[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 29, Number 30 (Monday, August 2, 1993)]
[Pages 1474-1478]
[Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

<R04>
Remarks to the National Conference of State Legislatures

 July 27, 1993

    The President. Thank you very much, Art. Thank you for your 
leadership of the National Conference of State Legislatures, and thank 
you for your friendship to me. And most of all, thank you for giving me 
the chance to speak with all of you by satellite today.
    It wasn't very long ago that you and the other leaders of the 
National Conference of State Legislatures came here to Washington along 
with some State legislators from California to speak about the specific 
problems of their State. I understand your incoming president, Senator 
Bob Connor from Delaware--perhaps he remembers, as I do so well, 
stopping in Wilmington last fall when my voice was so bad I could barely 
speak. I hope you're all able to hear me a little better today.
    And to all my friends from Arkansas, let me say I do miss you, and 
there are plenty of days when I would trade with you. But after all, I 
asked for this job, and most of the folks in the Congress do want to 
move this country off dead center and move it forward, and I'm convinced 
we're going to break the gridlock and go forward with your help.
    President Franklin Roosevelt once said that, ``What this country 
needs is bold, persistent experimentation.'' As a former Governor who 
has worked with you to redefine how our Government can best meet the 
needs of our people, I think I know what that means. Most of you in this 
audience and most of the Governors with whom I work really have worked 
hard for a long time now to represent the laboratories of reform, 
whether in the cause of reinventing Government or controlling health 
care costs and providing health care to people who don't have it or 
giving people the dignity to move from welfare to work or to build an 
ambitious set of national goals for education or to devise State 
strategies for generating jobs and income.
    For more than a decade, I have worked on these reforms with you. 
Now, as President, my administration aims to establish an historic 
partnership between the White House and the statehouses to give you the 
freedom to experiment in bold and innovative ways to meet the unique 
needs of people in your own States. The first order of business, as you 
know, must be to reclaim control of our economic destiny. Here in 
Washington, I put forward an ambitious economic plan that finally does 
something serious about the deficit, reducing it by $500 billion to be 
locked away in a deficit reduction trust fund, the largest deficit 
reduction program in history, with $250 billion net in real, enforceable 
spending cuts. This plan restores tax fairness. For every $10 we reduce 
the deficit, $5 comes from spending cuts, $4 comes from taxes on the 
wealthiest 6 percent of Americans, and only $1 from the middle class, 
with working families under $30,000 held harmless.
    This plan keeps faith with the hard working middle class, because 
over the course of a year, the average middle class family of four would 
pay about $1 a week. The plan is designed to restore our economic 
greatness by cutting the deficit and by getting on with the business of 
investing in our future. And you at the State level know that we have to 
do both. You couldn't run your State budgets with the kind of deficits 
we have, but if you didn't invest and give incentives to the private 
sector to invest, you know you wouldn't be able to meet the global 
competition.
    So indeed, we must invest more to start new businesses, to create 
new jobs, to rebuild our infrastructure, to train our workers for the 
jobs of tomorrow. Our plan invests in our people and their education and 
their training as workers and new police officers on the streets and in 
new technologies that will boost economic growth and help to put our 
defense workers back to work. And analysis shows that this plan will 
create in California alone roughly 1.9 million jobs by 1996. As 
Government borrows less, interest rates will go down, and America will 
invest more.
    Since I was elected President and it became clear that Washington 
would now be serious about deficit reduction, the financial markets have 
reduced long-term interest rates to historic lows. That means lower 
mortgage payments for middle class homeowners, particularly in 
California where property values are so high, and better loans

