[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 29, Number 40 (Monday, October 11, 1993)]
[Pages 1965-1982]
[Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

<R04>
Remarks in a Town Meeting in Sacramento

 October 3, 1993

    The President. First of all, let me thank all of you for being here 
tonight, and also thank all those I can't see yet who are at the other 
stations, and all the people of California who are watching.
    I want to talk about whatever you want to talk about tonight, but 
just by way of introduction, let me say that when I ran for President, I 
ran basically because I thought our country was headed in the wrong 
direction economically, because I thought our people were coming apart 
instead of coming together as a country, and because I thought our 
Government wasn't facing up to our problems. And since taking office, 
I've tried to address those things by changing our economic focus, by 
trying to bring people together across regional and racial and other 
lines, and by trying to just take the tough problems of the country, one 
after the other, starting with the deficit, trying to make some progress 
on it.
    There are a lot of things I hope we get to talk about, including the 
California economy tonight, which I spent countless hours on since I've 
been President. But I want to talk a minute just about the health care 
issue, because it relates to so much else.
    We are in a time of great change. You know that out here. You've 
benefited from some of these changes in the last 10 years. Now you've 
suffered for the last 3 years from a lot of those economic changes. In 
order for America to make change our friend instead of our enemy, we 
have to have a certain base level of personal security and family 
security in this country. In order for us to do that, we have to be 
competitive with other nations, too. And both of those things bring us 
always back to health care, where we spend more money and have less to 
show for it and where we're the only advanced country that doesn't 
provide health security for all our people.
    So the thrust of this health care effort is, first of all, to 
guarantee Americans security--health care that's always there, health 
care that can never be taken away--and to do it in a way that is fair to 
the American people and that lowers, not cuts health care costs but 
lowers the rate at which it is increasing, so that it helps the economy 
as well as helps the health security of American families. And it is the 
key to dealing with so many of our other problems and to giving the 
American people the security they need to face the future. I hope we get 
to talk more about it.
    Thank you.

Russia

    Stan Atkinson. Mr. President, while we are here tonight to address 
the matters of health care, the economy, and other domestic issues, we 
certainly can't ignore the events talking place today and tonight in 
Russia. It has been a bloody day there, with anti-Yeltsin forces 
fighting police and military units in the streets. Well-armed protestors 
won most of the battles, ramming trucks into government buildings, even 
launching rocket-propelled grenades. Russian President Yeltsin has 
issued a state of emergency, and military

[[Page 1966]]

reinforcements in the form of his crack best troops are en route to 
Moscow.
    Carol Bland. And before we begin tonight, Mr. President, we're 
wondering whether or not you could update us on the situation in Russia, 
in particular this Government's response to it.
    The President. Well, first of all, let me say what happened is that 
the opponents of reform, the people who don't want a new constitution, 
the people that don't want an election, basically in the person of Mr. 
Rutskoy and Mr. Khasbulatov, their supporters who basically started all 
this disorder and violence today--President Yeltsin has bent over 
backwards not to have the soldiers fire on anybody, not to promote any 
violence. And he may be thinking today he went too far in that, because 
they basically got up a head of steam, and the situation got out of 
control.
    I believe that he will be successful in the end because the people 
support him. And I think the United States should support Yeltsin as 
long as he is the person who embodies a commitment to democracy and to 
letting the Russian people chart their own course. And he does. The 
people who have started this opposition are people who represent the old 
Communist system that Russia is trying so hard to move away from.
    So I wish him success. I thank him for not trying to promote any 
unnecessary violence. And I hope that this will be as peaceful a 
resolution as possible, but it's going to be pretty tough for them for 
the next few days.
    Mr. Atkinson. Thank you, Mr. President. Now on to our program. In 
addition to the audience here with you at KCRA in Sacramento, we're also 
going to hear from a lot of other people all over California, up and 
down the State, in fact. They're in cities tonight waiting to listen to 
you. For instance, may I do some introductions? Joining us by satellite 
from KRON television in San Francisco, reporter and news anchor Pete 
Wilson, along with a live studio audience. Moving south to Los Angeles, 
Paul Moyer is there with a group assembled at KNBC television. Welcome 
to all of you. And also, from southern California, Marty Levine. Marty 
and our fourth studio audience join us live from KNSD television in San 
Diego. And from Sacramento and KCRA, I'm Stan Atkinson. Mr. President, 
my partner, Carol Bland.

Health Care Reform

    Ms. Bland. Thank you, Stan. Mr. President, I'd like you to meet 
Shelly Chase. Her son had leukemia, and he died 4 weeks ago. They wanted 
to have a bone marrow transplant for him, but their insurance company 
denied coverage. They raised the money anyway by borrowing it and now 
may need to sell their home. We're not sure about that yet. But Shelly 
has a question for you regarding experimental treatments.

[Ms. Chase asked if the new health care plan will cover experimental 
procedures.]

    The President. The answer to the question is that in most cases the 
answer would be yes. And the reason I say most cases is that under our 
plan people will have coverage as they do in insurance today for certain 
conditions like leukemia. And when there is evidence that that is the 
best available treatment and a doctor for the child, in this case, for a 
child, or for an adult who wants to pursue that treatment, then the 
insurer will not take that option away. But there has to be--I don't 
want to mislead you, there has to be at least a doctor, there has to be 
some substantial evidence that the treatment might work--you never know 
if it will in experimental treatment--but that it might work.
    So in the case of a bone marrow transplant where there is evidence 
that it often has been effective, it should cover that. And that's the 
way we tried to set it up. In other words, to be less restrictive than 
most insurance policies are today but still leave doctors with their 
considered medical judgment, some ground not to do things that don't 
make any sense at all.
    Mr. Atkinson. Mr. President, if we could step back just a moment, 
let me call your attention to our screen, and we're going to see--that's 
a fellow whose name is Pete Wilson. Now, he's not the Governor Pete 
Wilson, he's the news anchor Pete Wilson from KRON television in San 
Francisco.
    Pete.
    Pete Wilson. Stan, the President and I have been over this a couple 
of times just in recent weeks, as a matter of fact.

[[Page 1967]]

    The President. He always gives me that disclaimer. But I talk to 
Governor Wilson all the time. [Laughter]

Public School System

[Mr. Wilson introduced a participant who asked what the administration 
plans to do to improve the public school system.]

