    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: William J. Clinton (1995, Book I)]
    [June 1, 1995]
    [Pages 790-801]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    Remarks at a Town Meeting in Billings, Montana
    June 1, 1995

        Gus Koernig. Anything you'd like to say, Mr. President, or you just
    want to jump in?
        The President. I think we ought to jump in. I had a wonderful stay
    in Montana. I had a great opportunity to speak to a large number of
    Montanans at Montana State University last night. I've had a great day
    today, as you know. And these folks have brought their questions; I
    think we should begin.

    Gun Control Legislation

        Mr. Koernig. Okay. I'm told I get to start. So, as you're probably
    aware, sport hunting is very popular in Montana. More than 60 percent of
    the men in this State, more than 30 percent of the women purchase game
    hunting licenses every year. There is a lot of concern here on the parts
    of people that legislation such as the Brady law and the assault weapons
    ban are a sign of more things to come, and there is a lot of concern and
    more than a little fear and uneasiness about this. What can you say to
    these folks here in our audience to address that?
        The President. Well, first of all, let me tell you where I'm coming
    from on this. For 12 years, before I became President, I was the
    Governor of Arkansas, a State where more than half the people have a
    hunting or a fishing license or both. I would never knowingly do
    anything to undermine the ability of people to hunt, to engage in
    recreational shooting, to do anything else that is legal with
    appropriate firearms.
        I strongly supported the Brady bill for a clear reason: We knew it
    would work to keep a significant number of people from getting guns who
    either had past criminal records or had mental health histories that
    made them unfit to be gun owners. And it has, in fact, done that.
        I supported the assault weapons ban for a simple reason: because the
    death rate from gunshot wounds in a lot of our cities where the crime
    rate is high has gone up. I went to emergency rooms where hospital
    personnel pleaded with me to do something about this problem, because
    the average gunshot wound victim they were seeing had more bullets in
    them than just a few years ago because of the widespread use of these
    assault weapons by gang members. I saw a lot of children who were
    innocently caught in crossfires in this kind of thing. All the law
    enforcement agencies in the country asked for help on the assault
    weapons ban. So I supported it. But the bill that I passed also
    contained a list of 650 sporting weapons that could not be in any way
    infringed by Federal action, that were protected. There were 19 as-

    [[Page 791]]

    sault weapons and their copycats that were prohibited. I still believe
    it was the right thing to do. I strongly believe it was the right thing
    to do.
        Now, we can differ about that, but I just want to make two points in
    closing. As President, I have to make laws that fit not nly my folks
    back home in Arkansas and the people in Montana but the whole of this
    country. And the great thing about this country is its diversity, its
    differences, and trying to harmonize those is our great challenge.
        I did this because I thought it would give our law enforcement
    officers a better chance to stay alive and to keep other people alive.
    That's why I did it. I did it because it has clear protections for
    hunting and sporting weapons. And I think, frankly, that the NRA has
    done the country a disservice by trying to raise members and raise money
    by making extremist claims for this. I mean, they put out a letter in
    which they called Federal officials ``jackbooted thugs,'' as you know,
    but the other part of the letter accused me of encouraging Federal
    officials to commit murder. And I just think that's wrong.
        You know, one of the problems we've got in this country is,
    everybody wants simple answers to complicated questions, and so we all
    start screaming at each other before we listen and talk. That's one
    reason I'm here tonight.
        So I did it; I think it's the right thing to do. But I do not plan
    to do anything which would undermine the ability of people in Montana or
    any other State in this country to lawfully use their weapons.
        Mr. Koernig. We promise not to scream tonight. Our first question.
        The President. You can if you want.

    Bosnia

    [A 14-year-old exchange student from Serbian-occupied territory asked
    about efforts to bring peace to her country and to encourage more
    student exchanges in the meantime.]

        The President. Thank you very much. Let me answer the second
    question first, because it's an easier answer. The answer to your second
    question is yes, I want to see young people come over here and live in
    America and have the experiences you're having. And I think it would be
    very beneficial for Americans to have people from your country who have
    been through what you have been through and your family has been through
    come here and talk about it. So, yes.
        The first question is, can I do anything to bring an easier end to
    the fighting, or a quicker end to the fighting? We are doing what we
    can. Let me tell you what we're doing. First of all, we are leading the
    largest humanitarian airlift in human history now into Bosnia, trying to
    make sure we get as much food and medicine in there. Secondly, I have,
    near where you're from in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia,
    stationed some American troops to try to make sure that the conflict
    can't spread beyond Bosnia and that no one believes they can in--sort of
    start a whole regional war. The third thing we've tried to do through
    NATO is to support the British, the French, the Canadian, and the other
    European troops that are in Bosnia in their peacekeeping efforts. We
    have tried to make sure that we created safe areas in the eastern
    enclaves and around Sarajevo, that we tried to collect all the heavy
    weapons that the Serbs have which give them such an enormous advantage
    on the battlefield. And that's what caused this latest trouble we had
    over there, because they broke the agreement they made and they put
    1,400 shells into Sarajevo.
        Now, I have to tell you, though, I think in the end this war will
    only end when the parties are willing to negotiate a peace, in peace,
    just the way we're bringing an end to the war in the Middle East, the
    way we're bringing an end to the conflicts in Northern Ireland. I do not
    believe there is a military settlement that the United States can
    enforce. And I do not favor sending our troops into combat there to try
    to assure victory or to force through military means an end to the
    fighting. All it would do is get a lot of Americans killed and not
    achieve the objective. So I don't think we should do that. But we should
    do everything we can short of that.

