[Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: George H. W. Bush (1992, Book I)]
[April 10, 1992]
[Pages 579-591]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]



[[Page 579]]

The President's News Conference

April 10, 1992
    The President. We were able to take several steps this week towards 
my efforts to address the challenges facing this country, towards the 
kind of fundamental reform that the people of America want and deserve.
    Last Friday I spoke in Philadelphia about critical reforms that will 
help get the Government reformed and moving. And last night I 
transmitted to Congress the ``Accountability in Government Act of 
1992,'' legislation that would extend to the Congress and the White 
House relevant portions of laws that now apply to the private sector. 
And it will also extend to appropriate portions of Congress certain laws 
that presently apply only to the executive branch.
    This morning I met with Secretary Sullivan of HHS and Wisconsin's 
Governor Tommy Thompson. Twenty-four days ago, Governor Thompson 
requested a Federal waiver to go forward with genuine welfare reform. 
And today, I granted the waiver relief that will allow Wisconsin to move 
ahead on its bold new strategy to reform that State's welfare system.
    Along with reform of the Government, I'll continue to push for the 
changes necessary to fight for American jobs at home by expanding 
markets abroad, to better educate our children, fighting for America 
2000, to reform a legal system that is drowning us in a sea of 
litigation, and to provide all Americans with access to quality health 
care. As you know, yesterday the Vice President announced regulatory 
reforms to speed up the availability of new drugs for long-term 
illnesses such as cancer and AIDS and Alzheimer's.
    Also yesterday I was very pleased to see the Fed's action in 
lowering the key short-term interest rate by a quarter of a point. And I 
applauded the action of the Fed, and I believe the economy has been 
improving and that this action should help that improvement along.
    This has also been a very busy week on the international front. My 
speech yesterday described our commitment to a democratic peace in the 
new nations of the old Soviet Union. Along with our allies, we are 
committed to assisting the C.I.S. States during this time of transition. 
And we're pleased with the bipartisan support that we have been 
receiving for our plan. Let me say to the American people: Peace and 
prosperity are in the interest of every American, and democracy inside 
the Kremlin is the best way to assure our security in the decades to 
come.
    I talked this morning with President Kravchuk of Ukraine. And we 
discussed a number of issues that I had focused on in yesterday's 
speech, and I reiterated our support for Ukraine's efforts towards 
economic reform and building a lasting democracy. He told me that he had 
had good talks as recently as today with President Yeltsin as it related 
to the nuclear question and the fleet question and other questions we've 
been reading about.
    I just now concluded a meeting with Prime Minister Calfa of 
Czechoslovakia, had an opportunity to assure him that what we are trying 
to do in the C.I.S. in no way diminishes our interest in Eastern Europe 
and in Czechoslovakia particularly.
    Also yesterday, Manuel Noriega was found guilty of drug trafficking. 
The Operation Just Cause enabled justice to be served, American lives 
were protected, and it helped Panama set out on a new democratic course. 
Panama is on the mend with encouraging economic growth rates, a 
reduction in drug-trafficking, and a new commitment to democracy.
    In Great Britain, John Major won a parliamentary election. I spoke 
with him earlier today, not so long ago, and I look forward to a 
continued close working relationship with a good friend and ally. John 
Major has been a key partner in our efforts to encourage democratic 
reform in the former Soviet Union and to ensure global economic growth. 
I congratulate him on a sterling win. And I will be seeing him and the 
other G-7 leaders in Munich in July.

[[Page 580]]

    Finally, we welcome signs of progress in Afghanistan. The U.N. 
Secretary-General, Boutros-Ghali, has announced an impartial transition 
that will lead to an interim government. We've long supported a 
political settlement in Afghanistan, and we view this negotiating 
process as a result of our sustained support to end more than a decade 
of war by securing Afghans' self-determination.
    So we've had a busy week. It's been a good week. Progress, I think, 
has been made on both the domestic and the foreign front. And I might 
say that I do not want to just add to this--that on the foreign front we 
had a good visit yesterday with President Violeta Chamorro of Nicaragua. 
And I've had talks this week with Carlos Andres Perez of Venezuela, 
seeing what we can do, working together, to address ourselves to other 
problems in this hemisphere.
    So now, on with the questions and, Helen [Helen Thomas, United Press 
International].

Health Care

    Q. Mr. President, you got a wake-up call from some 36 million people 
several months ago who are deprived of health insurance. Now we 
understand that you have ruled out any comprehensive health care 
legislation this year because of the congressional session ending and 
the fact that you don't want to make any mistakes and you have not 
presented a way to finance it. What does this say about your leadership 
and your really caring about these people?
    The President. It says we are on the right track. The question, if 
you couldn't hear it, relates to health insurance. We've got a good 
health insurance proposal. We are putting the finishing touches to it. 
And if I had reason to believe it would sail through this contentious 
Congress, I'd like to see it done.
    The problem we've got is, you have two other plans out there. One 
is, in my view, for pure nationalized health care, which I will strongly 
oppose, and the other is this so-called ``pay or play'' that would break 
what remains in the bank. And so we've got to work this through the 
system. But in the meantime, we have a proposal that I think is a very 
good one. It will retain the quality of U.S. health care, but it will 
not nationalize or socialize the medical system in this country. And we 
have proposals before the Congress in my budget right now that would 
contain the growth of some of the expenses of Medicare and Medicaid. So 
we'll see how that goes as it's considered by the Congress.
    But if you're asking me, do I believe a health care program, given 
the political nature of this year, can get through this year, I'd have 
to agree with many of the Democratic leaders that it's unlikely.
    Q. I'm asking you why you have not pinpointed a way to finance it.
    The President. I think we have pinpointed it. And I would refer you 
to the OMB Director. One of the ways to do it would be to help by $20 
billion by passing our reform of liability. And everybody knows the 
liability claims are extravagant, and it raised the cost exponentially. 
And so we've got to do something about that. And I also know that our 
budget calls for capping the growth, adding for population and new 
people, of the mandated spending. Therein lies a lot of the financing. 
So it's up there, not entirely, I'll admit that, but quite a bit of it.