    The President. Good question. Before I answer that, I want to thank 
that lady who just asked that question. It must take an awful lot of 
courage for her to come here within a month of losing her child, and I 
thank you.
    Let's talk about the public schools. I have been working since I 
first became President to pass a new bill called Goals 2000, which will 
enable us to change the way we evaluate our schools and will give the 
schools the incentives and resources they need to perform at a much 
higher level.
    Essentially, what we want to do is to set some national standards, 
not by Government employees but by educational experts, some national 
standards that, then, we can measure every school against every year so 
that parents and other interested people can tell how well the schools 
are doing. We want to emphasize the things that we know are important 
for the future, especially science, mathematics, creative thinking 
skills, the ability to use the language to reason through new problems, 
and to provide special resources for that.
    The Secretary of Education has worked with the Governors of the 
country and educators all over the country. They're very excited about 
having the Government, instead of telling educators what kind of 
specific inputs they have, set some national standards, give the schools 
more flexibility over how they do it, and go forward.
    The second thing we've done is to try to change the way we 
distribute Federal aid to education, which will be of immense benefit to 
California. A lot of the poorer school districts, or districts with a 
lot of poor kids, don't get their fair share of aid. The bill that we 
have in the legislature now, and the Congress passes, will be a big boon 
to California.
    The third thing we've tried to do is to deal with the problem of the 
kids who don't go to 4-year colleges or don't graduate from them. Well 
over half of our students don't graduate from 4-year colleges, but 100 
percent of our students need both a high school diploma and at least 2 
years of post-high school education. So we're setting up a system now 
which will integrate the public schools and the 2-year institutions, the 
community colleges, the vocational institutions, and others, starting in 
high school, to let people meld work and learning and begin to do that 
for a lifetime.
    And the final thing that we've tried to do that I think is perhaps 
going to have the most profound effect over the long run is to be able 
to tell our young people while they're in junior high and high school 
that they won't have to worry about paying for a college education, 
because we've reformed the student loan system to lower the interest 
rates for the loans, to string out the repayment terms, to make college 
affordable to everyone, and to allow, starting next year 25,000, going 
up to hundreds of thousands of students to repay their loan through 
community service at the local level.
    So, start with standards instead of inputs. I spent 12 years working 
on the public schools, and I can tell you, we need national standards, 
and then we need to focus how we can give resources to the schools to 
meet those standards instead of telling them how to run every minute of 
every day in the classroom. Take account of these other things, and I 
think you'll see some substantial improvements.
    I also will tell you that our bill provides for, I think, a better 
option than the option that's on the ballot out here for choice. We give 
States incentives to allow more choice of schools within the public 
school system, and we give incentives for school systems to empower 
people to set up schools, license them, and run them according to high 
standards as a part of the public school system, like you could give a 
group of teachers permission to start their own school, but it would be 
part of a school system, and it would have to meet, then, the standards 
of that school system and give the students and their parents the choice 
to go there. I think that's a better way to go than the initiative 
that's on the ballot out here.

[[Page 1968]]

    Mr. Atkinson. Mr. President, we're going to switch southward now to 
Los Angeles. And at the studios of KNBC, there's Paul Moyer.

Violence in Schools

    Paul Moyer. Stan, thank you. We're going to continue on the vein of 
education and schools, but this is a different aspect Mr. President. I 
would like to introduce you to a very, very brave young man. His name is 
Dion Brown, he's 15 years old, and he has seen, experienced something 
that hopefully none of us ever will. About 3 weeks ago he was in line at 
Dorsey High School here in Los Angeles with his brother, simply trying 
to register for class. And his brother was shot in the stomach, caught 
in gang cross-fire. His brother was supposed to be here. He's so afraid 
of retaliation, we couldn't find him. We're not going to show you Dion's 
face because he, too, is afraid. But Mr. President, he has a question 
for you. He's a little nervous, so bear with us.

[Mr. Brown explained how his brother was shot and asked what the 
President is planning to do to prevent violence in schools.]

    The President. Thank you for coming tonight. And thank you for 
saying that. Let me say, first of all, the story you just heard 
unfortunately is becoming all too common, and not just in California and 
not just in big cities. And we ought to start with first things first.
    This is the only country, the only advanced country in the world, 
the only country I know of where we would permit children access to 
weapons that make them better armed than police forces. So I'll tell you 
what we ought to do. I've asked the Congress to pass the Brady bill, 
which would give us a national system, a waiting period to check the 
backgrounds of people for age, criminal records, and mental health 
history before we sell weapons.
    There are several bills before the Congress which would ban assault 
weapons, which have no purpose other than to kill. We ought to pass one. 
We ought to do it this year. States all over the country are looking at 
ownership laws which make it illegal for minors to have guns unless 
they're in the presence of their parents, either hunting or on a target 
range. And we ought to do that in every State. And we ought to look at 
the laws by which we regulate gun sellers. We've got to get the guns out 
of the hands of the children. It is imperative.
    Now, in addition to that, I do have a part of this education bill 
that I just spoke to, safe schools initiative, which would give schools 
the ability to have more security forces. And in the crime bill, which 
includes the Brady bill, the waiting period, there are funds which would 
help people all over the country, cities all over the country, hire 
another 50,000 police officers which would allow hard-strapped cities to 
deploy these police officers around schools and at the places of 
greatest need. It makes a 50 percent downpayment on my desire and 
commitment from the campaign to put another 100,000 police officers on 
the street over the next 4 years.
    Now, let me just say one final thing. I also think--make them safe 
first. Make the schools safe, get the guns out of the hands of the kids, 
put more police on the beat. Start there. Then you have to take these 
young people who haven't had the family supports, the neighborhood 
supports, the community supports that a lot of us have had, that we've 
taken for granted, and realize they are the tip end of a generation of 
change. This has been going on for 30 years, getting worse every year. 
And we have got to find ways to give these kids a structure, an order, a 
hope to their lives.
    We have 10 closed military bases today around the country where 
we've got an experimental program going with the National Guard, 
teaching high school dropouts to go back and go to school and going 
through boot camp-like exercises. These are kids that didn't commit 
crimes. And we've been flooded with kids who want it, because they have 
no structure in their lives.
    We also have more boot camps in the crime bill for first-time 
offenders. You've got to give these kids something to say ``yes'' to 
instead of telling them ``no'' all the time. But first, there has to be 
a reestablishment of order and safety in the schools and on the streets. 
And I hope if you care about this--I know I'm going on a little long, 
but this is a big deal--the Congress should not drag its feet. They have 
been debating this for 2 years. It is time to pass a crime bill, it is 
time to pass the Brady bill, it is time to ban

[[Page 1969]]

assault weapons, get them out of the hands of kids so the police can do 
their jobs, and put more police on the street.
    Mr. Atkinson. President Clinton, we're going to move even farther 
south. We're into San Diego now. Your audience awaits you at the studios 
of KNSD.

Immigration

    Marty Levine. Stan, thank you. Mr. President, our first question 
comes from Roberto Martinez, who is a migrant rights activist, and 
advocate, I should say as well, that deals with questions of policy and 
also questions of interchange between the Border Patrol and individual 
migrants over what Mr. Martinez sees as abuses by the Border Patrol.

[Mr. Martinez asked if the President supports blockades to control 
illegal immigration from Mexico.]

    The President. Well, I think we should have more Border Patrol 
guards, and I think we should do more to restrict illegal immigration, I 
certainly do. I think the fact that we have so much illegal immigration 
and that half of all of the illegal immigrants in America are in 
California, a State with an unemployment rate 3 percentage points above 
the national average, is endangering the historic attitude of America 
that has been proimmigration. I mean, Los Angeles County has people from 
150 different racial and ethnic groups alone. Immigrants made this 
country. But they did it, by and large, by operating within our laws. If 
we permit our laws to be regularly violated and flagrantly violated and 
impose those costs on a State that has the biggest economic problems, I 
think we run the risk of undermining support for immigration, which I 
think is a very important American value. So yes, I believe we should 
stiffen our efforts to control the border.
    I don't think it undermines the NAFTA negotiations, that the 
President of Mexico has never asked me to do anything illegal, to 
continue what is the policy that is inconsistent with our law. And as a 
matter of fact, I hope we get a chance to talk about this later tonight. 
One of the reasons that I so strongly support this North American Free 
Trade Agreement is if you have more jobs on both sides of the border and 
incomes go up in Mexico, that will dramatically reduce the pressure felt 
by Mexican working people to come here for jobs. Most immigrants, keep 
in mind, come here illegally not for the social services, most of them 
come here for the jobs. If they have jobs in Mexico and they pay decent 
wages, which this agreement will provide for, then they'll be more 
likely to stay there, and the immigrants who come here will be more 
likely to be a manageable number and legal in nature.