    Welfare, Regulations, and Taxes

    [A participant asked about combating the negativism expressed by
    coworkers leaning toward a militia mentality.]

        The President. Well, first of all, I think one of the things that
    has happened is that increasingly in this information age, with all this
    explosion of access to information, one of the things

    [[Page 792]]

    that's happening that's not good is that people are more and more and
    more listening to people who tell them just what they want to hear or
    play on their own fears. And that's isolating us. One reason I like this
    is that there are a lot of people here of different points of view. So I
    think--I would urge you to urge them to open their ears and eyes to
    different points of view. Now, let me just deal with the three issues
    you mentioned. You mentioned welfare; you mentioned Government
    regulation; you mentioned taxes.
        On the welfare issue, most Americans believe, I learned from a
    recent poll, that we're spending 45 percent of your money on foreign aid
    and welfare. In fact, we're spending about a nickel of your money on
    foreign aid and welfare, your tax money. For the last 2 years, 2\1/2\
    years, I have done everything I could to convince the Congress to pass a
    welfare reform bill which would invest more in work and require people
    on welfare to move to work and would give people who are parents of
    small children the ability to work and still see that their kids are
    taken care of. When that has not happened, I have given 29 States now
    the permission to get out from under all these Federal rules and
    regulations and adopt their own plans to move people from welfare to
    work.
        On the regulation issue, we have reduced more regulations than the
    two previous administrations. We're going to cut enough paperwork this
    year to stretch page by page from New York to San Francisco. So if you
    want me to defend Government regulation, you're talking to the wrong
    person. I can't even defend everything that's been done since I've been
    here, because I believe we do have to change the way the Government
    works. But the final thing I would tell you is, I do not believe that we
    should abandon our commitment to a clean environment and to the quality
    of life that makes everybody in the world want to live in a place like
    Montana. But I think we have to change the way we regulate and do it
    better.
        On the tax issue, the American tax burden is about the same as it is
    in Japan and, on average, about 50 percent lower than it is in the
    European countries. And I have done what I could to bring it down for
    middle class people who are overtaxed. Today, families of four with
    incomes of $28,000 a year or less this year paid $1,000 less than they
    would have before I became President, because of taxes we cut in '93.
    And I want to provide further tax relief to middle class Americans to
    educate their children, to raise their children, and to help to save to
    pay for health insurance or care for their parents.
        So we're working on all these things. The answer is not to join the
    militia and opt out. The answer is to come in here and opt in and be a
    vigorous voice of citizen responsibility.

    Federal Employee Safety

    [The daughter of a Bureau of Land Management employee expressed concern
    for her father's safety.]

        The President. First of all, I want to thank your father for serving
    his country by working for the Federal Government. Maybe the most
    important thing I can do is to remind the American people that the
    people who work for the Federal Government are citizens and human beings
    too. And I think the one thing that happened in Oklahoma City is a lot
    of people realized all of a sudden that all of these people we deride
    all the time for working for the Federal Government are people that go
    to church with us, that send their kids to our schools and show up at
    the softball parks and the bowling alleys and contribute to the United
    Way.
        And I think that if you want to disagree with the policy of the
    Government, disagree with it. If there is a single Federal official--
    there's nobody, including me, who has never felt that they were
    mistreated by somebody working for the Government. So if somebody
    believes someone who is working for the Government has mistreated them,
    take it to the appropriate authority, make it public if you want to, but
    be specific. But do not condemn people who work for the Government.
    That's the kind of mentality that produced Oklahoma City.
        And all these people out here in these various groups that are
    sending faxes around trying to tell people, you know, how they can get
    ready to assault Federal officials who are doing their jobs, trying to
    justify taking violent action, I don't think they understand how many
    people there are out there that are in an unstable frame of mind that
    might take them seriously and actually kill or take other violent action
    against Federal authorities. It is awful. Just a couple of days ago, we
    lost another FBI agent in Washington, DC, and I talked to that man's
    widow today. He has four children; he has a grandchild.

    [[Page 793]]

    He was a human being. He was an American. And apparently, the person who
    shot him had a vendetta against all law enforcement officials. Now, we
    cannot have that kind of climate in this country.
        And I think the most important thing we can do to make your father
    safer is to have everybody in this room, whatever their political party
    or their view, stand up and say it is wrong to condemn people who are
    out there doing their job and wrong to threaten them. And when you hear
    somebody doing it, you ought to stand up and double up your fist and
    stick it in the sky and shout them down. That is wrong. It is wrong.
        And I hope everybody in this State heard what you said today. And I
    hope you feel better in school next week--although I guess you're out
    for the summer. [Laughter] Thank you.

    The Environment

    [A participant asked about enforcement of air quality standards in
    Billings.]

