[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 30, Number 43 (Monday, October 31, 1994)]
[Pages 2099-2109]
[Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

<R04>
The President's News Conference

October 21, 1994

    The President. Good afternoon. Ladies and gentlemen, when I became 
President, I did so with a commitment to help more Americans seek a 
higher education, because it was important for our people and important 
for our long-term economy.
    A big part of the problem of getting more Americans into college and 
having them stay there has been the broken Federal college loan program. 
It's too expensive, it did not provide eligibility for too many middle 
class people, and there were too many people who didn't go to college 
or, having gone to college, dropped out because they never thought they 
could meet their repayment options. There were others who were 
frustrated because they thought they couldn't take a job they might want 
because they simply wouldn't earn enough money to meet their repayment 
obligations.
    Today, I want to talk about what we have done to fix that system. We 
already give Americans looking forward to their retirement the chance to 
save in what we called an Individual Retirement Account. Now we offer 
people at the beginning of their careers the chance to pay for college 
in what we call individual education accounts. Here's how it works.
    The individual education account enables you to borrow money for 
college and then to determine how best to pay it back in the way that 
best fits each individual's needs as their work life changes. There will 
be four ways to repay the accounts, and people will be able to switch 
back and forth among payment options at any time and at no cost, 
depending on what's best for them. Under one option, you can simply pay 
a fixed amount back on your loan over 10 years. Two other options will 
permit people with very high debts to spread their repayments over a 
longer period of time. And as I promised during our campaign, people 
will be able to pay back their debts as a percentage of their incomes 
for the life of the loan.
    This income contingent repayment, or pay-as-you-can option, will 
give people the chance to start a business, do community service, work 
as teachers, police officers, or in other public-service-oriented 
employment and make payments in smaller amounts in the early years if 
their wages are lower.
    Our plan eliminates the middle man in the student loan process, who 
used to impose enormous and inefficient transaction costs, and, in so 
doing, to save $4.3 billion for U.S. taxpayers and $2 billion for 
students in lower loan fees. It means that more people will be able to 
borrow in a simple, fair, and affordable way.
    Over the next few years, as part of our larger school reform, named 
for Congressman Bill Ford who's retiring this year, every American will 
be eligible for an individual education account. Already, 300,000 
students have taken out these new college loans. By next year, 40 
percent of all of our colleges, some 1,500 of them, will be enrolled. In 
January, we'll announce a phased-in plan to allow millions of people who 
have already borrowed for their educations to consolidate their loans 
into an individual education account and get the benefits of these new 
repayment options.
    As more and more middle income Americans will discover, this is a 
very good deal, which is a very important part of America's long-term 
strategy for economic health.
    Unfortunately, there are those who don't support this approach and 
want to take us back to the days when working families couldn't afford 
to send their children to college. Every single one of our political 
opponents voted against the college loan reform plan. Most of them have 
now signed a contract telling us what they would do if they controlled 
Congress. They would give a $200 billion tax cut to the wealthiest 
Americans,

[[Page 2100]]

they would explode the deficit, and to help pay for their promises, they 
have made a specific pledge to cut the student loan programs for 3 
million American student borrowers every year. Well, our contract is 
with the future. I don't want to go back, and I don't believe the 
American people will support this approach.
    Ten days ago I got a letter that shows how important this issue is. 
A 16-year-old boy named Artur Orkisz, who immigrated here from Poland 
just 4 years ago, attends Elk Grove School in Des Plaines, Illinois. 
Here's what he wrote me about his dream of going to college: ``Since I 
came to the United States, my dream has been to attend a school like 
Harvard or Stanford. I rank number one in my class, but I know for a 
fact my parents are not going to be able to pay my tuition if I should 
get accepted to a good university. I'd like to know if students not as 
rich as others will get the opportunity to fulfill the American dream 
and graduate from a great university?'' Well, Artur, if you're 
listening, I got your message, and the individual education account will 
help you get your wish.
    Before I take your questions, I'd like to say just a word about the 
framework with North Korea that Ambassador Gallucci signed this morning. 
This is a good deal for the United States. North Korea will freeze and 
then dismantle its nuclear program. South Korea and our other allies 
will be better protected. The entire world will be safer as we slow the 
spread of nuclear weapons.
    South Korea, with support from Japan and other nations, will bear 
most of the cost of providing North Korea with fuel to make up for the 
nuclear energy it is losing. And they will pay for an alternative power 
system for North Korea that will allow them to produce electricity, 
while making it much harder for them to produce nuclear weapons.
    The United States and international inspectors will carefully 
monitor North Korea to make sure it keeps its commitments. Only as it 
does so will North Korea fully join the community of nations.
    Terry [Terence Hunt, Associated Press].

