    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: William J. Clinton (1997, Book II)]
    [August 4, 1997]
    [Pages 1047-1051]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    [[Page 1047]]

    Interview With Tavis Smiley of Black Entertainment Television
    August 4, 1997

        Mr. Smiley. Mr. President, thanks for joining us. I'm glad you could
    take some time to talk to us today.
        The President. Glad to do it.

    Balanced Budget Act of 1997

        Mr. Smiley. Thank you. Let me start by asking you whether or not--
    let me rephrase that. I know I'm preaching to the choir when I tell you
    that African-Americans still lag far behind white Americans in every
    single leading economic indicator category. As you well know, some of
    your African-American critics have accused you, so to speak, of talking
    the talk but not walking the walk when it comes to your budget
    priorities. I'm wondering specifically what's in this budget that you're
    set to sign tomorrow, I suspect, specifically for African-American
    families that will help them shrink that economic gap.
        The President. Well, there are several things. Let's look at a few
    of them.
        First of all, this budget has $24 billion in it for health insurance
    for families, for children, for families of modest means--
    disproportionately minority families. We're talking about people here
    who are working for a living but don't make much money, don't get health
    insurance for their children at work, but aren't poor enough to be on
    Medicaid. And it's the biggest expansion of health care for needy people
    since Medicaid passed in 1965--the single biggest one.
        Second, the bill has a $500-per-child tax credit that goes even to
    working families that get the earned-income tax credit, that is, that
    make modest incomes, that make under $30,000 a year, which are the vast
    majority of African-American families--have children in the home--police
    officers, nurses, firefighters, folks like that, they'll get $500 a year
    per child.
        Third, this bill has the biggest increase in spending for education
    from Head Start through college since 1965, in over 30 years, and the
    biggest increase in help for people to go to college since the GI bill
    passed 50 years ago, the biggest increase in Pell grants in over 20
    years--and that's going to really help--college tax credits, all kinds
    of other financial provisions to help people to go to college.
        Fourth, the bill remedies everything I promised to fix in the
    welfare bill. It restores benefits to legal immigrants who are hurt
    through no fault of their own. It keeps children who are no longer
    classified as disabled eligible for Medicaid. It expands food stamp
    benefits to single men who are looking for work. It provides $3 billion
    to the cities, to help the cities put people who are on welfare to work.
        And finally, the bill has a huge, broad array of economic incentives
    for people who invest in the inner cities. It triples the number of
    empowerment zones. It more than doubles the funds for community
    development banks to loan money to people who start businesses in the
    inner cities. It provides tax incentives and other investments to clean
    up 14,000 so-called brownfield sites in urban areas that are otherwise
    attractive for development but have environmental problems.
        So it's a stunning budget. It's been at least 30 years since a
    budget this good for working Americans, lower income Americans, and
    minority Americans has passed.

    Welfare Reform

        Mr. Smiley. My time with you is limited, and there is so much I want
    to talk to you about, but let me follow up very quickly if I can. Since
    you mentioned welfare, I suspect tomorrow around here at the White House
    there will be handshakes and smiles tomorrow as the Republicans and
    Democrats come together to watch you sign this bill. But I'm wondering
    what specifically you're going to do to follow up on what the
    Republicans have already threatened to do; that is to say, they want to,
    on Wednesday, I suspect, come after you in terms of gutting the welfare
    provisions that you insisted be a part of this bill. They specifically
    do not want to pay minimum wage to welfare workers who you want to move
    from welfare to work. How are you going to deal with what their next
    strike is going to be? And they've already indicated what it is.
        The President. Well, I think some of them are upset because of the
    stories which indicate that we got about a 100 percent of what we were
    looking for out of this budget. But they got what they wanted. They got
    a capital gains