Health Care Reform

    Mr. Atkinson. We have a health care question for you now, President 
Clinton. And back in KCRA, Carol Bland.

[Ms. Bland introduced a participant who asked if she will be able to 
choose her doctor under the new health care plan.]

    The President. Yes
    Q. And will I have easy access to the specialists?
    The President. Yes. The answer to your questions are, yes, you'll 
have freedom of choice; yes, you'll have easy access to specialists. And 
most Americans will have more choice than they have now. You heard what 
she said. She's on Medicare, and she's enrolled in PPO. That's a group 
of doctors who provide health care together so that you can get a 
general practitioner or a specialist. They work together.
    Q. And I can go anyplace I want?
    The President. And she can go anywhere she wants with any doctor who 
is enrolled in the PPO. And if she has an emergency, they can refer her 
out to a doctor.
    I was just talking with a doctor in Las Vegas who helped to organize 
a PPO with 700 doctors now. Under our plan, first of all if you're on 
Medicare, nothing will change. Secondly, every State in the country will 
have the power to approve every existing HMO or PPO they want to, so 
that the people that are already enrolled in these kinds of plans and 
have high consumer satisfaction will basically not see a change in their 
health care.
    However, you should know that for people who are working for a 
living and who are insured through their place of work, today only one-
third of them have any choice at all. Most of them have no choice, 
they're just told, here's your plan, and here it is. We will

[[Page 1970]]

propose to give them at least two other choices so that everybody will 
have three choices. If they choose a more expensive one than their 
employer has chosen, they might have to pay a little more, but at least 
they'll have some choice. You won't be affected. And I think what you'll 
see is more and more doctors putting together these PPO's so the 
doctors, rather than insurance companies, will be deciding the quality 
of health care in America.
    Q. Thank you.
    Mr. Atkinson. President Clinton, we're going back to San Francisco 
now. KRON, Pete Wilson. Pete.

Gays in the Military

    Mr. Wilson. Yes, Stan. Mr. President, we have with us now a 
lieutenant in the Naval Reserve, and her life has been thrown into 
considerable turmoil in the last few months because she simply declared 
who she is. And she has a question for you.

[The lieutenant asked why the President is not allowing the courts to 
make a decision on gays serving in the military.]

    The President. Well, the courts will decide the issue. And as you 
know, I don't agree with the policy of the ban, and I attempted to 
change it. And I did get some change, but not the change that I wanted. 
And there was a vote in the Senate last week, which I hope you noticed, 
which showed that only one-third of the Senate basically supported my 
position. And the reason we had to have a compromise is we didn't have 
the votes to get more done.
    Part of getting the agreement to stop the investigations, to not 
automatically throw people out who said they were gay and at least give 
them a chance to demonstrate that they were complying with the code of 
military conduct, and not using people's associations against them to 
investigate them, in other words, creating a big zone of privacy for 
gays and lesbians in the military service, was the agreement to go 
forward with the lawsuit. The courts know what the arguments are. The 
Justice Department can't just drop it because there are too many other 
cases. In other words, there are other cases at the same level of court, 
and they've all gone against the service personnel. So they're being 
appealed up anyway by people who lost them.
    And so, it would only change the law, in other words if we changed 
it. It would only change the law for that circuit, that one Federal 
district. And if the court of appeals overturned it, it would only 
change the law for that one court of appeals district, and the act that 
Congress has enacted would still control it for everybody else. We have 
no reason to believe that the Supreme Court will uphold the ruling. If 
it does, of course, then the whole issue will be moot. I think 
everybody's better off in trying to get a legal resolution of it. And if 
we just stopped it, it would die right there with that one court. It 
would be nice for everybody there, but it wouldn't have national impact.
    Mr. Atkinson. From Los Angeles again, Paul Moyer has another 
question.

Health Care Reform

    Mr. Moyer. Okay, Stan, thank you again. We're here with people from 
the West Valley area of Los Angeles. And allow me to kneel down just a 
little bit. They are with their twins who are 6 weeks old, very, very 
healthy. Everything's fine now, Mr. President, but it didn't start out 
that way. And they have a health question for you.

[The couple explained their twins were born prematurely and had to stay 
in the hospital for several weeks. They asked if the new health care 
program will cover families who have very expensive medical costs.]

    The President. I want to answer your question, but first I want to 
make sure that all the people that are watching this understand exactly 
what question he asked. You know, some health insurance policies have 
very good coverage, but they have a limit to how much you can draw 
against the coverage. They have a lifetime cap, which, if you get a 
really serious illness, you could use up in one time. And your lifetime 
cap's gone, so even though you had a real good policy, you could never 
use it again. That's the question he was asking.
    The answer is under this plan there would be no lifetime caps. You 
would pay whatever you would be required to pay. If you were self-
employed, you'd pay what your premium is. If you were working in a 
business, you

[[Page 1971]]

would pay, if you don't have any coverage, up to 20 percent. If you have 
better coverage than that right now, if your employer pays everything, 
your employer can continue to pay everything, but there's a limit as to 
how much can be taken away from you under our plan.
    The reason there's no need for a lifetime cap under our plan is that 
people will be insured in huge pools, community rating pools. You know, 
this is an expensive thing, but aren't you glad that they got it? They 
have these two beautiful children now. And so, sure, they put an extra 
cost on it, but instead of that cost being for, say, 200 or 300 or 400 
people insured, there might be 200,000 or 300,000 people insured in the 
same pool, so that cost spread across a big group won't be that much. 
And there will be no caps. Our plan abolishes the lifetime caps to keep 
people from being financially destroyed.
    Mr. Atkinson. We're going back to San Diego now. Marty Levine has 
someone with another question for you.

NAFTA

    Mr. Levine. Mr. President, this is a small business man here in San 
Diego, but also is serving on a committee with the chamber of commerce, 
trying to see that the North American Free Trade Agreement will, in 
fact, be passed into law.

[The participant asked if the President could address the concern that 
NAFTA will cause unemployment in California.]

