[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 29, Number 20 (Monday, May 24, 1993)]
[Pages 881-894]
[Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

<R04>
Remarks at a Town Meeting in San Diego

 May 17, 1993

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

[[Page 882]]

you to know what I've been doing for the last 4 months.

Middle Class Tax Cut

    Q. First, President Clinton, let me thank you for giving the 
opportunity for common folks like us to ask the President of the United 
States a question in person. It's an honor and a privilege, thank you.
    President Clinton, I believe that you were elected largely on the 
basis of your promise of a middle class tax cut. But for the last 90 
days or so, we've seen both you and the Congress transforming that 
promised middle class tax cut into an unprecedented round of more taxes 
and new spending. Our country has been in a deepening recession for the 
last 3 years. There's no end in sight, and a malaise is beginning to set 
in our country, like the Carter era. Please understand, Mr. President, 
San Diegans just don't have any more money to contribute to the coffers 
of Government. My question is, can you name one country that has ever 
taxed and spent itself back into prosperity? Thank you.
    The President. The answer to your question is, I can't. But you 
can't fairly characterize my program as that. I have cut more spending 
than my predecessor did. My budget calls for $250 billion-plus in 
spending cuts net. The first thing I did was cut the White House staff 
by 25 percent, even though I've already received more mail in 3\1/2\ 
months than came to the White House in all of 1992. If any of you have 
written, and I haven't answered, that's why. [Laughter] I cut the 
administrative expenses of the Federal Government 14 percent across-the-
board. I froze Federal employee pay in the first year and cut back their 
raises for 4 years. There have been massive spending cuts in this 
budget. So that's just a big myth that there hasn't been. I also worked 
hard to pass a budget resolution that would make it clear that we 
couldn't raise any taxes unless we cut spending.
    Now, let me address the middle class tax cut specifically. Number 
one, after the election, after the election, the previous administration 
announced that the Government deficit was going to be $50 billion a year 
bigger in 3 of the next 4 years, a year, after the election. Therefore, 
I concluded that I could not in good conscience give anybody an across-
the-board tax cut in the first year of my Presidency. I still think 
there should be an evening-up of the tax burden.
    Secondly, it became clear to me that the best thing I could do for 
the middle class was to bring interest rates down and to try to get 
control of our budget. So I proposed a plan of budget cuts first and tax 
increases that are highly progressive. And let me just mention a couple 
of things that you may not know, having heard the press about the tax 
program I presented to the Congress. While it does raise about $250 
billion over a 5-year period, it also provides significant relief to 
small business. Expensing provisions in the Tax Code, for example, are 
raised from $10,000 to $25,000 a year. That will lower a lot of people's 
tax bills. For people with incomes under $30,000, we increased the 
earned-income tax credit so much that they will not be affected by this 
tax increase in any way. And over 70 percent of the money that will be 
raised in this program will come from people with incomes net above 
$100,000.
    So it's a progressive program; the burden is broadly spread. If we 
can bring the deficit down, we'll keep interest rates down. I'd just 
remind you folks that just since the election, when we announced our 
intention to seriously reduce the deficit, interest rates dropped 
dramatically. This year, 74 percent of people under 35 in a bipartisan 
poll said they thought they had a pretty good chance to buy their own 
home. Last year, the figure was 47 percent. That's because the interest 
rates are down. That will put another $100 billion back in the economy.
    Now, I've got 4 years. Give me 4 years to try to deliver on the 
middle class tax cut. But the first thing we need to do is drive the 
deficit down with cuts and some prudent revenue increases. Most of the 
people paying the taxes are people whose taxes were lowered while their 
incomes increased in the 1980's. And I think it's very important to get 
the budget back in balance.
    I will also tell you that all of our major competitors imposed tax 
levies at higher rates than we do, and they manage to grow rather 
briskly. I don't like taxes. The State I ran, Arkansas, in all the years 
I was Governor,

[[Page 883]]

kept taxes in the bottom 5 percent of all of the States in the country 
as a percentage of income. I was very proud of that. I don't like this, 
but we've got to get a hold of this deficit. It's going to kill us if we 
don't.