Middle East Peace Process

    Q. Mr. President, when you met last January with President Asad of 
Syria, he said that peace with Israel was a strategic option. And you 
said that he was taking the risks for peace. Has he followed through on 
that? Do you think that he's been forthright enough? And when you go to 
the Middle East next week, what can you do to break this impasse between 
Syria and Israel?
    The President. Well, I can say that there has been progress in the 
negotiations between Israel and Syria. Let me also say in general terms 
why I'm going there.
    As you know, I and my administration have worked very hard for a 
comprehensive peace in the Middle East. It is very much in the interest 
of the United States. I have been invited by King Hussein and Prime 
Minister Rabin to be at this signing, and I think it's important that, 
particularly now, with the violent reaction to the efforts at peace, 
that the United States stand shoulder-to-shoulder with our friends and 
allies who are taking such terrific risks to make peace.
    While I am there, I will visit Syria because it is my judgment that 
the visit will further the goal of an ultimate peace agreement between 
Israel and Syria. And until that is done, we will never have 
comprehensive peace in the Middle East. There has been some progress in 
the negotiations, which are, as you know, candid and confidential 
between the two. I think there will be more progress. I want there to be 
more progress, and I think this visit will further it.
    Helen [Helen Thomas, United Press International].
    Q. I have a three-part question. In the overall sense, what do you 
expect to achieve from this trip? In view of the recent incidents, are 
there real security concerns? And in the interest of reconciliation, 
will you try to persuade Israel to release some of the thousands of 
political Palestinian prisoners that it still holds?
    The President. First of all, let me begin with your second question. 
I have confidence in the security capacity of the governments and the 
countries that I will visit and in, of course, the work of our own 
Secret Service. And I think it is terribly important, especially since 
there have been violent reactions from the enemies of peace, that the 
United States stand with the friends of peace and the champions of peace 
at this time. It is even more

[[Page 2101]]

important than it would have been a few days ago that I go there and 
that our country stick up for this.
    Secondly, what I hope to achieve is to continue to further the peace 
process. This peace treaty is a huge step forward. I will have the 
opportunity in Cairo to meet with President Mubarak and Mr. Arafat. I 
will have a chance there to talk about the importance of implementing 
fully the PLO-Israel accord. I will have the opportunity to go to Syria. 
As to what specific things I will discuss with Prime Minister Rabin and 
others, I think it's better for me to have the conversations and discuss 
it later.
    Q. ----be trying to move everything forward?
    The President. I will definitely be trying to move everything 
forward. My purpose in going there is, first, to stand with our friends 
at this moment when they're standing up for peace and the enemies of 
peace are trying to derail them and, secondly, to move the peace process 
forward.
    Q. Mr. President, how difficult a decision was this to go to 
Damascus, since your own State Department still lists Syria as a country 
that supports international terrorism? And a related question, only this 
morning, there were Katiusha rockets landing from southern Lebanon, an 
area dominated by Syrian control, landing in northern Israel. How do you 
believe that this will advance the peace process? And do you have any 
assurances in advance from President Asad that he's willing to go 
further now than he went in Geneva earlier this year?
    The President. First, I think that with regard to the Katiusha 
rockets, I think that matter will be resolved between the parties 
involved before the trip develops. Secondly, with regard to meeting 
President Asad, even though Syria is on the terrorist list, that remains 
an issue between our two countries. It is a serious issue. It has been 
constantly discussed between us, and it will continue to be. But I do 
not believe that we can permit it to keep us from pursuing a 
comprehensive peace as long as nothing in our peace agreements 
undermines our commitment to end terrorism.
    So I believe that anything I can do, just as I did when I met with 
President Asad in Geneva, to further the peace process is something that 
ought to be done. And I believe that by meeting with him and talking 
with him and working with him, we will continue to make some advances.
    Andrea [Andrea Mitchell, NBC News].

