[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 31, Number 22 (Monday, June 5, 1995)]
[Pages 950-962]
[Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

<R04>
Remarks at a Town Meeting in Billings

June 1, 1995

    Gus Koernig. Anything you'd like to say, Mr. President, or you just 
want to jump in?
    The President. I think we ought to jump in. I had a wonderful stay 
in Montana. I had a great opportunity to speak to a large number of 
Montanans at Montana State University last night. I've had a great day 
today, as you know. And these folks have brought their questions; I 
think we should begin.

Gun Control Legislation

    Mr. Koernig. Okay. I'm told I get to start. So, as you're probably 
aware, sport hunting is very popular in Montana. More than 60 percent of 
the men in this State, more than 30 percent of the women purchase game 
hunting licenses every year. There is a lot of concern here on the parts 
of people that legislation such as the Brady law and the assault weapons 
ban are a sign of more things to come, and there is a lot of concern and 
more than a little fear and uneasiness about this. What can you say to 
these folks here in our audience to address that?
    The President. Well, first of all, let me tell you where I'm coming 
from on this. For 12 years, before I became President, I was the 
Governor of Arkansas, a State where more than half the people have a 
hunting or a fishing license or both. I would never knowingly do 
anything to undermine the ability of people to hunt, to engage in 
recreational shooting, to do anything else that is legal with 
appropriate firearms.
    I strongly supported the Brady bill for a clear reason: We knew it 
would work to keep a significant number of people from getting guns who 
either had past criminal records or had mental health histories that 
made them unfit to be gun owners. And it has, in fact, done that.
    I supported the assault weapons ban for a simple reason: because the 
death rate from gunshot wounds in a lot of our cities where the crime 
rate is high has gone up. I went to emergency rooms where hospital 
personnel pleaded with me to do something about this problem, because 
the average gunshot wound victim they were seeing had more bullets in 
them than just a few years ago because of the widespread use of these 
assault weapons by gang members. I saw a lot of children who were 
innocently caught in crossfires in this kind of thing. All the law 
enforcement agencies in the country asked for help on the assault 
weapons ban. So I supported it. But the bill that I passed also 
contained a list of 650 sporting weapons that could not be in any way 
infringed by Federal action, that were protected. There were 19 assault 
weapons and their copycats that were prohibited. I still believe it was 
the right thing to do. I strongly believe it was the right thing to do.
    Now, we can differ about that, but I just want to make two points in 
closing. As President, I have to make laws that fit not only my folks 
back home in Arkansas and the people in Montana but the whole of this 
country. And the great thing about this country is its diversity, its 
differences, and trying to harmonize those is our great challenge.
    I did this because I thought it would give our law enforcement 
officers a better chance to stay alive and to keep other people alive. 
That's why I did it. I did it because it has clear protections for 
hunting and sporting weapons. And I think, frankly, that the NRA has 
done the country a disservice by trying to raise members and raise money 
by making extremist claims for this. I mean, they put out a letter in 
which they called Federal officials ``jackbooted thugs,'' as you know, 
but the other part of the letter accused me of encouraging Federal 
officials to commit murder. And I just think that's wrong.
    You know, one of the problems we've got in this country is, 
everybody wants simple answers to complicated questions, and so we all 
start screaming at each other before we listen and talk. That's one 
reason I'm here tonight. So I did it; I think it's the right thing to 
do. But I do not plan to do anything which would undermine the ability 
of people in

[[Page 951]]

Montana or any other State in this country to lawfully use their 
weapons.
    Mr. Koernig. We promise not to scream tonight. Our first question.
    The President. You can if you want.

Bosnia

[A 14-year-old exchange student from Serbian-occupied territory asked 
about efforts to bring peace to her country and to encourage more 
student exchanges in the meantime.]

    The President. Thank you very much. Let me answer the second 
question first, because it's an easier answer. The answer to your second 
question is yes, I want to see young people come over here and live in 
America and have the experiences you're having. And I think it would be 
very beneficial for Americans to have people from your country who have 
been through what you have been through and your family has been through 
come here and talk about it. So, yes.
    The first question is, can I do anything to bring an easier end to 
the fighting, or a quicker end to the fighting? We are doing what we 
can. Let me tell you what we're doing. First of all, we are leading the 
largest humanitarian airlift in human history now into Bosnia, trying to 
make sure we get as much food and medicine in there. Secondly, I have, 
near where you're from in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, 
stationed some American troops to try to make sure that the conflict 
can't spread beyond Bosnia and that no one believes they can in--sort of 
start a whole regional war. The third thing we've tried to do through 
NATO is to support the British, the French, the Canadian, and the other 
European troops that are in Bosnia in their peacekeeping efforts. We 
have tried to make sure that we created safe areas in the eastern 
enclaves and around Sarajevo, that we tried to collect all the heavy 
weapons that the Serbs have which give them such an enormous advantage 
on the battlefield. And that's what caused this latest trouble we had 
over there, because they broke the agreement they made and they put 
1,400 shells into Sarajevo.
    Now, I have to tell you, though, I think in the end this war will 
only end when the parties are willing to negotiate a peace, in peace, 
just the way we're bringing an end to the war in the Middle East, the 
way we're bringing an end to the conflicts in Northern Ireland. I do not 
believe there is a military settlement that the United States can 
enforce. And I do not favor sending our troops into combat there to try 
to assure victory or to force through military means an end to the 
fighting. All it would do is get a lot of Americans killed and not 
achieve the objective. So I don't think we should do that. But we should 
do everything we can short of that.