    [[Page 1048]]

    and the changes in the estate tax and things of that kind.
        I believe that everybody who works ought to get the minimum wage.
    And I'm going to hang tough, and unless they can get enough votes to
    override a veto, then the people that go to work are going to get the
    minimum wage. I don't think there's a problem with that.
        Now, to be fair, they say that the Governors are saying that some
    employers, even community nonprofits, which you might consider liberal
    employers, are reluctant to hire people off welfare who may be hard to
    place and may have--take time to train, if they also have to pay all the
    accompanying costs of employment like the unemployment tax and the
    Social Security tax and all of these other taxes. And they say they're
    looking for help on that. Well, I expect we'll have some dialog about
    that, but I simply don't think that they ought to be able to take the
    minimum wage away from working people. I just don't.

    President's Advisory Board on Race

        Mr. Smiley. You've said, and you've of course undertaken--put
    together a commission to undertake getting this country to have a
    conversation about race, the issue that you've called America's constant
    curse. In the first public meeting of your race commission, a small
    dispute erupted in that the commission Chairman, Dr. John Hope Franklin,
    and commissioner Angela Oh, a Korean-American commissioner from Los
    Angeles, had a dispute about what the focus, what the mission, the work
    of the commission ought to be. Dr. Franklin believes that the focus and
    the mission ought to be around the black-white conflict, which he sees
    as the nucleus for every other race problem this country has endured and
    continues to endure. Angela Oh, commissioner Oh suggests that the work
    of the commission really ought to be about multiracialism and
    multiculturalism.
        As the leader, the President who put this commission together, what
    kind of leadership are you going to provide? How are you going to get
    them on the right track? If the commission can't have a clear-stated
    mandate, how do we talk about it as a country?
        The President. My sense is that the division was not as great as it
    appeared. First, I agree with John Hope Franklin that if you don't
    understand the black-white issue, you can never understand how race
    works in America. If you don't understand the history and if you don't
    know what the facts are now, you can never understand the rest. And I
    think that's really the only point he was making, and I think that's
    important. I think we have to deal with our unfinished business, if you
    will.
        There are some other issues. If you don't understand that Mexican-
    Americans first came to this country, if you will, by annexation because
    of the war we had with Mexico, it's hard to understand the unique
    history of the United States with its Mexican-American population. But
    there is something special about the whole legacy of slavery and all of
    that, and we have to understand that. So I agree with that.
        On the other hand, I also believe that one of the most important
    things this commission can do when there is no riot in the cities, when
    there is no real social dislocation, when unemployment is coming down
    and incomes are finally going up again, and we seem to be making some
    progress on crime and other issues, I think that it's time that we say,
    Gosh, we're going to be in this new century in only 3 years; within 5
    years, California will have no majority race; within 30 to 40 years, the
    United States will have no majority race. What does that mean? What do
    we want America to look like in 35 years? How are we going to get along?
    How are we going to avoid these problems that have so bedeviled other
    countries when they didn't have a majority race, these tribal fights in
    Africa or the religious-based conflicts of the ethnic groups in Bosnia?
    Or what's going on in the Middle East; how are we going to get around
    that?
        I think that if we think about it now and we sort of make it a part
    of our project as we start the new century and we kind of empower our
    young people especially to talk about it and work through it, my guess
    is that when we do become the first truly multiethnic, multiracial
    democracy in the world, it will turn out to be a huge advantage for us,
    a huge advantage, because of the global society we're living in, as long
    as we say we respect, we even celebrate our differences, but we're still
    one America. I mean, that's the trick. And I think that ought to be the
    future focus of this.