Terrorism

    Q. Mr. President, what can the United States do to make sure that 
Hamas is not getting money from organizations here in the United States, 
not recruiting people and training people here in the United States? And 
are you satisfied with Yasser Arafat's response so far, in his 
willingness to really crack down on Hamas and other terrorist groups?
    The President. We can, here, do everything we can through the FBI 
and our other law enforcement agencies to make sure that we're handling 
any possible illegal activities in the United States redounding to the 
benefit of Hamas vigorously. And just in the last week, I have given 
instructions to the proper Federal agencies to redouble our efforts in 
that regard.
    With regard to your question about Mr. Arafat, I do believe, and the 
Israelis believe, that he did his best to support them with good 
intelligence when Corporal Waxman was captured and held hostage. And I 
believe that in the wake of the killing of Corporal Waxman, the 
determination of the PLO to distance itself from Hamas and to enforce 
the law within its territories has stiffened, and I think it will 
continue to stiffen.
    Q. Do think that he has cracked down sufficiently in the Gaza, 
especially regarding this latest incident?
    The President. I think that he's moving in the right direction. One 
of the things that we are always trying to determine in this moment when 
they're taking over in the West Bank and Gaza is the capacity of the 
Palestinian Government, the PLO government, to do that work, and we're 
trying to support an increase in that capacity. I can say that I believe 
that they're moving in the right direction.

Haiti

    Q. Mr. President, having spent hundreds of millions of dollars to 
restore democracy to Haiti, why is it necessary for American taxpayers 
to spend still more, renting the

[[Page 2102]]

homes that Raoul Cedras left behind? I realize it's a relatively 
insignificant sum, but isn't that adding insult to injury?
    The President. Well, first of all, I don't think it's an insult that 
we spent the money to restore democracy to Haiti. Let's look at what has 
happened in the last 4 weeks. We have restored democracy. The military 
dictators have stepped down. The military dictators have left Haiti. 
President Aristide is rebuilding his government. The economy is 
beginning to be rebuilt. People are being put to work at rebuilding the 
country. This is a signal triumph for the men and women in uniform who 
are down there and the work that they have done, and it is a very 
important lesson in what can be done to promote democracy and to end 
human rights abuses.
    Now, with regard to the houses, let me just say that the United 
States and other countries that are with us on the coalition are not in 
the business of expropriating people's property. And when you make 
people leave their home, something arguably should have been done. The 
only instruction I gave was that nothing could be done that would exceed 
the fair market value of the property--that was the rule under which the 
State Department was operating anyway--and that some use had to be made 
of it. So they're either going to use it or turn around and release it 
so that the taxpayers in this country aren't disadvantaged by it. But I 
think that this policy has been phenomenally successful in terms of 
saving lives, not putting Americans unduly at risk, and moving this 
country's objectives forward. And I think the American people should be 
very proud of it.

Iraq

    Q. Mr. President, during the last Persian Gulf crisis, the Bush 
White House at times suggested that Saddam Hussein should be overthrown. 
What's your assessment of the internal situation in Iraq now, and do you 
think Saddam Hussein should be overthrown?
    The President. Well, the Bush White House also made it clear that a 
condition of their international coalition was that they would not do 
the overthrowing. My position is that we should keep the pressure on 
that regime as long as it is out of compliance with U.N. Security 
Council resolutions. And there are obviously costs to the regime 
internally from that pressure. And that is the consequence of the 
misconduct of Saddam Hussein. And the immediate threat is receding. The 
withdrawal above the 32d parallel is nearly completed.
    But we will maintain the deployment at the level we have it now for 
a while. We will watch the situation. I am gratified by the United 
Nations Security Council resolution unanimously condemning that conduct. 
There is no question that internally the pressure will continue to build 
up unless Saddam Hussein decides to do the right thing and fully comply 
with the Security Council resolutions.
    Q. And your assessment of the internal situation there?
    The President. Your assessment might be as good as mine. I think 
there are extra pressures on them. And I think that those are creating 
some difficulties, but I don't want to predict what would happen within 
Iraq.

