    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: William J. Clinton (1994, Book II)]
    [October 7, 1994]
    [Pages 1714-1724]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    The President's News Conference
    October 7, 1994

        The President. Good afternoon. Ladies and gentlemen, 20 months ago I
    came here to make a start and to make America work for ordinary citizens
    again, to take on some tough issues too long ignored and to get our
    economic house in order. There have been some tough fights

    [[Page 1715]]

    along the way, but I believe they were the right fights for our future.
        We came here with an economic strategy that was comprehensive and
    direct: reduce the deficit, expand trade, increase investment in people
    and technology, and reinvent the Government to do more with less. We
    pursued this strategy with discipline. Now we have fresh evidence that
    the national economic program we put into place last year is beginning
    to work for America.
        The Department of Labor reported today that the unemployment rate
    fell to 5.9 percent, a 4-year low. And the economy has created about 4.6
    million jobs since I took office. More jobs in high-wage industries were
    created this year alone than in the previous 5 years combined. It's not
    enough, of course. As the census report makes clear, there are still too
    many Americans working for low wages, living in poverty. There are
    places in rural and urban America where the recovery has not yet
    reached.
        But if you look at the changes since just a few short years ago,
    when we were exporting jobs and exploding the deficit, there's a great
    difference. We're getting our economic house in order. Jobs are being
    created at home. We're moving in the right direction.
        This Congress, as it concludes a difficult session, showed that it
    could make a difference for ordinary people when it put people and
    progress ahead of narrow interests and partisan obstruction. It didn't
    always happen, so let's begin with a look at the record, what's been
    done, what hasn't been done, where do we go from here. Let's begin with
    what was accomplished.
        The economic plan passed, putting our house in order. It was
    historic deficit reduction led by cutting over $255 billion in spending;
    cuts in 300 separate Government programs; raising taxes--or tax rates--
    on only the top 1.2 percent; cutting taxes for 15 million working
    families with 50 million Americans in them, people who work full-time
    but still hover just at the poverty line, so that people will always be
    encouraged to choose work over welfare and won't have to raise their
    children in poverty if they do.
        We've broken down trade barriers, eliminated barriers to exports,
    passed NAFTA. Exports to Mexico are up 19 percent, exports of cars and
    truck up 600 percent in the last year.
        They talked for more than a decade around here about making
    Government smaller, but it never seemed to happen. Well, now it is.
    Under our legislation we are shrinking Federal positions and cutting the
    Federal work force by 272,000, to its smallest size since the Kennedy
    administration. And now, again I say, private sector jobs are going up;
    the deficit is going down.
        For the first time in a generation, we have taken a serious assault
    on crime, passing the Brady bill and the crime bill with its 100,000
    prison cells, its 20 percent increase in police on the beat, its ban on
    assault weapons, its ``three strikes and you're out,'' and other penalty
    laws.
        The Government is beginning to work for ordinary citizens in
    important ways. That's what the family leave law was about. That's what
    the law which will provide immunizations for all children under 2 by
    1996 is about. That's what Head Start for 200,000 more kids is about.
    That's what the national standards of educational excellence with more
    local control; apprenticeships for kids who don't go to college;
    national service, so people can earn money for college and serve their
    communities; and making college loans more affordable for 20 million
    people who can now have lower interest rates, lower fees, longer
    repayment schedule; it's what the empowerment zones and the community
    development banks to bring free enterprise to poor communities are
    about.
        All of this was real progress. It's only a beginning, and more could
    have been done. But too many times, an idea for creating jobs, reforming
    Government, educating students, or expanding income, fighting crime, or
    cleaning up the environment, or reforming the political system was met
    by someone trying to stop it, slow it, kill it, or just talk it to
    death.
        A lot of the same people just recently signed that so-called
    Contract With America, a commitment to taking us back to the Reagan-Bush
    years when we exploded the deficit, cut Medicare, cut taxes for the
    wealthiest in America, divided our citizens, and sent our jobs overseas.
    My contract with the American people is for the future: grow the
    economy, fight crime, take on the tough problems, make Government work
    for ordinary people.
        Congress is leaving town without passing GATT, the world's largest
    trade agreement. It will cut global tariffs and, over the next decade,
    means a $744 billion tax cut. It will generate hundreds of thousands of
    new jobs for American workers. It will keep our recovery going and

