    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: William J. Clinton (1994, Book II)]
    [October 21, 1994]
    [Pages 1818-1828]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    The President's News Conference
    October 21, 1994

        The President. Good afternoon. Ladies and gentlemen, when I became
    President, I did so with a commitment to help more Americans seek a
    higher education, because it was important for our people and important
    for our long-term economy.
        A big part of the problem of getting more Americans into college and
    having them stay there has been the broken Federal college loan program.
    It's too expensive, it did not provide eligibility for too many middle
    class people, and there were too many people who didn't go to college
    or, having gone to college, dropped out because they never thought they
    could meet their repayment options. There were others who were
    frustrated because they thought they

    [[Page 1819]]

    couldn't take a job they might want because they simply wouldn't earn
    enough money to meet their repayment obligations.
        Today I want to talk about what we have done to fix that system. We
    already give Americans looking forward to their retirement the chance to
    save in what we called an individual retirement account. Now we offer
    people at the beginning of their careers the chance to pay for college
    in what we call individual education accounts. Here's how it works.
        The individual education account enables you to borrow money for
    college and then to determine how best to pay it back in the way that
    best fits each individual's needs as their work life changes. There will
    be four ways to repay the accounts, and people will be able to switch
    back and forth among payment options at any time and at no cost,
    depending on what's best for them. Under one option, you can simply pay
    a fixed amount back on your loan over 10 years. Two other options will
    permit people with very high debts to spread their repayments over a
    longer period of time. And as I promised during our campaign, people
    will be able to pay back their debts as a percentage of their incomes
    for the life of the loan. This income contingent repayment, or pay-as-
    you-can option, will give people the chance to start a business, do
    community service, work as teachers, police officers, or in other
    public-service-oriented employment and make payments in smaller amounts
    in the early years if their wages are lower.
        Our plan eliminates the middle man in the student loan process, who
    used to impose enormous and inefficient transaction costs, and, in so
    doing, to save $4.3 billion for U.S. taxpayers and $2 billion for
    students in lower loan fees. It means that more people will be able to
    borrow in a simple, fair, and affordable way.
        Over the next few years, as part of our larger school reform, named
    for Congressman Bill Ford who's retiring this year, every American will
    be eligible for an individual education account. Already, 300,000
    students have taken out these new college loans. By next year, 40
    percent of all of our colleges, some 1,500 of them, will be enrolled. In
    January, we'll announce a phased-in plan to allow millions of people who
    have already borrowed for their educations to consolidate their loans
    into an individual education account and get the benefits of these new
    repayment options.
        As more and more middle income Americans will discover, this is a
    very good deal, which is a very important part of America's long-term
    strategy for economic health.
        Unfortunately, there are those who don't support this approach and
    want to take us back to the days when working families couldn't afford
    to send their children to college. Every single one of our political
    opponents voted against the college loan reform plan. Most of them have
    now signed a contract telling us what they would do if they controlled
    Congress. They would give a $200 billion tax cut to the wealthiest
    Americans, they would explode the deficit, and to help pay for their
    promises, they have made a specific pledge to cut the student loan
    programs for 3 million American student borrowers every year. Well, our
    contract is with the future. I don't want to go back, and I don't
    believe the American people will support this approach.
        Ten days ago I got a letter that shows how important this issue is.
    A 16-year-old boy named Artur Orkisz, who immigrated here from Poland
    just 4 years ago, attends Elk Grove School in Des Plaines, Illinois.
    Here's what he wrote me about his dream of going to college: ``Since I
    came to the United States, my dream has been to attend a school like
    Harvard or Stanford. I rank number one in my class, but I know for a
    fact my parents are not going to be able to pay my tuition if I should
    get accepted to a good university. I'd like to know if students not as
    rich as others will get the opportunity to fulfill the American dream
    and graduate from a great university?'' Well, Artur, if you're
    listening, I got your message, and the individual education account will
    help you get your wish.
        Before I take your questions, I'd like to say just a word about the
    framework with North Korea that Ambassador Gallucci signed this morning.
    This is a good deal for the United States. North Korea will freeze and
    then dismantle its nuclear program. South Korea and our other allies
    will be better protected. The entire world will be safer as we slow the
    spread of nuclear weapons.
        South Korea, with support from Japan and other nations, will bear
    most of the cost of providing North Korea with fuel to make up for the
    nuclear energy it is losing. And they will pay for an alternative power
    system for North Korea that will allow them to produce electricity

    [[Page 1820]]

    while making it much harder for them to produce nuclear weapons.
        The United States and international inspectors will carefully
    monitor North Korea to make sure it keeps its commitments. Only as it
    does so will North Korea fully join the community of nations.
        Terry [Terence Hunt, Associated Press].