Midterm Elections

    Q. Mr. President, to change to domestic policy--or politics. For the 
first time in 40 years, a multitude of polls are suggesting that more 
Americans are prepared to vote for Republicans in congressional 
elections than Democrats. Can you explain why that's happening for the 
first time since the Truman administration and to what degree you 
believe your administration is responsible for it?
    The President. Well, I think it's changing in the last few days, and 
we didn't want to peak too soon. [Laughter] Let me say, just on a brief, 
serious note, one of the things that we know is that Americans almost 
always do the right thing when they have all the information. We know 
that Americans literally don't know a lot of what went on in Congress, 
who was responsible for what, and what's happening now. As more and more 
Americans find out between now and election day that our administration, 
working with our allies in Congress, did things to make Government work 
for ordinary Americans--like the middle class college loans, the family 
leave law, the Brady bill, immunizing kids under the age of 2, a dozen 
more

[[Page 2103]]

things--and that these things were uniformly opposed by the Republican 
congressional leadership and sometimes by all Republicans--that the 
Republicans killed the Superfund law to clean up toxic dumps and all the 
political campaign reform laws and now have a contract that would take 
us back to the trickle-down economics of the eighties, explode the 
deficit, ship jobs overseas, and cause the cuts of Medicare and all 
other Government programs, including student loans, and they talk tough 
on crime, but they've got a plan to cut the crime bill and make sure it 
can't be funded and police officers can't be put out there--I think the 
voters will change their minds. And I think that when Congress went home 
and the American people now have a chance to hear the debate and hear 
both sides, if we can get the evidence and the arguments out there, I 
feel quite confident that they'll do the right thing.

Medicare

    Q. You and other Democrats around the country have been complaining 
about the contract that--the Republicans' contract with America--that it 
would cut Medicare steeply. Can you say that you would not propose to 
cut Medicare next year?
    The President. You know what my position is. My position is that any 
Medicare savings that we can get from managing the program better should 
be put back into providing for the health care needs of our country. 
That was my position, that's the position that I offered in the health 
care debate, and that's still my position.

Virginia Senatorial Campaign

    Q. President Clinton, there have been a lot of reports coming out 
about you meeting with former Governor Wilder. Can you tell us whether 
the subject of an ambassadorship for him to an African country ever came 
up during that recent meeting in exchange for any promise he made to 
endorse Chuck Robb? And what do you think of the comments that candidate 
Oliver North has been coming up with, suggesting that there should be 
some kind of investigation of the meeting, that you may have broken the 
law during that meeting?
    The President. Well, first of all, there was absolutely no 
discussion along the lines you mentioned of an ambassadorship to an 
African country in return for his endorsement of Senator Robb; that just 
did not happen. I would not do that, I would never be part of that, and 
that did not happen. The Vice President spoke to it today; I will tell 
you again, that did not happen. It did not happen.
    Now, you know, Oliver North says a lot of things, and you know, if 
you've got $17.5 million to buy your own version of the truth, then you 
don't have to be held, apparently, to the same standard that other 
people do. I noticed the other day he said that I wasn't his Commander 
in Chief, and someone asked me if it bothered me. I said, it didn't 
bother me nearly as much as the fact that he didn't act as if Ronald 
Reagan was his Commander in Chief, either, when he had a chance. 
[Laughter] So, I don't know what else to say about Mr. North.
    Brit [Brit Hume, ABC News].

Foreign Policy

    Q. Mr. President, you've been able to report advances in foreign 
policy across a number of fronts, some that you've mentioned here today. 
I doubt anyone here would have anticipated 2 years ago you would be 
spending next week, the week before the election, out of the country. 
Obviously, historic events have something to do with that, but I wonder 
if your attitude toward the role of foreign policy in your Presidency 
and your absorption with it and interest in it has changed or grown.
    The President. I wouldn't say that, but what is happening now with 
regard to Haiti and Korea and Iraq in the sense that Iraq is an example 
of our increased mobility as a result of commitments we made in the 
defense budgets, what happened with the Chinese commitment to comply 
with the missile control regime and not to sell dangerous missiles to 
its neighbors, a lot of these things are the accumulation of 2 years of 
hard work, trying to fashion the national security of the United States 
and advance the economic interests of the United States and advance 
democracy in the post-cold-war world. And it is all--a lot of these 
things have come together in a short time. But we have been

[[Page 2104]]

working on them for quite a long time now, and it's just, I think, to 
some extent, a simple coincidence that the benefits of these long 
efforts are coming to fruition now.
    You're right, I never would have anticipated going to the Middle 
East at this particular season, but I think it would be wrong for me not 
to go, particularly for the reasons I just said at this moment. I think 
it's important.
    And one of the things I tried to say in the election campaign that 
I'd like to reiterate--I wish it were possible for the American people 
to believe what I believe about this, which is that there is no simple 
and easy dividing line between domestic policy and foreign policy, that 
in a global economy, a global society where everything is so 
interrelated, we can't be strong abroad if we're not strong at home. But 
we cannot maintain our internal strength and our values unless we are 
secure and strong beyond our borders.