Justice System

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

Immigration

    Q. I'm a taxpayer. My question is, why are my taxes going to 
subsidize the health care and the education of illegal immigrants while 
our own citizens are doing without?
    The President. That's a good question. I think there are two answers 
to that. One, frankly, is a practical one, and that is that the United 
States does not have the means at the present time to enforce its own 
immigration laws. And one of the things that I've asked the Attorney 
General to do is to conduct a nationwide search for the best person to 
head the Immigration and Naturalization Service, who can really make 
some changes there and then try to get more border patrol and more 
ability to enforce the immigration laws. One of the things that was in 
the jobs package that I proposed--the emergency jobs package that was 
voted down by the filibuster in the Senate--was money for several 
hundred more border patrol officers here in California. So we have to 
deal with that.
    The second reason is that the United States Government sets 
immigration policy but for as long as I can remember has left it up to 
the States to bear the burden of the immigration costs of the 
localities, so that California, Texas, and Florida and, to a slightly 
lesser extent, New York pay huge bills for national decisions. So in 
spite of all the budgetary problems we have in this budget, we have 
recommended several hundred million more dollars to come into the State 
of Cali- 

[[Page 884]]

fornia so that your local tax dollars will be freed up for education and 
for the other needs of the people in California.
    It is not fair the way you've been done by the National Government. 
And given our financial difficulties, we're doing as much as we can to 
change that. I've got to give a plug to a Californian, Leon Panetta, 
who's now the head of the Office of Management and Budget. He helped us 
to redraw the laws so that more of this money for medical care and other 
health-related and welfare-related costs of immigrants could be borne by 
the National Government, because it's the national policy. And so your 
tax dollars here can be freed up for urgent California needs for your 
own folks.

Welfare Reform

    Q. I'm really frustrated with the welfare system. Right now, I'm a 
single parent, and I just moved into an apartment. Since I moved into 
the apartment, my benefits have been cut, and I figured I'd try to make 
a better life for my child and myself, so I started to go to school. 
Since I've been going to school, I can't get any child care benefits. 
And the question that I want to ask you: What changes are you willing to 
make within that welfare system so that people such as myself can make a 
better life for their child and themselves?
    The President. First of all, I'm glad you want to do that. And 
secondly, I'm glad you're here so that other people who may never have 
met anybody drawing a welfare check understand that most people on 
welfare would like to get off.
    I've spent an enormous amount of time in the last 6 or 7 years 
working on this, and I'll bet I have had more personal conversations 
with people on welfare than any other public official in America. Here's 
what I think should be done. And you may not agree with all of it, but 
let me say to you and to everyone here, you just said something that's 
very important. Most people on welfare do not stay because of the 
welfare check. They stay because the cost of child care or the cost of 
medical coverage for their children makes taking a job prohibitive. 
Because if you don't have a lot of education and you take a low-wage job 
and no benefits, what you give up is not the check, you give up the 
child care, because you've got to pay for that, and you give up the 
health insurance you get out of the Medicaid program. So what I propose 
to do is the following: I want to change the welfare system so that in 
any State in America, anybody who is on welfare has to go through an 
education and training program, then has to take a job, if offered, but 
gets child care and medical coverage when they do it. And furthermore, I 
want to make sure work always pays.
    So to go back to your question, one of the things we propose to do 
in this tax bill is to say, for everybody, families with an income of 
under $30,000, that you get an increase in what's called the earned-
income tax credit. And if you're a working poor person, if you work 40 
hours a week and you've got children in your house, you would be lifted 
above the poverty line, so there would never be an incentive not to 
work.
    Now, the flipside of that is if after 2 years on welfare and going 
through the education program you don't have a job, then everybody under 
my plan would be required to go to work, either in a private sector job 
or a public sector job, in order to continue to draw the check. So we 
would end it, welfare as we know it, but we would give you the tools to 
succeed in the private sector. The tax system would support it, the 
child care system would support it, the health care system would support 
it. If we did that, you'd see a dramatic drop in the number of people on 
welfare and on food stamps. One in 10 Americans is on food stamps today. 
That is awful. And a lot of them are working people. So what we need to 
do is stop penalizing work. We need to reward work, and we need to 
reward responsible parenting. And I think that these changes will do 
that.
    That bill will be coming up. I'll be introducing that into the 
Congress sometime in the next few months as we try to work through all 
the details. But changing the welfare system could do more to strengthen 
family and work values in this country than just about anything else we 
could do.

Defense Cutbacks

    Moderator. This is a retired Marine Corps general.