    Middle East Peace Process

        Q. Mr. President, when you met last January with President Asad of
    Syria, he said that peace with Israel was a strategic option. And you
    said that he was taking the risks for peace. Has he followed through on
    that? Do you think that he's been forthright enough? And when you go to
    the Middle East next week, what can you do to break this impasse between
    Syria and Israel?
        The President. Well, I can say that there has been progress in the
    negotiations between Israel and Syria. Let me also say in general terms
    why I'm going there.
        As you know, I and my administration have worked very hard for a
    comprehensive peace in the Middle East. It is very much in the interest
    of the United States. I have been invited by King Hussein and Prime
    Minister Rabin to be at this signing, and I think it's important that,
    particularly now, with the violent reaction to the efforts at peace,
    that the United States stand shoulder-to-shoulder with our friends and
    allies who are taking such terrific risks to make peace.
        While I am there, I will visit Syria because it is my judgment that
    the visit will further the goal of an ultimate peace agreement between
    Israel and Syria. And until that is done, we will never have
    comprehensive peace in the Middle East. There has been some progress in
    the negotiations, which are, as you know, candid and confidential
    between the two. I think there will be more progress. I want there to be
    more progress, and I think this visit will further it.
        Helen [Helen Thomas, United Press International].
        Q. I have a three-part question. In the overall sense, what do you
    expect to achieve from this trip? In view of the recent incidents, are
    there real security concerns? And in the interest of reconciliation,
    will you try to persuade Israel to release some of the thousands of
    political Palestinian prisoners that it still holds?
        The President. First of all, let me begin with your second question.
    I have confidence in the security capacity of the governments and the
    countries that I will visit and in, of course, the work of our own
    Secret Service. And I think it is terribly important, especially since
    there have been violent reactions from the enemies of peace, that the
    United States stand with the friends of peace and the champions of peace
    at this time. It is even more important than it would have been a few
    days ago that I go there and that our country stick up for this.
        Secondly, what I hope to achieve is to continue to further the peace
    process. This peace treaty is a huge step forward. I will have the
    opportunity in Cairo to meet with President Mubarak and Mr. Arafat. I
    will have a chance there to talk about the importance of implementing
    fully the PLO-Israel accord. I will have the opportunity to go to Syria.
    As to what specific things I will discuss with Prime Minister Rabin and
    others, I think it's better for me to have the conversations and discuss
    it later.
        Q. But you will be trying to move everything forward?
        The President. I will definitely be trying to move everything
    forward. My purpose in going there is, first, to stand with our friends
    at this moment when they're standing up for peace and the enemies of
    peace are trying to derail them and, secondly, to move the peace process
    forward.
        Q. Mr. President, how difficult a decision was this to go to
    Damascus, since your own State Department still lists Syria as a country
    that supports international terrorism? And a related question, only this
    morning, there were Katiusha rockets landing from southern Lebanon, an
    area dominated by Syrian control, landing in northern Israel. How do you
    believe that this will advance the peace process? And do you have any
    assurances in advance from President Asad that he's willing to go
    further now than he went in Geneva earlier this year?
        The President. First, I think that with regard to the Katiusha
    rockets, I think that matter will be resolved between the parties
    involved before the trip develops. Secondly, with regard to meeting
    President Asad, even though Syria is on the terrorist list, that remains
    an issue between our two countries. It is a serious issue. It has been
    constantly discussed between us, and it will continue to be. But I do
    not believe that we can permit it to keep us from pursuing

    [[Page 1821]]

    a comprehensive peace as long as nothing in our peace agreements
    undermines our commitment to end terrorism.
        So I believe that anything I can do, just as I did when I met with
    President Asad in Geneva, to further the peace process is something that
    ought to be done. And I believe that by meeting with him and talking
    with him and working with him, we will continue to make some advances.
        Andrea [Andrea Mitchell, NBC News].

