[Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: George H. W. Bush (1992-1993, Book II)]
[October 27, 1992]
[Pages 2005-2014]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]



Remarks and a Question-and-Answer Session in Des Moines, Iowa
October 27, 1992

    The President. Thank you all. Thank you very, very much. Please be 
seated. Let's get right about our business. But first, I certainly want 
to thank our great Governor, Terry Branstad, for being at my side for 
that warm welcome. And of course, I needn't tell Iowans how important 
Chuck Grassley's reelection is, I'll tell you. And for Jim Ross 
Lightfoot and for Jim Leach, two stalwart friends, if we had more like 
them in the Congress, you wouldn't hear everybody yelling everyplace I 
go ``Clean House!'' We need more like him, so send us more like him, and 
let's get this country moving. I'm delighted to see former Governor Ray 
here, and I also want to thank ``Major Dad,'' Gerald McRaney, who is--
you talk about telling it like it is--he does a great job.
    Terry mentioned the ag economy, and I do think that when people get 
down to the wire in the heartland of America they ought to look at the 
record. I am very proud that ethanol is up and that we made a tough 
call. I took on some of the extremes in the environmental movement. I've 
got a good record on the environment. We took on some of the extremes 
and said, look, ethanol is a tremendous fuel of the future. Ethanol 
sales are up. The waiver we gave the other day is appropriate. It is 
sound conservation, and it is darn good for the American economy, and 
we're going to keep on.
    Similarly, the use of the export program, the Export Enhancement, 
the EEP, is important. We extended it to pork, and it was the right 
thing to do. I think that will help. We will continue to fight for 
opening up our markets. We've got the best producers of agricultural 
goods in the world. Exports have saved us through tough times, 
agricultural exports leading the way. And my op-

[[Page 2006]]

ponent, Clinton, comes along, Governor Clinton, and says, ``Well, I'm 
for the NAFTA agreement.'' But he goes to the auto workers and has a 
very different tale. And my view is, the free trade agreement is good 
for American jobs, and it's good for American agriculture.
    I believe we will keep working for a successful conclusion of the 
GATT round. And I was very disturbed the other day to read in the Daily 
Telegraph, the London paper, and again, a report in one of the papers 
here that some Clinton minion had gone to try to get the EC to postpone 
consideration of this important agreement. We cannot put politics ahead 
of the welfare of this Nation. He has denied it. The Governor has denied 
that, and I think I should give credit for that. But these reports keep 
persisting. And we will work to get a successful conclusion of the GATT 
round.
    One other thing before I start taking the questions--you know, if 
you listened to the Clinton-Gore ticket, the only way they can win is to 
convince America that we're in a deep recession. This morning, 8:30 
Eastern this morning, the figures were announced for the third quarter 
of this growth, the gross domestic product. The third quarter was plus 
2.7 percent. It grew twice as much, about twice as much as the quarter 
before. We have now six straight quarters of growth in the United 
States, and yet the Democrats keep telling us that everything is going 
to hell. And they're wrong. They are wrong.
    So people are hurting, yes, people are hurting. But the thing to do 
is to put the whole economy in perspective. You hear them talk, ``Well, 
Japan's doing this.'' We've got a better economy. We're growing now, 
with these figures, 4 times as fast as Japan, far better than Germany--
had negative growth--better than England and France and Canada. And all 
they can do is think, ``Well, George Bush is to blame.'' They don't 
understand the world. It is the United States that's going to lead the 
world to new prosperity. Mark it down.
    Why don't we start right in. This is the latest thing in American 
politics, the Phil Donahue approach to life. So we'll take a few 
questions here, and I'll try to--if you give me a short question, I'll 
try to shorten the answers up. But I get too enthusiastic.