Washington, DC

    Q. Mr. President, Washington is becoming an issue in this campaign. 
The latest thing is that a candidate in Oklahoma says there are no 
normal people here. [Laughter] You've lived here almost 2 years now. I 
wonder what you think of Washington?
    The President. I would be glad to testify in court that I think you 
are a normal person. [Laughter] I don't know. I think there is a bunch 
of normal folks here, but I think this atmosphere is sort of abnormal. 
The thing that I think is bizarre, though, is I think the American 
people need to have their antenna up when they hear that, especially 
since Mr. Gingrich had already said in his meeting with the Republican 
professional politicians that his mission in life was to convince people 
that I was the enemy of normal Americans. So I would just caution the 
voters everywhere in this country, and when they hear somebody say 
there's no normal people in Washington, a lot of the people that are 
saying it are the people that have done their best to hang on to every 
last job they could get in Washington in the executive branch for two, 
three decades now. So the atmosphere is abnormal, and that makes the 
people sometimes do and say weird things. But there's a lot of fine 
folks here, and what we ought to do is kind of get together and do 
better.
    Deborah [Deborah Mathis, Gannett News Service].

Social Problems

    Q. Mr. President, notwithstanding the problems all around the world, 
there are pernicious social problems here in the United States. And many 
of these problems, in many views, are breaking down along racial lines. 
Indeed, some people say that the progress of the sixties has been upset 
and overturned, that the great divide between black and white is 
worsening, widening. And lately, there is a new book out that suggests 
that these problems, these conflicts may be inherent, and we may be 
doomed to them. What do you think about race as it applies to the social 
problems? And what can you do, what can a government do to try and fix 
some of it?
    The President. Well, if you're asking me first of all about Mr. 
Murray's book, I haven't read it. But as I understand the argument of 
it, I have to say I disagree with the proposition that there are 
inherent, racially based differences in the capacity of the American 
people to reach their full potential. I just don't agree with that. It 
goes against our entire history and our whole tradition.
    I also think if you--let's just take the social problems. And I 
guess--I don't want to overly digress; I know a lot of you have a lot of 
questions, but this is a huge deal. I don't know if you saw the piece in 
the Wall Street Journal not very long ago where black Americans and 
white Americans were polled about the social problems generally, crime, 
family breakdown, drugs, gangs, violence, welfare dependency, the 
aggregate of them, overwhelming majorities agreed that these were the 
great problems of our country. And they've been developing for 30 years 
now. Then, overwhelming majorities agreed that we needed to reform the 
welfare system to move people from welfare to work. The great divergence 
came when one group said that this was caused because of the loss of 
economic opportunity, and the Government had a responsibility to rebuild 
it. And the other group said, no, this is caused by an escalating amount 
of personal misconduct, and people needed to change their personal 
behavior. In

[[Page 2105]]

other words, the Government can't do anything about it.
    I would like to make the following points: I think both groups are 
right and both groups are wrong, number one. Number two, there's not as 
much racial difference here as you think there is. And let me try to 
illustrate it by starting at the second point.
    The out-of-wedlock birth rate in the aggregate in the United States 
is today about 30 percent. It is higher for African-American young 
women--that is a birth where there was never a marriage--than it is for 
white young women, but it is rising faster among whites than among 
blacks, markedly faster. And it seems to be far more tied to poverty and 
lack of education and lack of being connected to the future than to 
race. Number two, it is plain that we are dealing with both the loss of 
economic opportunity and a changed set of social mores, a changed sense 
of what is right and wrong, what is acceptable and unacceptable. And I 
believe we need to change both.
    What can the Government do about it? What can the President do about 
it? First, we can try to bring this economy back. In 1994, we've had 
more high-wage jobs created in our economy than in the previous 5 years 
combined. This is the first year when over half of the jobs coming into 
our economy are above average wages. Number two, as all of you know, I 
have signed laws to create community development banks and empowerment 
zones in our inner cities to try to get investment back there, to give 
hope to people who have been left behind, to try to do the economic 
mission. But having said that, to try to rebuild a society that has been 
pressured both in our inner cities and our isolated rural areas for a 
generation now--we're talking about 30 years of serious pressure--is 
going to take a concerted effort that starts with parents and churches 
and community groups and private business people and people at the local 
level. The Federal Government cannot be the salvation of that. We have 
to rebuild the bonds of society.
    And everybody has a role to play. That's why--I want to compliment--
Deputy Secretary Kunin is here, Governor Kunin from the Department of 
Education. We signed the elementary and secondary education act today; 
we're kicking off the college loan program--yesterday--we're kicking off 
the college loan program today. One of the things in that act that 
Secretary Riley fought so hard for was the so-called character education 
provision, so that the schools can explicitly work with their 
communities and agree about what values need to be transferred to 
children through the schools and promote them.
    This is a very serious and complicated issue. I think it is a quick 
fix to try to break it down by race. I believe that the evidence is 
clear that what we ought to be working on is a way for every kid in this 
country to live up to the fullest of their potential. And that potential 
is quite extraordinary, and they will do quite well without regard to 
race if we can attack these problems.