[[Page 885]]

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

Jobs and Training for Youth

    Moderator. Mr. President, of course, in all the major cities, San 
Diego being no exception, crime probably ranks second to the economy 
right now, and the gang problem specifically. We have with us right now 
Ariel Zuniga who in San Diego is a gang member.
    Q. Mr. President, I live in a gang community, and a lot of gang 
members want to get out of the gangs, but there's nowhere to go, there's 
nothing we can do. One big thing that could change a lot of gang 
members' minds is jobs. If you give us jobs, that will open our minds to 
live better. Now, that's one way. Do you have any other suggestions for 
gang intervention or to help gang members go somewhere when they want to 
get out of the lifestyle?
    The President. I'm just glad to hear you say a lot of people want to 
get out. My own belief is that we do need more jobs and that we do need 
jobs tied to continuing education and training. And if possible, we need 
jobs like a lot of the work done by the Los Angeles Conservation Corps, 
just to mention one ex- 

[[Page 886]]

ample, where people, particularly people who are street-smart, who have 
been in gangs, can work in community projects with others so that they 
become accepted by their community, and they become a part of a 
different kind of gang, if you will. You know, all of us want to be in 
gangs. We just need to be in positive gangs, good gangs. We want to be 
part of something bigger than ourselves.
    One of the things that I asked for in this emergency jobs package, 
which was stopped by the minority in the Senate, was enough money for 
another 900,000 summer jobs, tied for the first time ever, tied to real 
training programs so that there would be education along with the jobs 
and tied to an effort to get the private sector into the program so they 
could match the jobs one for one so that when the summer was over, all 
the young people in the gangs, let's say, who had summer jobs would have 
relationships with people in the private sector who could help to 
continue to work with them.
    I still think these are the best things to do. And I'm going to come 
back and try to get some more funds for summer jobs, coupled with 
education. And then we're going to keep working with people all across 
the country to try to figure out how to create more jobs. I have 
presented to the Congress a program which doesn't spend a lot of 
Government money, but which gives real, meaningful incentives to people 
like the businessman, who was the first person who spoke, and others, 
whether big or small, to invest in areas to create jobs and then hire 
people like you and your colleagues. We'll give them big jobs tax 
credits for hiring you. We'll give them other tax incentives for trying 
to create economic opportunity.
    A lot of these places would not have as many gangs if there were 
more people who could get up every day and go make a living. And this is 
a great resource. There are a lot of people out there who have money in 
these distressed communities, but people wonder whether the streets are 
safe enough or whether you can really make a return on your investment. 
So this empowerment zone concept is designed to make sure that there's 
enough tax incentive in there to give people at least the nudge they 
need to try to get a return on their investment. And we'll keep working 
on it.
    I also think, frankly, it's not popular to say, but every country in 
the world now with an advanced economy, except Japan, which is more 
closed than we are--but if you look at Germany, if you look at Great 
Britain, if you look at France, you look at all the wealthy countries, 
they all have high unemployment rates. They're all higher than America's 
except for West Germany. And we have so many young people that we're 
going to have to use a Government-private partnership to put people back 
to work.
    You just think about it. I mean, I'm glad you came here. If 
everybody in this State who wanted a job had one, you'd have about half 
the problems you have, wouldn't you? But I do think it's important not 
that you just be given jobs when you're young, but also that we do an 
honest assessment of everyone's skill level and give them the education 
and training they need, because the average young person's going to have 
to change jobs seven or eight times in a lifetime. So it's not just 
important that you have work but that you be able to get other work, 
like all these--we're going to have to retrain a lot of these defense 
workers. A lot of them are 50, 55 years old. So that's important, too. 
It's not just work, but it's education and training.
    Q. But summer jobs aren't good enough----
    The President. Because they're over, right?
    Q. You have a more permanent--is that what you're saying?
    Q. Yes.
    The President. Absolutely, that's what I'm saying. But what we've 
tried to do with this summer jobs program, let me explain again, is to 
try to make sure we brought the business community into the program 
more, so it wasn't just a bunch of Government jobs, and try to make sure 
we had a good educational component.
    And the other thing I want to say to you is that if the national 
service plan I propose to Congress passes, then all the young people in 
your neighborhood will be able to earn credit to go to college or a 2-
year training program by working in your community. And if you choose, 
you can borrow all the money

[[Page 887]]

you need to go to college and then not have to pay it back until you 
actually go to work and then at a small percentage of your income, 
something that we've never done in this country before. So I'll also be 
able to go in those neighborhoods and say, look, even if you can't get a 
job in this neighborhood, you can go to college. You can borrow the 
money to live on and to pay your expenses, and you don't have to pay it 
back until you go to work. And here's a system that you'll always be 
able to afford to pay it back. That has also never been the case. A lot 
of people in this country think they'll never go to college. And even if 
they go, the dropout rate's more than twice the dropout rate from high 
school because of the cost. But I don't think there are any easy 
answers. I think it's work and education. I don't think there's any 
simple shortcut.