Welfare, Regulations, and Taxes

[A participant asked about combating the negativism expressed by co-
workers leaning toward a militia mentality.]

    The President. Well, first of all, I think one of the things that 
has happened is that increasingly in this information age, with all this 
explosion of access to information, one of the things that's happening 
that's not good is that people are more and more and more listening to 
people who tell them just what they want to hear or play on their own 
fears. And that's isolating us. One reason I like this is that there are 
a lot of people here of different points of view. So I think--I would 
urge you to urge them to open their ears and eyes to different points of 
view. Now, let me just deal with the three issues you mentioned. You 
mentioned welfare; you mentioned Government regulation; you mentioned 
taxes.
    On the welfare issue, most Americans believe, I learned from a 
recent poll, that we're spending 45 percent of your money on foreign aid 
and welfare. In fact, we're spending about a nickel of your money on 
foreign aid and welfare, your tax money. For the last 2 years, 2\1/2\ 
years, I have done everything I could to convince the Congress to pass a 
welfare reform bill which would invest more in work and require people 
on welfare to move to work and would give people who are parents of 
small children the ability to work and still see that their kids are 
taken care of. When that has not happened, I have given 29 States now 
the permission to get out from under all these Federal rules and 
regulations and adopt their own plans to move people from welfare to 
work.
    On the regulation issue, we have reduced more regulations than the 
two previous ad- 

[[Page 952]]

ministrations. We're going to cut enough paperwork this year to stretch 
page by page from New York to San Francisco. So if you want me to defend 
Government regulation, you're talking to the wrong person. I can't even 
defend everything that's been done since I've been here, because I 
believe we do have to change the way the Government works. But the final 
thing I would tell you is, I do not believe that we should abandon our 
commitment to a clean environment and to the quality of life that makes 
everybody in the world want to live in a place like Montana. But I think 
we have to change the way we regulate and do it better.
    On the tax issue, the American tax burden is about the same as it is 
in Japan and, on average, about 50 percent lower than it is in the 
European countries. And I have done what I could to bring it down for 
middle class people who are overtaxed. Today, families of four with 
incomes of $28,000 a year or less this year paid $1,000 less than they 
would have before I became President, because of taxes we cut in '93. 
And I want to provide further tax relief to middle class Americans to 
educate their children, to raise their children, and to help to save to 
pay for health insurance or care for their parents.
    So we're working on all these things. The answer is not to join the 
militia and opt out. The answer is to come in here and opt in and be a 
vigorous voice of citizen responsibility.

Federal Employee Safety

[The child of a Bureau of Land Management employee expressed concern for 
her father's safety.]

    The President. First of all, I want to thank your father for serving 
his country by working for the Federal Government. Maybe the most 
important thing I can do is to remind the American people that the 
people who work for the Federal Government are citizens and human beings 
too. And I think the one thing that happened in Oklahoma City is a lot 
of people realized all of a sudden that all of these people we deride 
all the time for working for the Federal Government are people that go 
to church with us, that send their kids to our schools and show up at 
the softball parks and the bowling alleys and contribute to the United 
Way.
    And I think that if you want to disagree with the policy of the 
Government, disagree with it. If there is a single Federal official--
there's nobody, including me, who has never felt that they were 
mistreated by somebody working for the Government. So if somebody 
believes someone who is working for the Government has mistreated them, 
take it to the appropriate authority, make it public if you want to, but 
be specific. But do not condemn people who work for the Government. 
That's the kind of mentality that produced Oklahoma City.
    And all these people out here in these various groups that are 
sending faxes around trying to tell people, you know, how they can get 
ready to assault Federal officials who are doing their jobs, trying to 
justify taking violent action, I don't think they understand how many 
people there are out there that are in an unstable frame of mind that 
might take them seriously and actually kill or take other violent action 
against Federal authorities. It is awful. Just a couple of days ago, we 
lost another FBI agent in Washington, DC, and I talked to that man's 
widow today. He has four children; he has a grandchild. He was a human 
being. He was an American. And apparently, the person who shot him had a 
vendetta against all law enforcement officials. Now, we cannot have that 
kind of climate in this country.
    And I think the most important thing we can do to make your father 
safer is to have everybody in this room, whatever their political party 
or their view, stand up and say it is wrong to condemn people who are 
out there doing their job and wrong to threaten them. And when you hear 
somebody doing it, you ought to stand up and double up your fist and 
stick it in the sky and shout them down. That is wrong. It is wrong.
    And I hope everybody in this State heard what you said today. And I 
hope you feel better in school next week--although I guess you're out 
for the summer. [Laughter] Thank you.

The Environment

[A participant asked about enforcement of air quality standards in 
Billings.]