North Korea

    Q. Mr. President, a question on the North Korean nuclear arms 
accord. Even before the ink is dry on that accord, officials of the 
International Atomic Energy Association are complaining it denies them 
of a key right, that of special inspections. Doesn't this set a bad 
precedent for other countries with nuclear ambitions, such as Iran?
    The President: I don't think it does deny them special inspections. 
It commits North Korea first to freeze and then to dismantle, something 
they've never committed to do before and something they weren't required 
to do under the NPT. It also commits them to ship out their spent 
nuclear fuel, to get it physically out of the country so they cannot do 
anything with it.
    The question of special inspections, whether and when, is put off 
from the present. And that bothers some people, but if you consider the 
fact that the waste sites are not going anywhere, that the IAEA is going 
to be in the country, and that we have a commitment for a freeze and 
then a dismantling and that if they ever violate it they won't get the 
benefits that they seek from it, it seems to me this is still a very 
good deal indeed. And I think that what we have to do is to work with 
the IAEA people who will be on the ground and work out the practical 
details of this.

[[Page 2106]]

Racial Diversity

    Q. Mr. President, related to Deborah's question, several years ago a 
Piscataway, New Jersey, school board had to lay off teachers. And it 
came to a white female teacher and a black female teacher. And rather 
than flipping a coin--as it turns out, both had been hired on the same 
day so they had equal experience--the school board fired the white 
teacher because of the color of her skin. Now, your Justice Department 
originally opposed the school board in court, but has flipped recently. 
And I was wondering if you agree with that decision, if you think that 
we need more affirmative action acts like this or whether that's a case 
of reverse discrimination.

    The President. I support the position as finally articulated, but 
I'd like to say it's a very narrow case. That is, if you have a school 
district where the children are overwhelmingly of one race or another 
and the faculty is as well and you have two equally qualified people and 
you stipulate that--in this case, both sides in the lawsuit stipulated 
they were absolutely equally qualified--then can trying to preserve some 
racial diversity on your faculty be a ground for making the decision, as 
opposed to flipping a coin? As long as it runs both ways, or all ways, I 
support that decision, that is, there are other conditions in which if 
there were only one white teacher on the faculty in a certain area and 
there were two teachers, they were equally qualified, and the school 
board or the school administrator decided to keep the white teacher also 
to preserve racial diversity. That is the position the Justice 
Department has taken. And on those very narrow grounds, I support it 
because both sides stipulated, both teachers and their lawyers 
stipulated that there was absolutely no difference in their 
qualifications for the job.

Midterm Elections

    Q. Mr. President, this is a political season, and you've been out in 
the stump a fair amount. What is your prediction of how many seats the 
Democrats will lose in the House and the Senate? And do you think if the 
Republicans manage to win the House, given all the mean things that have 
been said this year, could you work with a Speaker Newt Gingrich? 
[Laughter]
    The President. Well, you know Newt's the person that said I was the 
enemy of normal Americans. I didn't say that about him. The American 
people have to make a judgment in the election. I can tell you this: I 
believe with all my heart if the American people knew the record of our 
administration in making advances, making this Government work for 
ordinary people, if they knew that; if they knew what we'd done to 
restore the economy, bring the deficit down, shrink the size of the 
Federal Government; if they knew what we'd done in passing the crime 
bill; and if they knew the extent to which the Republican leadership had 
opposed this every step of the way; if they understand what's in this 
contract; then if they know we have a contract with the future, that my 
only interest is in moving this country into the future in a stronger 
position, I don't believe we would lose seats at all.
    Now, almost always at midterm the incumbent President's party loses 
seats. That's partly because there's a lag between when you do something 
and when people feel it. And of course, this is an extremely contentious 
time. But I believe that that will happen. So what I'm going to do in 
the next 2\1/2\ weeks is to do everything I can to get as many voters as 
possible to know exactly what the facts are and what our vision for the 
future is. Then they will make their judgment. After they make their 
judgment, I will do everything I can to honor their judgment by 
fulfilling my responsibility, which is to challenge every Member of 
Congress without regard to party and especially the leaders to work with 
me to make this country a better place. That's what I have always done, 
and that's what I will do.