    Affirmative Action

        Mr. Smiley. You mentioned California. As you well know, you gave a
    race relations speech at UC-San Diego. And as you probably know, 200

    [[Page 1049]]

    African-Americans have applied to med school in San Diego; none were
    accepted. In Texas, at the University of Texas, admissions of African-
    American students are down 26 percent. It's an ugly picture, and I can
    make it uglier if I had more time, but I won't do that. But the question
    I do want to ask is----
        The President. They shouldn't have passed that 209.
        Mr. Smiley. I totally agree with you on that. The question I want to
    ask is, there is a bill that's pending in the Texas Legislature that
    suggests that if scores--test scores are going to be the sole criteria
    for all students being admitted to college, why not include athletes in
    that regard? I'm wondering how you feel about that. I actually think it
    may help the Razorbacks, because the kids that can't go to school in
    Texas may go up to Arkansas. [Laughter]
        The President. What a low blow. [Laughter]
        Mr. Smiley. Well, no, I just--it may help the program. But what do
    you think about including athletes, though, seriously?
        The President.  I think if you did it, people would bring back
    affirmative action. I mean, that would make the point. I couldn't help
    thinking, when they explicitly excluded athletes, that you could have,
    let's say, an Hispanic young athlete who was a C student out of high
    school get in the best university in the State, and another young
    Hispanic who was an A-minus student in high school that wore Coke-bottle
    glasses and was an academic, who couldn't get in. I mean, the whole
    thing is bizarre. It's all mixed up.
        Mr. Smiley. You think it ought to include athletes?
        The President.  Well, I think universities ought to have a right to
    develop their athletic programs, but I think that it is ridiculous to
    say that a great university needs to have different academic standards
    for athletics so you can have diversified athletics but doesn't need a
    diversified student body when it comes to race and ethnicity. I think
    it's just an absurd argument. It is completely absurd, I think.
        So I would say you've got to--you can pick one. You can have it one
    way or the other, but you can't have it both ways. That's kind of what
    I--it's like these people who put this together saying, ``Well, if these
    folks can entertain us, we'll let them come to school. But if they're
    not entertaining to us, never mind that they're going to be a big part
    of our future; they can't come to school.'' I think it's a mistake.
        Of course, I believe--I don't think there was ever a constitutional
    problem with affirmative action in college admissions and professional
    school admissions, as long as no one who was unqualified--that is,
    someone that clearly couldn't meet high standards and couldn't do the
    work--was admitted, because there are measures other than test scores
    and grades which are pretty valid indicators of whether people can do
    good work in high-quality institutions. And you want the students
    themselves to have valid experiences when they're going through school.
        And I personally believe, since we're going to live in a
    multiracial, multiethnic, multireligious society, if I were running a
    private university, I'd certainly want one to be like that. And I think
    it's a cruel irony that in some of these States they seem to be moving
    toward putting it all on the private universities to have a diverse
    student body, at least in the graduate level.
        Now, Texas is trying to overcome this now with their so-called 10
    percent solution--you may know about that--saying that anybody who
    graduates in the top 10 percent of any high school can go to any State
    university. The problem with that is it doesn't deal with the
    professional schools, number one, and number two, it might work for
    Texas because of the racial distribution of people throughout the State
    in high schools. It wouldn't necessarily work in other States. I think--
    you know, my own view is we need an effective, constitutional
    affirmative action program.

    Cocaine Sentencing Guidelines

        Mr. Smiley. Let me get to a couple of other quick areas before my
    time runs out here. You recently recommended--your administration
    recommended that the disparity between the crack and cocaine--powder
    cocaine sentencing be reduced from 100 to 1 to 10 to 1. I'm wondering,
    why not 1 to 1? And apparently the CBC, the Congressional Black Caucus,
    was quite upset that they were not consulted before that decision was
    announced. Your thoughts?
        The President.  On the second issue, I don't know about that, and I
    was surprised because I had just had a very long meeting with the Black
    Caucus in which we'd gone over a huge number of issues. And we had given
    them good followup on everything, and I was personally