        The President. All I can tell you is, I'll be glad to look into it.
    I tried to prepare for this, and I tried to think of every issue I might
    be asked about. I don't know the answer to it, but I will get back to
    you with an answer. I will look into it, and I'll get back to you with
    an answer.
        Let me just make a general comment, and you may have other questions
    about this. There are problems in the application of all of our
    environmental laws because people are applying them and because we have
    followed a regulatory model that might have made sense 20 years ago that
    I don't think makes as much sense anymore. So nearly everybody maybe
    could cite his case where we have--you don't think we've gone far
    enough; somebody else thinks we've gone way too far with it, whether
    it's clean air, clean water, the Endangered Species Act, you name it.
        But I would remind you, just running through the question you asked
    me, the thing we have to do for Montana is to permit people to make a
    living and preserve the quality of life, because that's why people want
    to live here and that's why people pour in here by the millions every
    year, to see what you've got they don't have. And that's why we have to
    try to do that for everybody in America, and we've got to try to find
    the right way to do it. But you made the point. I'll look into it. I
    can't answer the question specifically.

    [A participant asked about protection of Yellowstone National Park in
    view of a proposed gold mine 2\1/2\ miles from the park.]

        The President. Well, first of all, let me thank you for the
    question. I'm very worried about it because of the site. I know it's on
    private land, but it's only a couple of miles from Yellowstone and from
    Clark Fork. I spoke with Senator Baucus today at some length about this.
    I asked him to take a car ride with me for about 15 minutes so he could
    walk me through this and all of his concerns.
        What I believe we have to do now is, you know, they--there has to be
    an environmental impact statement filed on this. And Senator Baucus has
    set out five very specific extra high standards he thinks ought to have
    to be met before they get approval under any environmental impact
    statement. And I guess I would have to tell you that's the way I feel.
        I think that the people of Montana are entitled to know that we have
    gone the extra mile because of the unique place where this site is. And
    I don't want to prejudge the environmental impact statement; I believe
    most of these decisions should be made on the merits. But it just stands
    to reason, given the tailings and the other dimensions of the mining
    project, that it's going to have to meet a very high standard before you
    can be absolutely certain you're not doing anything to Clark Fork or to
    Yellowstone. And no amount of gain that could come from it could
    possibly offset any permanent damage to Yellowstone.
        So you just need to be sure and you need to watch this, and I will
    watch it. I assure you I will, and I know that Senator Baucus and others
    will.

    Agriculture Policy

    [A farmer asked about the 1995 farm bill and farm loan rates.]

        The President. First of all, since I've been President we've raised
    the loan rate once, as you probably know. I have also tried to do two
    other things for farmers, particularly farmers in this part of our
    country. One is to find more markets to sell products and to use things
    like the Export Enhancement Program, the EEP program, to help to
    facilitate those sales. The

    [[Page 794]]

    other is to try to give you some protection from unfair competition. You
    know, our administration moved to get that moratorium on increased
    imports from Canada, and we set up that commission to work on that
    problem, on the wheat issue. So I have tried to be responsive to the
    problems here. It is going to be difficult to get a big increase in the
    loan rate because of the budgetary situation we're in.
        I don't agree that the trade deals are necessarily bad. There are
    some--the Senators from North Dakota think that the agreement the United
    States made with Canada before NAFTA and before I became President had
    something to do with what you're dealing with, with the wheat now. I
    wasn't there. I can't comment on it; I don't know. But our agricultural
    exports this year will be the largest they've ever been. We'll have a
    trade surplus of over $20 billion in agriculture.
        What I am worried about is the last point you made. It used to be
    when agricultural exports went up, farm income went up. It doesn't
    necessarily happen anymore. It used to be if you could get more jobs
    into the American economy, people's wages would rise. If you'd told me
    2\1/2\ years ago that I could get the Congress to lower the deficit 3
    years in a row for the first time since Mr. Truman was President and
    increase investment in education and technology and expand trade for
    American products and create 6.3 million new jobs, but the incomes of
    most working Americans wouldn't go up, I wouldn't have believed that.
    That's what the global economy has done, and that's our big problem.
        Now, here's what's going to happen in agriculture in this farm
    debate, and I'll tell you what I'm going to try to do. The Congress has
    said we ought to cut another $8 billion or $9 billion out of farm
    supports. Farm supports were cut in '85; they were cut in '90; they were
    cut modestly in '93. They've been cut modestly in '95 by me because the
    Europeans are having to cut more under the GATT deal we made. If we cut
    $8 billion or $9 billion in farm supports, in my opinion, two things are
    going to happen. Number one, we're going to produce less and lose
    markets overseas, and number two, more family farmers will go out and
    corporate farmers will come in.
        There are two reasons for the farm price supports. One is to enable
    us to compete with people around the world. The other is to enable
    efficient family farmers to ride through the hard years. Corporations
    don't need that; they can either borrow the money or have cash reserves
    to ride through the hard years. So I'm going to be pushing for changes
    in this farm bill which help preserve family farmers instead of changes
    which undermine them. And I told a bunch of farmers I met with today
    near here at the Les Auer's farm, I said, you know, what we need to do
    is not only look at how much this budget's going to be cut but how this
    farm program is going to be structured, because if we don't do it,
    family farmers, without regard to their politics, are going to be in
    trouble.

    Racism and Native Americans

    [After the station took a commercial break, a consultant and lobbyist
    for Native American organizations asked about efforts to combat racism.]