Expanding the Job Market

    Q. I'm going to be graduating from Drake University this May, and 
I'm obviously pretty nervous about finding a job. What are you planning 
on doing to increase the job market?
    The President. Well, the best thing we can do is stimulate growth in 
the small business sector. What I have proposed is investment tax 
allowance, a first-time credit for homebuyers. The Democrats say that a 
capital gains cut is a break for the rich. It is not. It is a stimulus 
to small business and entrepreneurship. Those are simply three 
incentives. Job retraining for those in the defense industries who are 
going to have to find different work because of our success in the 
world. I believe that the best answer is to stimulate the growth of the 
private sector.
    Governor Clinton talks about Government investing. Let me tell you 
something. All the European countries have moved away--Eastern Europe--
from this idea that Government should invest. They've moved to what we 
ought to be doing more, getting the private sector to invest, free up 
savings, free up investment. That is the way we will create jobs. It 
won't be from more taxes and more spending.
    All right. I've lost control of the questioners. [Laughter] I'll 
leave that to--it's coming along good.

Entitlement Programs

    Q. Mr. President, I'm concerned with the growth of entitlements in 
our Federal budget, and not so much in economic terms but in human 
terms. Can you outline your plan for reforming the system so that it 
builds more self-reliance and less dependence on Government?
    The President. Well, let me first address it on the economic side. 
The deficit is clearly too big. The Government taxes too much and spends 
too much. That is a fundamental difference with the other side.
    The President has no control over about two-thirds of the budget--it 
doesn't come to me--and that is known as the entitlement programs. What 
we must do to get

[[Page 2007]]

the deficit down is to control the growth of the entitlement programs. 
We've got to control it by--let it grow in terms of population, let it 
grow in terms of inflation, and that's it. Then set Social Security 
aside. Don't touch it. I am the President that was with Ronald Reagan 
when it was fixed, and I think we ought to leave Social Security totally 
alone. Don't mess with it. But on these others, put a cap on the growth.
    But in terms of your question, which was only partly economic, it is 
important that we understand that it is private initiative, that it is 
savings, that it is investment, and that it's not Government that 
creates opportunity. It is the private sector of the economy.
    Another point that I would emphasize in relation to this question 
is, we have tried--Barbara's tried, I have tried, support from many 
Americans--to reiterate the importance of what we call the Points of 
Light approach, voluntarism. Government can do some things--this is to 
your question--Government can do a lot of things. Government can show 
compassion. Government has a responsibility for the national security. 
But much of helping each other is done in what we call this Points of 
Light, one American reaching out to another and helping.
    You look at the hurricane down in South Florida and over in 
Louisiana. Government helped. We moved in with troops, and we moved in 
with Government aid for this and that and the Small Business 
Administration and FHA and all of that. But when the chapter is written 
on that, the people that deserve the credit are those caring Americans 
who reached out from 49 other States to help the people in south 
Florida. And that, I think, is what you're talking about.
    And this idea that everything should be done by Government is not 
the American way, and yet that's what you're hearing in this campaign 
out of the Clinton-Gore ticket.

Agricultural Trade

    Q. Mr. President, when reelected, what do you intend to do to get 
tough with the European Community, to force a GATT agreement for the 
American farmer?
    The President. I like that positive premise, ``when reelected.'' Let 
me tell you something. Let me tell you--and here we clearly have a nice 
objective cross section of America, and they seem to agree with me. But 
nevertheless, no--[laughter]--we are working very hard to get a 
successful conclusion of GATT. I think most people recognize that the 
Maastricht vote in France held things up. We, I am confident, will get 
an agreement. We've narrowed the gap on agriculture and on a lot of 
these other categories.
    Right now, to be very candid with you, the common agricultural 
policy in Europe is a detriment to getting it done, although we're 
making progress. Right now, some would tell you, well, France seems to 
be the biggest problem area in this. But I am convinced that we can move 
forward and get a GATT agreement. We have to do it.
    You know, the best answer to helping those in the Third World--I 
told some interviewers yesterday, I think of Iowa, right out in the 
middle of America, as a State that has an international perspective. 
You've always been interested in world peace and in these kinds of 
things, how the world interacts. But I really believe that in terms of 
this GATT agreement, the best way to help Third World countries, those 
countries that are suffering the most, is to open their markets, open 
markets around the world, whether it's--whatever products we're talking 
about. And a successful conclusion of the GATT arrangement will do that.
    We are caught up in a lot of tough European policies. She asked the 
right question--EC. We are going to have to insist through a lot of 
application of the technical provisions of the trade law, that if they 
don't open up these markets then we are going to have to--I would use a 
little softer term than retaliate--but we are going to have to insist on 
our rights, and I think the world knows that, on oilseeds and these 
other things. And I believe we're going to get the job done.
    This stool is perilous here.

