    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: William J. Clinton (1993, Book I)]
    [July 26, 1993]
    [Pages 1186-1193]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    [[Page 1186]]

    Interview With the Indiana Media in Chicago
    July 26, 1993

        The President. Thank you very much. Please sit down. Sorry the
    conference ran a little late, but there was a lot of enthusiasm up
    there.
        Let me just make a very brief opening statement. I want to give most
    of the time over to you for questions. I am doing a series of press
    conferences like this with representatives of the press from various
    States around the country, trying to do as many as I possibly can, the
    Vice President is doing others, to answer questions directly about the
    economic plan now before the Congress and any other issues that you
    would like to raise. It's not possible for the President, at least
    during the budget time, to travel the country as much as I would like
    to, so this gives me a chance as nearly as possible to communicate
    directly with the people whom you report to.
        I want to emphasize just one or two things, if I might, about this
    economic plan. More than any other one which has been presented by any
    party, it reduces the deficit in a way that is fair to all the American
    people; that balances spending cuts and tax increases; that asks the
    middle class to pay a very small percentage of the overall burden in
    what amounts to about, at the most, $50 a year, a little less than a
    dollar a week; holds working families with incomes of under $30,000
    harmless; and actually gives over 90 percent of the small businesses in
    the United States a chance to reduce their tax burden because they have
    no income tax increases. And they're given a chance to reduce their tax
    burden because the expensing provision which rewards them with lower
    taxes if they reinvest in their businesses is doubled under this plan.
        This is a plan that will promote jobs, bring the deficit down, keep
    interest rates down, and enable us to move ahead with our business as a
    country. I think it is imperative that it pass. The most important thing
    is the Congress needs to pass a budget and to do it quickly so we can
    get on to other matters and start doing the other things that need to be
    done to grow the American economy as well.
        If there are questions, I'll be glad to take them.
        Yes, sir.

    Taxes on Small Business

        Q. Mr. President, the majority of jobs in Indiana are from small
    businesses, and you indicated that also in your address at noon today--
    Sub S corporations. A lot of the business people we talked to are really
    frightened that the tax package or the budget package would increase
    their taxes to the point where they're afraid they're going to have to
    cut back, lay off people, maybe some even go out of business. What
    assurance can you really give Hoosier business men and women that this
    plan is good for them?
        The President. Well, there are 7 million Subchapter S corporations
    in America. Of those 7 million, 400,000, or far less than 10 percent,
    will have any income tax increase at all under this program. All of
    them, if the program passes, will have the expensing provisions of the
    Code, that is, they'll be able to just immediately write off $20,000
    rather than $10,000 of expensing. So I will say again, over 90 percent
    of the small businesses in this country will get a tax break under this
    program.
        To those who will pay higher taxes because the income taxes on the
    upper 6 percent of the country are going to be raised--it will be
    roughly small businesses with an income above $140,000 adjusted gross
    income--to them, I would say there are ways to avoid that through
    reinvestment, just as there are for individuals. Keep in mind, this plan
    also leaves the rates where they are for capital investment, so if you
    reinvest in a business, your tax rates don't go up. If you invest in a
    new business or a small business with a capitalization of $50 million a
    year or less, and you hold the investment for 5 years, your tax rates go
    way down under this plan.
        We also extend the tax incentives for research and development,
    which the Republican plan did not do, so that you can take your taxes
    down if you do more R&D expenditures, which is what keeps the economy
    growing.
        Another thing that we do I think is very important is to revitalize
    the real estate and homebuilding sectors of the economy by returning to
    the incentives which exist there. That's why the homebuilders and the
    realtors, two groups that normally are associated, frankly, more with

    [[Page 1187]]

    the Republican Party than the Democratic Party, nationally are
    supporting this plan, because it's good for that sector of the economy--
    again, something not in the Republican plan.
        And one final thing I would say is that we extend the tax credit for
    health insurance for self-employed people, something that was not done
    under the Senate Republican plan. So in effect, all those people would
    have had a tax increase if the Republican plan had passed.
        So I think if you look at the small business sector--and I want to
    compliment the Wall Street Journal. They've run a number of stories,
    factual stories, in the last week which have analyzed the facts of this
    economic plan as against the outrageous and inaccurate attacks being
    made on it which sort of show this. I mean, one of the people who was
    testifying against our plan for some group was given the facts of her
    business, and she said that's not what they told me this did. And it
    turned out she got a tax decrease instead of a tax increase.