        The President. Well, let me tell you one thing I'm doing
    specifically. Late next month--this month, it's June 1st, isn't it--this
    month, I'm going to have a meeting in Washington, bringing in people
    from all sectors of our society to talk about what we can do to recreate
    a sense of good citizenship in America and of respecting our diversity.
    That doesn't mean we ought to agree. We're always going to have
    disagreements. We ought to have disagreements. That's why we've got a
    first amendment, so we can all disagree and fight like cats and dogs.
    But we've reached a point in this country now when too many of us are
    looking at each other as enemies.
        And I cannot tell you--you know, I've had the privilege of
    representing you around the world and trying to end the nuclear threat
    and expand opportunities for Americans and make peace elsewhere. This
    country's meal ticket to the 21st century is our diversity. But it's a
    headache, right? Look at--even in Montana, with the relatively small
    population you have, you have a lot of people with different views on
    every issue. But I'm telling you, it's our meal ticket to the global
    economy. And we have got to find a way, in a community setting like
    this, to stop looking at each other as enemies and start looking at each
    other as friends and neighbors even when we have differences and try to
    find a way to resolve the differences, instead of drive wedges into the
    differences, make them bigger, so we can belong to organizations that

    [[Page 795]]

    will hate each other more than we did before and we give all our money
    to keep driving ourselves apart instead of spending our money to bring
    ourselves together. I believe that's very important.
        And for the Native Americans, it's terribly important. You know, I
    have supported legislation to give Native American tribes more autonomy,
    to respect their religious and other cultural traditions. And I am now
    doing things to try to build economic development opportunities in all
    rural areas of the country, including for American Indians who live on
    reservations. None of this is going to work unless all of us figure we
    got a vested interest in everybody else doing well.
        So, you know, most Americans get up every day and go to work and pay
    their taxes and obey the law and raise their kids the best they can, and
    they're pretty fine people. And we don't deserve to be wasting our
    energy hating each other. And it's a bad mistake. And to go back to what
    that lady said, part of it is the flip side of the technology and
    information revolution. You can talk to people on the Internet now who
    have all the same fears you do, and you never have to fool with anybody,
    or even look them in the face, that disagrees with you.
        But what's--our bread and butter is that we're different. So anyway,
    starting at the end of this month we're going to see if there's some
    disciplined, organized way we can take this message across America and
    involve people of different parties, different perspectives, radically
    different political views on issues in the idea of recreating a sense
    that we're all neighbors. [Applause] Thanks.

    Social Security

    [A participant suggested that the Social Security Trust Fund be removed
    from congressional control and put into a private trust with a private
    board of directors.]

        The President. Well, first of all, yes, it would be possible to do
    that. Let me say with regard to your assertion about mismanagement, I
    don't necessarily agree with that. It is true that the Congress raised
    the Social Security tax back in 1983 because the Social Security Trust
    Fund was in trouble, because the American people kept demanding
    opportunities for people to retire at younger ages while we were living
    to be older and older. So they decided to gradually, a month a year,
    over a period of several years, raise the retirement age to 67. They
    funded the thing better, and then they essentially used the Social
    Security tax to downplay the deficit, which meant that most of the
    Social Security money was being invested in Government bonds.
        Now, they are good. That's money in the bank; that money will go
    back there. And there are those who argue that, well, if it were
    invested in other things it could have earned a higher rate of return,
    and therefore, we wouldn't--we'd have a more stable Social Security
    System for a longer term. That may be true, but we'd have to be willing
    to assume a higher rate of risk as well. And that's one of the things
    we're debating now.
        But I can tell you right now the Social Security Trust Fund is
    solvent, and it's solid. There will be financial problems in the Social
    Security Trust Fund in the second decade of the next century because my
    crowd will reach retirement age. I'm the oldest of the baby boomers, and
    the people born between 1946 and 1964 are the largest single group of
    Americans ever born. So when we start to work less and play more golf
    and go hunting and fishing, it's going to be a real burden on everybody
    still working unless we have some reforms. And I think we ought to--
    that's one of the things we ought to look at.
        We did take one step last year: We made the Social Security program
    and agency totally independent of any other arm of the Federal
    Government. And there is a report coming out sometime in the next couple
    of weeks about what else we ought to do to make it stable into the next
    century. We have a solemn obligation to do it, and as long as I'm there,
    I'm going to do everything I can to make sure that the money is there
    for you and everybody else who paid into it.

    AIDS

    [A participant questioned administration policy and efforts regarding
    AIDS.]