[[Page 1475]]

for small business entrepreneurs who create a majority of our new jobs. 
It also means lower interest rates for cars and consumer loans. I'll bet 
there are people here at this convention who have refinanced your own 
home in the last 6 months and are saving a lot more money in lower 
mortgage rates than you'd be asked to pay in the modest fuel taxes. If 
we can keep these interest rates down for a year, this economic plan 
will pump between $50 billion and $100 billion of new private investment 
back into the economy by the end of the year. In the end, it all comes 
down to this: a choice between change for the better or more of the 
same.
    We've seen the cost of gridlock, and the price is simply too high. 
We cannot afford for Washington to put off the hard choices or pass them 
on to people like you in the States any longer. It's time for us to act 
to get our own house in order.
    We have to keep pace with the economic changes that are going on in 
the world. We have to decrease the deficit, lift the skills and wages of 
workers, open opportunities for young people who work hard and play by 
the rules.
    I know you've got some questions for me, and I want to get to them 
in a moment. But first, let me tell you about one more issue, an 
announcement I made just a few hours ago with Vice President Gore and 
Attorney General Reno. I know it concerns people in San Diego a great 
deal, and it concerns many of the States which you represent.
    Earlier today, our administration took new critical steps to control 
the growing problem of illegal immigration. America will continue to 
welcome new citizens into our family with honor and with dignity. But we 
will not allow terrorists and smugglers to dishonor the millions of 
immigrants who live here lawfully and contribute to the vitality of our 
society.
    We will, first, expedite the process to exclude undocumented aliens 
without credible claims to asylum. Second, toughen penalties in law 
enforcement efforts to crack down on gangs of so-called ``coyotes,'' or 
organized crime syndicates who smuggle illegal aliens to America by 
boat. And third, increase funding for up to 600 additional border agents 
and the training and technology they need to be effective.
    We will not surrender our borders to those who wish to exploit 
America's history of freedom and justice, to engage in terrorism against 
Americans or traffic in human cargo. By correcting the system, by moving 
against those who traffic in cargo, and trying to make it far more 
difficult for terrorists to travel to this country, we will also protect 
the immigrant who comes to America legally to live by our laws, work for 
a living, and to pursue the American dream.
    I'm very grateful to the Vice President for coordinating these 
initiatives since we began this effort on June the 18th. And I also want 
to thank California Senators Feinstein and Boxer and the Hispanic Caucus 
and Congress for their aggressive work in trying to resolve this 
difficult issue through a balanced approach.
    Now, I know you have some questions, and I want to answer them. I 
ask, finally, for your partnership: passing this economic plan, moving 
forward to the reinventing Government program, to a new health care 
program which will alleviate enormous pressures on your budget as well, 
and to helping you fight the battles against crime and for welfare 
reform, and to open the doors of college education to the citizens in 
your State. All that awaits the successful conclusion of the struggle in 
which I am now engaged and for which I seek your help.
    The floor is yours. Thank you.

Unfunded Federal Mandates

    Mr. Art Hamilton. Thank you, Mr. President. Our first question will 
be offered by State Senator Robert Connor of Delaware, president-elect 
of NCSL.
    Mr. Connor. Good afternoon, Mr. President.
    The President. Good afternoon, Bob.

[Mr. Connor thanked the President and asked if he plans to relieve the 
burden of unfunded Federal mandates.]

    The President. Yes, I can. First, I have to be careful what I say 
because I've promised the Vice President faithfully that we would not 
dribble these recommendations out a little at a time but instead we'll 
try to present them in a package.
    But I'd like to mention just two things if I might and to offer you 
an invitation. First,

[[Page 1476]]

I want a part of this reinventing Government to be a reaffirmation of 
the idea that the Federal Government should not continue to put 
unfounded liabilities on the States. Second, I would like this report to 
also specifically outline some areas in which we can deregulate our 
relationships with the States and with local communities as well, where 
we can provide the funds that come from the Federal Government and the 
partnership that comes from the Federal Government without so much 
front-end regulation but instead evaluating whether these programs work 
after you've been given a chance to implement them. I hope both those 
things will be a part of the final report.
    In that connection, I want to invite you again, and I know you've 
been consulted before, to give us collectively or any individual in this 
audience to present to us any specific recommendations you have for the 
kinds of things we could do that might save the taxpayers money, save 
you bureaucratic headache, and still put more funds or other resources 
into your hands so that you can actually solve the problems of the 
people that you are closer to than we are here in Washington. And I want 
to invite you to do that. We still have a few weeks left before we 
finalize the program, and any specific suggestions you have will be most 
welcome.