    Economic Program

        Q. Well let's talk about, Mr. President, that for a second if you
    could. Senator Dan Coats' office this morning is saying they admire your
    sophistication of going to the local media, but the facts are taxes
    outstrip cuts two to one in this proposal. And they point out that among
    Hoosier voters, even something like a cigarette tax, your friend
    Governor Evan Bayh couldn't get it passed in Indiana--make the case to
    Hoosiers for what the Republican Senators are just calling a tax
    package.
        The President. Well, first of all, they're wrong. They're wrong. Go
    back and look at what they said about the budget program they voted for
    in 1990, which had taxes and budget cuts in it and which had an
    outrageous estimate of economic growth in it, so much so that they
    changed their own program. They wrote it down by about a third within 60
    days after passing it. I mean, the things I call tax increases and
    spending cuts are the same things that Ronald Reagan and George Bush and
    the Republicans in the Senate call tax increases, spending cuts.
        They say that if they, under the budget they passed in 1992, were
    going to raise Medicare expenses 12 percent a year, and we cut it back
    to 9 percent a year, shaving $50 billion off the deficit and now almost
    $60 billion from what it would have been under their last budget, that
    that doesn't count as a cut. They say that it's not a cut. I think it
    is. They say if we reduce interest costs to the Federal deficit, which
    we have done, by the way, already--the deficit this year is going down
    because we're bringing the deficit down, because the markets have
    brought long-term interest rates down because they see finally there's
    somebody serious about bringing the deficit down--they say that doesn't
    count as reducing the deficit. They're playing word games. All of a
    sudden they've got a whole new dictionary now that they're out of power.
    I'm using exactly the same calculations that they used for 12 years on
    what increases the deficit, what reduces the deficit.

    Defense Cuts

        Q. Mr. President, let's talk about some jobs in Indiana that are
    scheduled to go out of business on your watch. The White House the other
    day put out a list of all the jobs that were lost under the Bush
    administration. The 2,800 jobs I'm referring to are at the Military
    Finance Center at Fort Benjamin Harrison, which as you know, was one of
    a number of finance centers across the country scheduled to be
    consolidated, this one to be closed in 1995. Indianapolis, we're told,
    was one of the 20 finalists to retain those jobs and pick up some more
    and then one of the 5 winners. And then at the very last minute, Defense
    Secretary Aspin stopped the ballgame and said we're going to start the
    process all over again. What can you say about the fairness of changing
    the rules at the end of the game, and what can you say to these 2,800
    workers whose lives have been on a yo-yo?
        The President. First of all, the decision that was made to close
    those facilities was made, as you know, in the previous administration,
    not under my administration. Secondly, it's just not true that there
    were five finalists picked. I mean, at least I couldn't find it. I asked
    the Defense Department to tell me where we were on this issue when I
    became President, and they said, here are the 20 finalists. And I said,
    has the decision been completed? They said, no, we're still at the 20
    finalists. And I said, what are the criteria? And we talked about it.
        And interestingly enough, the only thing I said about it was that I
    felt very strongly that one of the criteria should be how badly a
    community or a State had been hurt by other defense cutbacks, because I
    was worried that those States or communities that had been hurt more by
    defense cutbacks might have less ability, in