Congress

    Q. Good morning, Mr. President. The success of your second term will 
depend to a large extent on how the newly Members

[[Page 2008]]

of the House will react to your various proposals. And I read in the 
Wall Street Journal, oh, 10 days ago or so, that congressional leaders 
have been meeting to plan strategies in how to squash any reforms that 
the new Members might propose, changing the status quo. Do you have a 
counter strategy in how to reach these new Members?
    The President. Let me tell you what it is: It's to listen to the 
people. But here's the problem we've got. We got some things done in our 
first term, good things, caring things: the Americans for Disabilities 
Act that lifts up those that are disabled and helps them fit into the 
mainstream, or the Clean Air Act, or more recently even, a 
transportation bill that puts $150 billion into the infrastructure. So 
we've been able to accomplish quite a few good things. As we got near 
the end of the first term, this gentleman is right, the leadership, not 
all the Members but the leadership in the Congress made a determination: 
We can win if the economy is bad, and we can win if the President 
doesn't look good by mistake and try to fix something, do something. So 
we've been up against what is a gridlocked Congress.
    Now, what's going to change? Because they can't even run a two-bit 
post office or a failed little tiny bank this big, you're going to have 
a lot of new Members of Congress. Like me, they're listening to the 
voters. And I will be reelected and not have any politics on the 
horizon, no more, no more campaigns, no more debates, thank God. 
[Laughter] No more whatever else it is. And we'll say, let's get the 
people's business done; Democrats, Republicans, sit down with me now, 
and let's do what I have told the people I want to do. Health care, make 
insurance available to all. Whatever it is, education, revolutionize it. 
Don't go back and patch up, put band-aids on something where our kids 
are getting short-changed; revolutionize it. Budget deficit, give me the 
balanced budget amendment, the line-item veto, a check-off for tax 
returns. And they will have to be listening. When I'm elected, it will 
be because people are listening to these ideas. And I'll say, ``Okay, 
sit down,'' like Lyndon said, ``Come reason together.'' With a two-by-
four in one hand and a very open approach in another. And I believe we 
can move this country forward in the first 120 days.
    The politics will subside for a while. The best time for a new 
President is the first days of the second term, because politics is 
gone, the voters' words are ringing in the ears of all politically 
elected people, and the country is beginning to move.
    You know, I mentioned these growth figures. But interest rates are 
down. Who wants to go back to the way they were when you had a 
Democratic President in the White House, at 21.5 percent interest rates 
and 15 percent inflation and grain embargoes. This Congress, if the 
status quo prevails, will roll over Clinton like a stone steamroller, 
and we can't have that.
    So we're talking about the new ideas that will stimulate the growth 
in the economy, do more in the private sector. And I really am 
optimistic about moving the country forward with the new Members of 
Congress. Clean House! It's been done by the voters already.