    Terrorism

        Q. Mr. President, what can the United States do to make sure that
    Hamas is not getting money from organizations here in the United States,
    not recruiting people and training people here in the United States? And
    are you satisfied with Yasser Arafat's response so far, in his
    willingness to really crack down on Hamas and other terrorist groups?
        The President. We can, here, do everything we can through the FBI
    and our other law enforcement agencies to make sure that we're handling
    any possible illegal activities in the United States redounding to the
    benefit of Hamas vigorously. And just in the last week, I have given
    instructions to the proper Federal agencies to redouble our efforts in
    that regard.
        With regard to your question about Mr. Arafat, I do believe, and the
    Israelis believe, that he did his best to support them with good
    intelligence when Corporal Waxman was captured and held hostage. And I
    believe that in the wake of the killing of Corporal Waxman, the
    determination of the PLO to distance itself from Hamas and to enforce
    the law within its territories has stiffened, and I think it will
    continue to stiffen.
        Q. Do think that he has cracked down sufficiently in the Gaza,
    especially regarding this latest incident?
        The President. I think that he's moving in the right direction. One
    of the things that we are always trying to determine in this moment when
    they're taking over in the West Bank and Gaza is the capacity of the
    Palestinian government, the PLO government, to do that work, and we're
    trying to support an increase in that capacity. I can say that I believe
    that they're moving in the right direction.

    Haiti

        Q. Mr. President, having spent hundreds of millions of dollars to
    restore democracy to Haiti, why is it necessary for American taxpayers
    to spend still more, renting the homes that Raoul Cedras left behind? I
    realize it's a relatively insignificant sum, but isn't that adding
    insult to injury?
        The President. Well, first of all, I don't think it's an insult that
    we spent the money to restore democracy to Haiti. Let's look at what has
    happened in the last 4 weeks. We have restored democracy. The military
    dictators have stepped down. The military dictators have left Haiti.
    President Aristide is rebuilding his government. The economy is
    beginning to be rebuilt. People are being put to work at rebuilding the
    country. This is a signal triumph for the men and women in uniform who
    are down there and the work that they have done, and it is a very
    important lesson in what can be done to promote democracy and to end
    human rights abuses.
        Now, with regard to the houses, let me just say that the United
    States and other countries that are with us on the coalition are not in
    the business of expropriating people's property. And when you make
    people leave their home, something arguably should have been done. The
    only instruction I gave was that nothing could be done that would exceed
    the fair market value of the property--that was the rule under which the
    State Department was operating anyway--and that some use had to be made
    of it. So they're either going to use it or turn around and release it
    so that the taxpayers in this country aren't disadvantaged by it. But I
    think that this policy has been phenomenally successful in terms of
    saving lives, not putting Americans unduly at risk, and moving this
    country's objectives forward. And I think the American people should be
    very proud of it.

    Iraq

        Q. Mr. President, during the last Persian Gulf crisis, the Bush
    White House at times suggested that Saddam Hussein should be overthrown.
    What's your assessment of the internal situation in Iraq now, and do you
    think Saddam Hussein should be overthrown?
        The President. Well, the Bush White House also made it clear that a
    condition of their international coalition was that they would not do
    the overthrowing. My position is that we should

    [[Page 1822]]

    keep the pressure on that regime as long as it is out of compliance with
    U.N. Security Council resolutions. And there are obviously costs to the
    regime internally from that pressure, and that is the consequence of the
    misconduct of Saddam Hussein. And the immediate threat is receding. The
    withdrawal above the 32d parallel is nearly completed.
        But we will maintain the deployment at the level we have it now for
    a while. We will watch the situation. I am gratified by the United
    Nations Security Council resolution unanimously condemning that conduct.
    There is no question that internally the pressure will continue to build
    up unless Saddam Hussein decides to do the right thing and fully comply
    with the Security Council resolutions.
        Q. And your assessment of the internal situation there?
        The President. Your assessment might be as good as mine. I think
    there are extra pressures on them. And I think that those are creating
    some difficulties, but I don't want to predict what would happen within
    Iraq.