    [[Page 1188]]

    effect, to put up their own financial incentives to get the financial
    accounting centers there. That is, I didn't think that we ought to
    reward people who could, in effect, buy the Senators by putting up a
    whole lot of money up front or who couldn't afford to compete because
    they had lost a lot of defense jobs. And I didn't even ask them to go
    back and start the whole thing all over again. I just said I'd like that
    factored in, that I thought that was something the American people would
    want us to do--would want us to take account of where all these defense
    cuts had hurt people the worst. And so they said they would work up
    that, and go back and do it.
        And my own impression is that the finalists from the first round are
    still in very, very good shape. That's at least the indication I have
    and that the Defense Department will be ready to make a recommendation
    to me pretty soon. But I did want to say that's the only role I had in
    it, was I was assured that there was no decision made. They were still
    at 20 finalists. I asked only that the burden those communities and
    States had borne in the defense cutbacks since 1987 should be able to be
    a factor to be taken into consideration. And that was it.
        Q. [Inaudible]--that the list is up to 100 cities again, 100
    contestants----
        The President. Well, there may be 100 who comply, but it has to be
    that the people who did well the first time would be in good shape to do
    well the second time. I was astonished that they reopened it. They
    seemed to think that if they changed one criteria they had to, at least
    in theory, reopen it.
        Q. One of the concerns that people in Indiana have is that those
    final centers are going to be chosen based on their political
    connections to you. Can you guarantee that that won't happen?
        The President. That won't happen. You know, during--you might say
    that, but let me say this: It was interesting to me that during the last
    election, right before the election, conveniently it was leaked by the
    Defense Department that the centers were going to be perhaps in this
    city, that city, the other city, and, quote, ``someplace in Indiana,''
    which didn't exactly sound like the most meritorious decision in the
    world at the time it was leaked.
        So all I can tell you is I'm telling you just like it is. I asked
    for one thing to be taken into account. I said, ``I don't think we ought
    to let these things get bought by communities that are already wildly
    successful without any consideration being given to the communities that
    have been hurt most economically by the defense cutbacks.'' That's the
    only thing I ever asked them to do. Yes.

    Steel Industry

        Q. Mr. President, a question about northwest Indiana. I noticed that
    the chairman of Inland Steel, Robert Darnall, was present at your
    conference today. And I was wondering what kind of job security you can
    offer steel workers, particularly those in the Gary area where over
    30,000 steel jobs have been lost since the 1980's.
        The President. Well, I'll tell you what I think will happen in
    steel. I think you're going to see a big increase in the number of steel
    jobs if we have flexibility and competitiveness and if two other things
    happen: if we move at the national level to bring health care costs
    under control and if we can continue the work we're doing now to bring
    tariffs down in worldwide manufacturing trade.
        And let me just mention those two things specifically. The most
    important thing for average Americans that happened at the Tokyo meeting
    of the G-7 was the agreement that we made among ourselves to try to
    drastically reduce tariffs on manufactured products and to eliminate
    them in whole classes of products with the view toward getting the other
    countries to agree to do that, because we were taking the lead by the
    end of the year and having a new world trade agreement. It's not like
    NAFTA. There's some difference of opinion, as you know, about NAFTA. And
    I'm for it, a lot of people aren't. But there's a difference. On the
    agreement we made at Tokyo everybody concedes that if we can make that a
    part of the world trade law, it will lead to hundreds of thousands of
    manufacturing jobs coming into the United States.
        Meanwhile, the steel companies I think will tell you that our
    administration has been much more vigorous in trying to protect them
    from unfair trade practices from other countries than any administration
    in a very long time. I think every steel executive, if you called him,
    would tell them that, that we have worked with them. We've tried to make
    sure that the investments they've made and the productivity they've
    achieved will result in more secure jobs by giving them a fair deal.

    [[Page 1189]]

        Now, the second thing I want to say is this: steel and automobiles,
    among others, but they're really out there on the cutting edge, have
    enormous, enormous health care costs, spending often 15 percent or more
    of payroll on health care costs. The work that we have been doing to try
    to bring health costs in line with inflation and at the same time find
    the mechanism for all Americans to have health security will help heavy
    industry as much as any other section of our economy. It is very
    difficult for them to compete in a global economy where they're spending
    35 or 40 percent more on health care than any of their competitors. So I
    can't promise anybody that's in a tough global economy job security. I
    can tell them that the things we're doing will make them more likely to
    succeed.