[[Page 953]]

    The President. All I can tell you is, I'll be glad to look into it. 
I tried to prepare for this, and I tried to think of every issue I might 
be asked about. I don't know the answer to it, but I will get back to 
you with an answer. I will look into it, and I'll get back to you with 
an answer.
    Let me just make a general comment, and you may have other questions 
about this. There are problems in the application of all of our 
environmental laws because people are applying them and because we have 
followed a regulatory model that might have made sense 20 years ago that 
I don't think makes as much sense anymore. So nearly everybody maybe 
could cite his case where we have--you don't think we've gone far 
enough; somebody else thinks we've gone way too far with it, whether 
it's clean air, clean water, the Endangered Species Act, you name it.
    But I would remind you, just running through the question you asked 
me, the thing we have to do for Montana is to permit people to make a 
living and preserve the quality of life, because that's why people want 
to live here and that's why people pour in here by the millions every 
year, to see what you've got they don't have. And that's why we have to 
try to do that for everybody in America, and we've got to try to find 
the right way to do it. But you made the point. I'll look into it. I 
can't answer the question specifically.

[A participant asked about protection of Yellowstone National Park in 
view of a proposed gold mine 2\1/2\ miles from the park.]

    The President. Well, first of all, let me thank you for the 
question. I'm very worried about it because of the site. I know it's on 
private land, but it's only a couple of miles from Yellowstone and from 
Clark Fork. I spoke with Senator Baucus today at some length about this. 
I asked him to take a car ride with me for about 15 minutes so he could 
walk me through this and all of his concerns.
    What I believe we have to do now is, you know, they--there has to be 
an environmental impact statement filed on this. And Senator Baucus has 
set out five very specific extra high standards he thinks ought to have 
to be met before they get approval under any environmental impact 
statement. And I guess I would have to tell you that's the way I feel.
    I think that the people of Montana are entitled to know that we have 
gone the extra mile because of the unique place where this site is. And 
I don't want to prejudge the environmental impact statement; I believe 
most of these decisions should be made on the merits. But it just stands 
to reason, given the tailings and the other dimensions of the mining 
project, that it's going to have to meet a very high standard before you 
can be absolutely certain you're not doing anything to Clark Fork or to 
Yellowstone. And no amount of gain that could come from it could 
possibly offset any permanent damage to Yellowstone.
    So you just need to be sure and you need to watch this, and I will 
watch it. I assure you I will, and I know that Senator Baucus and others 
will.

Agriculture Policy

[A farmer asked about the 1995 farm bill and farm loan rates.]

    The President. First of all, since I've been President we've raised 
the loan rate once, as you probably know. I have also tried to do two 
other things for farmers, particularly farmers in this part of our 
country. One is to find more markets to sell products and to use things 
like the Export Enhancement Program, the EEP program, to help to 
facilitate those sales. The other is to try to give you some protection 
from unfair competition. You know, our administration moved to get that 
moratorium on increased imports from Canada, and we set up that 
commission to work on that problem, on the wheat issue. So I have tried 
to be responsive to the problems here. It is going to be difficult to 
get a big increase in the loan rate because of the budgetary situation 
we're in.
    I don't agree that the trade deals are necessarily bad. There are 
some--the Senators from North Dakota think that the agreement the United 
States made with Canada before NAFTA and before I became President had 
something to do with what you're dealing with, with the wheat now. I 
wasn't there. I can't comment on it; I don't know. But our agricultural 
exports this year will be the larg- 

[[Page 954]]

est they've ever been. We'll have a trade surplus of over $20 billion in 
agriculture.
    What I am worried about is the last point you made. It used to be 
when agricultural exports went up, farm income went up. It doesn't 
necessarily happen anymore. It used to be if you could get more jobs 
into the American economy, people's wages would rise. If you'd told me 
2\1/2\ years ago that I could get the Congress to lower the deficit 3 
years in a row for the first time since Mr. Truman was President and 
increase investment in education and technology and expand trade for 
American products and create 6.3 million new jobs, but the incomes of 
most working Americans wouldn't go up, I wouldn't have believed that. 
That's what the global economy has done, and that's our big problem.
    Now, here's what's going to happen in agriculture in this farm 
debate, and I'll tell you what I'm going to try to do. The Congress has 
said we ought to cut another $8 billion or $9 billion out of farm 
supports. Farm supports were cut in '85; they were cut in '90; they were 
cut modestly in '93. They've been cut modestly in '95 by me because the 
Europeans are having to cut more under the GATT deal we made. If we cut 
$8 billion or $9 billion in farm supports, in my opinion, two things are 
going to happen. Number one, we're going to produce less and lose 
markets overseas, and number two, more family farmers will go out and 
corporate farmers will come in.
    There are two reasons for the farm price supports. One is to enable 
us to compete with people around the world. The other is to enable 
efficient family farmers to ride through the hard years. Corporations 
don't need that; they can either borrow the money or have cash reserves 
to ride through the hard years. So I'm going to be pushing for changes 
in this farm bill which help preserve family farmers instead of changes 
which undermine them. And I told a bunch of farmers I met with today 
near here at the Les Auer's farm, I said, you know, what we need to do 
is not only look at how much this budget's going to be cut but how this 
farm program is going to be structured, because if we don't do it, 
family farmers, without regard to their politics, are going to be in 
trouble.

Racism and Native Americans

[After the station took a commercial break, a consultant and lobbyist 
for Native American organizations asked about efforts to combat racism.]