    Midterm Elections

        Q. Mr. President, to change to domestic policy--or politics. For the
    first time in 40 years, a multitude of polls are suggesting that more
    Americans are prepared to vote for Republicans in congressional
    elections than Democrats. Can you explain why that's happening for the
    first time since the Truman administration and to what degree you
    believe your administration is responsible for it?
        The President. Well, I think it's changing in the last few days, and
    we didn't want to peak too soon. [Laughter] Let me say, just on a brief,
    serious note, one of the things that we know is that Americans almost
    always do the right thing when they have all the information. We know
    that Americans literally don't know a lot of what went on in Congress,
    who was responsible for what, and what's happening now. As more and more
    Americans find out between now and election day that our administration,
    working with our allies in Congress, did things to make Government work
    for ordinary Americans--like the middle class college loans, the family
    leave law, the Brady bill, immunizing kids under the age of 2, a dozen
    more things--and that these things were uniformly opposed by the
    Republican congressional leadership and sometimes by all Republicans,
    that the Republicans killed the Superfund law to clean up toxic dumps
    and all the political campaign reform laws and now have a contract that
    would take us back to the trickle-down economics of the eighties,
    explode the deficit, ship jobs overseas, and cause the cuts of Medicare
    and all other Government programs, including student loans, and they
    talk tough on crime, but they've got a plan to cut the crime bill and
    make sure it can't be funded and police officers can't be put out
    there--I think the voters will change their minds. And I think that when
    Congress went home and the American people now have a chance to hear the
    debate and hear both sides, if we can get the evidence and the arguments
    out there, I feel quite confident that they'll do the right thing.

    Medicare

        Q. You and other Democrats around the country have been complaining
    about the contract that--the Republicans' Contract With America--that it
    would cut Medicare steeply. Can you say that you would not propose to
    cut Medicare next year?
        The President. You know what my position is. My position is that any
    Medicare savings that we can get from managing the program better should
    be put back into providing for the health care needs of our country.
    That was my position, that's the position that I offered in the health
    care debate, and that's still my position.

    Virginia Senatorial Campaign

        Q. President Clinton, there have been a lot of reports coming out
    about you meeting with former Governor Wilder. Can you tell us whether
    the subject of an ambassadorship for him to an African country ever came
    up during that recent meeting in exchange for any promise he made to
    endorse Chuck Robb? And what do you think of the comments that candidate
    Oliver North has been coming up with, suggesting that there should be
    some kind of investigation of the meeting, that you may have broken the
    law during that meeting?
        The President. Well, first of all, there was absolutely no
    discussion along the lines you mentioned of an ambassadorship to an
    African country in return for his endorsement of Senator Robb. That just
    did not happen. I would not do that. I would never be part of that, and
    that did not happen. The Vice President spoke

    [[Page 1823]]

    to it today. I will tell you again, that did not happen. It did not
    happen.
        Now, you know, Oliver North says a lot of things, and you know, if
    you've got $17.5 million to buy your own version of the truth, then you
    don't have to be held, apparently, to the same standard that other
    people do. I noticed the other day he said that I wasn't his Commander
    in Chief, and someone asked me if it bothered me. I said, it didn't
    bother me nearly as much as the fact that he didn't act as if Ronald
    Reagan was his Commander in Chief, either, when he had a chance.
    [Laughter] So, I don't know what else to say about Mr. North.
        Brit [Brit Hume, ABC News].

    Foreign Policy

        Q. Mr. President, you've been able to report advances in foreign
    policy across a number of fronts, some that you've mentioned here today.
    I doubt anyone here would have anticipated 2 years ago you would be
    spending next week, the week before the election, out of the country.
    Obviously, historic events have something to do with that, but I wonder
    if your attitude toward the role of foreign policy in your Presidency
    and your absorption with it and interest in it has changed or grown.
        The President. I wouldn't say that, but what is happening now with
    regard to Haiti and Korea and Iraq in the sense that Iraq is an example
    of our increased mobility as a result of commitments we made in the
    defense budgets, what happened with the Chinese commitment to comply
    with the missile control regime and not to sell dangerous missiles to
    its neighbors, a lot of these things are the accumulation of 2 years of
    hard work, trying to fashion the national security of the United States
    and advance the economic interests of the United States and advance
    democracy in the post-cold-war world. And it is all--a lot of these
    things have come together in a short time. But we have been working on
    them for quite a long time now, and it's just, I think, to some extent,
    a simple coincidence that the benefits of these long efforts are coming
    to fruition now.
        You're right, I never would have anticipated going to the Middle
    East at this particular season, but I think it would be wrong for me not
    to go, particularly for the reasons I just said at this moment. I think
    it's important.
        And one of the things I tried to say in the election campaign that
    I'd like to reiterate--I wish it were possible for the American people
    to believe what I believe about this, which is that there is no simple
    and easy dividing line between domestic policy and foreign policy, that
    in a global economy, a global society where everything is so
    interrelated, we can't be strong abroad if we're not strong at home. But
    we cannot maintain our internal strength and our values unless we are
    secure and strong beyond our borders.