    [[Page 1716]]

    sustain growth all around the world. We must not retreat on GATT. That's
    why I've asked Congress to return and pass it after the election, and I
    believe they will do that.
        But Congress had a chance to do a lot of other things which it
    should have done but didn't do. It should have passed significant
    environmental legislation, much of which has the support of both
    American people and industry and environmental groups. It should have
    passed health care reform instead of watching another million Americans
    lose their coverage, as the new data points out happened just last year,
    while costs increased faster than inflation and more citizens lose the
    right to chose their doctor. And it certainly should have passed
    political reform. I think the American people were appalled by the
    spectacle of lobbyists hiding who they work for, what they get paid, and
    by Members of Congress accepting their gifts and then walking away from
    lobbying reform. There's something wrong when a Senator can filibuster
    this bill and walk off the floor of the Senate and be cheered by
    lobbyists. Well, the Congress is the people's Congress. The lobbyists
    may have been cheering in the filibuster last night, but the American
    people were not.
        So Congress has done well on the economy, on crime, on tax fairness,
    on education and training, on trade, on loans for the middle class, on
    family leave, on reinventing Government. Congress has not done well on
    political reform, on environmental legislation, on health care, and on
    an unprecedented record of using the filibuster and other delaying
    tactics to try to keep anything from being done.
        We have to now resolve to give the American people a choice as
    Congress leaves town and we move into the next few weeks before this
    election. Do they really want this contract which is a trillion dollars
    of unfunded promises, a contract which certainly will lead to higher
    deficits, cuts in Medicare, and throwing us back to the years of the
    eighties when we lost jobs and weakened our country? Or do we want to
    face up to the challenges which were not met in this Congress and use
    the next Congress to keep the economic growth going, to pass health care
    reform, to pass welfare reform, to pass political reform, to deal with
    these environmental issues?
        You know, countries all over the world want America to succeed and
    want to follow our lead. We saw it just in the last few days when the
    elected democratic Presidents of South Africa and Russia were here
    working with us on their common futures and their aspirations. We see it
    in the help we've been asked to give to the peace process in Northern
    Ireland. We see it in the help we've been asked to give to the peace
    process in the Middle East. We see it in the enthusiastic reception our
    young men and women in uniform have been given by the people of Haiti
    who want their democracy back.
        I am proud of the work America has done around the world in the
    cause of democracy. I am proud of what our troops have done in the last
    3 weeks in Haiti. As I said, and I caution you again, their job is still
    difficult and dangerous, and we still have a lot of work to do. But the
    violence is down, the Parliament is back, the refugees are returning,
    the electricity is burning again, and democracy is coming back. This is
    the direction we ought to be taking at home as well as abroad, fighting
    for the future, not going back to the past.
        Helen [Helen Thomas, United Press International.]

    Administration Accomplishments

        Q. Mr. President, while acknowledging your accomplishments, the
    Republicans are savoring a big-time victory in November. You also have
    had some major setbacks in legislation. And some of the pundits are
    counting you out in '96. How do you account for this very dark picture,
    political picture, and what are you going to do about it?
        The President. Well, what I'm going to do is go out and make sure
    the American people understand what the choice is. If the American
    people had been told 20 months ago that we would have had a historic
    first year with the Congress, that we'd have 4.6 million new jobs, the
    lowest unemployment rate in 4 years, an unusual number of high-wage jobs
    coming back into the economy, a serious assault on crime, that I would
    have presented major reform legislation in all the areas I've mentioned,
    plus the welfare reform bill I sent to Congress that I expect to pass
    next year to end welfare as we know it, I think they would have been
    well pleased. And I think when they see what has been done and that we
    are going in the right direction and then they see the alternative, the
    clear alternative, partisan gridlock by the Republican congressional
    leadership--I know you may say, ``Well, some Democrats didn't vote with
    you, Mr. President, on campaign finance reform

    [[Page 1717]]

    and lobby reform,'' and you would be right. But look at the record. Most
    Democrats, on these filibuster votes, voted for campaign finance reform;
    most Republicans voted against it. Most Democrats voted for political
    reform; most Republicans voted against lobby reform.
        So the American people have to make a choice first about what
    direction they want. Do they really want this Republican contract on
    America? Do they really want somebody to just tell them what they want
    to hear one more time, instead of someone who'll take over the tough
    problems? Do they really want someone to make a trillion dollars in
    promises that means higher deficits, cuts in Medicare, the crime bill
    won't be funded, the economy will be back in the dumps? I don't believe
    they do want that. They haven't had much of a chance to see the big
    picture here; they just follow the daily march of events. In the end,
    this is a decision for the people to make in '94 and in '96.
        When I showed up here, I knew that there was always a great deal of
    enthusiasm for change in the beginning. But the process of change is
    difficult, exacting; it requires discipline and confidence, and you have
    to stay at it. And there are always dark times. There has never been a
    time when the organized forces of the status quo haven't been able to
    drive down the popularity of a President who really fought for change.
    I'm not worried about that. I am not at issue here. The real issue is
    what is the future the American people wish for themselves. And I am
    looking forward to having a chance to go out and say what I think the
    direction should be and then let the people make their decision.