    The President. Well, let me tell you one thing I'm doing 
specifically. Late next month--this month, it's June 1st, isn't it--this 
month, I'm going to have a meeting in Washington, bringing in people 
from all sectors of our society to talk about what we can do to recreate 
a sense of good citizenship in America and of respecting our diversity. 
That doesn't mean we ought to agree. We're always going to have 
disagreements. We ought to have disagreements. That's why we've got a 
first amendment, so we can all disagree and fight like cats and dogs. 
But we've reached a point in this country now when too many of us are 
looking at each other as enemies.
    And I cannot tell you--you know, I've had the privilege of 
representing you around the world and trying to end the nuclear threat 
and expand opportunities for Americans and make peace elsewhere. This 
country's meal ticket to the 21st century is our diversity. But it's a 
headache, right? Look at--even in Montana, with the relatively small 
population you have, you have a lot of people with different views on 
every issue. But I'm telling you, it's our meal ticket to the global 
economy. And we have got to find a way, in a community setting like 
this, to stop looking at each other as enemies and start looking at each 
other as friends and neighbors even when we have differences and try to 
find a way to resolve the differences, instead of drive wedges into the 
differences, make them bigger, so we can belong to organizations that 
will hate each other more than we did before and we give all our money 
to keep driving ourselves apart instead of spending our money to bring 
ourselves together. I believe that's very important.
    And for the Native Americans, it's terribly important. You know, I 
have supported legislation to give Native American tribes more autonomy, 
to respect their religious and other cultural traditions. And I am now 
doing things to try to build economic development opportunities in all 
rural areas of the country,

[[Page 955]]

including for American Indians who live on reservations. None of this is 
going to work unless all of us figure we got a vested interest in 
everybody else doing well.
    So, you know, most Americans get up every day and go to work and pay 
their taxes and obey the law and raise their kids the best they can, and 
they're pretty fine people. And we don't deserve to be wasting our 
energy hating each other. And it's a bad mistake. And to go back to what 
that lady said, part of it is the flip side of the technology and 
information revolution. You can talk to people on the Internet now who 
have all the same fears you do, and you never have to fool with anybody, 
or even look them in the face, that disagrees with you.
    But what's--our bread and butter is that we're different. So anyway, 
starting at the end of this month we're going to see if there's some 
disciplined, organized way we can take this message across America and 
involve people of different parties, different perspectives, radically 
different political views on issues in the idea of recreating a sense 
that we're all neighbors. [Applause] Thanks.

Social Security

[A participant suggested that the Social Security Trust Fund be removed 
from congressional control and put into a private trust with a private 
board of directors.]

    The President. Well, first of all, yes, it would be possible to do 
that. Let me say with regard to your assertion about mismanagement, I 
don't necessarily agree with that. It is true that the Congress raised 
the Social Security tax back in 1983 because the Social Security Trust 
Fund was in trouble, because the American people kept demanding 
opportunities for people to retire at younger ages while we were living 
to be older and older. So they decided to gradually, a month a year, 
over a period of several years, raise the retirement age to 67. They 
funded the thing better, and then they essentially used the Social 
Security tax to downplay the deficit, which meant that most of the 
Social Security money was being invested in Government bonds.
    Now, they are good. That's money in the bank; that money will go 
back there. And there are those who argue that, well, if it were 
invested in other things it could have earned a higher rate of return, 
and therefore, we wouldn't--we'd have a more stable Social Security 
System for a longer term. That may be true, but we'd have to be willing 
to assume a higher rate of risk as well. And that's one of the things 
we're debating now.
    But I can tell you right now the Social Security Trust Fund is 
solvent, and it's solid. There will be financial problems in the Social 
Security Trust Fund in the second decade of the next century because my 
crowd will reach retirement age. I'm the oldest of the baby boomers, and 
the people born between 1946 and 1964 are the largest single group of 
Americans ever born. So when we start to work less and play more golf 
and go hunting and fishing, it's going to be a real burden on everybody 
still working unless we have some reforms. And I think we ought to--
that's one of the things we ought to look at.
    We did take one step last year: We made the Social Security program 
and agency totally independent of any other arm of the Federal 
Government. And there is a report coming out sometime in the next couple 
of weeks about what else we ought to do to make it stable into the next 
century. We have a solemn obligation to do it, and as long as I'm there, 
I'm going to do everything I can to make sure that the money is there 
for you and everybody else who paid into it.

AIDS

[A participant questioned administration policy and efforts regarding 
AIDS.]