        The President. First of all, it's not true that I have made no major
    speeches about AIDS. I appointed the first AIDS czar the country ever
    had. I got the Ryan White Act fully funded. We increased funding for
    AIDS research and AIDS care by 3 times or more the amount that the rest
    of the budget was going up, and then

    [[Page 796]]

    we did it--when we were cutting almost everything else, we were spending
    much more money on AIDS. This administration has done far more on
    research and care and raising the visibility of the issue than anyone
    ever has.
        I don't mind you being frustrated, because it's frustrating until we
    find a cure. We are finding ways, by the way, to keep people alive more
    and more, and we're also finding ways that children who are born HIV-
    positive can get through it in a hurry and maybe even have totally
    normal life expectancy.
        All I can tell you is what my commitment is. My commitment is,
    during these budget wars, to see that medical research in general and
    AIDS research in particular are continued to be increased--it's a very
    small part of the overall budget, but it's a big part of our future--and
    to try to make sure that we have adequate levels of care.
        Now, let me say one final thing. The health care reforms that I
    proposed last year did not pass. But there are two things that I think
    we ought to do that would make a huge difference to people with HIV and
    all of their family members and friends. The most important is to try to
    provide some alternatives to either no care or nursing home care in the
    home or in boarding homes, some other options for long-term care for
    families. That's also a big deal for people with disabled relatives and
    people with parents that maybe don't need to be in a nursing home but
    need some help. I believe that that ought to be part of all these
    arguments about cutting Medicare and Medicaid. It ought to be done in
    the context of health care reform, and we ought to push for that again.
    And I will do that. The other thing I think we have to do is to make it
    possible for more Americans to buy into health insurance pools that they
    can afford.
        So I am going to work on that with this Congress and, believe it or
    not, in spite of all the things you hear now, I think we've got a
    reasonable chance to achieve both of those goals. And I think if you and
    people like you will lobby on the care issue, the Ryan White issue, I
    think we have a chance to get that carved out from the cuts. And I hope
    you will do that.
        I can tell you, too--I've said this elsewhere--it would be a lot
    easier if they didn't have just an arbitrary date for balancing the
    budget and then have to churn everything else in there. If you'd say,
    ``What do we have to do? How much does it cost to do it? How are we
    going to cut? How long will it take to do it?'' it would lead you to a
    conclusion that you could do it but you'd have to take a few more years.

    Prisons

    [A participant questioned increased spending for prisons and suggested
    changes in the Federal sentencing guidelines for nonviolent offenders.]

        The President. The Attorney General is reviewing that, and there is
    a commission, you know, that's supposed to make recommendations on it. I
    have to tell you, all of you folks, that the Federal Government adopted
    these sentencing guidelines to get out of the feeling a lot of Americans
    had that the sentence a person got and the time a person did was totally
    arbitrary, that it varied so dramatically from judge to judge and State
    to State that it was hard to believe that justice was ever being done.
    And some people, it would seem, would do something terrible and not do
    any time at all. So we went to the sentencing guidelines.
        Most people who practice law and who deal with the sentencing
    guidelines now believe just what this gentleman said, that it requires
    people to serve too much time in prison for relevantly minor offenses
    and lets serious offenders off for doing too little time, costing the
    Federal taxpayers more.
        I don't think you should assume that nothing's going to be done on
    that. I'll be honest with you, the Members of Congress and the people in
    the Justice Department and everybody else is reluctant to touch them for
    fear that if you change anything, they will be excoriated by somebody
    saying, ``Well, here's one case, and this guy is doing one day less,''
    and how terrible it is. Again, we live in an age where there are a lot
    of complicated problems that don't have simple answers, but those 30-
    second bullets that come screaming over the air waves like--seem to have
    a simple answer. But I think that we need to have a careful review of
    them and see if we can't reach a sense in the country that they could be
    modified in ways that would actually make the American people safer.
        We can't totally jail our way out of this crime problem, folks.
    Russia is the only country in the world with the same percentage of
    people behind bars as America has. South Africa has--is the only country
    in the world that has about half the percentage of people behind bars.
    No-

    [[Page 797]]

    body else is above 20 percent of percentage of people in prison that we
    have.
        So, I know a lot of people think that the courts are lenient and the
    prisons are weak. But the truth is, we send more people to jail and keep
    them longer there than any other country does. And I'm all for it if
    they're the right people, if they're the dangerous people that shouldn't
    be let out, that ought to be kept behind bars. But right now, prison
    expansion is normally the biggest item in every State government's
    budget today. In California, they're building more prisons and spending
    less on education, thereby ensuring they'll have to build more prisons
    and spend less on education--you see what I mean.
        So I agree it ought to be looked at. But to do it, we need people
    who are out here in the country who would foster a non-demagoguing
    debate about it, because every time the Justice Department even seeks to
    raise it, you have all of the things you can imagine being said about
    it.

    Health Care Reform

    [A participant praised Hillary Clinton's efforts on health care reform
    and asked if the President would continue to pursue it.]