Defense Conversion

    Moderator. Mr. President, you mentioned laid-off defense workers. 
Well, coincidentally, we just happen to have a couple, both of whom are 
laid-off defense workers.
    Q. Before I ask my question, I would like to say, it's a pleasure to 
be in the same room with the President.
    The President. Thank you. I work for you. It's a pleasure for me to 
be in the room with you.
    Q. We've heard of the conversion plan. What is the conversion plan, 
and how is it supposed to help those of us who are employed? And what is 
it supposed to convert us into except jobless, homeless, and hungry?
    The President. That's a good question. First of all, let me make one 
thing clear right away, because I owe it to the people of California who 
had been harder hit by the defense cuts than anyone else--the marine 
general, the retired general that was talking about cutbacks. 
California's been hit hard in two ways: first, by base closing but even 
harder by cutbacks in contracts so that people who work for defense 
companies lost their jobs, a lot of our high-wage base manufacturing, 
and that's you guys.
    One of the problems that we have in California is that when we 
started cutting defense as a nation back in '87, there should have been 
in place, right then, a conversion program so that you wouldn't have to 
wander around for 2 or 3 years out of work with no real strategy. So 
there is a catchup here to be done. So I'm having to play catchup 
because we're starting in 1993 something that should have been started 
in 1987.
    Now having said that, defense conversion normally means three 
things, and I'll tell you what we're doing and what I hope to get out of 
it. Number one, in some cases industries themselves can convert. That 
is, the employers can find new things to do to keep either all or part 
of their work force working. The second thing it means is communities 
converting. That is, communities can figure out how they're going to 
recruit or start or finance new economic activities which will hire the 
people who were laid off at the old place. Number three, it means total 
retraining for workers. Sometimes we've had workers--I know in my State 
where an air base closed and we lost tons of jobs, sometimes people 
retrained and went to work in the local steel mill or started their own 
small businesses or started something entirely different.
    So when you hear defense conversion, it means three things, not one 
thing. It means: Can the company do something different and keep you 
working? If they can't, can the community find a way to start new 
businesses? And regardless, is there some retraining program that would 
put you back into the work force fairly quickly at more or less the same 
income you were making before? Those are the three things.
    We have released this year alone $500 million in a technology 
initiative to try to really focus on creating jobs for people on the 
theory that if the jobs are there, people figure out how to get trained. 
That's what our focus is. This year we're going to try to spend about 
$1.7 billion in all three kinds of activities. But California should 
benefit primarily from the technology focus. There's been a lag time; I 
admit it. We waited 6 years too late as a Nation to do this. But I think 
you're going to see an enormous number of jobs created in this State in 
the next 4 or 5 years in new uses of technology. I mean, right here in 
San Diego, there is a consortium trying to figure out, for example, how 
to use old defense technology to build bridges that won't break

[[Page 888]]

in an earthquake. If they could do that, you could go through and 
rebuild or support bridges, create tens of thousands of jobs, not just 
people working on the bridges but in all the plants making all the 
materials and designing everything. That's just one tiny example. There 
are an unlimited number of things like that, if we will get at it. So 
that's what we're trying to do.

Economic Redevelopment Strategies

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

Shipbuilding Subsidies

    Q. My question kind of relates to the defense cutbacks from a 
different angle. During that past 10 years, 50 percent of American 
shipyards have gone away, basically disappeared because of the foreign 
countries that subsidize their shipyards with billions of dollars. Do 
you plan in the next 10 years or during your term to allow the remaining 
shipyards to completely disappear? Are we going to start----
    The President. The answer to your question is, I'm going to do what 
I can to avoid that. It's difficult, with a big Government deficit like 
we have, to start a subsidy program. But there's no question--if you go 
back and look at the history of what happened in the eighties--and this 
is the same thing to me with farmers or anything else--we unilaterally, 
that is, all by ourselves without asking anybody else to do anything, 
cut our shipbuilding subsidy. Our major competitors either kept them the 
same or increased them. So what do you think the result was? I mean, 
predictably, if the government by artificial means in another country 
lowers the cost of production and people are going to buy the least 
expensive ship, America got the shaft.
    One of the things that we are doing at the present time is, by the 
way, reviewing our whole posture on all these shipping issues and 
especially in connection with California. As you probably know, I was 
out at the NASSCO yard during the campaign. They turned the whole place 
out for me--it was wonderful--just because of some specific is- 