Taxes

    Q. Mr. President, I was curious, I've been listening to Clinton's 
economic proposals, trying to make it add up in my own mind. But this 
idea that you can raise $250 billion in taxes just taxing the top 2 
percent, how does he do this math? Have you and your people had a chance 
to look into that?
    The President. We don't have anybody dumb enough to figure it out. 
Here's what they're saying. He is saying he wants to raise $150 billion 
in new taxes, and then this gentleman is right, because there are a lot 
of other proposals where you'd have to get the money to pay for it. And 
he says, ``I will tax the top 2 percent.'' The top 2 percent means you 
go down to $64,000 to start with. Then, to pay for the $220 billion in 
spending--and that doesn't consider how much his health care plan and 
these other things would cost--you get down where you're hitting 
everybody at $36,000.
    Then, to do all the spending for all the programs, you nurses, you 
cab drivers, you guys that are assisting in the field, watch your 
wallet, because he is not going after just the rich guys. He's doing it 
the way the Democrats have always done when they

[[Page 2009]]

control both ends, going right after your pocketbook. So the math does 
not add up. And it is tax and spend, tax and spend. They kept saying it 
is not tax and spend, and it is.
    When he talks about--he uses the word ``investment.'' And I'll 
repeat this: He uses the word, the Government ``investing.'' The 
Government does not create wealth. It's the private sector that does. So 
free that up and keep the Government constrained.
    Now, who is next? Herb.

The Environment

    Q. Mr. President, when you're elected, the environment will continue 
to have high priority in this Nation. Do you have special plans you'd 
like to tell us about, your plans for the environment?
    The President. Well, one thing I'd like to say at the very 
beginning: One, it's good to see you, but secondly--one of the great 
Iowans, respected well beyond the borders of Iowa for his knowledge of 
agriculture and his promoting of great values--but let me simply say 
this: On the environment, we have a good, sound record. We've done well 
in forestry. We've done well in assisting in cleaning up the beaches and 
in the ocean. We've done extraordinarily well in wilderness, setting 
aside more acres. We've done far better than any previous administration 
in enforcement of EPA.
    But what I've been unwilling to do is go to the extreme. And what we 
have to do in this country is to say we've got to find--and we're 
striving to do that every day--the balance between growth and sound 
environmental practice.
    So I think the record is a good one. We will continue to be good 
stewards of the land. But I am not going to go to the extreme that says 
to a farmer, if it rains and you've got a little puddle there, a tiny 
one, that means you can't use your land. We've gone too far under 
regulation and too far under interpretation on some of these statutes.
    So I think of agricultural--we've got a good conservation set-aside 
program--I think of farmers as conserving. They've got their families 
coming along. They don't want to ruin, rape, pillage, and plunder on 
their own land. It's ridiculous to start with that assumption.
    I'll tell you something. Governor Gore--Governor Gore--[laughter]--
if you read the book on Mr. Gore's proposals, I'll tell you, it would 
screech this country to a halt. We cannot go to the extreme. He's out 
there talking about the protection of this feathery little owl. Yes, I 
love little owls. I think they're wonderful. But we've got to also 
protect the 30,000 families that are trying to work for a living. The 
extreme groups will not vote for me; sound environmentalists will vote 
for me.

Education

    Q. President Bush, as a student myself, I was wondering if you could 
describe certain points of your education plan for the next 4 years that 
would help the U.S. rank higher in the world in education.
    The President. Good question. And education--health care and 
education. Education. We have a program called America--I don't want to 
get too programmatic--called America 2000. We have 1,700 communities 
across this country who are literally sitting down--they're bypassing 
the teachers union, and they're working with the teachers. They're 
saying let's reinvent the schools.
    In some urban area, the school will have one conformation. In 
another, in a rural area, it might have an entirely different one. We 
spend more per capita on education than every country, I believe, except 
Switzerland, and the results aren't good enough. So when I became 
President, we worked with the Governors, including Governor Branstad, 
and set six national education goals. Then this program, America 2000, 
is designed to meet the goals.
    One of the key points is, I believe, that we ought to have parental 
choice for schools, public, private, or religious. It worked for the GI 
bill. The money goes to the families, and the public system of education 
was strengthened under the GI bill. So that's one of the provisions.
    Then we've got a lot of programs for adult retraining in the schools 
which should come under the heading of education. We have more than 
doubled the money for Head Start, which I still feel is a very im-

[[Page 2010]]

portant program, to keep up with one of our education goals: every kid 
starts school ready to learn.
    So the program is really good, and the nice thing about it is, you 
only have to depend on the old thinkers on the Democratic side in 
Congress for this much. The rest of it is being done by the communities, 
community leaders, teachers, and parents, and that's where the action 
has to be. We've gotten away from all of that.
    We'll go here, and then we'll come over there.