Northern Ireland

    Q. Mr. President, now that the IRA and the loyalists paramilitaries 
in Northern Ireland have called a cease-fire, which has been today 
accepted by Prime Minister Major, can you say how soon the 
administration will have ready a package of economic incentives to help 
a peacetime Northern Ireland economy? And can you characterize the 
package? And can you also say what is now the United

[[Page 2107]]

States role in the talks that are going to take place regarding Northern 
Ireland?
    The President. Let me first congratulate the action which was taken 
and Prime Minister Major's response to it. I think both are very 
hopeful. And I am very glad that the United States has been able to be 
involved in this peace process in Northern Ireland. We will continue to 
be involved in it. And we certainly want to contribute to the 
development of Northern Ireland in ways that go beyond even what we've 
done already with the Irish-American fund. And there are a lot of 
private citizens in this country who are also really committed to that. 
And in the end, they will have the most to say about it because we need 
private enterprise development in Northern Ireland. We have looked at a 
number of options. We have not finalized any of them because obviously 
we want to wait for developments to unfold, until the appropriate point. 
We're a lot closer to the appropriate point today because of the 
announcements that have been made.
    Bill [Bill Plante, CBS News].

Bosnia

    Q. Mr. President, are you still committed to lifting the arms 
embargo against Bosnian Muslims unilaterally if you can't achieve it in 
the U.N. Security Council by November 15th, even though that might mean 
the evacuation by peacekeeping forces, a buildup by the Serbs, and 
alienation of our relations with the Russians?
    The President. Well, let's go back to the timetable first. Under the 
law that our Congress adopted that I agreed to, the compromise we worked 
out between the administration and the Congress, because the October 
15th deadline has passed without an acceptance of the peace plan by the 
Bosnian Serbs, we are obliged to go to the United Nations with a 
resolution to lift the arms embargo through the United Nations, but at 
the request of the Bosnian Government to delay it for 6 months, to give 
us 6 more months to work on the peace. That is our commitment. If that 
fails, we are then obliged to go back and consult with Congress to 
discuss whether we should have a unilateral lift.
    I still believe that is a mistake. I have believed for more than 2 
years that would be a mistake, because if we lift unilaterally it will 
cause the collapse of the United Nations mission. The people of the 
United States don't want our soldiers to go there alone to engage in a 
battle that is essentially a civil war. I am convinced that the United 
Nations troops, or most of them, will withdraw if there's a unilateral 
lift. And I am convinced that it will undermine our ability to work with 
other countries within the United Nations to resolve this. So I don't 
support that. But under the law I am obliged to bring that back to 
Congress and work it through. But keep in mind, we still have 6 months 
to work through this in the United Nations at the request of the Bosnian 
Government itself. So that's what we'll keep working on.

Hillary Clinton's Role

    Q. I want to ask you about Mrs. Clinton, if I may. What is Mrs. 
Clinton's professional role at this point? Will she be fully engaged in 
the health care bill after the next Congress? And does she have any 
other professional or political portfolio right now?
    The President. You bet she does. I mean, I think if you follow her 
schedule every day, you know what she's doing. And of course, she will 
continue to be involved in health care. I would never call it a 
professional role except insofar as everything she does as First Lady is 
professional. But we intend to continue to work on the health care 
issue.
    I would remind you that another 1,100,000 Americans in working 
families lost their health insurance this year, that the new estimates 
are that unless we do something about the rising cost of health care, we 
will be spending well over 25 percent of our Federal budget on health 
outlays early in the next century or the next decade now. So we're going 
to have to face this. This is not a problem that's going to go away. 
It's going to keep rearing its head.

