
cities for 12 years, and it has not been a very successful economic 
strategy for the country.

Bosnia

    Q. Are you concerned, sir, at all by indications that your mercy 
flights to Bosnia are actually increasing the violence there, increasing 
the ethnic cleansing? And if so, what could you do about it, sir? Any 
thought of----
    The President. Well, first of all, let me say, both at the national 
security meeting and again that morning at our morning briefing I asked 
and pressed this question that's being asserted in the press. And it is 
true--I mean, we knew when we dropped food into a contested area in 
eastern Bosnia where there had been a buildup of fighting over time that 
we were dropping food to people who were at risk. That's precisely one 
of the reasons that that's an area we were asked to look at for airlift 
because the cars couldn't get in there. I mean the trucks couldn't get 
in there.
    But all I can tell you is the people I have asked in the privacy of 
the Oval Office and the privacy of the national security meetings, 
frankly, just dispute that assertion. They do not believe that the 
airlift has exposed the Bosnians to any more danger than they otherwise 
would have been exposed to. And the surveillance we've done indicates 
that there has been actually slightly more accuracy in the drops from 
the altitude we chose for safety for our pilots than we thought there 
would be.
    So would I reexamine it if I thought they were doing more harm than 
good? Of course, I would. But I can tell you that I have pressed that 
point very hard in our meetings, and our people simply dispute the 
proposition.
    Q. Mr. President, following up on that, what more can be done to 
tighten the embargo on oil and other supplies? The leakage to the Danube 
is quite clear. Is a naval blockade the way to go?
    The President. Let me say we are exploring and, indeed, are in the 
process of implementing ways to tighten the embargo, which we will 
announce very shortly. And I think there are other things we can do. 
There are two constraints on our field of action that I would ask all of 
you to remember. Apart from my concern that we not commit the United 
States to a quagmire where our efforts would be frustrated but where I 
could put a lot of Americans at risk, but apart from that, apart from 
the whole issue of ground forces which is not on the table at all, there 
are two other constraints on our action which I ask you all to consider.
    One is the need to proceed with the cooperation of our European 
allies, who have been reluctant to do certain things because the French 
and the British actually have forces on the ground who would be at risk 
if there were a reaction to whatever else we did. And those forces have 
been superintending the delivery of humanitarian aid, and most people 
there believe that their presence has saved more lives than their 
absence and tougher action would have saved.
    The other is, of course, the not insignificant difficulties that 
further confrontation might depose to the cooperation we have enjoyed so 
far in that region with the Russians, given the internal political 
conflicts in Russia based on their historic ties to Serbia.
    Now, notwithstanding those two things, we want to find ways to 
tighten the embargo, and we are moving on that right now. Even as we 
speak we are moving on that. And we're moving on some other options that 
might be available to us that I wouldn't rule out. But I do need to 
proceed here. The United States cannot proceed here unilaterally. We 
need the support of the Europeans, who are much closer to the situation 
and who will be much more immediately impacted by any further adverse 
instability in the Balkans than we would.

[[Page 245]]

    Q. But does this 24-hour incidence indicate to you that the ethnic 
cleansing is succeeding, that the policy of the Serbs----
    The President. I don't think there's any question that when the 
Serbs take an area and then run all the Bosnian Muslims out, then that 
means that they are succeeding. They have succeeded in running some 
people out of communities.
    Now, the people on the ground, the United Nations, I think still 
have to be defended for trying to facilitate their escape, not for 
supporting ethnic cleansing but because it is below freezing, it is in 
the snow, those people are at risk, and the United Nations operation 
there is now simply trying to save their lives.
    There is some indication that there may be some break in the 
negotiations and some willingness on the part of some of the parties to 
compromise in the Vance-Owen process. And I think it will be very 
interesting for the world to look and see if the Serbians are willing to 
negotiate in good faith in a process that they have embraced when it 
suited their short-term strategic interests. I hope that they will 
support it over a longer term. We'll see.
    Press Secretary Myers. Last question.

World Trade Center Bombing

    Q. Mr. President, I'm wondering if you and perhaps Mayor Dinkins 
could update us on the investigation in New York of the World Trade 
Center bombing. Yesterday you indicated you'd have more to say after the 
arraignment of this one suspect.
    The President. Anything else I can say is something I've already 
read in the morning press. You now know more about the profile of the 
person who was arrested, and you've seen the speculation about it. I do 
not want to feed that speculation. I will say again I am very impressed 
with the work done by the law enforcement officials. They got on this. 
They did it in a hurry. They would admit there was a break or two in 
their inquiry, but they also, I think, did a very commendable job.
    I think it is very important not to rush the judgment here, not to 
reach ahead of the facts which are known to reach broad conclusions 
about who was behind this or what happened. When I know who was behind 
this and what happened, I will then determine what the appropriate 
course for the United States is, and I will say it. But I think it is 
very, very important, and this is a delicate matter, that we reassure 
the American people in terms of what law enforcement did in response to 
the incident.
    But we ask them not to jump to conclusions. We have massive 
resources at work on this case, massive. And we are doing everything we 
can to get as many facts as quickly as we can. When we know the facts 
and when I can state them to you with real confidence so that it's not 
conjecture or opinion, I will be glad to make a very forthright 
statement about it.
    Thank you.
    Dave, do you want to say anything else?
    Mayor David Dinkins. The President has said it all. As a matter of 
fact, the Department of Justice has requested that the New York City 
Police Department and all others involved in this effort stay within the 
confines of the complaint. And while it is easy to go a little beyond 
that because you think it won't be harmful, you really get to a slippery 
slope situation, and some unfortunate comment can impede an otherwise 
very successful investigation.

Note: The President spoke at 10:46 a.m. in Room 450 of the Old Executive 
Office Building. In his remarks, he referred to the following Mayors: 
Bill Althaus, York, PA; David Dinkins, New York City; Bob Lanier, 
Houston, TX; and Sandra Freedman, Tampa, FL.