        The President. I'm trying to think of all of the things I want to
    say to you. When I was a boy, I lived on a farm in Arkansas that had
    sheep and goats and cattle, and I nearly got killed by a ram; so I'm
    glad that your sheep are well-behaved. I don't have that--I've still got
    a scar up here that I got when I was 6 years old.
        Two things happened on the health care reform. Somewhere between
    $200 and $300 million was spent to advertise to convince the American
    people we were trying to have the Government take over health care. And
    the American people basically wound up believing it, so that Congress
    could get off by just walking away from it. That's essentially what
    happened. I don't think it was true.
        On the other hand, the second thing that happened was, I have to
    take responsibility--not my wife, not anybody else, me, because I've
    been in this business a long time--for biting off more than we could
    chew at once. Health care is one-seventh of our economy. It's the number
    one concern for a lot of people when they get sick. And there is only so
    much change you can accommodate at one time. I think that I have to take
    responsibility for making our plan vulnerable to being both distorted
    but also to failing, and I regret that very much.
        So what are we going to do now? Because every year, more and more
    working people don't have health insurance. Every year, more and more
    people who are self-employed or farmers or people in small businesses
    can't afford to buy insurance or have to pay more for less coverage. And
    every year, more and more cost gets either put off onto the Government
    or onto people that do have good insurance policies. Now, if we cut
    Medicare and Medicaid and take that money away from hospitals in Montana
    and Arkansas and other places and New York City, that will put even more
    pressure on either closing hospitals or raising insurance rates for
    people that have good insurance. So this is a very complicated thing.
        My answer to you is twofold. Number one, if it is appropriate, that
    is, depending on what we do this year, I'll certainly intend to discuss
    the health care in the context of the campaign in 1996. But, number two,
    remember I have said to the American people all along Medicare and
    Medicaid are going up too fast; I agree with the Republican majority in
    Congress on that. We won't have any money for anything else if we
    continue to have to spend 10 percent, 11 percent more every year for
    Medicare and Medicaid. That's the only--look, under my budgets,
    everything else is virtually flat or declining. On the other hand, you
    can't just cut it without trying to reform the system. And I believe
    there are some important medical reforms that can be done this year that
    would make health care more available and more affordable to people and
    would reduce some of the disruption that's otherwise going to come if
    you just have huge cuts in Medicare and Medicaid.
        So I'm not giving up on getting something done this year. And there
    are a lot of people in both parties in Congress who are prepared to talk
    about some step-by-step reforms that would make a difference.

    Cooperation With Congress

    [A participant asked why the President had not cooperated with the
    Republicans after their election victory.]

    [[Page 798]]

        The President. I think the American people do want it. And I have
    tried to cooperate. Let me just give you three--a couple of examples and
    remind you that cooperation means just that. It requires two people to
    cooperate, two sides.
        Example number one: I signed and strongly supported a bill, the
    first bill the Republican Congress passed, to apply to Congress all the
    laws they put on the private sector, because I figure that'll make them
    think twice before they ask private employers to go out and do a lot of
    things that they don't have to do--the first thing we did.
        The second bill we did was a bill sponsored by Senator Kempthorne in
    Idaho to limit the ability of Federal Government to impose unfunded
    mandates on State and local government. I was strongly for that. I
    signed it.
        The third thing I did was to help them break a filibuster and get
    strong support among Democrats in the Senate for the line-item veto,
    which they all said they wanted. You remember the House passed a line-
    item veto on President Reagan's birthday as a present for him; that was
    weeks ago, right? The line-item veto--one of the things the Republican
    Congress said that was essential to cut spending--I said, ``Give it to
    me. I'll cut it.'' Do you know--so we had a line-item veto pass the
    House, a line-item veto pass the Senate, and I am still waiting for a
    conference committee to be appointed. And one of the Republican Senators
    said last week, ``Oh, we're not going to give President Clinton the
    line-item veto. We may not like the cuts he makes in spending.'' So here
    I am, all dressed up and ready to cooperate. [Laughter]
        Now, on the--let me give you one other example. They wanted to cut
    some money out of this year's budget to make a downpayment on balancing
    the budget. That's what this so-called rescission bill is. They wanted
    to do it so they would raise money to pay for Oklahoma City, the
    California earthquake, and the floods that are now going on in the
    Middle West and still have some money to bring the deficit down starting
    this year even more. And I said, fine. They said $16 billion; I said,
    fine. I met with the Republican Senators, and we worked out an
    agreement. And then all the Democratic Senators, just about, voted for
    it. It was a great deal, right? So then they go behind closed doors, and
    they take a billion four that we agreed on spending on education and
    health care and veterans and a bunch of other stuff out and put in a
    billion four worth of courthouses and special street and road projects
    and some other things.
        Now--and so I said, ``Look, I want to sign this bill; I want to
    cooperate. But I made a deal. Then you guys went behind closed doors.
    You took people out; you took pork in.'' We've got to raise incomes of
    Americans. We shouldn't be cutting education. We shouldn't be cutting
    those opportunities. I do not want to have a pile of vetoes, but I am
    not going to sign a bill that gets changed behind closed doors after the
    cooperation we had agreed on produced this bill.
        So, I still want to cooperate with them. I'll help them balance the
    budget, too, but not if it collapses the American economy or wrecks
    Medicare or closes every country hospital in Montana and my home State.
    I want to cooperate, but it takes two to tango.

    Power Marketing Administrations

    [After the station took a commercial break, a participant questioned the
    proposed sale of Energy Department power marketing administrations to
    private interests.]