Foreign Policy

    Q. Good morning, Mr. President. Most people have been hearing a lot 
about the domestic issues, which are very important. But we're not 
getting anything from the other side on the international side of 
events. If most people have been watching their TV and reading the 
newspapers, they see that there's instability again in the Soviet Union. 
We're not getting anything from the other side of the media on what to 
do about the instability in the world. Without stability in the world, 
there will be no good trade, and there will be no growth.
    I'd like to know what your plan is, because there is no plan on the 
other side for stability in this world that we need for growth.
    The President. Okay. You're right. I never see it on the programs. 
Democrats don't want to talk about foreign policy. It's almost like 
there's no threat anywhere in the world. I noticed your shot at the 
media. Please be careful. I'm an expert on that. [Laughter] But the 
best-selling bumper sticker is ``Annoy the Media. Reelect Bush.'' But I 
want to--here it is. By coincidence, there it is.
    But I feel I'm going to make--I'll divert for one minute, and then 
I'll come back to your question. The problem is, there is so much 
understanding of this that some people are taking it out on those who 
they should not take it out on. Like the photographers with us today, 
these guys that struggle around, carrying these boom mikes and the 
cameras. So put them down as good guys, and leave the traveling press 
alone. But I hope you share my view about all these talking heads that 
come on the national television and tell us how bad everything is and 
that we don't have a chance to win. They don't understand it.
    Why do you not talk about foreign policy? Because they know that is 
a strength, and they know that we are the leader of the world, and we 
are not, as Governor Clinton says, a nation in decline. He puts us south 
of--Clinton and Gore, they've got about as much foreign policy 
experience as Millie, put together.
    Let me tell you something. The world is still dangerous. We have 
reduced defense spending, and we've been able to reduce it because with 
bipartisan support we stayed strong. We didn't listen to the freeze 
movement. We stayed strong. I salute Ronald Reagan: peace through 
strength. It worked. It worked. But there are still wolves. The Soviet 
bear may be gone, but there are wolves out there. I have reduced defense 
spending by many billions of dollars. Now, I see the Democrats coming 
in, and to pay for all their, quote, ``investment,'' unquote, they want 
to cut the guts out of the defense. We cannot do that. Who knows where 
the next crisis will come?
    So, I'll say this: I believe that it is exports that have sustained 
us in the roughest of economic times. I believe it is exports that will 
lead the world to new heights of prosperity, and I believe that foreign 
policy is tremendously important in implementing a strong export 
program. So it's not just defense. It is also international economics. 
And we've got a good record.
    My argument with Governor Clinton on the war is this: Nobody likes 
to make a tough decision where you commit someone else's son or daughter 
to war. No one likes to do it. I do believe that having been in combat 
at least has made me sensitive to all of the ramifications of a decision 
like that. I made a tough decision. It was the right decision. Your sons 
and your daughters responded. We stood up against aggression. And as a 
result, and it 
wouldn't ever have happened without that, you see ancient enemies 
talking to each other in the Middle East. You see Russia going down 
democracy's path. You look south of our border, and you see 
some trouble spots, but you also see a persistent wave of democracy and 
free-

[[Page 2011]]

dom there. You see elections in Africa. And you see the Eastern 
Europeans and the Baltics free. We've had dramatic progress. And the 
best thing is, the kids here in this wonderful band go to bed at night 
without the same fear of nuclear war that their predecessors had.
    So I believe foreign policy is important. I believe national 
security policy is important. And I believe that it is an interconnected 
world; the economies are interconnected. And it is the United States, 
with the programs I've outlined, that is going to lead us and the world 
into new levels of prosperity. We're ready. Inflation is down. Interest 
is down. Business is more lean now. Our productivity in this country is 
up. And all of this will work towards enhancing not only world peace but 
world economic progress.