[[Page 889]]

sues they were interested in that I had taken a position on.
    On the question of the subsidies, I think there are two issues here, 
two possibilities: We can either have some sort of tax incentive for 
those companies, or in the alternative, we can put the subsidies for 
shippers on the table when we negotiate with the Japanese, with the 
other shipbuilders in the other countries. It can be a big issue. You 
know, I've been criticized for saying I wanted to bargain more toughly 
with some of our trading partners, but a lot of these folks are doing as 
well or better than we are now in some of these areas, and I think we 
have to be pretty firm. We don't have to fall out with the Japanese in 
the whole range of areas where we share the same values, we have 
security interests. I admire them and care a lot about them. But I think 
we have to have tough bargaining on the trade issues with all these 
countries. So we are trying to decide what the best way to go is. But 
the answer to your question is, I'll be sick 10 years from now if we're 
not making any ships in America.

Small Business Loans

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

POW-MIA's

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

[[Page 890]]

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

Prospects for the Future

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

[[Page 891]]

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

Indian Gambling Rights

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

[[Page 892]]

country can absorb. There's a limit to how many Las Vegases can be 
successful. So we need to talk about it, and I would be happy to see 
some tribal leaders about it.

Health Care Reform

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

Multilingual Education

    Q. Hello. I'm a teacher of English to students who speak another 
language, and I have observed that those students that do

[[Page 893]]

well are those students that feel good about their native language, 
about being bilingual. I therefore believe that teachers as 
professionals, as role models, need to be required to have at least a 
conversational ability in a second language. I'd like you to respond to 
that.
    The President. I think it would be a good thing if all teachers did, 
but it would take a good deal of time to get that done with the present 
American teacher corps. And my own view is that that decision should be 
made at the State level, not nationally. I think the National Government 
should facilitate and support the development of multilingualism among 
our teachers. But since over 90 percent of the money is raised for 
education at the State and local level, I think if there's going to be a 
regulation about it, it ought to be done at the State or local level. I 
think the United States should support more language instruction, and I 
have vigorously done that in my State. We tripled the number of kids in 
foreign language courses in my State because of the standards we 
adopted. And I agree it would help if more teachers did it. But I have 
to tell you, I don't think the National Government should mandate it.
    Q. I like your diverse tie.
    The President. Thanks. This is the ``Save the Children'' tie. I just 
got it last week. A 12-year-old student designed it.

Endangered Species and the Economy

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

Immigration

    Moderator. Mr. President, we've only got about 3 minutes left. I'd 
ask you one quick question on my behalf here, something that hasn't been 
touched on this evening. Our border here with Mexico has become somewhat 
of a sieve lately--we have Chinese immigrants trying to get across our 
border. To what extent do you favor closing off that border, or do you 
favor it?
    The President. I think that the immigration laws, we have to try to 
enforce them. And let me say, to go back to this lady's question--and if 
you're going to have laws that you don't even try to enforce, you don't 
have

[[Page 894]]

the resources to enforce, then you shouldn't expect the State to pick up 
the tab. So even though we're broke and in trouble, I did, as I said 
earlier, try to get the Federal Government to pick up more of the tab 
for California this coming year than we did before.
    But my own view is that there have to be some limitations on 
immigration and that once those limitations are concluded, once we agree 
as a society on whatever they are, then we ought to try to enforce the 
law, knowing that it's hard to do. And I say that as a person who 
basically believes America has been greatly strengthened by its 
immigrants. Almost everybody in this room, except for the Native 
Americans, were once immigrants. And even most of them had forebears 
tens of thousands of years ago that came from someplace else, when the 
land was connected to someplace else. So I am basically in favor of a 
vibrant, diverse immigrant population, but there are limits to what we 
can afford to do. And once we accept that, then I think we ought to try 
to enforce the law.
    I thought you were going to ask me about the problems with the 
sewage treatment in Tijuana. I'm also going to try to deal with that. 
San Diego got the shaft on that in the Congress last year. I'll try to 
see if I can't fix that this year.

Tijuana Sewage Treatment

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

NAFTA

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

Note: The town meeting began at 8 p.m. at the KGTV studio. In his 
remarks, the President referred to Erskine Bowles, Administrator of the 
Small Business Administration; General John Vessey, Special Emissary for 
POW/MIA Affairs; and Thomas F. McLarty, Chief of Staff at the White 
House. A tape was not available for verification of the content of this 
town meeting.