        The President. Well, the argument is, let me just say--let me put it
    in a larger context. The Office of Management and Budget, under my
    administration and under the previous Republican administrations, has
    always routinely tried to put something on this in the budget. The
    Congress now has voted to do it at least one time, but it has to go
    through another committee, so it might be able to be headed off.
        When they brought it to me, I said I don't necessarily believe this
    is going to save money. This is a one-time savings, all right, and you
    can argue that the power is subsidized, but I will approve this only if
    you do two things, in our proposal. One is you have to put a lid on how
    much rates can go up, and two--which makes it less attractive,
    obviously, to private utilities. And two is there has to be an
    extraordinary effort to let public power authorities buy the capacity
    first, which would, in effect--since they're getting it, since the power
    marketing authorities primarily sell to public power authorities, as you
    know--which would essentially be a change of assets; you could take it
    off the government's books, it would look like you

    [[Page 799]]

    lowered the deficit, but it wouldn't lead to a rate increase because
    you'd have the same integrated network.
        So that is what I am trying to do with this proposal. That's what I
    believe should be done. I do not believe we should sell it and get a
    one-time gain out of it if it's going to explode electric rates in
    Montana or in any other State.
        There may be a way to do it that would increase the cash flow of the
    Government and help the Congress and the President to bring the deficit
    down, but it should only be done if it can be managed without a big hit
    on the electric rate payers. And I think the way I suggested is a
    possible way to do it. And if it doesn't work out, then, in my opinion,
    it shouldn't pass at all.

    Government Response to Protest

    [A participant asked about the contrast between antigovernment protest
    in the 1960's and 1970's and in the present.]

        The President. Well, first of all, there were some people in the
    '60s and '70s who went beyond their first amendment rights and advocated
    violence. And they were wrong then, and this crowd is wrong now.
        And it's very interesting to me to see that there are some public
    officials in our country who are only too happy to criticize the culture
    of violence being promoted by the media in our country or the rap lyrics
    that are coming out in some of our recordings--which I have also
    criticized before they did, by and large--but are stone-cold silent when
    these other folks are talking and making violence seem like it's okay.
        And I believe, again, if we're going to create an American community
    where we can disagree, vote differently, work through our differences,
    but all think we're friends and neighbors and get closer together, we
    have to have a uniform standard that says violence is wrong, illegal
    conduct is wrong, and people that are out there encouraging people and
    explicitly tell them when it's okay for them to take the law into their
    own hands and be violent, they're wrong.
        And people who are out there demeaning and dehumanizing people just
    because they work for the Federal Government are wrong. I am not
    defending every person who ever did anything for the Federal Government,
    including me. I make mistakes. Everybody who works for the Government
    makes mistakes. They're human. When somebody does something wrong, it
    ought to be zeroed in on, targeted, and talked about. You can do that
    without dehumanizing people.
        I'll tell you, I've been guilty of it. Every politician I've ever
    known, including me, will sometimes give a speech to people like you and
    talk about Federal bureaucrats. We've reduced the number of Federal
    bureaucrats, by the way, by over 100,000, and we're going down to
    270,000 in the budgets we've already adopted, to the smallest Government
    since President Kennedy came here in 1963.
        But I realized after Oklahoma City that every time I did that, I did
    that to try to make those of you who are taxpayers think that I was
    identifying with you more than them. And that is wrong. That is
    dehumanizing. That young girl's father is an American citizen who made a
    deliberate decision that he would never be a rich person because he
    wanted to serve the United States in a Federal agency. And I've been
    guilty of it, too.
        We all have to realize that we have to change the way we talk and
    the way we think about this. We don't have to quit disagreeing. We don't
    have to quit arguing. But this whole climate is bad. It's good for their
    politics. It helps them raise a lot of money and generate--you know, if
    you keep people torn up and upset, fear may be a stronger force than
    hope. But it's not good for America. And we're better than that, all of
    us are.

    Canada-U.S. Trade

    [A participant asked about the trade imbalance with Canada in regard to
    cattle and grain.]

        The President. Well, first of all, we were the first administration
    that ever did anything. We got--we had a one-year agreement to limit
    Canadian imports of wheat, to set up a joint commission to try to deal
    with this and to try to work it out, because the Canadian wheat problem
    is somewhat analogous to the Japanese automobile problem that you know
    I'm also involved with now. And that is that they have a system which
    does not fall into the category of tariff--right?--which is a tax on
    imports, or protectionism, which is a legally explicit barrier to
    imports. It is the way their economic system is organized, works de
    facto to give them an unfair advantage, in both cases. And these things
    are not--they're very difficult to take care of in trade laws, which

    [[Page 800]]

    is why you have to take them one by one and take a lot of heat when
    you're doing it.
        So all I can tell you, sir, is that I am doing my best to deal with
    the situation I found when I became President 2\1/2\ years ago. And we
    have not solved the problem but at least we've put it on hold, and we've
    done more than has been done in the past. And I will continue to do my
    best to work on it.

