[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 29, Number 28 (Monday, July 19, 1993)]
[Pages 1344-1346]
[Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

<R04>
Remarks and an Exchange With Reporters Following a Meeting With 
Congressional Leaders

 July 15, 1993

    The President. I wanted to just make a brief opening statement and 
then take a couple of questions. I had the opportunity today to brief 
the bipartisan leadership group in Congress about the trip to Japan and 
Korea in terms of what was achieved at the G-7 meeting and what was 
achieved in the new breakthrough on our trade relations with Japan and 
the national security issues, reaffirming America's role as a Pacific 
power and our commitment to the security of Japan, Korea, and our other 
allies in the region.
    I have just come from a bipartisan meeting of House Members and 
Senators from the States affected by the floods. And I was grateful to 
see the committee leaders there, even though many were from States not 
affected by the flood. I think it's fair to say that based on the 
leadership luncheon, or meeting, and the meeting I just came from, that 
there is a bipartisan commitment in the Congress to aggressively push 
the flood relief package. And for that I am grateful to Senator Mitchell 
and to Senator Dole and to the Speaker and Mr. Gephardt and Mr. Michel 
and the others. I think there's a real feeling that this is something we 
ought to do together as a nation. And I appreciate that.
    I want to reiterate that we will be aggressively working in the next 
few days with the Governors and the others in the respective States to 
work through the practical problems, as well as to get the most up-to-
date damage estimates in the event that the bill moving through the 
Congress needs to be modified in its appropriations amounts.
    If there are any questions, I'd be glad to take them.

Disaster Assistance

    Q. Mr. President, you've asked Congress for $2.5 billion in disaster 
relief. And yesterday the Director of FEMA and others have put that 
figure--[inaudible]
    The President. First of all, let me emphasize a couple of things. 
The Federal Government does not reimburse 100 percent of the losses of 
these programs. Some of that has to be done from private sources; some 
of it has to be done from local match. Secondly, the ongoing budgets of 
many of these Departments, the Agriculture Department, for example, and 
FEMA, for another, contain funds which will be in the ordinary course of 
business directed to the area where it's most needed. So some of the 
ongoing budget will take care of this.
    Now, in answer to your specific question, I have consulted with the 
leadership about that. The 1990 budget bill plainly concede of genuine 
emergencies being funded outside the budgetary process. And I think it's 
almost universally acknowledged now that even though we don't have the 
specific figure, this year's deficit will be quite a bit lower than it 
was estimated to be in January because we're working so hard at reducing 
the deficit that interest rates are down and therefore the cost of 
servicing our debt is down. So I think we can handle this.
    I have heard the general principle advanced, it would be nice if we 
paid for it all with offsets, but I haven't seen any specific 
suggestions. And in the absence of those, I think we should just take 
the '90 law and proceed as is. If Senator Mitchell or the Speaker or Mr. 
Gephardt or anyone else has a different idea, of course, I'd be glad to 
hear it. The most important thing is that we get the aid out to those 
folks as quickly as possible.

Economic Program

    Q. ----[inaudible]--and what advice are you giving to the leaders 
about how to resolve the----
    The President. What was that last question?
    Q. What advice are you giving to the leadership about----
    The President. Well, first of all, there is a general consensus that 
we ought to make this the biggest deficit reduction package the 
country's had, and that means hard numbers and good figures. The number 
that was adopted in 1990, I think, is now generally conceded was not as 
firm as it might have been. And also there was a big economic slowdown, 
and the health care cost increases were greater than originally thought. 
But I think this is going to be a more solid plan.