    Iraq

        Q. What can you tell us about the mobilization of Iraqi troops on
    the border with Kuwait? Do you think this is just bluster or do you
    think it's a real menace? And what's the United States prepared to do?
        The President. Well, first let me say we are watching it very
    closely, and we are watching the troop movements as well as the threats
    that the Iraqis have made to the U.N. mission there. I spoke with
    General Shalikashvili just before I came over here today. We are taking
    the necessary steps as a precaution to deal with this issue. I don't
    believe I should discuss them in any greater detail, but let me say, I
    think they are appropriate and necessary, and we are fully in agreement
    on the course we are taking.
        Iraq should not be able to intimidate the United Nations Security
    Council and the U.N. mission there. They should not be misled into
    thinking that they can repeat the mistakes of the past. If Iraq really
    is trying to say in some insistent way that what they want is relief
    from the U.N. sanctions, there is a clear way for them to achieve that
    relief, simply comply with the United Nations resolutions. If they
    comply with the United Nations resolutions, they can get relief from the
    sanctions. There are clear rules, clear standards. This is not a
    mystery.
        So we have taken this matter seriously. We have responded with
    necessary precautionary steps. I cannot say more than that now, and I
    don't want to read more into it than has actually happened. But I am
    confident we are doing the right thing.
        Yes, Andrea [Andrea Mitchell, NBC News].

    Foreign Policy

        Q. Over the past 20 months, Mr. President, some people would say
    that you have made very strong threats against the Bosnian aggressors;
    that you have warned North Korea not to build even one nuclear bomb, yet
    now there's acknowledgement that they at least have one, if not more;
    there have been threats against aggressors in Haiti and compromise,
    leaving the option for the leaders to stay there. To what extent would
    you say that it is fair criticism that Saddam Hussein might be testing
    you because this country has not been strong enough in responding to
    aggression and to aggressive threats?
        The President. Well, first of all, I think that if he were testing
    me based on the facts that you outlined, he would have a very gross
    misapprehension of the facts. When I ran for President and when I became
    President, I never said that the United States would take any unilateral
    action in Bosnia. And I defy you to find the time when I did say that. I
    said that we would work with our allies. The actions of force which have
    occurred in Bosnia have been largely as a result of the initiatives of
    the United States; the creation of the safe havens, the use of NATO air
    power out of its area for the first time in history have largely been
    the results of the constant and insistent pushing of the United States.
        Secondly, with regard to Korea, I think that our actions in Korea
    and our policies to date have been appropriate. They have been firm;

    [[Page 1718]]

    they have been deliberate. The implication of your remark was that they
    had a bomb-making operation going on during this administration. The
    evidence that has been cited in some press reports is quite different.
    It is that before I became President, they may have accumulated enough
    nuclear material to make a nuclear device or two. That has been the
    press reports. I fail to see how that shows a lack of resolve on our
    part since we have been here. I think we have pursued this course quite
    firmly. We were pushing the sanctions option if there was not a return
    to serious negotiations. There has been, and I hope those negotiations
    will succeed.
        In the case of Haiti, I think it is absolutely apparent to everybody
    that it was the literal imminence of the military invasion which is
    leading to a peaceful transfer of authority there. We have, after all,
    19,000-plus troops in Haiti. We are proceeding with the transfer of
    authority. It plainly was the result largely of the credible threat of
    force that a diplomatic solution permitting that threat of force to be
    instituted into the country in a peaceful rather than a warlike manner
    that resulted.
        So if those are the examples, I would think that Saddam Hussein
    would draw exactly the reverse conclusion than the one you have
    outlined. Secondly, I would remind you that when we had clear evidence
    that the Iraqis were involved in an attempt to kill former President
    Bush, the United States took decisive and appropriate action.