    NAFTA

        Q. Mr. President, what can you tell the people of Indiana who--for
    instance, I do a talk show in South Bend, and many of my callers are
    very concerned about NAFTA as it is. You mentioned NAFTA a minute ago.
    What solutions are there for those people who are out there that are out
    of work and they're losing their homes, they're losing their cars,
    they're losing their identity because of their companies that have
    pulled out or are pulling out of the country?
        The President. First of all, that's the initial point we ought to
    make. And let me back up and say this. This is a little background. For
    12 years I was Governor of a State that had plants shut down and go to
    Mexico. Before I quit we had one or two of them come back, just like
    that General Motors plant. I don't know if you saw that, it was
    announced they were going to shut down 1,000 jobs and bring them back to
    Michigan because they thought they could achieve higher levels of
    productivity. The point I want to make to you about NAFTA is this--I
    want to make two or three points about it. Number one, if we don't do
    it, let's say we don't do it, anybody who wants to shut a plant down in
    America and move it to Mexico for lower wages can do that anyway within
    the so-called maquilladora zone, right? And what upsets people is they
    move jobs down there, then they produce products and bring it back here,
    okay? What NAFTA does primarily with regard to that is to move the line
    back down toward Mexico, throughout Mexico. It makes the whole country
    eligible. But if you wanted to go to Mexico for low wages to produce for
    America, you would stay as close to the border as you could to cut your
    costs down. If you go to Mexico City, in all probability you're going
    down there to produce for the Mexicans in Mexico City. So if we do
    nothing, what people really hate about this can continue and will.
        Secondly, I think the people will be better off because I don't
    intend to sign this agreement or send it up to Congress until we get
    some agreements on the part of the Mexican Government to lift labor
    standards and to lift environmental standards there which will lower the
    wage gap and the cost-of-production gap, increase incomes from Mexican
    people, and enable them to buy more of our products.
        Thirdly, 5 or 6 years ago Mexico had a $5 billion trade surplus with
    us because they had more tariffs on our products than we had on theirs,
    5 or 6 years ago. Now, we've got a $6 billion trade surplus with them
    because President Salinas had lowered these tariffs. So I believe that
    if we go forward with the agreement, if the Mexican incomes rise, they
    will be able to buy more American products, and it will create more jobs
    than it costs. If I didn't think that, I wouldn't be for this. And I
    think everything that's bad about it is going to happen anyway and even
    more so if we don't do anything. That's what I believe. That's the
    reason I'm for it. Yes.

    Defense Cuts

        Q. I want to go back really quickly--[inaudible]--association.
    Evansville, Indiana, with which I am a reporter from, was one of the 20
    finalists. You mentioned that----
        The President. There were two or three cities in Indiana, weren't
    there, in the finalists?
        Q. Indianapolis and Evansville were the 2 on the list of 20. You
    mentioned that you thought that the incentive program was not a good
    idea. Evansville----
        The President. No, I do think it's a good idea. No, I think it's a
    good idea, the incentive program. I do not believe that there should be
    no consideration--under the previous formula, no consideration was given
    to the harm done to communities by defense cutbacks. So, no, I didn't
    ask them to take the incentive out. I think they should leave that in. I
    just didn't want to eliminate any considerations for the harm done to
    communities.
        Go ahead.

    [[Page 1190]]