    Washington, DC

        Q. Mr. President, Washington is becoming an issue in this campaign.
    The latest thing is that a candidate in Oklahoma says there are no
    normal people here. [Laughter] You've lived here almost 2 years now. I
    wonder what you think of Washington?
        The President. I would be glad to testify in court that I think you
    are a normal person. [Laughter] I don't know. I think there is a bunch
    of normal folks here, but I think this atmosphere is sort of abnormal.
    The thing that I think is bizarre, though, is I think the American
    people need to have their antenna up when they hear that, especially
    since Mr. Gingrich had already said in his meeting with the Republican
    professional politicians that his mission in life was to convince people
    that I was the enemy of normal Americans. So I would just caution the
    voters everywhere in this country, and when they hear somebody say
    there's no normal people in Washington, a lot of the people that are
    saying it are the people that have done their best to hang on to every
    last job they could get in Washington in the executive branch for two,
    three decades now. So the atmosphere is abnormal, and that makes the
    people sometimes do and say weird things. But there's a lot of fine
    folks here, and what we ought to do is kind of get together and do
    better.
        Deborah [Deborah Mathis, Gannett News Service].

    Social Problems

        Q. Mr. President, notwithstanding the problems all around the world,
    there are pernicious social problems here in the United States. And many
    of these problems, in many views, are breaking down along racial lines.
    Indeed, some people say that the progress of the sixties has been upset
    and overturned, that the great divide between black and white is
    worsening, widening. And lately, there is a new book out that suggests

    [[Page 1824]]

    that these problems, these conflicts may be inherent, and we may be
    doomed to them. What do you think about race as it applies to the social
    problems? And what can you do, what can a government do to try and fix
    some of it?
        The President. Well, if you're asking me first of all about Mr.
    Murray's book, I haven't read it. But as I understand the argument of
    it, I have to say I disagree with the proposition that there are
    inherent, racially based differences in the capacity of the American
    people to reach their full potential. I just don't agree with that. It
    goes against our entire history and our whole tradition.
        I also think if you--let's just take the social problems. And I
    guess--I don't want to overly digress; I know a lot of you have a lot of
    questions, but this is a huge deal. I don't know if you saw the piece in
    the Wall Street Journal not very long ago where black Americans and
    white Americans were polled about the social problems generally, crime,
    family breakdown, drugs, gangs, violence, welfare dependency, the
    aggregate of them, overwhelming majorities agreed that these were the
    great problems of our country. And they've been developing for 30 years
    now. Then, overwhelming majorities agreed that we needed to reform the
    welfare system to move people from welfare to work. The great divergence
    came when one group said that this was caused because of the loss of
    economic opportunity, and the Government had a responsibility to rebuild
    it. And the other group said, no, this is caused by an escalating amount
    of personal misconduct, and people needed to change their personal
    behavior. In other words, the Government can't do anything about it.
        I would like to make the following points: I think both groups are
    right and both groups are wrong, number one. Number two, there's not as
    much racial difference here as you think there is. And let me try to
    illustrate it by starting at the second point.
        The out-of-wedlock birth rate in the aggregate in the United States
    is today about 30 percent. It is higher for African-American young
    women--that is, a birth where there was never a marriage--than it is for
    white young women, but it is rising faster among whites than among
    blacks, markedly faster. And it seems to be far more tied to poverty and
    lack of education and lack of being connected to the future than to
    race. Number two, it is plain that we are dealing with both the loss of
    economic opportunity and a changed set of social mores, a changed sense
    of what is right and wrong, what is acceptable and unacceptable. And I
    believe we need to change both.
        What can the Government do about it? What can the President do about
    it? First, we can try to bring this economy back. In 1994, we've had
    more high-wage jobs created in our economy than in the previous 5 years
    combined. This is the first year when over half of the jobs coming into
    our economy are above average wages. Number two, as all of you know, I
    have signed laws to create community development banks and empowerment
    zones in our inner cities to try to get investment back there, to give
    hope to people who have been left behind, to try to do the economic
    mission. But having said that, to try to rebuild a society that has been
    pressured both in our inner cities and our isolated rural areas for a
    generation now--we're talking about 30 years of serious pressure--is
    going to take a concerted effort that starts with parents and churches
    and community groups and private business people and people at the local
    level. The Federal Government cannot be the salvation of that. We have
    to rebuild the bonds of society.
        And everybody has a role to play. That's why--I want to compliment--
    Deputy Secretary Kunin is here, Governor Kunin from the Department of
    Education. We signed the elementary and secondary education act today;
    we're kicking off the college loan program--yesterday--we're kicking off
    the college loan program today. One of the things in that act that
    Secretary Riley fought so hard for was the so-called character education
    provision, so that the schools can explicitly work with their
    communities and agree about what values need to be transferred to
    children through the schools and promote them.
        This is a very serious and complicated issue. I think it is a quick
    fix to try to break it down by race. I believe that the evidence is
    clear that what we ought to be working on is a way for every kid in this
    country to live up to the fullest of their potential. And that potential
    is quite extraordinary, and they will do quite well without regard to
    race if we can attack these problems.