    The President. Let me talk just a little about that because it is 
the big issue. First of all, let me tell you I was the Governor of a 
State that had plants shut down and jobs moved to Mexico, where people 
lost their jobs and their livelihoods whom I knew. And I worked very 
hard on stopping that and even wound up bringing one of those plants 
back. So I would never knowingly do anything that would put the American 
people's economic welfare at risk. I believe NAFTA will create jobs, not 
lose jobs. And I believe that the jobs we'll create will be better 
paying jobs. And let me explain why.
    Most people who worry about NAFTA losing jobs know that there are a 
lot of plants that American companies own along the Mexican border with 
the United States in the so-called maquilladora area. If an American 
company puts up a plant down there, they can produce products in Mexico 
and import them back into the United States duty free. So people think, 
well, that happened in the 1980's, so if this agreement breaks down 
barriers, maybe more of that will happen. Actually, less of that will 
happen. Here's why.
    Under the NAFTA agreement, the cost of labor and the cost of 
environmental investments in Mexico will go up. Under the NAFTA 
agreement, Mexico agrees to stop requiring so many products sold in 
Mexico to be made in Mexico. So, for example, we'll go from selling 
1,000 American cars to 60,000 American cars in Mexico the first year, 
according to the auto companies. And also under the NAFTA agreement, 
Mexican tariff barriers are further lowered and so are Americas. The 
problem is theirs are 2\1/2\ times as much as ours. So as they lower 
barriers, we'll get a bigger benefit out of it than if we lower 
barriers.
    And finally, let me say this. Five years ago we had a $5.5 billion 
trade deficit with Mexico. Now we have a $5.7 billion trade surplus. 
Compare that with an $18 billion trade deficit with China, a $44 billion 
trade deficit with Japan. We will gain jobs out of this. We will gain 
incomes out of this. And finally, if we do this with Mexico, then you've 
got Chile, Argentina, and other countries who want the same deal. We'll 
make a lot of money out of it over the next 20 years if we do it.
    I hope I can help you persuade the people in San Diego to support 
it. We're also going to get some more money for that terrible 
environmental problem you've got along the border there in San Diego to 
try to clean that up. And there will be less environmental problems and 
more investment of the kind you needed years ago there if we pass this 
agreement.
    Mr. Atkinson. President Clinton, back here at KCRA, a good-looking 
young fellow has something he wants to ask you.
    The President. Boy, he does look good.

Youth Employment Opportunities

    Ms. Bland. Mr. President, he's only 13, if you can believe it, 
although he looks like he's nearing 20. Anyway, he's growing up on some 
pretty tough streets in Sacramento.

[[Page 1972]]

He's wondering about job opportunities for kids like him, kids who are 
really trying to find a way out.

[The participant asked what can be done to prevent kids from selling 
drugs to make money.]

    The President. Give him a hand. [Applause] That took a lot of guts.
    Let me say, we're working on a couple of things. First of all, this 
last summer we were able to have a couple hundred thousand more jobs in 
the country for young people in the summertime. I wanted a much bigger 
program that I tried to pass in the Congress, but I couldn't. What I 
think we need to do is two things, one I mentioned earlier. I want to 
try in every community in the country to bring school and work closer 
together, so that people can learn while they're working and so that 
young people who need to work can work and get an educational experience 
at the same time. In other countries, this is much more frequent, 
Germany, for example. We're trying to build up those kind of programs in 
this country. The second thing I want to try to do is to provide 
opportunities for young people who need it to work part-time, but year 
round. And we're working on that. I tried, as I said, I tried to pass a 
bill through the Congress earlier this year to get more summer jobs. I 
couldn't pass it. But I think there is a lot of support in the country 
for the idea that young people who live in economically difficult 
circumstances, want to work, have the chance to do it. We want to make 
it easier for the employers to hire them.
    So we're working on that, and you've given us a little encouragement 
to do it.

[At this point, the television stations took a commercial break.]

Defense Conversion

    Mr. Atkinson. You've had a lively afternoon. That was quite a crowd 
that greeted you at McClellan, a couple of thousand people. They got you 
going, didn't they?
    The President. They did, and I love seeing them.
    Mr. Atkinson. It was a hard time stopping. Just barely made it in 
time to get on the air here.
    The President. Well, they've done so much wonderful work at 
McClellan. They showed me two of the electric cars that they're working 
with people in the area to do and some of the environmental work they've 
done. One of the things we're really trying to do to help California 
deal with all the military cuts is to emphasize the ability of the 
defense system, especially these bases, to develop dual-use 
technologies. And they showed me a lot--that is, things that can be used 
for defense and domestic purposes. At McClellan, they developed an 
electric car that goes from zero to 60 in 12 seconds, gets 80 miles per 
gallon at 55 miles an hour, and has a maximum speed of 100 miles an 
hour. And now all we've got to do is figure out how to make it 
economical for people to buy. [Laughter] But I think we'll be able to do 
it.
    The Big Three automakers this week announced a pathbreaking research 
project with all of our Government and defense labs, and we're going to 
try to triple the mileage on cars by the end of the decade. And the auto 
companies have made a commitment; they're going to invest money. We're 
going to invest money. And it means a lot more jobs for Americans if we 
can do it.
    Mr. Atkinson. Pretty slick.
    Pete Wilson is standing by with your audience at KRON in San 
Francisco.

Job Training

    Mr. Wilson. Mr. President, you know--you've already touched on it 
several times tonight yourself--that one of the things bothering 
California virtually more than anything else is this third or fourth 
year of a recession, a very deep recession, unprecedented in this State. 
Among other things, it's cost an enormous number of Californians their 
jobs. And one of those is with us tonight. He has been out of work--
high-tech Californian who has a question for you.

[The participant asked if there will be any programs to retrain older 
professionals.]

    The President. You know, you're about the third person in the last 
10 days that's asked me that question, and I have to tell you that we 
have not done anything or thought of what to do exactly that would 
emphasize only people above a certain age. I

[[Page 1973]]

will tell you what we have done. Did you work in a high-tech company 
before?
    Q. I did, sir, yes.
    The President. What kind of company did you work in?
    Q. It was a nuclear weapons, actually.
    The President. Yes, I think even you hope we don't have to do that 
anymore. But let me say what we are--first thing we've got to try to do 
is create some more jobs in the high-tech area, so let me emphasize 
that. Just this week we announced, with a lot of people from California 
there in Washington, that we were removing from any export limitations 
70 percent of the computers made in this country, in recognition of the 
fact that the cold war is over. We still have to worry about 
proliferation of weapons, but we freed up $30 billion worth of computer 
exports and $7 billion worth of supercomputers and telecommunications 
exports. That will create a lot more jobs in California, and a lot of 
the companies in California have already issued statements saying it 
will create more jobs. So I hope there will be more jobs for you to 
take.
    Now, let me tell you what we are trying to do which will benefit 
older people, because very often companies don't themselves retrain 
them. What we're trying to do is to set up a partnership with the 
private sector in which we change the unemployment system to a 
reemployment system. That is, you're a good example of--now, 
unfortunately, you're more usual than unusual. It used to be when people 
lost their jobs, there was a temporary downturn in the economy, and a 
few months later they get the same job back when their old company got 
new business, when the economy picked up.
    Now, when people lose their jobs, most often because of what we call 
structural changes in the economy. That is, the jobs are lost to 
automation, or the demand for the jobs are no longer there, or some 
other country's kicked us out of the market, or we kick some other 
country out of the market. So the unemployment system needs to be 
totally changed to a reemployment system so that the minute someone is 
notified that they're going to lose their job, the Government kicks in 
with training funds, which can be used in partnership with the employer 
if the employer wants to keep the person and try to train them for 
something new. Or we show people, here's where the jobs are growing in 
number, here are your training options, and you start right then. 
Instead of waiting for their unemployment to run out and then starting 
it, it should start immediately at the time a person knows they're going 
to be unemployed and hopefully even before.
    When we were in Sunnyvale, California, the other day, not too far 
from here, they had already started such a system, and it had resulted 
in a dramatic shortening of the time people were unemployed. And so that 
is what I think we should do.
    It may be that we should give employers some extra incentive to 
retrain older workers. I'll be honest with you, until people like you 
started asking me, I had never given it much thought. If you have any 
specific ideas, I hope you'll write me and give them to me because, 
believe it or not, I normally get them. Uncle Sam's doing a pretty good 
job of getting your mail to me.
    Mr. Atkinson. We're going back to Los Angeles.
    The President. Let me--one last thing. He is really the typical 
American of the future. The average person will change work seven times 
in a lifetime now, sometimes for the same employer, sometimes for a 
different employer. So we simply have to establish a lifetime learning 
system so that people feel the same obligation to retrain the 55-year-
old worker that they do the 25-year-old worker. If we don't do it, we'll 
never get our economy straightened out, because you can't keep the same 
kind of work; the nature of work is changing too fast.
    Mr. Atkinson. Back to Los Angeles now.
    Mr. Moyer. Mr. President, I think we're on the right topic for 
southern California, and I'll tell you why. Because I talked to a lot of 
people about this program tonight, about what they wanted to ask you, 
and most of them said, ``Ask him about the economy.'' We are hurting 
here in southern California. The American dream, we've awakened from it; 
it wasn't what it was before. Ten percent unemployment in Los Angeles 
County, and we're really, really concerned about that. And one of the 
people that is, is Joe Hernandez,