Social Security

    Q. Mr. President, the House has passed a Social Security bill that 
would double the amount of income recipients could earn before their 
benefits are cut back. It's estimated that this will cost about $7 
billion over 5 years. Some Republicans think that this is a pandering to 
voters. What's your view of this bill, and would you sign it?
    The President. We've long favored an increase in the Social Security 
earnings test. And we proposed, Dick Darman reminded me, a modest 
increase in the budget that I submitted to the Congress in January. That 
proposal also, though, did meet the terms of the Budget Enforcement Act.
    Unfortunately, the House action violates the Budget Act and does 
increase the deficit. So the matter is not settled yet in Congress. The 
House has one approach, the Senate another. And we are going to be 
working to increase the earnings test while also protecting the 
integrity of the Social Security Trust Fund and avoiding a massive 
increase in the deficit. And so we are committed to the higher earnings 
test, but we

[[Page 581]]

are also committed to trying to hold the line on the deficit. So we've 
got to see, Terry [Terence Hunt, Associated Press], what comes out of 
the negotiations between House and Senate on this, working for those two 
ends.
    Q. Well, the Senate bill would do away with the earnings test 
entirely. So that goes a lot further than the House----
    The President. A lot further.
    Q. Yes. So if you have to choose between those two----
    The President. So we'll have to see what we can do, and then I'll 
make up my mind. But we'll be presenting our views with these two 
premises in mind. We'll just have to see how it works.

Domestic Policy Goals

    Q. Mr. President, in a second term, what single domestic policy goal 
would you most want to achieve?
    The President. Single goal? Oh, there are several goals, and I've 
been spelling them all out. I think education reform certainly would be 
right up at the top of that, achieving our goals for education by the 
year 2000. Because that would render us much more competitive 
internationally, which gets you over into the economic side of things, 
and it will lift a lot of kids out of this impoverished area, the 
impoverished state they're in, give them an opportunity at the American 
dream.
    It is awfully hard to single out one area, however. I'd like to be 
also in the same mode of trying to be sure this economy keeps moving and 
keeps strong, and you can't do that if we continue to add to the 
deficit. We're spending too much, and Government's too big. So we're 
going to try to do something about that. But if you had to single out 
one, education covers so many of these fields; and our goals, to achieve 
those goals, cover more because I'm talking about--one of them is being 
ready to learn, and that's Head Start. Another one is a place where you 
can learn; that means drug-free schools. So when I talk about education, 
I'm talking about all of these things.
    Q. You've now articulated or begun to articulate a kind of a welter 
of programs to achieve various reforms. Which of those do you most want?
    The President. Education, I think would be it.
    Q. Well, I'm talking about the newer ones you've begun to lay out in 
the last week.
    The President. Well, I've been talking about a bunch of them, but 
there are so many of them. You know, I'm for all of them. I'm for reform 
in the Congress. I'm for reform of the crime--I'd like to get our crime 
bill through, which would help enormously with civil tranquility. It's 
hard to separate them out.
    One of the other goals is international trade. That means opening 
other markets and concluding successfully the NAFTA agreement and the 
GATT round. I cannot single them out for you or put numbers on each one. 
They're all very, very important.
    Reform of the Congress, reform of the system, I think it's time to 
take a real hard look. And I'm for term limitations, for example. I'd 
like to see Congress much more responsive. People say, ``Hey, how come 
the Presidency is limited and nobody else, none of the terms of the 
Congress?'' Well, let's take a look at that.

Peru

    Q. Mr. President, just how concerned are you by developments in 
Peru, and would you favor some outside pressure to try to restore 
democracy?
    The President. The answer is, very concerned. And yes, I'd favor 
some outside pressure. And we are looking with interest to the OAS 
meeting that's coming up next week. I've been talking to leaders. I 
mentioned Carlos Andres Perez, and I did not mention Carlos Menem of 
Argentina to whom I talked at length yesterday on this very question.
    We cannot sit by without registering our strong disapproval about 
the aborting of democracy in Peru. And so we want it restored. And yes, 
outside pressure will be mobilized in the OAS, plus maybe a follow-on 
mission from the OAS would be a clear and productive step.
    Q. Sir, would you consider sanctions, then, as one form?
    The President. As I say, we're going to be talking to others about 
that. But yes, we considered sanctions in our efforts to try to

[[Page 582]]

restore democracy to Haiti when their process was frustrated, and 
certainly we'd consider.