Energy Tax

    Mr. Hamilton. Mr. President, thank you. Our next question comes from 
Karen McCarthy, representative from Missouri, vice president, National 
Conference of State Legislatures.

[Ms. McCarthy asked if the proposed gas tax in the President's economic 
program will be dedicated to the highway trust fund.]

    The President. Well, that's a subject, actually, that is now being 
discussed in the conference. It was raised with me for the first time 
today, actually, and I say that because you have given me a little 
impetus now to get more involved in this question. As you know, when I 
proposed the Btu tax, I thought the compromise would be one that saved 
the Btu tax without imposing it on production. I still think that was a 
better alternative. But the Senate fuel tax proposal seems destined to, 
in some form or fashion, become a part of the conference. And I will 
take that issue up with them. I want to make sure you understand, 
however, that even if it is put into the trust fund for the period of 
the deficit reduction, it still has to go to that. Of course, after 
that, it could then be freed up for the original purpose for which it 
was intended if we had done what we ought to do by then, which is to 
control health care costs and otherwise change the Government so we're 
moving toward a zero deficit, which is what our ultimate goal ought to 
be. But I will consider that. I never even thought about it until the 
last day or so, and I appreciate you bringing it to my attention.

Block Grants

    Mr. Hamilton. Mr. President, our next question comes from Senator 
Bud Burke, president of the senate in Kansas and the immediate past 
president of NCSL. Bud.

[Mr. Burke asked the President if he would support legislation that 
would consolidate Federal programs into flexible grants.]

    The President. Senator, let me ask you a question. Have you 
presented that specific proposal to the Vice President's task force on 
reinventing Government? Do you know the answer to that?
    Mr. Burke. Yes, we have. And we've also discussed this proposal with 
congressional leaders over the past 3 years.
    The President. Let me tell you that, generally, I am very favorable 
to that sort of approach. I must say I was disappointed when we were 
trying to pass the emergency jobs package earlier in the year, that 
there seemed to be so much resistance or at least so little enthusiasm 
among Members of the Congress in both parties for the community 
development block grant program. I don't know what your experience has 
been in Kansas, but in Arkansas, I can tell you that if it hadn't been 
for the CDBG funds and the flexibility they gave us, it would have been 
very difficult for us to have the kind of aggressive economic 
development program we had when I was Governor.
    So I am generally very favorably inclined toward consolidating 
specific programs into larger block grants. I will look at the specific 
proposal; I will review it; I will discuss it specifically with the Vice 
President about in

[[Page 1477]]

terms of what role it should have in his final recommendations.
    But I have to say that we're going to have to do a little work on 
Members of Congress from both parties to increase their enthusiasm for 
the block grants. I don't quite know what the problem is, because it 
seems to me that the evidence is clear, at least based on my personal 
experience, that Federal money goes farther, does more good, has a 
bigger impact if we stop trying to micromanage it and overregulate it 
and instead let it be spent where the people and the problems are. So 
I'm very sympathetic, but I want to be candid. I think we've got a 
little work to do to bring the Congress to where we are.

Banking and Community Development

    Mr. Hamilton. Mr. President, our next question comes from 
Assemblywoman Gwen Moore of California, who is a majority whip of the 
California Assembly.

[Ms. Moore asked the President if he opposed efforts to preempt State 
laws related to interstate branch banking and community reinvestment.]