    The President. First of all, it's not true that I have made no major 
speeches about AIDS. I appointed the first AIDS czar the country ever 
had. I got the Ryan White Act fully funded. We increased funding for 
AIDS research and AIDS care by 3 times or more the amount that the rest 
of the budget was going up, and then we did it--when we were cutting 
almost everything else, we were spending much more money on AIDS. This 
administration has done far more on research and care and raising the 
visibility of the issue than anyone ever has.
    I don't mind you being frustrated, because it's frustrating until we 
find a cure. We are finding ways, by the way, to keep people alive more 
and more, and we're also finding ways that children who are born HIV-
positive can

[[Page 956]]

get through it in a hurry and maybe even have totally normal life 
expectancy.
    All I can tell you is what my commitment is. My commitment is, 
during these budget wars, to see that medical research in general and 
AIDS research in particular are continued to be increased--it's a very 
small part of the overall budget, but it's a big part of our future--and 
to try to make sure that we have adequate levels of care.
    Now, let me say one final thing. The health care reforms that I 
proposed last year did not pass. But there are two things that I think 
we ought to do that would make a huge difference to people with HIV and 
all of their family members and friends. The most important is to try to 
provide some alternatives to either no care or nursing home care in the 
home or in boarding homes, some other options for long-term care for 
families. That's also a big deal for people with disabled relatives and 
people with parents that maybe don't need to be in a nursing home, but 
need some help. I believe that that ought to be part of all these 
arguments about cutting Medicare and Medicaid. It ought to be done in 
the context of health care reform, and we ought to push for that again. 
And I will do that. The other thing I think we have to do is to make it 
possible for more Americans to buy into health insurance pools that they 
can afford.
    So I am going to work on that with this Congress and, believe it or 
not, in spite of all the things you hear now, I think we've got a 
reasonable chance to achieve both of those goals. And I think if you and 
people like you will lobby on the care issue, the Ryan White issue, I 
think we have a chance to get that carved out from the cuts. And I hope 
you will do that.
    I can tell you, too--I've said this elsewhere--it would be a lot 
easier if they didn't have just an arbitrary date for balancing the 
budget and then have to churn everything else in there. If you'd say, 
``What do we have to do? How much does it cost to do it? How are we 
going to cut? How long will it take to do it?'' It would lead you to a 
conclusion that you could do it but you'd have to take a few more years.

Prisons

[A participant questioned increased spending for prisons and suggested 
changes in the Federal sentencing guidelines for nonviolent offenders.]

    The President. The Attorney General is reviewing that, and there is 
a commission, you know, that's supposed to make recommendations on it. I 
have to tell you, all of you folks, that the Federal Government adopted 
these sentencing guidelines to get out of the feeling a lot of Americans 
had that the sentence a person got and the time a person did was totally 
arbitrary, that it varied so dramatically from judge to judge and State 
to State that it was hard to believe that justice was ever being done. 
And some people, it would seem, would do something terrible and not do 
any time at all. So we went to the sentencing guidelines.
    Most people who practice law and who deal with the sentencing 
guidelines now believe just what this gentleman said, that it requires 
people to serve too much time in prison for relevantly minor offenses 
and lets serious offenders off for doing too little time, costing the 
Federal taxpayers more.
    I don't think you should assume that nothing's going to be done on 
that. I'll be honest with you, the Members of Congress and the people in 
the Justice Department and everybody else is reluctant to touch them for 
fear that if you change anything, they will be excoriated by somebody 
saying, ``Well, here's one case, and this guy is doing one day less,'' 
and how terrible it is. Again, we live in an age where there are a lot 
of complicated problems that don't have simple answers, but those 30-
second bullets that come screaming over the air waves like--seem to have 
a simple answer. But I think that we need to have a careful review of 
them and see if we can't reach a sense in the country that they could be 
modified in ways that would actually make the American people safer.
    We can't totally jail our way out of this crime problem, folks. 
Russia is the only country in the world with the same percentage of 
people behind bars as America has. South Africa has--is the only country 
in the world that has about half the percentage of people

[[Page 957]]

behind bars. Nobody else is above 20 percent of percentage of people in 
prison that we have.
    So, I know a lot of people think that the courts are lenient and the 
prisons are weak. But the truth is, we send more people to jail and keep 
them longer there than any other country does. And I'm all for it if 
they're the right people, if they're the dangerous people that shouldn't 
be let out, that ought to be kept behind bars. But right now, prison 
expansion is normally the biggest item in every State government's 
budget today. In California, they're building more prisons and spending 
less on education, thereby ensuring they'll have to build more prisons 
and spend less on education--you see what I mean.
    So I agree it ought to be looked at. But to do it, we need people 
who are out here in the country who would foster a non-demagoguing 
debate about it, because every time the Justice Department even seeks to 
raise it, you have all of the things you can imagine being said about 
it.

Health Care Reform

[A participant praised Hillary Clinton's efforts on health care reform 
and asked if the President would continue to pursue it.]