[[Page 1974]]

who is with the Mexican American Grocers Association, Mr. President, and 
he has a question for you.

[Mr. Hernandez asked if the administration could help the association 
expand their training program, which has 400 people on its waiting 
list.]

    The President. Let me tell you what I want to do. Keep in mind, 
there are people like you all over America who may be doing different 
things. And the needs of every economy are different. I want to try to 
do two things. First of all, I think we need more funds for job 
training, so that the States can direct those funds in the way that 
they're best needed.
    So in the case of California, most of the unemployed people are in 
the south, although the whole State has problems, but most of the 
unemployment is in southern California. And the people at the local 
level are best able to judge what programs are working. So you've got a 
wildly successful program; if your State had more job training funds, 
they could direct them to you. And that's part of what we're trying to 
get done in this whole reemployment system that I just described to you. 
And we'll be going up to Congress soon with a bill that tries to do 
that, to get more funds, with fewer strings attached, given to local 
communities for the programs that work.
    The second thing that we need to do is to vigorously attempt to get 
more private investment into distressed inner-city areas. If you think 
about it, it is not rational for there not to be more locally owned 
businesses and more people working in these distressed inner-city areas, 
because most of the people who live there have jobs, make money, have 
checks, could spend it there, but there's no investment going into those 
areas. So we passed a bill earlier this year, which we're in the process 
of implementing, that will give big incentives for people to invest 
private dollars to create more jobs so that your training programs will 
be able to find work for people after they're trained. Those are the two 
things we're trying to do.
    But when you see this training bill come up before the Congress in 
the next several weeks, I think you'll like it because it will not only 
provide more money but it will be with fewer strings attached, so the 
communities can direct it to people like you who are making things 
happen.
    It's real impressive, 400 jobs, isn't it? It's good.
    Mr. Atkinson. We're back to San Diego again.

Violence and Drugs

    Mr. Levine. Mr. President, I'd like you to meet Stan Hay. He is a 
church-based community organizer, works out on the street with two 
things that seem to constitute one very large problem, crime and drugs.

[Mr. Hay asked what the administration plans to do about the problems of 
violence and crime.]

    The President. Let me tell you, first of all, I'd like for you to 
have a chance to say maybe to me and to all these people what you think 
ought to be done. But let me begin by responding to your specific 
question. He is coming to see--Dr. Brown is, Lee Brown, who is the 
Director of Drug Policy for our country, the drug czar. He was formerly 
the police chief in New York, in Atlanta, and in Houston. He started a 
community policing program in New York. And believe it or not, New York 
City now, for 2 years in a row, according to the FBI statistics has had 
a decline in their crime rate in all seven major areas of crime.
    So the first thing we've got to try to do is to make the police and 
the community work together better, with the proper allocation of 
resources with a view toward preventing crime from occurring as well as 
catching criminals quicker. That's why we need more police officers so 
cities can afford to deploy the resources that way. The second thing 
we've got to do, I'll say again, is to try to take the guns out of the 
hands of people who shouldn't have them. The third thing we're trying to 
do, as Dr. Brown will tell you, is we want to change the emphasis of the 
Federal Government's drug control efforts. And with regard to 
enforcement, we want to concentrate more on kingpins, really big 
dealers, to try to break the financial back of a lot of these networks, 
not just on how many arrests we can make of people in the middle but

[[Page 1975]]

really go after big people and money networks.
    Then, with people who are actual users and who may commit crimes in 
the course of that, we're trying to have much more comprehensive alcohol 
and drug abuse treatment. One of the really important things about our 
health care plan that I would think you would support is that it 
includes substance abuse treatment for people who now don't have any 
insurance. So that will stop a lot of these long, long delays for 
adequate treatment. Drug treatment works in an extraordinary percentage 
of the cases, not in all the cases but in a lot of the cases, if it is 
there.
    So those are that things that we're working on. But the other thing 
we want to do is to listen to people like you who have actually done 
things that work. We have not only Lee Brown. Janet Reno, the Attorney 
General, was a prosecutor in Miami, one of the toughest towns in America 
for drug problems. And Louis Freeh, the Director of the FBI, was a U.S. 
attorney, a Federal judge, and an FBI agent, working principally in drug 
cases. He broke big international drug cases as well as dealing with 
drugs on the street. So we've got these three crimefighters who 
basically came up from the grassroots. And it's the first time we ever 
had a team of grassroots crimefighters dealing with the drug issue. They 
want to hear from you and people like you all over the country about 
what would work for you.
    Mr. Atkinson. Mr. President, while we have you and since you've 
asked, Mr. Hay does have a couple of suggestions.
    The President. I want to know.

[Mr. Hay explained that he felt education and treatment programs were 
more effective than increasing law enforcement.]

    The President. Let me say just, if you think what he said, plus what 
the young man said here who wanted the job for his friends, plus what 
the young man said whose brother got shot in school--it goes back to the 
bigger point: The problems you see that you're all horrified about today 
have been festering and developing over a generation in America.
    There were poor communities in this country 30, 40, 50 years ago 
that had no difference in the crime rate, no difference in the drug 
abuse rate as the communities today. But they had locally owned 
businesses, coherent community organizations, and intact families, all 
of which you have going away today.
    So if you want to do something fundamental, we have to give these 
kids people like him to relate to--like you, sir--people who can be 
almost the kind of role models you used to take it for granted that the 
parents would be, who can create their own kind of gang in a community 
organization. We all want to be in a gang, don't we? I mean, your church 
is a gang. Your basketball team is a gang. In other words, we have a 
need to be with people who are like us, who share our values, who make 
us feel important, who reinforce us. And there is no simple answer to 
this, but you've got to start with these children when they're very 
young, and you have to give them a way of belonging and a way of 
learning and a way of growing that is positive.
    Let me say, I agree with you about the jails. You can build more 
jails and not make society safer. And we need to distinguish between 
people who need to be kept out of society for a very long time and 
others that we may be jailing we could do something else with.
    There's a difference in police. More police won't necessarily make 
you safer, but if they relate well to the community, if their neighbors 
trust them, if they like them, if they're on the street, they can lower 
the crime rate by keeping crime from occurring, by deterring the thing 
from occurring. If you have the right kind of relationships, they can be 
an enormous weapon.
    But I want you to talk to Dr. Brown. And you're absolutely right, 
and I thank you for giving your life to this. There is not any more 
important work in America today than what you are trying to do.