    [[Page 1825]]

    North Korea

        Q. Mr. President, a question on the North Korean nuclear arms
    accord. Even before the ink is dry on that accord, officials of the
    international atomic energy association are complaining it denies them
    of a key right, that of special inspections. Doesn't this set a bad
    precedent for other countries with nuclear ambitions, such as Iran?
        The President. I don't think it does deny them special inspections.
    It commits North Korea first to freeze and then to dismantle, something
    they'd never committed to do before and something they weren't required
    to do under the NPT. It also commits them to ship out their spent
    nuclear fuel, to get it physically out of the country so they cannot do
    anything with it. The question of special inspections, whether and when,
    is put off from the present, and that bothers some people. But if you
    consider the fact that the waste sites are not going anywhere, that the
    IAEA is going to be in the country, and that we have a commitment for a
    freeze and then a dismantling and that if they ever violate it they
    won't get the benefits that they seek from it, it seems to me this is
    still a very good deal indeed. And I think that what we have to do is to
    work with the IAEA people who will be on the ground and work out the
    practical details of this.

    Racial Diversity

        Q. Mr. President, related to Deborah's question, several years ago a
    Piscataway, New Jersey, school board had to lay off teachers. And it
    came to a white female teacher and a black female teacher. And rather
    than flipping a coin--as it turns out, both had been hired on the same
    day so they had equal experience--the school board fired the white
    teacher because of the color of her skin. Now, your Justice Department
    originally opposed the school board in court, but has flipped recently.
    And I was wondering if you agree with that decision, if you think that
    we need more affirmative action acts like this or whether that's a case
    of reverse discrimination.
        The President. I support the position as finally articulated, but
    I'd like to say it's a very narrow case. That is, if you have a school
    district where the children are overwhelmingly of one race or another
    and the faculty is as well and you have two equally qualified people and
    you stipulate that--in this case, both sides in the lawsuit stipulated
    they were absolutely equally qualified--then can trying to preserve some
    racial diversity on your faculty be a ground for making the decision, as
    opposed to flipping a coin? As long as it runs both ways, or all ways, I
    support that decision; that is, there are other conditions in which if
    there were only one white teacher on the faculty in a certain area and
    there were two teachers, they were equally qualified, and the school
    board or the school administrator decided to keep the white teacher,
    also to preserve racial diversity. That is the position the Justice
    Department has taken. And on those very narrow grounds, I support it,
    because both sides stipulated, both teachers and their lawyers
    stipulated that there was absolutely no difference in their
    qualifications for the job.

    Midterm Elections

        Q. Mr. President, this is a political season, and you've been out on
    the stump a fair amount. What is your prediction of how many seats the
    Democrats will lose in the House and the Senate? And do you think if the
    Republicans manage to win the House, given all the mean things that have
    been said this year, could you work with a Speaker Newt Gingrich?
    [Laughter]
        The President. Well, you know Newt's the person that said I was the
    enemy of normal Americans. I didn't say that about him. The American
    people have to make a judgment in the election. I can tell you this: I
    believe with all my heart if the American people knew the record of our
    administration in making advances, making this Government work for
    ordinary people, if they knew that; if they knew what we'd done to
    restore the economy, bring the deficit down, shrink the size of the
    Federal Government; if they knew what we'd done in passing the crime
    bill; and if they knew the extent to which the Republican leadership had
    opposed this every step of the way; if they understand what's in this
    contract; then if they know we have a contract with the future, that my
    only interest is in moving this country into the future in a stronger
    position, I don't believe we would lose seats at all.
        Now, almost always at midterm the incumbent President's party loses
    seats. That's partly because there's a lag between when you do something
    and when people feel it. And of course, this is an extremely contentious
    time. But I believe that that will happen. So what

    [[Page 1826]]

    I'm going to do in the next 2\1/2\ weeks is to do everything I can to
    get as many voters as possible to know exactly what the facts are and
    what our vision for the future is. Then they will make their judgment.
    After they make their judgment, I will do everything I can to honor
    their judgment by fulfilling my responsibility, which is to challenge
    every Member of Congress without regard to party and especially the
    leaders to work with me to make this country a better place. That's what
    I have always done, and that's what I will do.