        Q. Evansville submitted a bid that would have cost the Government $1
    a year in operating costs. Now, since Indianapolis has lost Fort
    Benjamin Harrison, which has been closed down, would that give
    Indianapolis a more favorable advantage over Evansville and the southern
    half of the State?
        The President. It depends. It doesn't mean that the Indianapolis bid
    would prevail, it just means that they would get some credit, and it
    would be dependent on how much they've been hurt by it.
        Q. Local officials have enacted a tax increase in Evansville to help
    fund this center, or try to work with the department of revenue to have
    it repealed in--Vanderburgh County in Evansville. Should local officials
    give up and have this tax repealed, or is there still a chance?
        The President. Absolutely not. No. I'm telling you, no decision has
    been made about any of this stuff. And I was really stunned--the
    question that he had. I'm going to go back and check this out. I asked
    point blank--because if the whole process was over, I was just going to
    announce it and go on.
        Q. [Inaudible]--has on good authority that there were five and
    Indianapolis was one of them.
        The President. Well, all I can tell you is I asked where they were
    going, and they said here are 20 cities, and the 5 haven't been decided
    yet.
        Q. When will a decision be made on this?
        The President. Well, I hope in a hurry. Actually, I asked a couple
    of days ago, and I was supposed to get a report this week about when the
    whole thing will be completed.
        Q. I talked with several workers who are being hired part-time, but
    they're actually doing full-time work just because the company doesn't
    want to pay for the benefits, i.e., retirement and health insurance.
    What can you do to make these companies do what's right for these
    people?
        The President. Well, first of all, I think the only way that's ever
    going to happen under the circumstances we're living under today is if
    you have a system like every other advanced country does which has some
    provision for adequate health care for all workers and requires
    everybody, including the workers themselves, to assume some
    responsibility for their health care and the employers. I mean, look at
    the system, we're the only country, the only advanced country that does
    what we do. Germany doesn't do this and Japan--no other country does
    this, where basically if you want to take care of your workers you can,
    and if you don't, you don't have to. And so it's just up to what you
    think is better--either more humane or better for your productivity.
        In the 1980's, the cost of health care went up by more than twice
    the rate of inflation because, again, we were the only advanced country
    that had no system for trying to rein it in. So that if you're employer
    X and you're competing with employer Y and they don't do it, and you do,
    what kind of a disadvantage do you have? That's why we have to have a
    systematic response to this, and why I think it is so important--let's
    just go back to the deficit reduction. Under any conceivable deficit
    reduction plan, including mine, which I think is the best, you can bring
    the deficit down for 5 years and then it starts to go up again in the
    sixth year. Why? Because of health care costs.
        So the answer to your question is we've got to have a national
    response. About 100,000 Americans a month are losing their health
    insurance now because of the phenomenon you asked. If it's just a dog-
    eat-dog world, there has to be some law that requires coverage, but does
    it in a way that doesn't bankrupt small business. And it's clearly
    possible to do.
        We were just out in Hawaii. I went there to review the Pacific Fleet
    and to meet with our military leaders in the Pacific on the way back
    from Asia. And then Hillary spent a day there looking at the health care
    network. And virtually every employer in Hawaii insures their employees,
    including the smallest ones. The premiums are slightly below the
    national average. They've done it for 20 years now. They've managed the
    system quite well. It can be done.
        Yes? Nice tie. [Laughter]

    Gridlock

        Q. I wanted to ask you about actually the subject you came here to
    push, the budget. You talked a little bit about the political problems
    Republicans have caused for you, but you have some problems in your own
    party. On the deficit reduction package last year, two Democratic
    Members of the Indiana congressional delegation voted against it. Given
    the election results in Texas and California, what kind of leverage do
    you have to influence people in your own

    [[Page 1191]]

    party who are in vulnerable districts?
        The President. Well, the mayor's race in California didn't have
    anything to do with it. There has only been one race in this whole
    country which was a referendum on my economic plan. That is, an honest
    referendum. That is, where both sides were debated and then three House
    races, all of which the Democrats won. But the only one where a
    Democratic candidate decided to defend and, more importantly, to explain
    the budget proposal was in the race for Leon Panetta's old seat where,
    by the way, there were a lot of upper income constituents who had to pay
    higher taxes. And the guy won by nine points. And he did things that I
    never asked him to do. I wasn't even particularly involved. He ran my
    picture in his brochures, and he said, ``This is right for America, and
    here's why I'm for it.'' And he had advertisements saying, ``No matter
    what you've heard, here's what the truth is.'' And we won the race by
    nine points.
        There was no fight in Texas. I mean, there was no issue. But let me
    just tell you what happened as a result of that. On the day that Senator
    Hutchinson from Texas went out on the steps of the Capitol with Senator
    Gramm from Texas, talking about how no taxes are needed, and all we need
    to do is cut spending--she was standing there with Ross Perot--the word
    spread in the House of Representatives they were out there. And so the
    House voted on the superconducting super collider, a project I have
    supported, and defeated it by 70 more votes than they defeated it last
    year and just lobbed it over to them. I said--because it's all in Texas,
    right? So, I mean, I think it's in the national interest to pursue it,
    myself. I think it's crazy for us to just dismantle our science and
    technology system and the kind of high-tech investments that make us a
    strong country.
        But the only place we've had a debate where the voters heard the
    other side was in that district in California. Even in the Wisconsin-
    Mississippi races, that was not the issue.
        Q. We have time for one more question.
        The President. Go ahead.