Health Care Reform

    Mr. Atkinson. I think we're going to switch gears. This is a 
Sacramento physician.
    Ms. Bland. Exactly. He's our first doctor of the evening, as a 
matter of fact----
    The President. Good for you.

[[Page 1976]]

    Ms. Bland. He is a primary care internist, and he's concerned about 
the formation of physician groups, or alliances, I believe, as your 
health plan refers to them.
    Doctor?

[Ms. Bland introduced a doctor who asked if the new health care plan 
would help struggling physicians groups so they are able to provide the 
best care for their patients. He then asked if independent doctors would 
receive assistance under the new plan.]

    The President. Yes. First of all, let me say that there are things 
in this plan which will give much better access to data of all kinds to 
physicians, both business management data, health outcomes data, a whole 
lot of things you don't get now, particularly if you're in individual 
practice, and to help people to set up and operate things without losing 
money, without making business mistakes.
    Also the plan would significantly simplify a lot of the money 
management and paper management problems you have today. For example, a 
community this size, I would imagine the average multidoctor practice 
would be just like a hospital, you have to deal with maybe 300 different 
insurance companies. And we're trying to simplify that. That will reduce 
the possibility of error.
    Secondly, keep in mind, every person under our proposal who's not 
covered now would be offered the option of three different kinds of 
coverage, and one of which would be to keep choosing individual doctors 
on an individual basis. That, in the beginning, would be more expensive 
for the employee. But at least they'd have the choice. Today only one-
third of the workers who are insured at work have multiple choices in 
their health plan. And what we think will happen, sir, is that a lot of 
independent doctors will be able to organize, but not in a HMO type 
thing, maybe even in a PPO thing, but at least to all say, we will serve 
our patients as they need it, but we'll be able to save a lot of money 
doing it because the administrative costs will be lower.
    Let me say, in an attempt to satisfy just your concern, we did 
involve hundreds of doctors in this, including people that we trusted. I 
asked my own doctors to help us, just from their point of view of their 
own practice. I figure they'd tell me the truth. They don't mind 
disagreeing with me or telling me I'm crazy or telling me I need to lose 
10 pounds or whatever they say. [Laughter] So we used a lot of doctors 
in different specialties and family doctors, GP's, too. And we also have 
asked Dr. Koop, who was the Surgeon General, as you remember, a few 
years ago under President Reagan and did a marvelous job, to sort of be 
our moderator, if you will, with the physician community all over 
America, to try to get as much feedback as we can, so as we move forward 
with this plan in Congress, we address concerns just like yours and we 
make sure that the doctors feel very good about this when it's over.
    Let me just say, as you pointed out, the independent practice is 
becoming rarer and rarer anyway because of the economic pressures. One 
of the reasons for that and one of the reasons a lot of doctors have 
urged us to do something, is that in 1980--just listen to this, you want 
to know what they're up against--in 1980, the average doctor took home 
about 75 percent of the money that came into a clinic. By 1992, that 
figure has dropped from 75 percent to 52 percent because of increased 
bureaucracy and paperwork and all the people they had to hire to keep up 
with all the things that are ballooning the cost of this system. So 
we're trying to simplify that and leave you the option to stay in 
independent practice and leave your patients the options to be covered 
by you.
    Now, keep in mind, most of the patients you have today probably have 
their own health insurance. Those that are in plans now that do that, 
we're not going to change that. What we're trying to do is to help those 
who don't have coverage get some kind of coverage. But they would also 
be able to choose you in either a physician group or as an independent 
practitioner. Another thing that they can do is to enter a PPO, and you 
stay out of the PPO, but when they need to see you, they see you. And 
then the only thing they have to pay is the difference between the 
reimbursement schedule in the PPO and what you would charge, which in 
your line of work would probably not be dramatically different.

[[Page 1977]]

    So there are going to be all kinds of options. It should lead to a 
bigger patient pool, not a smaller one, and it shouldn't radically force 
you to change your practice, but it would give you the opportunity to do 
it. And if you do it, you will get the information you need to avoid 
losing money, and you'll have a simpler system to deal with.
    Mr. Atkinson. Four out of every five people in the Sacramento metro 
area are in a managed health care system. We understand that Sacramento 
was used as something of a model for you and the First Lady. Is that 
true?
    The President. It was. We looked at the Sacramento area because of 
the high percentage of people in some sort of managed care and the 
relatively high level of satisfaction among consumers with it. And we 
looked at the California public employees system because they've done 
such a good job of not lowering their rates but lowering the rate of 
increase.
    We also looked at a number of other things. The Mayo Clinic system, 
for example, most of the people would concede that the Mayo Clinic has 
pretty high quality health care. Their inflation in cost this year was 
3.9 percent, about a third of what the medical inflation rate was 
nationwide.
    So there are ways to lower cost without sacrificing quality. To be 
fair, though, there are a lot of other things. Doctors do need a lot of 
information that they don't have now to deal with the system they've 
got. And if you give it to them and we provide it, that will also enable 
them to do a better job.

[At this point, the television stations took a commercial break.]

Abortion

    Mr. Wilson. Once again this week, Mr. President, the abortion issue 
is coming to the headlines because of the Hyde amendment being turned 
down once again by the Senate, which means that Federal funding for 
abortion will stay where it is. That means that it does not exist in 
this country for abortion. And I want you to meet someone who has a 
question on that subject.

[A participant asked if the President had changed his position on 
abortion.]

    The President. The answer to your question is no, it hasn't changed. 
And in fact, if you've been following any of my rallies, all the people 
that protested against me in the campaign are still protesting against 
me. So they don't think I've changed my position.
    But let me say this. When I took office I abolished the gag rule. I 
abolished the ban on fetal tissue research. I appointed Ruth Bader 
Ginsburg to the Supreme Court, who has made a career of fighting for the 
rights of women and believes in the constitutional right to choose. I 
have gotten the United States back into the effort to control worldwide 
population growth, which is an important human issue, not through 
abortion but through basic contraceptives, something that the United 
States had walked away from before. So I think that my record on that is 
clear and unblemished.
    The issue that you raise is this: Federal district court judges are 
appointed by the President but recommended to the President by Senators, 
if they are Senators of the President's own party, in the States. I 
didn't know anything about the issue you raised until I also read it in 
the press. Apparently some of the Senators, two of them, I think, 
recommended judges to me to be appointed who have questionable positions 
on that issue. But they are lower court judges; they have to follow the 
law. So before I appoint them I will have to be satisfied that they 
intend to faithfully carry out the law of the United States as it now 
exists, or I won't do it if I think they're going to do that. So you 
don't have to worry about that. But I don't think I should have the same 
standard, if you will, or have just sort of a litmus test for every 
judge on every last detailed issue that might come before the court 
under the abortion area. I mean, there are a thousand different 
questions.
    I think that if this is a good judge, I ought to consider appointing 
the judge. But I wouldn't appoint someone that I thought would just 
flagrantly walk away from what is clearly the law of the land, which is 
that a woman, within the first two trimesters of pregnancy anyway, has a 
constitutional right to choose. That's what the law is. That's what I 
believe in. I don't think it should be changed. And the judges that I 
appoint will

[[Page 1978]]

have to be willing to uphold the law of the land if they want the job.
    Mr. Atkinson. We're going to go back to Los Angeles, to our sister 
station, KNBC, and Paul Moyer.