    Town Meetings

        Mr. Koernig. We are unfortunately, Mr. President, and everybody
    here, just about out of time. I have one final question.
        The President. It seems like we just got here.
        Mr. Koernig. I know, it does. I have one final question for you.
    This is the first townhall meeting you've done in over a year. You did
    quite a few of them, and then you stopped. Why did you stop, and why are
    you starting again?
        The President. I don't really know why I stopped. One of the things
    that frustrates me--the young gentleman was asking me about cooperating
    with Congress, and during the break I said, you know, when we do things,
    it's not news; it's only news when we're fighting. And one of the things
    that I noticed is I'd go out and do these townhall meetings, and we'd
    have, you know, 30, 40 questions, and there would be one where there
    would be a little--sparks would fly, and that would be the only thing
    that would get any kind of real legs out of it, so that if the American
    people drew any conclusion, they would think that I was here making the
    problem I'm trying to combat worse.
        And that may be a reason we kind of stopped doing them, but I think
    it was a mistake. I think these things are good, because first of all,
    it's easy for the President to become isolated, particularly in this
    security environment we live in today. And I think people who have
    questions should be able to confront their elected officials face to
    face, personally. And I think it's good to create this.
        I look kind of hypocritical going around saying we ought to all
    start treating each other like friends and neighbors if I'm holed up
    someplace or I only talk when I'm giving a speech to people who can't
    respond. So I'm glad to be here.
        Mr. Koernig. We're glad you're here too. We're glad that you chose
    Billings as the place to start doing townhall meetings again. I know
    that I speak for everyone in Montana and people of northern Wyoming in
    thanking you very much for being with us tonight, sir.
        The President. Thank all of you very much. I can't believe it's 8
    o'clock.
        Mr. Koernig. I'm Gus Koernig at KTVQ in Billings. I'm told you have
    some closing comments to make.
        The President. No, I'm fine. I'll tell you what I'll do. Does
    anybody have a question that could be answered yes or no? [Laughter]
    Yes, no, maybe--what--quick.

    Anticrime Efforts

        Q. Mr. President, as the costs of incarcerating criminals continues
    to rise, will you take actions to support early intervention and
    educational programs that will help children not to become criminals but
    to become successful members of our society?
        The President. Absolutely. It was a big part of the crime bill last
    year. The crime bill had money for prisons, money for police, and money
    for prevention, and money for punishment. Some in Congress want to take
    the prevention money out; I want to keep it in.
        Anybody else--yes, quick.

    Education Funding

        Q. Mr. President, will you veto the rescission bill if they do not
    put education back into the proposed cuts?
        The President. Yes, I will. But I want to sign a rescission bill.
    They're right, the Congress is right to cut that spending, but they
    shouldn't have done what was done in the conference committee. If they
    will fix the education, I'll sign it. We ought to have one. It's the
    right thing to do, but we've got to establish some standards. When you
    cut spending, what you do spend becomes even more important.

    The Environment

        Q. Mr. President, if the Republicans rewrite the Endangered Species
    Act or the Clean Air and Water Acts, will you veto that revision?
        The President. Well, it depends on what they do. If this bill the
    House passed on clean water passes, I'll veto that. But I do believe
    that there are Republicans and Democrats in the Senate who will try to
    work together to give us some responsible revisions. And we're trying to
    revise the way the Endangered Species Act is administered, and all these
    things trying to push more down to the local level. But we can't abandon

    [[Page 801]]

    them. There is a reason that we have an Endangered Species Act. We
    brought the eagle back, we're bringing the grizzly bear back, and if we
    can preserve diversity, it will be good for the environment. But we've
    got to do it with common sense, and we can do that.

    Native American Issues

        Q. I want to know if you'd fully fund the tribally controlled
    community colleges?
        The President. Well, we've got some--you know, we did some things
    for the tribal community colleges that had not done before and made them
    eligible for certain streams of Federal money. I can't promise to fully
    fund anything in this budgetary environment; I wish I could, but I
    can't.
        Q. Dave Henry, a Federal whistle-blower of the Bureau of Indian
    Affairs, formerly. The Indian trust accounts are short between $1
    billion and $2 billion--that's with a ``b,'' not an ``m''--billion
    dollars Federal--Indian personal money gone. Could you please ask the
    Bureau of Indian Affairs to reform the system accounting for Indian
    trust funds?
        The President. I will look into that. That's the second question I
    don't know the answer to tonight, but I'll look into it.
        Any real quick yes or no's?

    Campaign Finance Reform

        Q. Will you support any change in procedures which would eliminate
    the soft money in political campaigns which is allowing wealthy
    individuals in corporations to give very large amounts to the political
    campaigns?
        The President. Yes, I will. I think that the Democratic majority in
    Congress last time made a mistake not to pass campaign finance reform. I
    think the lobby reform bill ought to pass as well, which would ban the
    giving of gifts and require disclosure of lobbying activities. Those two
    things would do a lot to straighten up politics in Washington. Yes, I
    will--both of them, strongly.
        Mr. Koernig. Mr. President, this is absolutely the last question.
        The President. Okay.

    The Environment

        Q. Can we do anything to save the endangered species that are out
    there that people are killing and that we can try to set laws so they
    will be free to roam and so their population can grow?
        The President. That's what the Endangered Species Act is supposed to
    do. And the people who don't like it believe that we try to save
    endangered species that aren't important and hurt people a lot
    economically. And here's what we've got to do. What we've got to do is
    to find a way to make sure that we don't hurt people so much
    economically but we do save the species. And in a way, they're all
    important because it's the whole web of our country, all the biological
    species, that give us what we know of as Montana or my home State. So
    I'm going to do what I can to save the Endangered Species Act and to
    implement it in a way that makes good sense, so all the people who don't
    like it will dislike it less and we'll save the species.
        Mr. Koernig. Mr. President, thank you again. That was a terrific
    encore.
        The President. Thank you.
        Mr. Koernig. Thank you folks, and good night.
        The President. They were good, weren't they? Thank you.

    Note: The town meeting began at 7 p.m. in the KTVQ television studio.