    Economic Program

        Q. A followup--why are you having some trouble persuading--
    [inaudible]
        The President. Because it's tough. All the easy decisions have been
    made, because the American people have been fed pablum for 12 years.
    Because it's easier to cut taxes and spend more money than it is to
    spend less money and raise taxes and because the rhetoric is
    unfavorable. But the specifics show every single solitary focus group or
    poll where the people have been sat down and go through the specifics,
    shows that the people will support the program. It's the generalities
    and the desperate looking for the easy answer. Look, in 1980 we had a $1
    trillion national debt piled up since we became a country. Now it's $4
    trillion. Something went wrong.
        David Stockman, who was Ronald Reagan's budget director, right, was
    not a liberal Democrat, gave an interview a few weeks ago in which he
    said that it was folly to believe that this whole thing could be solved
    by spending cuts alone, that they meant to cut taxes 3 percent of the
    gross national income in 1981, and they got into a political bidding
    war, and they got to liking it, and they just got carried away, and they
    lost control, and they cut taxes 6 percent of income.
        But I can understand; look, most middle class people are working
    harder for less money, and they didn't get a tax cut. Their Social
    Security taxes went up at the national level, and State and local taxes
    went up at the local level as the Federal Government threw more stuff
    off on State and local government throughout the 1980's. I lived through
    that as a Governor.
        And any mention of taxes is always unpopular. But I can tell you--I
    ought to have some credibility on this--my State had the toughest
    balanced budget law in the country. We were always in the bottom five in
    the percentage of income going to State and local taxes. I never raised
    any taxes to balance the books. I did raise some money to build roads
    and educate kids. We ran our business in order. But the truth is this
    country's out of control financially. But the easy decisions have been
    made. The only ones that are left are tough.
        And let me say this: I have a lot of sympathy with the Democratic
    Members of Congress from Indiana because they come from districts that
    are just like my State. They're fiscally conservative. They want their
    money spent right. They're tired of the money being wasted. And they
    don't believe anything anybody says in Washington. I understand that.
    But I don't think we've done too badly. Let me just give you one
    comparison. In 1992, 75 percent of the House Republicans, not Democrats,
    Republicans, voted against President Bush's last budget. I mean, this is
    a serious budget.

    [[Page 1192]]

        Let me just make one last plug, because a lot of this stuff operates
    at a rhetorical level. If we have to do--is get in a shouting match as
    sort of like as we would on a Rush Limbaugh show or something like
    that--[laughter]--it's hard for the responsible position to win. But if
    you have to get to beyond the rhetoric to the facts, I think we can win.
        And let me just give you one last thing. The Philadelphia Inquirer
    went out and actually interviewed people who are experts on the budget
    who don't have an ax to grind, budget analysts with big accounting
    firms, for example. And the budget analyst for Price Waterhouse is a
    person obviously, I don't know, never met him--said that my budget was
    the most honest budget in 10 years and that the only thing that was not
    accurate about my budget is that it would produce more deficit reduction
    than I said it would. It would bring the deficit down more. And we can
    get you a copy of the article if you'd like to see it.
        I mean, I was a Governor. With all the unmet needs this country has
    and all the other things we need to be addressing, from health care
    reform to welfare reform to a new policy to revitalize the workplace--
    the thing we met here about--to the crime bill I want to bring up, all
    these things I'm interested in--spending 8 months or 7 months doing
    nothing but this is not my idea of recreation. But we have lost control
    over our financial affairs. And this deficit is like a bone in our
    throat, and we have to take it out. And I don't know any other way to do
    it. If I could think of any other way to do it, I would do it. I also
    think to get it down to zero, which is really important, over a fixed
    period of time, you've got to deal with the question of exploding health
    care costs. But the fair way to do that without bankrupting hospitals or
    being unfair to providers or to elderly people is to overhaul the entire
    system.
        Yes, sir?