Immigration and Border Control

    Mr. Moyer. Stan, thank you.
    Mr. President, I don't have to tell you, I know you know that one of 
the very, very big issues here in southern California is that of 
undocumented workers, undocumented people. That comes under the purview 
of your INS. This person is from the Asian Legal Center, Mr. President, 
and she has a question for you.

[The participant asked if the Immigration and Naturalization Service 
would be reorganized.]

    The President. Well, let me say this, the Vice President, in his 
reinventing Government report, had recommended that we look at whether 
the border functions of Customs and the border functions of Immigration 
should be integrated. That was the issue. And that is something, I 
think, that is worth debating. We've had some instances in which--we got 
reports when we began to look in how the Federal Government operated, 
that the Immigration people and the Customs people were actually not 
only not cooperating but almost getting in each other's way at some 
border crossings in the United States.
    So that's all we looked at. We would not diminish the other part of 
Immigration's control--function, excuse me--or defund it or underfund it 
or any of the things that you might be concerned about. And in fact, no 
decision has been made yet about the organizational issues. It's just 
that we have been concerned, given the kind of immigration problems we 
have when we want to reduce the chance that, for example, terrorists 
could get into this country, we want to deal with some of the problems 
we had where people were almost sold into bondage to come to this 
country. And we don't want any kind of unnecessary overlap or conflict 
between Customs and Immigration. So that's what we're trying to work 
out, not to diminish the other functions of the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service, which are very important.
    Mr. Atkinson. Mr. President, I hope I'm not breaking the rules here, 
but a quick followup to that. You know that the Border Patrol says they 
don't have enough people.
    The President. They don't.
    Mr. Atkinson. They say that their equipment is falling apart. 
Senator Dianne Feinstein's proposed what she calls, I believe, a 
crossing fee of about a dollar a car to raise $400 million for more 
agents and better equipment. Your INS nominee testified last week that 
she is not philosophically opposed to that. Can we assume then that 
that's the administration's stand on that issue?
    The President. Well, let me give you two answers. First of all, I 
have not endorsed the Feinstein proposal, but I am not philosophically 
opposed to it either. It's just we've got to think through what it means 
and what others might do for our crossing and whether it has any 
implications that we don't understand.
    The main point is that Senator Feinstein and Senator Boxer and 
others in the California delegation want us to hire 600 more Border 
Patrol agents, and want us to update and modernize their equipment, and 
they're right about that. We've got a bill in the Congress which will go 
a long way towards doing that, and I hope we can pass it and pass it 
soon. There are simply not enough Border Patrol agents, and the 
equipment that they've got is simply inadequate. And we must do better.
    In terms of the fee, I wouldn't rule it out, but I just hate to 
embrace something before I understand all of the implications of it. But 
I agree with the INS Commissioner, Doris Meissner. Neither one of us are 
philosophically opposed to it, we just have to know what the 
implications of it are before we can embrace it.
    But the bottom line is, what the California Senators want is 
results. They want more Border Patrol agents, they want modern 
equipment, they want them to be able to do their job, and they're right. 
And we're going to do our best to see that they can.
    Mr. Atkinson. Appropriately enough, we're going to switch closer to 
the border now, to San Diego and to KNSD.
    Mr. Levine. Mr. President, here is the regional director of the 
National Conference of Christians and Jews.


[[Page 1979]]


[The participant asked what steps would be taken to ensure that the 
proposed national health security card would not infringe on an 
individual's privacy.]

    The President. Well, it'll work just like a Social Security card 
does. It'll look something like this. This is our little mock-up that I 
held up on television. And you would have this, which would entitle you 
to health care wherever you got sick and whatever happened to you. And 
we have to have some sort of card like this so people can be identified. 
And so if, for example, if there is an emergency, their health 
information can be secured quickly if they're in an approved health 
facility or dealing with a doctor. But it will have the same sorts of 
protections that a Social Security card would, for example.
    And if you'll remember, there was an attempt a couple of years ago 
to try to broaden the use of Social Security identification which was 
repelled, because the American people were worried about their Social 
Security card being used for anything other than to validate the fact 
that they were entitled to Social Security. So this is purely for the 
purposes of establishing that you belong to the health care system, that 
you are duly enrolled, you're properly a member, and it would function 
in much the same way as a Medicare card or a Social Security card.
    If you have any specific suggestions, I'd be glad to have them. But 
I can tell you no one has ever anticipated that this would be used to 
sort of plunder the privacy rights of Americans, but to just increase 
their personal security.
    Q. The concern that, as expressed, has to do with the type of 
information that might be magnetically made available as part of the 
information that that card contains and who will have access to the 
information that that magnetic strip would contain with regard to the 
individual's background.
    The President. But the individual will have--the only thing you have 
to do is--so that the person is eligible, the person will be enrolled in 
a health alliance, and the alliance will know whether the person is 
eligible because he or she is self-employed, small business employee, a 
big business employee, or somebody on Medicaid. And then there will have 
to be some access to health data for the appropriate health 
professionals. But I don't think that there's going to be a lot of 
information just floating out there.
    In fact, people will not have access to information that they don't 
need or that they don't have a right to know. I mean, you can't just go 
in and plunder somebody's files. I think the protections for the people 
will be quite adequate, just as they are today again with Social 
Security and with Medicare.
    Let me just say this. If you have a list of specific questions, if 
you will get them to me, I will get you a list of very specific answers. 
Because I realize that, on this question like that, the devil is always 
in the details. So I know that I haven't fully satisfied you, so you 
send me the specific questions, and I'll send you the specific answers. 
And then you can decide whether you agree or not.
    Mr. Atkinson. Be assured that she will. We only have 15 minutes 
left. It's amazing. Time has gone very quickly. We're back in 
Sacramento, and Carol has a guest.
    Ms. Bland. Certainly has gone by quickly. So we're going to try to 
get as many questions in as we can.

Teacher Shortage

[At this point, a participant asked if the President will have a program 
to help deal with the shortage of teachers.]