    The President. I'm trying to think of all of the things I want to 
say to you. When I was a boy, I lived on a farm in Arkansas that had 
sheep and goats and cattle, and I nearly got killed by a ram; so I'm 
glad that your sheep are well-behaved. I don't have that--I've still got 
a scar up here that I got when I was 6 years old.
    Two things happened on the health care reform. Somewhere between 
$200 and $300 million was spent to advertise to convince the American 
people we were trying to have the Government take over health care. And 
the American people basically wound up believing it, so that Congress 
could get off by just walking away from it. That's essentially what 
happened. I don't think it was true.
    On the other hand, the second thing that happened was, I have to 
take responsibility--not my wife, not anybody else, me, because I've 
been in this business a long time--for biting off more than we could 
chew at once. Health care is one-seventh of our economy. It's the number 
one concern for a lot of people when they get sick. And there is only so 
much change you can accommodate at one time. I think that I have to take 
responsibility for making our plan vulnerable to being both distorted 
but also to failing, and I regret that very much.
    So what are we going to do now? Because every year, more and more 
working people don't have health insurance. Every year, more and more 
people who are self-employed or farmers or people in small businesses 
can't afford to buy insurance or have to pay more for less coverage. And 
every year, more and more cost gets either put off onto the Government 
or onto people that do have good insurance policies. Now, if we cut 
Medicare and Medicaid and take that money away from hospitals in Montana 
and Arkansas and other places and New York City, that will put even more 
pressure on either closing hospitals or raising insurance rates for 
people that have good insurance. So this is a very complicated thing.
    My answer to you is twofold. Number one, if it is appropriate, that 
is, depending on what we do this year, I'll certainly intend to discuss 
the health care in the context of the campaign in 1996. But, number two, 
remember I have said to the American people all along Medicare and 
Medicaid are going up too fast; I agree with the Republican majority in 
Congress on that. We won't have any money for anything else if we 
continue to have to spend 10 percent, 11 percent more every year for 
Medicare and Medicaid. That's the only--look, under my budgets, 
everything else is virtually flat or declining. On the other hand, you 
can't just cut it without trying to reform the system. And I believe 
there are some important medical reforms that can be done this year that 
would make health care more available and more affordable to people and 
would reduce some of the disruption that's otherwise going to come if 
you just have huge cuts in Medicare and Medicaid.
    So I'm not giving up on getting something done this year. And there 
are a lot of people in both parties in Congress who are prepared to talk 
about some step-by-step reforms that would make a difference.

[[Page 958]]

Cooperation With Congress

[A participant asked why the President had not cooperated with the 
Republicans after their election victory.]

    The President. I think the American people do want it. And I have 
tried to cooperate. Let me just give you three--a couple of examples and 
remind you that cooperation means just that. It requires two people to 
cooperate, two sides.
    Example number one: I signed and strongly supported a bill, the 
first bill the Republican Congress passed, to apply to Congress all the 
laws they put on the private sector, because I figure that'll make them 
think twice before they ask private employers to go out and do a lot of 
things that they don't have to do--the first thing we did.
    The second bill we did was a bill sponsored by Senator Kempthorne in 
Idaho to limit the ability of Federal Government to impose unfunded 
mandates on State and local government. I was strongly for that. I 
signed it.
    The third thing I did was to help them break a filibuster and get 
strong support among Democrats in the Senate for the line-item veto, 
which they all said they wanted. You remember the House passed a line-
item veto on President Reagan's birthday as a present for him; that was 
weeks ago, right? The line-item veto--one of the things the Republican 
Congress said that was essential to cut spending--I said, ``Give it to 
me. I'll cut it.'' Do you know--so we had a line-item veto pass the 
House, a line-item veto pass the Senate, and I am still waiting for a 
conference committee to be appointed. And one of the Republican Senators 
said last week, ``Oh, we're not going to give President Clinton the 
line-item veto. We may not like the cuts he makes in spending.'' So here 
I am, all dressed up and ready to cooperate. [Laughter]
    Now, on the--let me give you one other example. They wanted to cut 
some money out of this year's budget to make a downpayment on balancing 
the budget. That's what this so-called rescission bill is. They wanted 
to do it so they would raise money to pay for Oklahoma City, the 
California earthquake, and the floods that are now going on in the 
Middle West and still have some money to bring the deficit down starting 
this year even more. And I said, fine. They said $16 billion; I said, 
fine.
    I met with the Republican Senators, and we worked out an agreement. 
And then all the Democratic Senators, just about, voted for it. It was a 
great deal, right? So then they go behind closed doors, and they take 
$1.4 billion that we agreed on spending on education and health care and 
veterans and a bunch of other stuff out and put in a $1.4 worth of 
courthouses and special street and road projects and some other things.
    Now--and so I said, ``Look, I want to sign this bill; I want to 
cooperate. But I made a deal. Then you guys went behind closed doors. 
You took people out; you took pork in.'' We've got to raise incomes of 
Americans. We shouldn't be cutting education. We shouldn't be cutting 
those opportunities. I do not want to have a pile of vetoes, but I am 
not going to sign a bill that gets changed behind closed doors after the 
cooperation we had agreed on produced this bill.
    So, I still want to cooperate with them. I'll help them balance the 
budget, too, but not if it collapses the American economy or wrecks 
Medicare or closes every country hospital in Montana and my home State. 
I want to cooperate, but it takes two to tango.

Federal Power Administrations

[After the station took a commercial break, a participant questioned the 
proposed sale of Federal power marketing administrations to private 
interests.]