    Northern Ireland

        Q. Mr. President, now that the IRA and the loyalists' paramilitaries
    in Northern Ireland have called a cease-fire, which has been today
    accepted by Prime Minister Major, can you say how soon the
    administration will have ready a package of economic incentives to help
    a peacetime Northern Ireland economy? And can you characterize the
    package? And can you also say what is now the United States role in the
    talks that are going to take place regarding Northern Ireland?
        The President. Let me first congratulate the action which was taken
    and Prime Minister Major's response to it. I think both are very
    hopeful. And I am very glad that the United States has been able to be
    involved in this peace process in Northern Ireland. We will continue to
    be involved in it. And we certainly want to contribute to the
    development of Northern Ireland in ways that go beyond even what we've
    done already with the Irish-American fund. And there are a lot of
    private citizens in this country who are also really committed to that.
    And in the end, they will have the most to say about it because we need
    private enterprise development in Northern Ireland. We have looked at a
    number of options. We have not finalized any of them because obviously
    we want to wait for developments to unfold, until the appropriate point.
    We're a lot closer to the appropriate point today because of the
    announcements that have been made.
        Bill [Bill Plante, CBS News].

    Bosnia

        Q. Mr. President, are you still committed to lifting the arms
    embargo against Bosnian Muslims unilaterally if you can't achieve it in
    the U.N. Security Council by November 15th, even though that might mean
    the evacuation by peacekeeping forces, a buildup by the Serbs, and
    alienation of our relations with the Russians?
        The President. Well, let's go back to the timetable first. Under the
    law that our Congress adopted that I agreed to, the compromise we worked
    out between the administration and the Congress, because the October
    15th deadline has passed without an acceptance of the peace plan by the
    Bosnian Serbs, we are obliged to go to the United Nations with a
    resolution to lift the arms embargo through the United Nations, but at
    the request of the Bosnian Government to delay it for 6 months, to give
    us 6 more months to work on the peace. That is our commitment. If that
    fails, we are then obliged to go back and consult with Congress to
    discuss whether we should have a unilateral lift.
        I still believe that is a mistake. I have believed for more than 2
    years that would be a mistake, because if we lift unilaterally it will
    cause the collapse of the United Nations mission. The people of the
    United States don't want our soldiers to go there alone to engage in a
    battle that is essentially a civil war. I am convinced that the United
    Nations troops, or most of them, will withdraw if there's a unilateral
    lift. And I am convinced that it will undermine our ability to work with
    other countries within the United Nations to resolve this. So I don't
    support that. But under the law I am obliged to bring that back to
    Congress and work it through. But keep in mind, we still have 6 months
    to work through this in the United Nations at the request of the Bosnian
    Government itself. So that's what we'll keep working on.

    Hillary Clinton's Role

        Q. I want to ask you about Mrs. Clinton, if I may. What is Mrs.
    Clinton's professional role at this point? Will she be fully engaged in
    the health care bill after the next Congress? And does she have any
    other professional or political portfolio right now?
        The President. You bet she does. I mean, I think if you follow her
    schedule every day, you know what she's doing. And of course, she will
    continue to be involved in health care. I would never call it a
    professional role except insofar as everything she does as First Lady is
    professional. But we intend to continue to work on the health care
    issue.

    [[Page 1827]]

        I would remind you that another 1,100,000 Americans in working
    families lost their health insurance this year, that the new estimates
    are that unless we do something about the rising cost of health care, we
    will be spending well over 25 percent of our Federal budget on health
    outlays early in the next century or the next decade now. So we're going
    to have to face this. This is not a problem that's going to go away.
    It's going to keep rearing its head.