    [[Page 1050]]

    stunned to understand that they had not been consulted on this. And I
    found that hard to believe. What I think happened was someone involved
    in this in one of those departments leaked the decision before it was
    ripe to be made and kind of cut off all the consultations before it got
    in the newspaper. That's not an excuse. We should have done better.
        Now, on the merits, let me say, we came to 10 to 1 for two reasons.
    One is all the senior people at the Justice Department and in the office
    of drug control believed that there had to be some difference because of
    the difference in violent crime associated with powder and crack. None
    of them believe that the 100 to 1 was justifiable. They all thought it
    was totally unconscionable. And they all thought it ought to be reduced
    dramatically. So they recommended 10 to 1.
        Secondly, prison sentences are longer than ever now. And it was--the
    conclusion was reached that if they recommended anything lower, what
    Congress would do in reaction would be to try to raise the minimums for
    everybody and leave everyone worse off. And so I think we need to take a
    hard look at that Federal prison population anyway to see whether there
    are too many nonviolent offenders in there. And I think this should be
    viewed for just what it is, a major step forward. Let's see. Hopefully,
    we'll be permitted to implement it, and if we are, we'll see if it
    works.

    Slavery and Reparations

        Mr. Smiley. Your challenge to America to have a conversation about
    race has certainly spun off a number of conversations, including
    conversations about slavery and reparations. And I'm wondering whether
    or not, since you've had more time to reflect, you think an apology to
    African-Americans is warranted. And more specifically, what do you think
    of at least having a commission to study the feasibility of reparations,
    regardless of what your opinion is?
        The President. Well, I don't believe that--what I think I should do
    now is let this advisory board do its work and see what they have to say
    about the apology issue and all the related issues. The one thing I did
    not want to do is to define the work of this commission, which I hope
    will be quite broad, as I explained, in terms of any particular issue
    early on. I just don't think I should do that. So I'm going to let them
    have their hearings. I'm going to go to some of the hearings with them.
    We're going to go around the country. I'm going to keep announcing
    special initiatives like our big scholarship fund to move teachers into
    the inner cities and pay for their college if they go back to inner
    cities and teach. I'm going to keep doing those things and just see how
    it comes out. And if the board wants to recommend that--and Dr.
    Franklin, I think, is in about as good a position to judge that as
    anybody in America--I'll wait and see what they say.

    Dialog on Race

        Mr. Smiley. Two last quick things and I'll let you go. I'm wondering
    whether or not you think that an apology to African-Americans might
    reenergize this debate. I'm talking to some African-Americans over the
    last few days who think that since your speech in San Diego, the
    conversation has kind of gotten quiet. You don't really hear a lot about
    this race discussion. Don't you think that apology might reenergize this
    debate?
        The President. Well, I don't know. I keep trying to do something
    about every 2 weeks to juice it up. Today I talked to--I gave a speech
    to the Urban League, in terms of what was in the budget for African-
    Americans and minorities, just like I did with you a few moments ago.
    And I previously gave a speech saying that we were going to offer
    scholarships to people and pay their way through college if they'd go
    teach in distressed areas. I'll keep trying to do that. But I think
    there will be a lot of interest in it. It's hard to keep the media's
    interest all the time unless there's conflict. You know that. [Laughter]
        Mr. Smiley. Absolutely.
        The President. But I'll keep trying to find innovative ways to do
    it.

    President's Future Visit to Africa

        Mr. Smiley. Let me ask you finally--and I respect you and appreciate
    the time you've spent with us today--let me ask you whether or not
    there's any truth to the rumors, and I underscore the word rumors, that
    you may, in fact, be heading to the continent of Africa at some point in
    the near future. Does the President care to confirm that, or do you want
    to disabuse me of that notion?
        The President. No, no. I want to go to Africa next year. And I hope
    it won't be too long into next year. We're looking at the calendar

    [[Page 1051]]

    now, and I'll just--and we'll have to pick. I've got--I owe a number of
    visits. I'm trying to work out a lot of different conflicts next year,
    but I very much want to go to Africa next year. And I intend to go, and
    if something doesn't happen, I will go.
        Mr. Smiley. Mr. President, thanks for taking the time to talk to us.
        The President. Thank you.

    Note: The interview began at 5:28 p.m. in the Cabinet Room at the White
    House.