Media Coverage

    Q. Sir, we understand that you're unhappy with some of the news 
coverage you're getting. You're unhappy about the stories about George 
W. Bush contacting White House aides, Mr. Skinner and others, and urging 
them perhaps to do a better job, to be more coordinated. We also 
understand, however, that you're unhappy yourself with the support 
you're getting. You're unhappy with the stories about the disarray, but 
isn't there some disarray? We understand you're complaining about 
disarray yourself.
    The President. No. And I'm not unhappy about stories that are true. 
I read one today about my son George that isn't true. And so I'm glad to 
have that out there. It simply is not true. To suggest that Jim Baker 
and I were working to get George up here for a week is ridiculous. When 
George comes here, of course he goes to the campaign and talks to people 
here. But this isn't some manifestation of dissatisfaction. And if I 
were dissatisfied, you'd know about it loud and clear. I'm happy about 
it, and I know that many have to make a living by making these inside 
stories--inside, day-in, who's up, who's down, who's winning, who's 
losing. And it's ridiculous.
    But the trouble is, nobody cares about it out around the country, 
although we thrive on it inside the beltway. But John [John Cochran, NBC 
News], you've asked about it. If you'd tell me the name of the author 
and which story you're referring to, I'll tell you whether it's true or 
not. If, by chance, you're talking about one that was on the front page 
of the New York Times today, regrettably, it was not true.
    Q. Can I just follow up on that?
    The President. You can follow it.
    Q. Are you saying that Jim Baker is entirely happy with the way your 
campaign's being run?
    The President. I have no idea whether he's entirely happy. What I'm 
saying is the allegations in that story are not true.
    Next question.
    Q. You haven't discussed this? The two of you never discussed this?
    The President. Next question.
    Q. I don't want to step on my colleague's----
    The President. He's finished. [Laughter] Not forever, but just for 
this followup. Not John.
    Q. I may be finished, too.
    The President. Yes.

Welfare Reform

    Q. Why, sir, why has it taken 3 years for you to get interested in 
welfare reform or at least to make it a priority? I had not heard you 
speak of welfare reform until----
    The President. We probably should have been speaking of it sooner. I 
think we've been encouraging the States to come forward with their 
programs. But it is a matter that's come to a head. It's a matter where 
I've become convinced that speeding up the waiver process is very 
important. These waivers, this waiver was received from Wisconsin 24 
days ago. And it's now been approved in record time.
    Q. Is that your idea of leadership, though, to simply say the States 
should go ahead and do their thing?
    The President. My idea of leadership is to, yes, to have the States 
be the laboratories for innovation. And you see, there's where I differ 
with some up in the Congress who think the only way to do it is to have 
the Federal Government put mandates on the States. I am not in favor of 
mandates. I'm in favor of encouraging the States to innovate, to be 
creative, whether it's in education, whether it's in welfare reform. And 
that has been our philosophy since I've been President, and I believe it 
was President Reagan's philosophy. But do we need to do more in 
encouraging this kind of innovation in welfare? Yes, and I'll be doing 
more about it.
    Q. Could you answer the concern about the Wisconsin plan that by 
eliminating the increase in benefits when women have more children, that 
in fact this might encourage abortions?
    The President. I haven't heard that allegation about the Wisconsin 
plan. My--saying is to let them try it. The Wisconsin Legislature has 
passed a plan. Let them try it and see if it works to strengthen 
families and to

[[Page 583]]

break the cycle of dependency on welfare. And we sit here in Washington, 
DC, some with the view that we've got all the answers back here, 
particularly in the Congress. And that's not true. So I support the 
Governor in his, and the legislature there, Democrat and Republican, in 
their efforts to reform their welfare system.

Presidential Campaign

    Q. Mr. President, 47 Members of the House have decided to retire, 
about 8 Senators, including your friend in New Hampshire, Warren Rudman, 
who said Washington has become a place increasingly partisan where 
fundamental issues are not being addressed. Many of the things that you 
talked about in your answer to Brit's [Brit Hume, ABC News] questions 
are goals of the first administration that aren't going to get through 
Congress. My question to you is, why do you want to be President again? 
And what possibility do you see of changing the gridlock that is in 
Washington today?
    The President. I'm very optimistic about change now. Why do I want 
to be President again? I want to enhance world peace and democracy 
around the world. And I want to improve the lives of people here at home 
through making our cities safer by doing better in the fight against 
crime, by a better education program. And I am optimistic about getting 
it through once I take my case in the fall to the American people.
    Susan [Susan Spencer, CBS News] asked about now--obviously elections 
bring forward issues, put them right out there on the front burner for 
much more lively debate than even between the Executive and the Congress 
during off years. And so I think people want change. They recognize that 
one party has controlled the Congress most of the last 55 years; one 
body of Congress for, I think, the last 52, whatever it is. And they 
want fundamental change. And I think I know the direction that they want 
to see things change.
    So I am optimistic. I'm not discouraged when the Congress is going 
through this trauma up there. I think we can then say, ``Now look, give 
us a shot. Bring some of our legislation up for a vote.''
    Brit asked me about reform, liability reform. You go to any 
community in this country and ask the doctors or the Little League 
people or people in the community, ``What's bothering you?'' And they'll 
tell you, ``These outrageous lawsuits.'' And I haven't been able to get 
the liability reform legislation even considered. So I'm going to take 
my case to the American people, and let the Democratic nominee say 
whether he's for it or not. And if he's for it, that'll help encourage 
the Congress, Democrat or Republican. But right now it's locked in a 
trial lawyers benefit program up there, and we can't get anything done. 
That's the good thing about the election year. And that's one of the 
changes I want to see that will make life better for people. And that's 
another reason I'd like to be here. There's plenty of reasons.