    The President. Let me first, if I might, make a comment in reference 
to the first thing you said about California, because we now have 
legislators from all over America there. I want to make it clear that I 
got hired by all the American people to revitalize the whole American 
economy. But we can't get there unless something is done about 
California.
    California has 12 percent of the country's population, 21 percent of 
the country's defense budget, took about almost 40 percent of the cuts 
in the last round of base closings, has taken a huge percentage of the 
cuts of defense cutbacks, and therefore is a net drag on the whole rest 
of the country when we have to pour money in for welfare, for food 
stamps, for unemployment, for maintenance programs, instead of having 
California do what it has done for much of the last 20 years, which is 
to lead the vibrant economic growth of America. So it is critical to all 
of you in the audience, whether you're from California or not, that 
something be done to deal with what is otherwise the world's sixth 
biggest economy.
    Now, to go back to your community development question. I'm from 
Arkansas; my people have an interest in this. Everybody does. Now, let 
me say about the community involvement issue. I believe strongly that 
the Federal Community Reinvestment Act should be easier to follow and 
more clearly enforced. There is a way that we can make it less 
bureaucratic and still more easily enforced.

    I believe that we ought to create partnerships, as you know, for 
community lending institutions all across America. There is clear 
evidence in the South Shore Bank in Chicago, in the Southern Development 
Bank in Arkansas, in the community initiatives in North Carolina and a 
lot of other places in this country, that you can make loans to poor 
people in distressed areas and make free enterprise work, create jobs, 
and move people from welfare to work. That clearly mostly is going to 
have to be done by people at the local level working in partnership with 
the bankers. Therefore, I do not see any need to preempt whatever State 
laws might be also adopted with regard to community investment 
priorities or initiatives.

    In terms of interstate banking, the other question you asked, that 
hasn't come up yet. I know of no reason that we would want to do that, 
and I certainly won't make any move or make any final decision on it 
without consulting you and the Governors and others at the State level 
who have an interest in this.

    Ms. Moore. Thank you very much.

Health Care Reform

    Mr. Hamilton. Mr. President, our last question will be offered by 
Senator Don Wesely of Nebraska, who is chair of our assembly on the 
legislators.

[Mr. Wesely asked the President when he will announce his health care 
reform package and if it will allow States to continue experimenting 
with programs of their own.]

    The President. We expect to come forward with a package after the 
budget passes, that Congress has made it clear that they do not want to 
deal with an issue as major as health care while the budget was still on 
the griddle.

[[Page 1478]]

    I think that it's also clear that we're going to be able to do far 
more at lower burden than had originally been assumed in terms of 
providing basic coverage for the unemployed, uninsured, locking in 
people to some coverage even if they have some preexisting health 
condition or someone in their family does, and promoting some 
significant insurance reforms and Government reforms to simplify the 
administrative costs.

    I think there needs to be a sort of baseline comprehensive care 
package that every American has access to. But I also believe the States 
should be left a considerable amount of freedom to experiment with 
whether they want to provide other services or alternative delivery 
networks or alternative financing systems. So I think you can look 
forward to seeing a fairly significant amount of State flexibility here.

    It's interesting, if you go back and look at the Canadian system, 
they've started that in one Province. We now have a lot of States trying 
different things. Hawaii, for many years, has provided some health 
insurance to virtually all their employees, although not all children 
were covered. But they did more sooner than anybody else. Now you've got 
Washington State, you've got Minnesota with new plans, you've got 
Kentucky and Vermont with plans on the griddle, a lot of other things 
being considered. So I think we need to maintain the elbow room and the 
creativity of the States in solving some of these problems, but there 
needs to be enough of a framework so that no one fears being left out 
and so that there's enough systematic change to bring these cost 
increases down. We have got to get health care costs down closer to 
inflation, plus population growth, or we're never going to turn this 
economy around in the long run. We're spending 14 percent of our income 
on health care, and only one other nation in the world, Canada, is even 
over 9 percent of income, and they're just barely over.

    So we are going to have to have some uniformity, but I want the 
private system to remain in place, and I want as much flexibility for 
the States as possible.
    Mr. Wesely. Thank you, Mr. President.

[At this point, Mr. Hamilton thanked the President for participating in 
the program.]

    The President. God bless you, Art. Thank you all, and goodbye.

Note: The President spoke at 5:10 p.m. in Room 459 of the Old Executive 
Office Building. A tape was not available for verification of the 
content of these remarks.