    The President. Well, the argument is, let me just say--let me put it 
in a larger context. The Office of Management and Budget, under my 
administration and under the previous Republican administrations, has 
always routinely tried to put something on this in the budget. The 
Congress now has voted to do it at least one time, but it has to go 
through another committee, so it might be able to be headed off.
    When they brought it to me, I said I don't necessarily believe this 
is going to save money. This is a one-time savings, all right, and you 
can argue that the power is subsidized, but I will approve this only if 
you do two things, in our proposal. One is you have to put a lid on how 
much rates can go

[[Page 959]]

up, and two--which makes it less attractive, obviously, to private 
utilities. And two is there has to be an extraordinary effort to let 
public power authorities buy the capacity first, which would, in effect, 
since they're getting it, since power marketing authorities primarily 
sell to public power authorities, as you know, which would essentially 
be a change of assets; you could take it off the government's books, it 
would look like you lowered the deficit, but it wouldn't lead to a rate 
increase, because you'd have the same integrated network.
    So that is what I am trying to do with this proposal. That's what I 
believe should be done. I do not believe we should sell it and get a 
one-time gain out of it if it's going to explode electric rates in 
Montana or in any other State.
    There may be a way to do it that would increase the cash flow of the 
Government and help the Congress and the President to bring the deficit 
down, but it should only be done if it can be managed without a big hit 
on the electric rate payers. And I think the way I suggested is a 
possible way to do it. And if it doesn't work out, then, in my opinion, 
it shouldn't pass at all.

Government Response to Protest

[A participant asked about the contrast between anti-Government protest 
in the 1960's and 1970's and in the present.]

    The President. Well, first of all, there were some people in the 
'60s and '70s who went beyond their First Amendment rights and advocated 
violence. And they were wrong then, and this crowd is wrong now.
    And it's very interesting to me to see that there are some public 
officials in our country who are only too happy to criticize the culture 
of violence being promoted by the media in our country or the rap lyrics 
that are coming out in some of our recordings--which I have also 
criticized before they did, by and large--but are stone-cold silent when 
these other folks are talking and making violence seem like it's okay.
    And I believe, again, if we're going to create an American community 
where we can disagree, vote differently, work through our differences, 
but all think we're friends and neighbors and get closer together, we 
have to have a uniform standard that says violence is wrong, illegal 
conduct is wrong, and people that are out there encouraging people and 
explicitly tell them when it's okay for them to take the law into their 
own hands and be violent, they're wrong.
    And people who are out there demeaning and dehumanizing people just 
because they work for the Federal Government are wrong. I am not 
defending every person who ever did anything for the Federal Government, 
including me. I make mistakes. Everybody who works for the Government 
makes mistakes. They're human. When somebody does something wrong, it 
ought to be zeroed in on, targeted, and talked about. You can do that 
without dehumanizing people.
    I'll tell you, I've been guilty of it. Every politician I've ever 
known, including me, will sometimes give a speech to people like you and 
talk about Federal bureaucrats. We've reduced the number of Federal 
bureaucrats, by the way, by over 100,000, and we're going down to 
270,000 in the budgets we've already adopted, to the smallest Government 
since President Kennedy came here in 1963.
    But, I realized after Oklahoma City that every time I did that I did 
that to try to make those of you who are taxpayers think that I was 
identifying with you more than them. And that is wrong. That is 
dehumanizing.
    That young girl's father is an American citizen who made a 
deliberate decision that he would never be a rich person because he 
wanted to serve the United States in a Federal agency. And I've been 
guilty of it, too. We all have to realize that we have to change the way 
we talk and the way we think about this. We don't have to quit 
disagreeing. We don't have to quit arguing.
    But this whole climate is bad. It's good for their politics. It 
helps them raise a lot of money and generate--you know, if you keep 
people torn up and upset, fear may be a stronger force than hope. But 
it's not good for America. And we're better than that, all of us are.

Canada-U.S. Trade

[A participant asked about correcting the imbalance in trade of cattle 
and grain with Canada.]

[[Page 960]]

    The President. Well, first of all, we were the first administration 
that ever did anything. We got--we had a one-year agreement to limit 
Canadian imports of wheat, to set up a joint commission to try to deal 
with this and to try to work it out, because the Canadian wheat problem 
is somewhat analogous to the Japanese automobile problem that you know 
I'm also involved with now. And that is that they have a system which 
does not fall into the category of tariff--right?--which is a tax on 
imports, or protectionism, which is a legally explicit barrier to 
imports. It is the way their economic system is organized, works de 
facto to give them an unfair advantage, in both cases. And these things 
are not--they're very difficult to take care of in trade laws, which is 
why you have to take them one by one and take a lot of heat when you're 
doing it.
    So all I can tell you, sir, is that I am doing my best to deal with 
the situation I found when I became president two and a half years ago. 
And we have not solved the problem, but at least we've put it on hold, 
and we've done more than has been done in the past. And I will continue 
to do my best to work on it.