    The President. Yes. Two things I might mention. One is that you've 
probably noticed recently that the Congress passed and I signed the 
national service bill, which will, within 3 years, enable us to offer 
100,000 young Americans a year the opportunity to serve their 
communities and either earn credit toward a college degree or, if they 
are teachers coming out of college, to go into teaching and teach off a 
significant portion of their college costs, so that the National Service 
Corps will have a teacher corps component.
    We work with a program called Teach For America that you're probably 
familiar with. And a young woman named Wendy Kopp organized it to try to 
make sure we integrated that into the National Service Corps proposal. 
So young people in college today, for example, could take out loans 
under the National Service Corps concept and say, I'm going to be a 
teacher, in certain areas where

[[Page 1980]]

there's a shortage of teachers, for a couple of years, and they can wipe 
off a big portion of their loans.
    In addition to that, we're making a real effort to try to encourage 
a lot of these wonderful people who are coming out of the military, as 
we downsize the military, to go into teaching, to try to encourage them 
to do it. And we need, I might say, more cooperation from a lot of the 
States in passing easier ways for them to become certified to go into 
the classroom. But if you think about it, the military has had a 
stunning amount of success in educating and training people on a 
continuing basis. If you go back to what the gentleman said, he was an 
older high-tech worker that lost his job, and that's the kind of thing 
that we need in a lot of our schools today.
    So a lot of these military people are being encouraged to go into 
teaching and being given, through a special program passed by Congress, 
some incentives to do that. And I hope we can expand that program, 
because I'd really like to see it. A lot of those folks are still young, 
they've got the best years of their lives ahead of them, and they could 
make a major contribution to the classroom. And a lot of them come from 
previously disadvantaged backgrounds and from all different races and 
ethnic makeups. So they can make a major contribution to what we need to 
do in our schools and our cities. Thank you.
    Let me just say this, you didn't ask that, but since we've got a lot 
of doctors here, there is also the National Health Service Corps, which 
helped a lot of doctors to get through med school but has been shrunk in 
the last 10 years, will be dramatically expanded if the health care 
program passes. So you have a lot of doctors in urban and rural 
underserved areas, too, with the same plan.
    Mr. Atkinson. Okay, we're going to switch back to KRON in San 
Francisco. Pete.

Gun Control

    Mr. Wilson. Mr. President, I want you to meet this gentleman. About 
a month ago, in a story that became headlines here and has remained 
headlines here in the month following, his brother was murdered, a 
random shooting, typical of the kind of thing you've already talked 
about tonight. But he has a question for you I think on a slightly 
different tack.

[The participant asked what could be done to deter violent criminals who 
apparently do not fear punishment.]

    The President. Well, a lot of the younger ones, unfortunately, 
aren't afraid of anything because they have no sense of the future. 
They're not invested in their own lives. They're not invested in what 
they might be doing 2 or 3 or 5 years from now. We're raising a 
generation of young people for whom the future is what happens 30 
minutes from now or what happens tomorrow. And that's a terrible 
problem.
    Now, I believe we should have stronger gun control measures than the 
Brady bill. For example, let me say again what I think we should do. I 
think we should pass one of a number of good bills which are in the 
Congress which would ban assault weapons. There are a lot of them out 
there for the sole purpose of killing people, and they should be banned, 
either at the national level or in every State. We should follow the 
lead of the 17 States which have now made it illegal for young people to 
possess handguns, unless they are, I'll say again, with their parents, 
hunting or at some target range, some approved place. We should have 
much stiffer penalties against possessing these weapons illegally. Then 
every community in the country could then start doing major weapon 
sweeps and then destroying the weapons, not selling them.
    Another thing you ought to look into in your area: If the murder 
weapon is ever recovered, which it may not be, it would be interesting 
to know where it comes from and what tracking is on it. Because one of 
the things that I learned when I got into this is that every State of 
any size has hundreds of gun dealers that may be licensed only by the 
Federal Government for a $10 fee a year. And there are cities and States 
which may have other laws, but you can still be a gun dealer if you've 
got this little piddly Federal permit.
    So another thing that ought to be done is that the price of getting 
into the business ought to be raised, and people ought to have

[[Page 1981]]

to comply with the local laws and not just the Federal permitting laws. 
All these things would help us to deal with the sheer volume of weapons 
that are out there in the hands of people that are totally disconnected 
from our society, while we try to deal with these deeper problems that 
we talked about earlier.
    I feel terrible about what happened to you. We have to face the fact 
that this is the only advanced country in the world where anybody that 
wants to can get any kind of gun they want to, to do anything that they 
want to with it. It's crazy. It doesn't happen in other countries, and 
we better make up our minds to change it if we want to save more lives 
and not have to see more people like this person on television 5 years 
from now. Thank you, sir.

Social Security

    Mr. Moyer. Mr. President, say hello to this person. She's 66; she's 
from Irvine. She is on Social Security, and a short time ago she had a 
financial setback, and she was forced to go back to work. Because of 
that, her Social Security now has been cut, and I think she has a 
question for you.
    Q. Good evening, Mr. President. You promised to eliminate the Social 
Security earnings limit. And I'd like to know, why hasn't anything been 
done about it?
    The President. Because I haven't been able to pass it yet. 
Specifically, what I promised to do was to raise it and not to totally 
eliminate it. I think that--do you know what she's talking about? Do you 
all know what she's talking--once you start drawing Social Security, you 
can only earn so much money before they start to lower your Social 
Security check, even if you're totally vested and you're entitled to the 
whole thing. And a lot of older people are finding it necessary to go 
back to work today, or they want to go back to work. I mean, people are 
standing vigorous for much longer periods of time.
    And in the campaign for President, I said that I thought the 
earnings limit was way too low and should be substantially raised, and I 
do. And I don't even think it would cost a lot of money because the 
people who earn money pay taxes on the money they earn. And also with 
the population not growing as fast now, we need those older workers. And 
so, what I believe we should do is to raise the earning limit. We are 
negotiating now; we're talking about how much it can be raised, what we 
can pass through Congress, and what the costs will be.
    One of the things that we've done is, in getting serious about the 
deficit, is to make sure before we pass anything, we have to know as 
precisely as we can exactly what the costs will be. I personally 
believe, as I told you and I said during the campaign, that it wouldn't 
cost much, if anything, to raise the earnings limit because the people 
who go to work will earn more money and pay more taxes.
    But I still strongly support it. I think it should be raised, and I 
think it will be raised. It's just a question of how much and how quick 
I can get it passed in Congress. I am still committed to it, and I would 
like to urge you and anybody else watching this program who is in your 
situation to urge the Members of Congress from this State to vote to do 
that.
    This is one of those issues that there aren't a lot of people 
against; it's just hard to raise it on the radar screen of the Congress. 
And to be fair to them--it's easy to bash Congress--they're working 40 
percent more this year than last year. I'm proud of that, 40 percent 
more. I've put all this stuff there, and they're working hard now 
because of all the things we've put before them. But this has not been 
addressed, and you're right to bring it up. I haven't forgotten it, but 
I need your help in building the kind of public support we need to 
change it.
    Mr. Atkinson. Mr. President, unfortunately we have to give way, I 
think, for a dolphin and ``SeaQuest'' here in a moment, but we wanted to 
save a little time for you. I think you have about a minute.
    The President. Well, I wish I could take another question or two. 
Let me first of all thank all of you for coming. And thank you for your 
interest. Thank you for the very good questions you asked; I wish we 
could have done more. And let me urge you to keep up this level of 
involvement. We can get these changes made if the American people demand 
them. And you don't have to agree with every detail of my health care 
program, just demand that we pass one that has secu- 

[[Page 1982]]

rity and savings and simplicity, that preserves the kind of choice and 
quality these doctors talked about tonight, and that asks all of us to 
be more responsible.
    We can do this and we can also turn the California economy around if 
we'll take it one day at a time, one project at a time, and keep at 
these things until they're done. We can do it. Thank you very much.

Note: The town meeting began at 6:33 p.m. at KCRA television studio. A 
tape was not available for verification of the content of these remarks.