[[Page 1345]]

    How it's resolved is something that the conference will have to work 
out. I'm going to be giving them some advice, but it won't be 
inconsistent with what I've said before. I want a very progressive plan. 
I want the deficit reduction. I want people who can afford to pay, whose 
taxes went down in the eighties, to pay their fair share now. I very 
much want some of the incentives in this plan that were in the House 
bill. I hope some of them can be put back in the Senate bill. I think 
that it's important that people who work 40 hours a week and have 
children in the home be able to be lifted out of poverty rather than 
taxed into it. I think it is very important that we have incentives to 
grow the high-technology sector of our economy, that's the R&D and the 
new venture capital-gains tax that Senator Bumpers has long championed, 
along with others. There are several things in there. The empowerment 
zone issue is very important to me. It goes very closely with the 
community development bank proposal we made today to generate jobs and 
growth.
    Keep in mind the ultimate purpose of deficit reduction is to improve 
the economy by getting interest rates down, freeing up tax funds that we 
would otherwise have to spend on serving the debt, and improving the 
climate for new jobs. It's also clear that we have to have some 
investment incentives. People have to take this money that we're going 
to save through reducing the deficit, turn around and invest it in the 
economy. And if you raise tax rates on upper income people and then you 
provide only a very targeted way to in effect lower their tax burden by 
having them create jobs, then you win either way, because either way you 
reduce the deficit and you improve the economy. That's what we're going 
to try to do.
    Q.  ----[inaudible]--part of the reason you supported obviously is 
for the--[inaudible]. You haven't talked very much about other reasons 
why you might want--[inaudible]. What are the other reasons----
    The President. Well, I think it's sound policy. We have the world's 
lowest energy levies. And we're trying to promote conservation and a 
pure and cleaner environment, which is the reason we proposed it in the 
first place. But it was proposed, obviously, to help close the gap to 
meet our deficit reduction targets also. And the conferees know how I 
feel about it.
    But the number one thing is we have got to produce a growing 
economy. And the deficit reduction package is absolutely critical to 
that. Let me back up and say this is the first time in 10 years plus, 
the first time since 1981 an American President has gone to a meeting of 
the world's seven great industrial powers and not been criticized 
because of the American budget deficit. This time the statement 
complimented the United States for taking aggressive action to bring 
down the deficit and acknowledged the responsibility of other nations to 
try to help us grow the global economy. That would not have happened if 
the House and the Senate hadn't passed versions of this deficit 
reduction package.
    And that is the central message out there. People think, who have 
observed things for years, that we are doing something serious to change 
the climate in Washington, to improve the economy, and to move us off 
dead center. I don't want to say too much to prejudge the enormously 
difficult work the conferees have to do to reconcile the differences 
between the Senate and the House version. I want to see how they can do. 
And I will give them my advice, but I think the more, right now, they 
can be left free to do their work and consult with me, the better off 
we'll be.

Disaster Assistance

    Q. Mr. President, a followup on both the numbers. On the flood bill, 
you all sent up a package of $2.5 billion but concede it will go much 
higher. Now, the new numbers are $5 billion, as high as $10 billion. Are 
you all working with a new number?
    The President. Those numbers are numbers for estimated aggregate 
damage in the area. Let me say again, point one, the Federal Government 
has never compensated natural disasters a dollar-for-dollar for every 
kind of disaster loss. There are some personal losses, for example, that 
you can only have low-interest loans for, the actual out-of-pocket costs 
of which are less than the loan. There are other costs that have to be 
matched by State and local government, although the

[[Page 1346]]

Federal Government has the power under certain extreme circumstances to 
waive some or all of it. There are other losses that simply aren't 
covered by any Federal law. So there is a big distinction to be drawn 
between the aggregate loss and what is normally compensable by our 
Federal programs. The second thing I want to emphasize in this, that 
some of these losses can be covered by the ongoing programs in the 
Federal Government. And I guess I should add a final point, which is 
that we won't know the total dimensions of the Federal--excuse me, the 
agricultural losses, until very near the beginning of the next fiscal 
year. So some of them may come in the next fiscal year as well.
    Thank you very much.

Note: The President spoke at 5:20 p.m. at the Capitol. A tape was not 
available for verification of the content of these remarks.