Immigration

    Q. A year ago, you took a position on a California ballot 
initiative. Do you have any advice this year for Californians facing 
Proposition 187, which would deny benefits to illegal aliens, and 
services? And do you have any concerns about the strong tide of anti-

[[Page 2108]]

immigrant feelings that are in California right now?
    The President. Yes, I have concerns about it. I spoke about this 
briefly with USA Today a couple of days ago, but I'd like to talk about 
it a moment.
    First, let me say the people of California and the people of the 
United States are right in wanting to eliminate illegal immigration and 
increase our ability to protect our own borders, even against people 
that we welcome to our shores when they are legal immigrants. That was a 
part of the tension recently with regard to Cuba when we made the 
agreement to stop illegal immigration there. It was part of the early 
tension last summer with regard to Haiti. The people of California, 
therefore, are right to want that.
    It is, on the other hand, a great mistake to be against immigration 
generally. We are a nation of immigrants. Practically all of us have 
forebears who came from somewhere else. And from time to time, we have 
been greatly strengthened by immigrants. The fact that we have so many 
different people of different races and ethnic groups and religious 
backgrounds will be, I might add, an enormous strength for this country 
as we move into the next century and we get into a global economy.
    Let me just give you one small example, and I will come back to 187. 
What other country besides the United States could have undertaken the 
operation in Haiti and sent Haitian-American soldiers in uniform to 
Haiti to speak Creole to the citizens of that country? That's just one 
example. We're having the Summit of the Americas here in December. We 
can do that because Spanish is the second language of America now and 
because of our growing involvement in the rest of the world. So we--in 
being against illegal immigration, we should not be against immigration 
and the incredible source of strength that immigrants bring to our 
borders.
    Now, what to do about it. I guess I've spent as much time working on 
California and the problems of California, the economic problems of 
California, as any President ever has. It was my duty to do so. They've 
had so many problems, caused by the decline of defense spending, caused 
by the recession generally, coupled with the explosion of immigration 
and a whole range of other problems they have out there.
    Look at what we have done: We have increased spending on the States 
to deal with the immigration problems by 32 percent since I've been 
President, even though we've been cutting overall spending. We've 
increased border guards by 30 percent. We put 1,000 more border guards 
on. We have doubled the border guards in San Diego. We've had--San Diego 
and El Paso and Arizona. We've had very successful initiatives to slow 
the influx of illegal immigrants. We have toughened the penalties. We're 
beginning to send criminals who are illegal immigrants out of the 
country. We are the first administration ever to give money to the 
States to deal with the criminal justice costs. We're spending money on 
health care and education never before spent. So we are doing things 
that have not been done.
    Barbara Jordan just issued her commission's report. We have those 
recommendations under advisement. We are going to do some things that 
will continue to increase our capacity to reduce illegal immigration. 
That's what I think the right thing to do is.
    I have some problems with 187. One is, even its supporters admit 
that it's unconstitutional. And I don't think as a matter of practice 
it's a good thing to condition an election referendum, much less other 
elections in California, on a measure that even the supporters say is 
unconstitutional. Secondly, I think it presents significant risks. If 
you don't give the children health care, you can create health risks for 
the society generally. If you don't give the children education, and 
they're still in the country and you can't get them out, then they'll be 
on the street, and the increased risks of crime or other antisocial 
behavior will go up. If you turn the teachers and other educators into 
instruments of a sort of a State police force, it's like bringing Big 
Brother into the schools.
    I guess what I'm saying is, I sort of agree with what Jack Kemp and 
Bill Bennett said in their article about it. And I applaud them for 
saying it. I mean, this is an issue again where our parties ought to be 
together. Historically, both Republican and Democratic parties have been 
strengthened by our immigrants. And I think--if the people of Califor- 

[[Page 2109]]

nia would be fully candid, they would have to say that leadership 
decisions made in the past in California have actually facilitated 
illegal immigration, when they were called undocumented immigrants, in 
ways that people in California thought were supporting the economic 
growth of California in good times.
    So we need to back away and change our policy. But we don't need to 
do it in a way that is overbroad, that runs the risk of these problems, 
and that is plainly unconstitutional, in my judgment. And I have fought 
harder, I think, than any President to help California deal with the 
problems of illegal immigration. I just don't think that's the way to do 
it.
    Thank you very much.

Note: The President's 74th news conference began at 2:32 p.m. in the 
East Room at the White House. In his remarks, he referred to Charles 
Murray, co-author of ``The Bell Curve''; former Secretary of Housing and 
Development Jack Kemp; former Director of the Office of National Drug 
Control Policy William J. Bennett; and Barbara Jordan, Chair of the 
Commission on Immigration Reform. This item was not received in time for 
publication in the appropriate issue.