Small Business

    Q. Mr. President, thank you for making America proud during Desert 
Storm.
    I'm here today as a small voice representing small business. I have 
a small business in the Des Moines area here. In an effort to provide to 
my employees a solid work environment and good benefits, I spend each 
year about $200,000 in taxes, $25,000 a year for insurance, and 
substantially a lot of money complying with various Government 
regulations. Now, I'm here as a proponent for the Bush-Quayle 
administration. I'm particularly a big fan of Mrs. Bush.
    The President. So am I.
    Q. My message to you comes today in the form of an appeal rather 
than a question. Given that the success of the American economy depends 
on the success of America and small business, we'd really like to have 
the administration's help in controlling the skyrocketing costs of doing 
business.
    The President. Okay.
    Q. When next Tuesday rolls around, you'll be needing our help, and 
I, for one, intend to support you. After next Tuesday, we'll be needing 
your help.
    The President. All right. You should have been getting it by now. We 
put a freeze on regulations. He's absolutely right, there's too much 
redtape. And I'm not saying there's not more to do. There's plenty more 
to do. I want to see a freeze and a cap on some of these outrageous 
lawsuits that are running the cost of business, the small business, in 
particular, right out of the roof. Governor Clinton refuses to stand up 
against these trail lawyers who literally are driving the cost of health 
care and business right out through the roof.
    You don't need more mandates. I am for family leave, but I don't 
think that Government needs to mandate it. Give tax credits to the 
smallest business of the small, and help them do it. So I think we've 
got to guard against too many mandates telling a small-business person, 
man or woman, how they're going to run their lives.
    I think that gets back to this gentleman's question, because really 
freeing up the private sector is the way to offer opportunity to these 
kids that are asking about where they get a job, but it also is the way 
we ought to go. We are not going to reverse the trend and go like the 
failed European policies, where government invests. Government doesn't 
know how to invest.
    Now, she was going to get the next question. Are you nervous?
    Q. Yes.
    The President. You don't look nervous. Go ahead.

The Arkansas Record

    Q. Well, in all these debates I watch, Clinton says that he has 
rankings in Arkansas that are one, four, four and one. What are those 
rankings that he has?
    The President. Hey, good question. That's what we call a--in the 
World Series every once in a while you'll see the seams on it when it 
comes over the plate, the slow ball. You know what I mean.
    But, look, Governor Clinton said in the debate, ``I want to do for 
this country what I've done for Arkansas.'' That is a terrible threat.
    Audience members. Boo-o-o!
    The President. We cannot let that happen to this country.
    And look, I lived near Arkansas, and they are wonderful people. But 
regrettably, they are at the very bottom on environment. They're on the 
bottom on job creation. He talks about they led the Nation on job 
creation. That was the year he was out of the State 85 percent of the 
time. The rest of

[[Page 2012]]

the time they are 30 percent below the national averages. The teachers 
are either 49th or 50th in terms of teacher pay. Twenty percent of the--
I've got all these statistics coming at you--20 percent of the 
criminals--I mean, the criminals serve 20 percent of their time. Under 
Federal law it's 85 percent. Less spent on corrections than in all but 
one State. And it is statistic after statistic. Yes, Arkansas starts as 
a poor State. But in some categories you ought to see, after 10 years as 
being Governor, some progress that one can point to, instead of that 
thing that we led in new jobs or wages this last year. As I say, he was 
out of the State 85 percent of the time.
    So the record is not good. I'm saying we've got problems in this 
country. I believe we've got the answers to solve them. But I think it's 
fair, since your senior Senator and Governor Clinton and Tsongas and 
several of these other guys were going around saying what was bad about 
my record, I think it is fair, as the American people get ready to vote, 
to take a look at the record in Arkansas. It's a sorry record. And we 
cannot let him do that to the United States of America.