Education

    Q. If I could follow up. You wanted to be the education President. 
That was one of your campaign themes in your first election.
    The President. Yes.
    Q. That hasn't happened. In many cases throughout the last 3 years, 
you've offered the argument, ``Give our program a shot.'' That hasn't 
happened. What can you do differently in 4 more years?
    The President. Get more Republicans in there and more sensible 
Democrats that will vote for what we want. And I'll beg to differ with 
you, a lot has happened in education. For the first time we have 
national education goals, arrived at in a bipartisan or nonpartisan 
fashion. That is good. That is progress. And we're making progress out 
in the communities where we don't need legislation. I will differ with 
you on your question. There are 43 States that have become America 2000 
States, where they embrace not only the goals of our program but have 
started implementing it where you don't need legislation from Washington 
to do it. Now that is progress in education. And we're going to keep on 
until we get a much better educated populace.
    Q. Does that mean you feel you have to work around Congress now?
    The President. It means I've got to get some changes in Congress. 
That's why I'm talking about change. But, for the people that aren't in 
the Congress, we're making

[[Page 584]]

some real progress under Democratic Governors, Republican Governors, 
communities. Take a look at what is happening out there, and please 
don't judge it all just by the turmoil in Washington on the Hill.
    Q. Mr. President, I'm sure you know the computer term ``garbage in, 
garbage out.'' You have suggested more testing of America's 
schoolchildren, testing the product coming out. Would you, like Governor 
Clinton, support testing the teaching force?
    The President. I don't know anything about that one, but I'd 
certainly be open to consider it. Governor Clinton has supported the 
America 2000 objectives. Testing teachers isn't a part of it, but----
    Q. Well, it was in Arkansas, sir. It was in an education bill in 
Arkansas.
    The President. I didn't realize that.
    Q. And you might see that as something----
    The President. Well, I'll take a look at it. I'll talk to Lamar 
Alexander, our Secretary of Education. It's not one of our six education 
goals worked out in a bipartisan fashion with the Governors, but we'll 
take a look.

Media Coverage

    Q. Mr. President, I know you had some comments about what your son 
might or might not have done, but there are many people who are very 
loyal to you in this White House who feel that you're not getting the 
best break in organization and structure and that there's a lot of 
planning going on and not a whole lot of action. I wonder if you feel 
that way----
    The President. No.
    Q. ----and why there is such a communication gap that they are 
worried for you.
    The President. I don't know who they are. If you sometimes would 
write a story and put a name next to the source, it would help me answer 
a question like that. But most of the time, Frank [Frank Murray, 
Washington Times], what I see is that the stories say ``a high-ranking 
Washington official,'' ``an insider in the administration,'' ``a man 
known to be loyal to President Bush who doesn't do this or that.'' And 
you can't help me answer some of the charges that John asked about or 
that you've asked about.
    But my answer is, if I were unhappy about it, you'd know about it. I 
think our new team is doing a good job. But every day, I pick up the 
paper and read it, telling the American people how they think I feel 
about something. I wish you could help me with putting a name next to 
the sources in a few more of your stories. I don't want to go into this 
at every press conference, but you ask me to respond to questions, and 
yet you don't help me by telling me where it's coming from. So look, I 
am not unhappy about all of this.
    Please believe me, what I get upset about is when I read something 
that I know factually is not true. That troubles me a little bit.

Presidential Campaign

    Q. The Democratic race is settling down now and you mentioned 
Governor Clinton a few moments ago. At this point, what's your 
assessment of him?
    The President. I'm not going to assess it for you.
    Q. Is he going to be as easy----
    The President. Give you another question, and I'll tell you what: I 
am not going to comment until I get ready on the opposition--the 
independents, the Republican, or the Democrats--until the nominating 
process is entirely over.
    I think you'll have to concede I've been reasonably good about that 
so far. I got a question at the newspaper editors yesterday, and I said, 
``Please take another question because I am not going to start doing 
that now, which I just don't feel comfortable doing.'' I've spelled out 
here what we're trying to do. I'm very pleased about some of the 
progress we're making, and to go off and start kind of assessing polls 
or talking about some opponent, we'll have plenty of time for that.

Abuse of Privileges

    Q. Mr. President, on March 20th you made some serious charges about 
the failings of Congress, and you said that congressional perks are 
``part of the hopelessly tangled web up there on Capitol Hill.'' Could 
you give us some examples of what you feel are the perks that are being 
abused, and will 
you tell us what perks that you have and 
your staff have that you're willing to

[[Page 585]]

eliminate?
    The President. I think that they're addressing that very well 
indeed, and I don't see any need to single any out. You saw Dick 
Darman's testimony. We'll take a hard look at the executive branch. 
Congress is doing that with theirs. So I think it's moving in the right 
direction.

Budget Deficit

    Q. But Mr. President, over the past 11 years, with you as Vice 
President and now President, the Federal budget deficit has nearly 
quadrupled.
    The President. Yes.
    Q. How much of that is your responsibility?
    The President. I don't know how to evaluate that. It is difficult. 
You've had things like the savings and loan problem, the banking 
problem, and it's very hard to assign, quantify out the blame on these 
matters.