    Immigration

        Q. A year ago, you took a position on a California ballot
    initiative. Do you have any advice this year for Californians facing
    Proposition 187, which would deny benefits to illegal aliens, and
    services? And do you have any concerns about the strong tide of anti-
    immigrant feelings that are in California right now?
        The President. Yes, I have concerns about it. I spoke about this
    briefly with USA Today a couple of days ago, but I'd like to talk about
    it a moment.
        First, let me say the people of California and the people of the
    United States are right in wanting to eliminate illegal immigration and
    increase our ability to protect our own borders, even against people
    that we welcome to our shores when they are legal immigrants. That was a
    part of the tension recently with regard to Cuba when we made the
    agreement to stop illegal immigration there. It was part of the early
    tension last summer with regard to Haiti. The people of California,
    therefore, are right to want that.
        It is, on the other hand, a great mistake to be against immigration
    generally. We are a nation of immigrants. Practically all of us have
    forebears who came from somewhere else. And from time to time, we have
    been greatly strengthened by immigrants. The fact that we have so many
    different people of different races and ethnic groups and religious
    backgrounds will be, I might add, an enormous strength for this country
    as we move into the next century and we get into a global economy.
        Let me just give you one small example, and I will come back to 187.
    What other country besides the United States could have undertaken the
    operation in Haiti and sent Haitian-American soldiers in uniform to
    Haiti to speak Creole to the citizens of that country? That's just one
    example. We're having the Summit of the Americas here in December. We
    can do that because Spanish is the second language of America now and
    because of our growing involvement in the rest of the world. So we--in
    being against illegal immigration, we should not be against immigration
    and the incredible source of strength that immigrants bring to our
    borders.
        Now, what to do about it. I guess I've spent as much time working on
    California and the problems of California, the economic problems of
    California, as any President ever has. It was my duty to do so. They've
    had so many problems, caused by the decline of defense spending, caused
    by the recession generally, coupled with the explosion of immigration
    and a whole range of other problems they have out there.
        Look at what we have done: We have increased spending on the States
    to deal with the immigration problems by 32 percent since I've been
    President, even though we've been cutting overall spending. We've
    increased border guards by 30 percent. We put 1,000 more border guards
    on. We have doubled the border guards in San Diego. We've had--San Diego
    and El Paso and Arizona. We've had very successful initiatives to slow
    the influx of illegal immigrants. We have toughened the penalties. We're
    beginning to send criminals who are illegal immigrants out of the
    country. We are the first administration ever to give money to the
    States to deal with the criminal justice costs. We're spending money on
    health care and education never before spent. So we are doing things
    that have not been done.
        Barbara Jordan just issued her commission's report. We have those
    recommendations under advisement. We are going to do some things that
    will continue to increase our capacity to reduce illegal immigration.
    That's what I think the right thing to do is.
        I have some problems with 187. One is, even its supporters admit
    that it's unconstitutional. And I don't think as a matter of practice
    it's a good thing to condition an election referendum, much less other
    elections in California, on a measure that even the supporters say is
    unconstitutional. Secondly, I think it presents significant risks. If
    you don't give the children health care, you can create health risks for
    the society generally. If you don't give the children education, and
    they're still in the country and you can't get them out, then they'll be
    on the street, and the increased risks of crime or other antisocial
    behavior will go up. If you turn the teachers and other educators into
    instruments

    [[Page 1828]]

    of a sort of a State police force, it's like bringing Big Brother into
    the schools.
        I guess what I'm saying is, I sort of agree with what Jack Kemp and
    Bill Bennett said in their article about it. And I applaud them for
    saying it. I mean, this is an issue again where our parties ought to be
    together. Historically, both Republican and Democratic parties have been
    strengthened by our immigrants. And I think--if the people of California
    would be fully candid, they would have to say that leadership decisions
    made in the past in California have actually facilitated illegal
    immigration, when they were called undocumented immigrants, in ways that
    people in California thought were supporting the economic growth of
    California in good times.
        So we need to back away and change our policy. But we don't need to
    do it in a way that is overbroad, that runs the risk of these problems,
    and that is plainly unconstitutional, in my judgment. And I have fought
    harder, I think, than any President to help California deal with the
    problems of illegal immigration. I just don't think that's the way to do
    it.
        Thank you very much.

    Note: The President's 74th news conference began at 2:32 p.m. in the
    East Room at the White House. In his remarks, he referred to Charles
    Murray, co-author of ``The Bell Curve''; former Secretary of Housing and
    Urban Development Jack Kemp; former Director of the Office of National
    Drug Control Policy William J. Bennett; and Barbara Jordan, Chair of the
    Commission on Immigration Reform.