Health Care

    Q. Good morning, Mr. President. Governor Clinton has proposed a 7-
percent tax on businesses to pay for his national health care system. I 
was wondering if you could explain just what that tax in itself--with 
the other ones that the other gentleman was talking about--would do to 
businesses in this country?
    The President. Well, he says now that he didn't want to--he's had 
three health plans. Every time one gets knocked down, he comes up with 
another one. And this gets to the fundamental question of waffling. To 
coin a phrase: We cannot let the White House be turned into the waffle 
house. We simply can't do that.
    But the one you're talking about, the one he's talking about is an 
insurance system called ``pay or play,'' and that if these small-
business people do not want to go along with the plan, they've got to 
pay. If they pay, the estimates are it will cost 7-percent payroll tax 
on every business. Now, businesses at this juncture or at any juncture 
don't need a 7-percent payroll tax.
    Our plan is better. What it does is provide insurance to the poorest 
of the poor through vouchers. To those next overtaxed and overworked 
lower, middle-income people, they get a tax credit. We pool the 
insurance, thus meaning a small-business person can buy at lower rates 
and get lower rates provided for his or her business people. We make the 
health care transportable, so if you move from job to job, and I think 
the averages are quite high in the numbers of people that change 
employment, those health benefits go with you. We go after malpractice 
suits that are driving the cost of doctors right through the roof. We 
use much more efficient billing. And we get it done without slapping a 
tax on the small-business people or any business. I believe that's the 
way we need to go for health care.

Presidential Appointees

    Q. Greetings, Mr. President. First, some positive news. I went to 
college back in the late seventies, when I attended and started as a 
freshman. And when I came out as a senior, when my younger brother over 
here attended as a freshman, tuition doubled. That was the years of the 
high inflation. When your administration and Reagan's administration was 
in there, I've had a chance to live the American dream. Things have been 
very, very positive. I have a great job, great family, super company to 
work for, and things are good out there. The people that are hurting, I 
think, is going through a purging process. So positive news, I think, 
from here.
    I've got a question for you on administration, if I could. There's 
been very little talk about administration besides just the President 
and the Vice President. And I'm really concerned about if a new person 
came in, who would they bring in. There's been talk of Mario Cuomo on 
the Supreme Court. Who knows, maybe our own Tom Harkin would be in the 
Department of Defense or something like that. I think you have some of 
the most sharpest people out there with Dick Cheney and Jim Baker, 
Margaret Tutwiler, and I can't name them all here right now. But can you 
please address that,

[[Page 2013]]

because I know there's thousands of jobs there.
    The President. I do think it's important. I can understand their not 
wanting to name who they're going to have. But the gentleman raises a 
very, very important question: Who are the people that are going to come 
in? What is their philosophy? And from what I've seen, it looks to me--
and maybe this is unfair--like a return to the Jimmy Carter days, and I 
don't think we need that, when that ``misery index'' was through the 
roof, you guys had a grain embargo on you, and these interest rates were 
at 21 percent.
    But let me put it this way: In our administration I have been very, 
very well served by the people you mentioned and many, many more. But to 
revitalize a new administration, it is traditional and proper that there 
be a lot of new people in the Cabinet. And there will be in our 
administration. I think that's good because I think you can bring in 
fresh new blood, and I think people start in to implement the program.
    So I have said there's going to be a lot of change. Then they say, 
``Well, when you say this, are you trying to blame somebody for the 
economy?'' I've never believed that you can shift blame to somebody. 
You're the captain of the ship as President of the United States. If 
things are going well, maybe you'd get credit. But if things are going 
badly, the buck does stop on that Oval Office. One of the problems I've 
got--this is off your question a little bit, but it's to--we should and 
will bring in people. We're right-sizing Government. I have challenged 
the Congress to reduce their staffs by a third. We can do the White 
House staff by a third. We'll have to respond to far fewer of these 
ridiculous queries from a very partisan Congress, and we'll be able to 
do that. We're going to put a cap on the Federal pay until we get this 
economy really moving. The only trouble is, the President's pay gets cut 
a little bit. But never mind. [Laughter] That's the way it works, and 
that's the way it should work. And so I really believe new approach is 
required.
    On the Clinton-Gore ticket, I'm afraid we would see a lot of the 
same old names that had failed foreign policy and this kind of 
Government control, more Government intervention, more Government in the 
domestic side. And I must insist that when the whole world is moving 
away from Government investing, this is no time for the United States to 
bring in a bunch of people that think they can figure it out better than 
the farmers out in Iowa.
    Moderator. Mr. President, I think we have time for just one more 
question.
    The President. Time flies when you're having fun here. [Laughter]