Town Meetings

    Mr. Koernig. We are unfortunately, Mr. President, and everybody 
here, just about out of time. I have one final question.
    The President. It seems like we just got here.
    Mr. Koernig. I know, it does. I have one final question for you. 
This is the first town hall meeting you've done in over a year. You did 
quite a few of them, and then you stopped. Why did you stop, and why are 
you starting again?
    The President. I don't really know why I stopped. One of the things 
that frustrates me--the young gentleman was asking me about cooperating 
with Congress and during the break, I said, you know, when we do things, 
it's not news; it's only news when we're fighting. And one of the things 
that I noticed is I'd go out and do these town hall meetings, and we'd 
have, you know, 30, 40 questions, and there would be one where there 
would be a little--sparks would fly, and that would be the only thing 
that would get any kind of real legs out of it, so that if the American 
people drew any conclusion, they would think that I was here making the 
problem I'm trying to combat worse.
    And that may be the reason we kind of stopped doing them, but I 
think it was a mistake. I think these things are good, because first of 
all, it's easy for the President to become isolated, particularly in 
this security environment we live in today. And I think people who have 
questions should be able to confront their elected officials face to 
face, personally. And I think it's good to create this.
    I looked kind of hypocritical going around saying we ought to all 
start treating each other like friends and neighbors if I'm holed up 
someplace or I only talk when I'm giving a speech to people who can't 
respond. So I'm glad to be here.
    Mr. Koernig. We're glad you're here too. We're glad that you chose 
Billings as the place to start doing town hall meetings again. I know 
that I speak for everyone in Montana and people of northern Wyoming in 
thanking you very much for being with us tonight, sir.
    The President. Thank all of you very much. [Applause] I can't 
believe it's 8:00 p.m.
    Mr. Koernig. I'm Gus Koernig at KTVQ in Billings. I'm told you have 
some closing comments to make.
    The President. No, I'm fine. I'll tell you what I'll do. Does 
anybody have a question that could be answered yes or no? [Laughter] 
Yes, no, maybe--what--quick.

Anticrime Efforts

    Q. Mr. President, as the costs of incarcerating criminals continues 
to rise, will you take actions to support early intervention and 
educational programs that will help children not to become criminals, 
but to become successful members of our society?
    The President. Absolutely. It was a big part of the crime bill last 
year. The crime bill had money for prisons, money for police, and money 
for prevention, and money for punishment. Some in Congress want to take 
the prevention money out; I want to keep it in.
    Anybody else--yes, quick.

[[Page 961]]

Education Funding

    Q. Mr. President, will you veto the rescission bill if they do not 
put education back into the proposed cuts?
    The President. Yes, I will. But I want to sign a rescission bill. 
They're right--the Congress is right to cut that spending, but they 
shouldn't have done what was done in the conference committee. If they 
will fix the education, I'll sign it. We ought to have one. It's the 
right thing to do, but we've got to establish some standards. When you 
cut spending, what you do spend becomes even more important.

The Environment

    Q. Mr. President, if the Republicans rewrite the Endangered Species 
Act or the Clean Air and Water Acts, will you veto that revision?
    The President. Well, it depends on what they do. If this bill the 
House passed on clean water passes, I'll veto that. But I do believe 
that there are Republicans and Democrats in the Senate who will try to 
work together to give us some responsible revisions. And we're trying to 
revise the way the Endangered Species Act is administered, and all these 
things trying to push more down to the local level. But we can't abandon 
them. There is a reason that we have an Endangered Species Act. We 
brought the eagle back, we're bringing the grizzly bear back, and if we 
can preserve diversity, it will be good for the environment. But we've 
got to do it with common sense, and we can do that.

Native American Issues

    Q. I want to know if you'd fully fund the tribally controlled 
community colleges?
    The President. Well, we've got some--you know, we did some things 
for the tribal community colleges that--had not done before and made 
them eligible for certain streams of Federal money. I can't promise to 
fully fund anything in this budgetary environment; I wish I could, but I 
can't.
    Q. Dave Henry, a federal whistle-blower of the Bureau of Indian 
Affairs, formerly. The Indian trust accounts are short between $1 
billion and $2 billion--that's with a ``b'' not an ``m''--billion 
dollars Federal Indian personal money gone. Could you please ask the 
Bureau of Indian Affairs to reform the system of accounting for Indian 
trust funds?
    The President. I will look into that. That's the second question I 
don't know the answer to tonight, but I'll look into it.
    Any real quick yes or no's?

Campaign Finance Reform.

    Q. Will you support any change in procedures which would eliminate 
the soft money in political campaigns which is allowing wealthy 
individuals in corporations to give very large amounts to the political 
campaigns?
    The President. Yes, I will. I think that the Democratic majority in 
Congress last time made a mistake not to pass campaign finance reform. I 
think the lobby reform bill ought to pass as well, which would ban the 
giving of gifts and require disclosure of lobbying activities. Those two 
things would do a lot to straighten up politics in Washington. Yes, I 
will--both of them, strongly.
    Mr. Koernig. Mr. President, this is absolutely the last question.
    The President. Okay.

The Environment

    Q. Can we do anything to save the endangered species that are out 
there that people are killing and that we can try to set laws so they 
will be free to roam and so their population can grow?
    The President. That's what the Endangered Species Act is supposed to 
do. And the people who don't like it believe that we try to save 
endangered species that aren't important and hurt people a lot 
economically. And here's what we've got to do. What we've got to do is 
to find a way to make sure that we don't hurt people so much 
economically, but we do save the species. And in a way, they're all 
important because it's the whole web of our country, all the biological 
species that give us what we know of as Montana or my home State. So I'm 
going to do what I can to save the Endangered Species Act and to 
implement it in a way that makes good sense, so all the people who don't 
like it will dislike it less and we'll save the species.
    Mr. Koernig. Mr. President, thank you again. That was a terrific 
encore.

[[Page 962]]

    The President. Thank you.
    Mr. Koernig. Thank you folks, and good night.
    The President. They were good, weren't they? Thank you.

Note: The town meeting began at 7 p.m. in the KTVQ television studio.