Presidential Campaign

    Q. Mr. President, you may not be talking about Bill Clinton, but 
Bill Clinton is talking about you.
    The President. Yes.
    Q. And in particular, people in the Clinton camp, including Mrs. 
Clinton, have charged that it's the Republican Party who has engineered 
the charges that Governor Clinton has had to face on some of the 
character questions. Do you think there is any truth to that assertion?
    The President. I hope not. I think not, and I have made specific 
instructions in writing to our people to stay out of the sleaze 
business.
    Q. Mr. President, do you think these so-called character issues are 
fair game in a Presidential race?
    The President. I'd like to stay on the hard issues and not on the 
kind of issues you're talking about.

U.N. Conference on Environment

    Q. Mr. President, have you made a decision yet as to whether to go 
to Rio to the Earth summit? And if not, what will it take? What are you 
waiting for?
    The President. No, I've made no decision. We are talking about it. 
I'm giving a lot of attention in various Departments of our Government, 
here in the White House and other places as well--talking up in New York 
and I've talked to some world leaders about it, including Collor of 
Brazil. But no decision has been made.
    Q. Wouldn't it be difficult for you, having sold yourself as an 
environmental President, not to go meet with so many other world leaders 
who are trying to gather?
    The President. I think it could work out either way. I'm sure if I 
went there, there would be some differences. We've got a good, sound 
environmental record. The United States has done an awful lot to fight 
against pollution, and I would be proud to take that record, not just of 
what we've done but of previous administrations, to Rio or anywhere 
else. But what I want to do is see if we can't hammer out consensus so 
you have a meeting that's viewed as positive instead of a major harangue 
down there.

The Economy

    Q. Mr. President, you were talking earlier about things that are 
bothering people. But when we talk to those people about what's 
bothering them, they tend to talk about the economy of late. Now, it was 
one of your campaign promises that there would be 30 million new jobs in 
the next 8 years. In the current recession we've lost 2 million. So when 
do you envision being able to deliver on that promise of yours? When do 
you anticipate real economic recovery?
    The President. Well, you know, I made a mistake last year, and I 
don't want to repeat it. Last year at this time, I think it was 49 out 
of the 50 leading economists felt that the economy would be in rather 
robust recovery by the third quarter. It started up and then leveled 
off. And I told the American people I thought that's what would happen. 
But now I'm not going to go into that again because I just am uncertain.
    I can tell you that most economists are now feeling that we're in 
recovery and that it's going to be reasonably good. Not knowing exactly 
what percentages it's going to be, it's very hard to lay it down against 
job creation right now.
    Q. Do you regret having made this prom-

[[Page 586]]

ise to create 30 million new jobs?
    The President. I regret the fact the economy has been so sluggish 
and so slow.

Interest Rates

     Q. Mr. President, you've mentioned about the economy, and you said 
that you applauded the interest rate reduction by the Federal Reserve 
this week. In view of the large 0.5 percent increase in inflation during 
March, do you think that future interest rate declines should be left to 
the marketplace to create or the Federal Reserve? Or is there still room 
to do more?
    The President. Well, there might be room to do more. You've got to 
take a look at that CPI figure. The PPI figure was pretty good 
yesterday, or in the last couple of days, the Producer Price Index. It 
was constrained and showed that inflation is under control. So I 
wouldn't take one statistic and try to urge the Fed on one course or 
another. But I think the Fed having dropped this rate a quarter, it was 
well received in the markets. I think it will be well received across 
the country. And let's see, and then I'm sure that Chairman Greenspan 
will be sensitive to further action if that's what's required.
    Q. But to follow on that, would you be urging banks to reduce their 
prime lending rates or pass on the rates to the consumers?
    The President. You remember me and the credit cards? The lower the 
rates, the better. The lower the rates, the more it stimulates business 
and activity and thus jobs. But that's a matter for the marketplace, it 
seems to me.

Education

    Q.  Mr. President, you've suggested that education is your top goal 
as President. And yet, your own Secretary of Education has suggested 
this week that there really is not much difference between your 
proposals on education and those of the Democratic heir apparent----
     The President. Careful.
    Q.----Mr. Clinton. And my question is, how could it be different? 
What can you offer that the Democrats cannot offer on education?
    The President. Well, I'm offering something quite different than 
what the Congress is willing to do. And if, indeed, Governor Clinton and 
I are close on that and the nominating process disgorges him as the 
nominee, why, then we'll have common ground to take to the American 
people, so much the better. And all Democrats that agree with us on this 
ought to start working on the Congress to get them to come forward with 
the funding for our new schools approach and whatever else it is. In the 
meantime, to his credit, Arkansas has joined the America 2000 program, 
and they're moving forward.
    I'll have to say, Bill Clinton, early on, was a part of the 
Governors' inside circle that helped us adopt the national education 
goals, goals that proudly happened, that I might say I take great pride 
in having seen enacted since I've been President.
    But look, if there are areas of agreement, we ought not to be 
restless about that. We ought to say, ``Good, let's get on with it.'' 
And let's get this program through the United States Congress and have 
it implemented by the people.