Russia

    Q. Mr. President, I am from Moscow, from Russia. And I have a 
question for you. Are you planning a visit in Moscow again to continue 
working with Mr. Yeltsin?
    I repeat--you don't understand?
    The President. No, I'm hearing. I'm here.
    Q. Are you planning a visit in Moscow?
    The President. Oh, excuse me, I thought you were just in the middle 
of it. Planning a visit--well, first place, I support President Yeltsin. 
I support the move towards democracy. They're having some problems in 
Russia right now, as we know. But they are problems in a sense of 
democracy, Yeltsin fighting with the Congress. Have you heard that one 
before? [Laughter]
    So I have no specific plans. But let me tell you something that 
might sound a little self-serving to you: I was very pleased when Boris 
Yeltsin has said publicly that ``George Bush was the first world leader 
to recognize what we were doing.'' Do you remember--I'll never forget 
the sight of Yeltsin standing on top of that tank. And I didn't waffle. 
Governor Clinton said, ``Well, let's wait and see who's going to come 
out or how it's going to work out,'' when he was Governor, asked to 
comment on the democratic change in Moscow. Yeltsin is publicly on 
record saying, ``President Bush supported us. He never wavered. And that 
support and that consistency was one of the things that guaranteed that 
our move to democracy would succeed.'' That is world leadership, if 
you'll excuse it. And that is important. It gets back to this 
gentleman's questions. Those things are important.

Closing Statement

    Well, look, the Governor tells me we're

[[Page 2014]]

out of here. So let me just end this way. You know, in the first place, 
I wish Barbara Bush were here because I really believe she has been an 
outstanding First Lady, and she would love to see this marvelous crowd.
    Secondly, I wouldn't be standing here as President of the United 
States if it weren't for Iowa--and I'm thinking back to the seventies, 
early, the eighties--I would not be here. And we have tried--I say 
``we'' because in a sense it is whoever's living in the White House--we 
have tried to uphold the trust that has been placed in us by the 
American people. When I make a mistake, I've--``Look, I made a 
mistake.'' Isn't that what families do? Isn't that what your kids do or 
maybe some of you all do? And go on then and try to lead the country.
    When Governor Clinton said it's not the character of the President 
but ``the character of the Presidency,'' I violently disagree with that 
because the two are interlocked. Not just in this country but people 
from all around the world look to the White House and the occupant to 
the White House for their character and the character that shapes the 
character of the Presidency. I have tried very hard to uphold the trust. 
I have not tried to be on all sides of all issues.
    And so in the final days, as we wind down to this election, I am 
confident, not overconfident, but I am very confident of reelection. 
Because I think what will happen is people will go into the booth; 
they'll look at all the issues; they'll listen; they'll have in the back 
of their minds the debates; they'll know the problems we have; and 
they'll also begin to see some of the good things that are happening in 
our country. But in the final analysis, they're going to say: Who has 
the honor, the integrity, that sense of service that merits my trust? 
Who does have the character? And on that basis, I ask for your support 
and I ask for your vote.
    May God bless our great country. Thank you very, very much. Thank 
you.

                    Note: The President spoke at 9 a.m. at the Des 
                        Moines Convention Center.