    Agriculture Assistance

        Q. Mr. President, a lot of people downstate are involved in
    agriculture, and many are having a tough time making ends meet. Some of
    them are even going out of business, going bankrupt. What type of hope
    can you offer them?
        The President. Well, first of all, we're going to rewrite the farm
    bill, as you probably know. We have to do that for 1995. And one of the
    things that I've asked the Secretary of Agriculture to do is to examine
    whether or not the bill that was done in 1990 has done enough to help
    family farmers stay in business and whether or not we need to look at
    the farm finance issue even more than the crop price supports, as well
    as to look at what we can do to help younger people get into farming.
    And that's all separate from what we need to do for the farmers that
    lost money in the flood, you know, in the Midwest.
        Just in my lifetime, and especially in my tenure as a Governor of a
    farm State where most of the farmers were family farmers, I watched the
    number drop drastically. I think that we are looking at a period, if
    they can hang on another year or so, where just looking into the future
    you're going to have pretty stable markets for American agricultural
    products, in fact, ones that might grow and where, if we can put in
    place some systems in this new farm bill to help the family farmers deal
    with the radical swings in income caused by the weather, caused by
    markets, caused by other things that the big corporate farms can endure,
    I think that the future of the people now farming can be pretty solid.
    But I do think with the average age of the farmer being about 58 and a
    half now, we're going to have to do something to help ease the financial
    barriers to getting young people into farming.
        Q. Thank you.
        The President. Thanks.

    Health Care Reform

        Q. My only question is you talked about how health care is going to
    be such an integral part of reform in labor and in farming. So how much
    is the Government going to be involved in whatever health care reform
    package there will be? And how soon will that happen?
        The President. Well, I think we'll have to phase some parts of it in
    over a period of years, but I want to come forward with a program as
    soon as we get the budget out of the way.
        I'd like for the Government to take care of insuring the unemployed,
    uninsured, and to make sure that people can change jobs even if someone
    in their family has been sick--you know, today you've got millions of
    people locked into the jobs they're in because they've got a sick
    husband, wife, child, or something, and they can't change--and mandating
    reform of the insurance markets so that small businesses don't get
    busted just to buy health insurance--and

    [[Page 1193]]

    self-employed people.
        But I think that the providers system we have in America is very
    good now. And I think we ought to leave the doctors, the hospitals, all
    the private providers and private choice in providers intact, but we'll
    have to do some more in rural areas especially, and in inner cities to
    provide for some assistance just to get doctors and nurses and clinics
    out there in places that are terribly isolated. But the fundamental
    system is sound. It's the insurance and the coverage that is messed up.
    The delivery system--if you've health care in America, you're getting
    pretty good health care.
        Thank you. I've got to go, sorry.

    Representative Dan Rostenkowski

        Q. Could you comment on Chairman Rostenkowski's situation? The buzz
    among Indiana Republicans that I spoke to today was that that's the real
    story. It's not policy, but it's practical politics, and if he's
    indicted you're really dead in the water.
        The President. Well, I don't agree with any of that, but I can't
    comment on something that hasn't happened. I have no way of knowing, and
    I think it would be irresponsible for me to do that. I mean, I'm a
    public official. I don't know what the facts are. We'll just have to see
    what happens, and I have no reason to believe that the conference won't
    proceed and produce a report and the Congress won't vote on it no matter
    what.
        Q. [Inaudible]--Stevens says that you are holding up the whole
    investigation to get the budget over with.
        The President. Well, you know that's not true, don't you?
        Q. Well, of course, I know that's not true. We have to ask.

    Note: The interview began at 4:07 p.m. at the Sheraton Chicago Hotel.