Environmental Policy

    Q. Mr. President, in following Ann's [Ann McDaniel, Newsweek] 
question about the environment----
    The President. I've lost it here. Yes, Karen [Karen Hosler, 
Baltimore Sun].
    Q. Well, we all lose it from time to time.
    The President. True.
    Q. The environment--the Clean Air Act is considered one of your 
primary achievements in the domestic front of your first term, but it's 
something that we don't hear you talking about. You rarely talk about 
the environment at all. When you talk about your reform agenda and so 
forth, we don't hear the word ``environment.'' I'm wondering, do you 
feel that you've done enough in this area, or are there no new 
challenges that you want to put before the voters this fall, or is this 
just not as important an issue because people are worried about the 
economy and the cost of jobs and so forth?
    The President. I think you're on to--the last point is a valid 
point. I think what has dominated the debate so far in the election 
process has been the economy. In fact, it's almost the only thing that 
has been dis-

[[Page 587]]

cussed up until very, very recently. The reason for that is when the 
American people are hurting, when they are discouraged, when the economy 
is slow, people should address themselves to that.
    We have a good environmental record, and I'll be proud to take it to 
the American people, and we'll see where we go. We've got some very 
difficult environmental problems that we're facing right now. I think of 
the problems facing the work force in the Northwest over the spotted 
owl. This isn't easy. I think of what's happening with the salmon 
question out in the western areas, and there are some very important 
environmental questions. But I am determined to see that our 
environmental record results in protection of our national resources as 
we tried to do in the offshore drilling, have done in the offshore 
drilling area, things of that nature, and still not throw people out of 
work.
    Every time I say that, I see some of the fringe groups in the 
environmental movement say I don't quite get it. Well, they don't quite 
get it if they are not concerned about the working man and the working 
woman in this country. And I will continue to try to achieve that 
balance.
    Q. Mr. President, how can----
    The President. Please, Sarah [Sarah McClendon, McClendon News 
Service]. You're third. You're third.

Federal Budget

    Q. With respect to unemployment and jobs, a few days ago your Labor 
Secretary said that you are in favor of extending unemployment benefits. 
However, she did not explain how you would finance this, nor did she 
attend the hearing yesterday on that issue. Could you explain why, if 
you're committed to extending jobless benefits, you have no financing 
mechanism and why no one from the administration attended----
    The President. No, I can't. I can't explain that, but I know that 
Dick Darman is working with the Congress and others around here. I think 
it's been put off now until after the recess. But we will be addressing 
it in a timely fashion.
    Q. And also, there does seem to be a pattern here with respect to 
some of your proposals, whether it's health care reform, or even a few 
moments ago when you mentioned Social Security earnings limits. You do 
say you're in favor of these goals as well as extending unemployment 
benefits, but you've never committed yourself to one specific financing 
mechanism. Why is that?
    The President. I think if you look at our budget proposal, as I 
said, it went up there with that in it, and the financing is included in 
the overall budget. So I just would respectfully disagree with you.
    Q. Mr. President, a question----
    The President. Take a look at the budget agreement and see if I'm 
not correct. I mean, the budget that we submitted.

Iraq

    Q. Let's switch to foreign policy, sir. What, if anything, does the 
administration----
    The President. Foreign policy?
    Q. Yes, sir. What, if anything, does the administration plan to do 
to put Iraq on notice, to warn it or take more stringent actions about 
the movement of those antiaircraft missiles, the renewed flying of 
combat missions, and the attacks on the Kurds?
    The President. We are particularly concerned about Iraq's flying 
missions above the 36th parallel. We have made clear to Iraq that we 
will be carefully monitoring these flights, both above and below the 
36th parallel. We take a very dim view of the deployment of any 
missiles.
    But the bottom line is compliance not just with the U.N. resolution 
but with the cease-fire provisions. Iraq knows that we would take a 
very, very dim view of blatant violations of those. And so without going 
into it in much more detail, I will say that I notice that they are now 
participating in the dismantlement of one of their suspected nuclear 
facilities, something they said they'd never do. And I think that was 
brought about by firmness on the part of the United Nations people, Mr. 
Ekeus and others, and certainly on firmness on the part of the United 
States. I don't want to go beyond that.
    Q. To follow up, sir, after all these months since the war, have you 
come to the conclusion that your nemesis, Saddam

[[Page 588]]

Hussein, is definitely there to stay?
    The President. No, I've not come to that conclusion at all.
    Q. Why?
    The President. Because I just don't think that a totalitarian of 
that nature, a man that brutalizes his own people, a man that is 
continuing to cause them hardship and that is an outcast in that part of 
the world, can survive. Take a look at Eastern Europe. Take a look at 
other dictators. They just have a way of not being around forever. And I 
think that this will be the case here.

National Security and Federal Budget

    Q. How can you talk about progress being made here today when we 
have a $400 billion deficit and a $1 trillion debt and you're spending 
so much money around the world on the CIA, selling arms around the world 
and doing covert action and not even giving any accounting to the 
Congress of how many billions they spend. How come you let them still do 
that, and how do you let the Defense Department put all these contracts 
overseas that take our jobs overseas and our technology so that we can't 
have jobs over here? That's the reason why we're in such a terrible 
economic situation, isn't it?
    The President. Isn't what?
    Q. The reason why you're spending billions of dollars with the CIA 
all around the world selling arms and doing other things that they don't 
account for, that we don't know about, secret moves that stir trouble in 
the world. And why do you let the Defense Department put these billions 
and billions of dollars of contracts overseas with firms over there 
rather than here? How can you expect to get jobs back here if you 
continue to do that? And why do you talk of progress when you're still 
doing something like that with all the debt we have?
    The President. Well, Sarah, I don't blame the CIA for the economy. 
Maybe that's the simplest way to answer your question.
    Q. You don't, but other people do.
    The President. Well, we'll have to debate that with the Democrats in 
the fall, then, because I don't----
    Q. No, I'm not talking about that. But why do you justify this when 
people in this country are hungry and need clothes and need food and 
children go hungry every night--spending those billions of dollars 
overseas? Do we need to do that? I don't believe we do, do we?
    The President. Well, we've made a proposal to reduce defense 
spending by $50 billion. And that's a significant reduction. And I am 
determined to keep--may I please finish, Sarah? And I am determined to 
keep the national security of this country foremost in mind. Who can 
tell what's going to happen? We've made tremendous progress toward world 
peace. We've made tremendous progress toward reducing tensions. We are 
the undisputed leader of the world. And we've got to bear the 
responsibilities that go with that.
    But we are not spending money in a profligate way. I don't think it 
hurts to try to help guarantee against instability by helping the 
C.I.S., for example, Russia, Ukraine and other countries. I think that 
is in the interest of the United States of America. And, of course, 
we've got to try to help at home. And spending at home is at an all-time 
high. And you say $1 trillion, yes, that concerns me very much. Thank 
God we have a $5 trillion economy, or we'd really be in the soup.

Welfare Reform

    Q. Mr. President, you've always prided yourself on your opposition 
to bigotry. But as you may know, some who work in the welfare field and 
some Democrats on the Hill have charged that you're bringing up this 
issue in an election year in order to play to racial divisions in the 
public. How do you respond to that?
    The President. On which issue is that?
    Q. The welfare issue.
    The President. I don't think there's any validity to that charge at 
all. All you have to do is look at the hopelessness of people that have 
been, you know, third generation welfare people and say we've got to 
help these people. It's a matter of compassion, not anger. It's a matter 
of trying to help. And I think what we did today here with the Governor 
of Wisconsin, I hope it's just a manifestation of that.
    I haven't heard that ugly charge, but I don't know of anybody who is 
suggesting

[[Page 589]]

that the welfare system is just great. If the charge is that anyone who 
wants to change the welfare system is a bigot, I would totally reject 
that. It's just not right.
    Q. If I could follow up, sir, if you are so concerned with this 
issue, why haven't you been closely involved with it for the last 3 
years?
    The President. Well, that was a good question. And I think the 
politics drives some things. I think we've tried to move forward in 
terms of helping people in these cities. I don't think we've done 
absolutely nothing. But now we're moving forward at the request of this 
first State for a waiver to speed it up. And 24 days is pretty good.
    My philosophy has always been to have flexibility at the State and 
local level. And so we've been encouraging that for a long, long time.
    Q. What do you mean when you say politics drives some of those 
things?
    The President. Well, I think, a lot of the issues we're talking 
about--some were asking about the environment, some were asking about 
these other issues. They get much more clearly in focus every 4 years, 
and then you go ahead and try to follow through and do something about 
them.

Caterpillar Labor Dispute

    Q. Mr. President, the Caterpillar Company is trying to replace 
striking workers. How do you feel about the issue of replacing strikers?
    The President. Well, I feel that I'm in favor of collective 
bargaining. I think everybody must live within the law, and if they are 
permitted to do things under the law, they should feel that they're able 
to go ahead under the law. I believe that this matter should be resolved 
between labor and business, and I see no reason at this juncture to have 
the Federal Government in the big middle of this.
    Q. So it's okay if Caterpillar decides to hire strikers, then you 
feel that's all right?
    The President. I think labor should do what's legal, and I think 
management should do what people think are legal here--what is legal, 
not what they think is legal but what is legal. And I just feel that 
free collective bargaining under the law is the proper approach, not 
intervention by the Federal Government the minute a strike takes place. 
I don't think it's good for labor, and I don't think it's good for 
business.

Congressional Investigation of White House Expenses

    Q. Mr. President, when you came to Congress back in the sixties, you 
came out for full disclosure of financial information. You have often 
told us that you try to stand for high ethical standards----
    The President. A little louder, Jessica [Jessica Lee, USA Today], I 
can't----
    Q. You've often told us that you try to stand for high ethical 
standards in public service, and you came out for full disclosure of 
financial information when you first came to Washington to represent 
Houston. I wonder if you would now say that you are for full disclosure 
of the financial information on what it takes to run the White House, to 
run the Presidency, to do your job as President, to travel around on Air 
Force One, and to provide for the ceremonial, political and other 
functions of the Presidency as you conduct them here?
    The President. I do favor full disclosure. Next week I'll be 
disclosing once again my full income tax returns. As I'll tell you next 
week, I think that's a little bit of an imposition on an American 
citizen's privacy; but I think this is the 12th year that I will have 
done that, assets and liabilities spelled out, full disclosure. And yes, 
you're correct. I took a leadership role in the 90th Congress, as just a 
freshman there, for more disclosure. And I believe that's what elected 
people should do. I think at the Presidential level it's got to be even 
fuller, challengers and incumbents. And I think we need full disclosure.
    Now, in terms of Congress' investigation, I hope that we have fully 
cooperated with the various committees of inquiry on disclosing the 
costs of running the White House. This is the people's house. It is a 
magnificent house. I don't know how many people, hundreds of thousands 
of people, go through this house every year. It's almost like a museum. 
And much of what goes on there is to show the people their house in a 
good and sensible way.

[[Page 590]]

    However, those matters are looked at in full detail as our budget 
goes up from various different Departments that it takes to run this 
place. Some of it can be security, various security accounts. Some of it 
can be the Park Service's accounts. And don't ask me to say all of the 
accounts under this complicated congressional system that look at it.
    But I have asked our people to go to the various committees that 
have jurisdiction and to cooperate fully. And that's what we're trying 
to do, Jessie. And we're going to keep on trying to do that.
    Q. If I may followup with a specific incident, Mr. President. In the 
budget that you submitted in January or February, the statement is that 
White House travel, your travel, cost the taxpayers $29,000 last year. 
Now, Mr. President, with all the trips that you go on----
    The President. Twenty-nine thousand dollars an hour, isn't it?
    Q. No, no.
    The President. Oh, Jess, you're wrong. I think the Air Force One 
costs $25,000 an hour.
    Q. That was Air Force One. But----
    The President. I think when the Congress appropriated the money for 
it, I think it was estimated to be $41,000 an hour. Now it's being 
operated at--for some reason, don't ask me to explain it--at $25,000 an 
hour, which is a tremendous amount of money. So it's not a year, it's an 
hour.
    Q. But what your budget said is that you spent $29,000 on 
Presidential travel last year. It didn't deal with Air Force One. 
There's a category----
    The President. But now----
    Q. There's a category that talked about your travel. And that's what 
it said, and that they give you $100,000 to spend, and you only spent 
$29,000. Can you explain that?
    The President. No, I just can't possibly explain that.
    Q. Do you think that that figure is correct?
    The President. We'll try to get the information for you because 
we're trying to disclose--and we'll do it to the Congress----
    Q. Yes.
    Q. It sounds unlikely.
    The President. Yes, it sounds very unlikely when it costs $25,000 an 
hour, that it only costs $25,000 a year, $29,000 in a year.
    Q. And the Congress has asked that question, and they have been 
unable to get----
    The President. Well, the Congress will be satisfied.
    Q. ----the satisfactory response. Are you going to tell them what it 
costs, what your travel last year costs? That's the question.
    The President. We're going to answer every question they have to the 
best of our ability, and I think we're going to continue. You know, a 
lot of the cost of Air Force One and my travel was considered at the 
time these new airplanes were ordered. And I hope that we have prudently 
lived within whatever it was that was budgeted to encompass that travel. 
And we're going to keep on trying.
    One thing I think that would be a shame is if we got into talks 
about gardeners and perks and calligraphers and lost sight of the need 
for real congressional reform, fundamental reform of the institution 
that has led to the scandals that we've seen all over the newspapers. So 
we will address ourselves to this disclosure; some of it, it seems to me 
to be coming up by Congress that seems a little defensive about the 
problems on Capitol Hill. But as head of the executive branch, we should 
cooperate with the committees of Congress, and I have instructed our 
people to do just that.
    But as I end this press conference, I would make this nonobjective 
note, take this note: It seems to me very funny that, all of a sudden, 
faced with the outrage of the American people, not on cars, not on how 
much a hamburger costs in the Senate restaurant but on fundamental 
problems with an institution that was manifested in so many ways 
recently, the Congress now starts saying, ``Well, what's it cost, how 
many calligraphers do you have making out cards for a state dinner in 
the White House?''
    And we want to respond to these questions, but I want to keep the 
focus where fundamentally it belongs, on the need for genuine reform, 
reform that is necessary because of the laxity of one party control of 
the House of Representatives for, what, 48 out of the last 52 years. And 
that's the thing

[[Page 591]]

that concerns the American people. They are very concerned about it. And 
we have made suggestions, and I've mentioned some of them today, that 
Congress ought to live by the same laws they make you and me live by. 
And we've put forward legislation to do that. I happen to think the time 
has come for term limitations as well. I'd like to see changes along the 
lines suggested by Senator Boren, a Democrat, Congressman Lee Hamilton, 
a Democrat, in the procedures of the Senate and the House. I'd like to 
see that taken care of.
    And so we're talking about fundamental change and reform that is 
clearly needed. And some up there--not all the Congressmen, because I 
think some are addressing themselves seriously to reform--and some are 
saying, ``We'll get them. They're talking about the trip I took to some 
Timbuktu on a jet; let's go find out how many calligraphers there, or 
guys mowing the grass at the White House.'' And we'll try to respond as 
fully as we can. But let's keep the sights set on what is 
fundamentally--needs reform and change. The institution needs 
fundamental change and reform up there.
    Now, with no further ado and with the regret at having to not answer 
every question--come on--I really do have to go.
    Judy [Judy Smith, Deputy Press Secretary], now let me say this if 
you'll turn off all cameras and turn off the CNN, you guys. In my view, 
Marlin--who will return in great spirits, I might add--[laughter]--on 
Monday and who, as we all know, has my full confidence--has had a stand-
in for a couple of weeks. And in my view, Judy, to whom you have not 
been altogether kind, although she does not complain, has done a superb 
job, and I thank her. And if I don't do what she tells me now, which is 
to get out of here, I'm in serious trouble. Thank you all. And, Judy, 
thank you. Thank you.

                    Note: The President's 126th news conference began at 
                        2:38 p.m. in the Rose Garden at the White House. 
                        In his remarks, he referred to Rolf Ekeus, 
                        executive chairman of the United Nations Special 
                        Commission on Iraq.