    Health Care Reform

        Q. Mr. President, we haven't really had a chance to hear from you
    since last week Senator Mitchell declared that there just could be no
    resolution of the health care issue. I wonder if you could give us a
    sense of how you're regrouping on health care, if you are, and whether
    or not you now think that you made a mistake by proposing such broad
    changes and whether you're now willing to accept something more
    incremental in the next Congress.
        The President. Well, I haven't had a lot of chance to think about
    exactly where we should go with this except to say that no sooner had
    Senator Mitchell issued his statement than the press reports were then
    full of, ``Oh, my goodness, we have all these problems; 1.2 million
    Americans lost their health insurance last year, 1993; the cost is still
    going up at twice the rate of inflation; people are still losing their
    choice of doctors.'' So this problem will not go away.
        I am very proud of the fact that we did get as much broad-based
    support as we did for comprehensive reform and that the basic elements
    of this reform were supported for the first time in history, I might
    add, by a heavy majority of medical providers, that--doctors and nurses
    and others--that for the first time in history we got a bill to the
    floor of both Houses of Congress. So what we will do after Congress goes
    out of session is to assess where we are and how we ought to go about
    this next year. But I fully intend to keep after it.
        Let me just say one other thing. Let me try to put this into
    perspective. We worked hard on health care for a year and a half. It's
    the most complex issue facing the Congress but one that has to be
    addressed because of its human and its budgetary and economic
    implications not only for the Government, where it's the primary fueler
    of the deficit, but for the private sector as well. We worked on it for
    a year and a half. Since I have been here, we have broken gridlock and
    passed family leave after 7 years, motor voter after 5 years, the Brady
    bill after 7 years, the crime bill after 6 years, the banking reform
    bill after 7 years. Those are just five examples of how long fundamental
    reform took in areas that were more limited and less comprehensive. I
    think we can do health care--we must do health care in less time than
    that. But if it takes one more year, I'm not discouraged by that.
        Q. Can you accept incremental reforms?
        The President. I think in the end we will have to do--we will have
    to address this comprehensively. I think the principles I outlined have
    to be addressed by the country or we'll never solve the deficit or deal
    with the problems in the private sector. And I have not had any chance
    to think about how to approach the Congress with that. I will, but I--no
    one came forward with a convincing case that we could control costs, for
    example, which is imperative, without having a mechanism to cover
    everybody.
        But there may be some other way to do it. I have always been open to
    any kind of new idea. I was disappointed that there weren't more bills
    introduced into the Congress in this last session that actually offered
    the promise of doing that. But I still think we can get it next year. I
    hope there will be a less partisan atmos-

    [[Page 1719]]

    phere. I hope the needs of the American people will be put first. And I
    intend to come back full force trying to do that.
        Yes, Peter [Peter Maer, NBC Mutual Radio].

    President's Approval Ratings

        Q. Mr. President, going back to the upcoming campaign, as you
    yourself joked, I guess, at a reception earlier today, warm welcomes are
    increasingly rare. How do you analyze your own low approval ratings? And
    what's your advice and reaction to members of your own party who are
    running away from the administration's very record?
        The President. Well, the record is a good one. And there is ample
    evidence that if people know the record, they respond to it. I think
    what--a lot of them are frustrated by the fact that the American people
    don't know it. All I can tell you is, you analyze it. You figure it out.
    Generally, there is a period of drag that sets in on Presidents at
    midterm. It happened to President Reagan in '82; it's happened in other
    cases. But also I think when people know what the choices are, they're
    in a better position to make those choices. I don't think they know that
    today.
        My only concern is that the American people not go out and vote
    against what they're for and vote for what they're against. I think the
    American people wanted us to bring this deficit down. I think the
    American people wanted us to invest more in the education and training
    of the work force. I think the American people wanted us to make college
    more affordable for middle class people. I think the American people
    wanted us to pass the crime bill. I think the American people wanted us
    to pass campaign finance reform and lobby reform. That's what I think
    they wanted.
        So what the American people should do is to say, ``Who voted which
    way? What do I want for the future? Do I want to keep fighting in these
    directions?'' and say, ``Okay, Congress did some good things, and they
    failed to do some things they certainly should have done.'' Or do they
    want to go for this contract that the Republicans have put out on
    America, a trillion dollars in promises, just like we had in the
    eighties, which explodes the deficits, cuts Medicare, shifts jobs
    overseas, and puts us back in the ditch? I don't think that that's the
    choice they'll make if they understand the choice before them.

    Iraq

        Q. Mr. President, getting back to the situation in Iraq, could you
    tell us: How many Iraqi troops are moving? How many troops are involved?
    Which are those troops? Are they members of the Republican Guard? How
    far north of Kuwait are they right now? And the second part of that
    question: Tariq Aziz, the Deputy Prime Minister of Iraq, said today that
    Iraq is complying with all of these U.N. sanctions. What specifically
    has Iraq not done that you wanted to do that would result in its being
    allowed to export oil?
        The President. Well, I think the Iraqis are well aware of what the
    United States believes in terms of their sanctions compliance and to the
    extent to which they are working with the United Nations mission there.
    And I would remind you that there are other United Nations resolutions
    over and above the weapons inspections ones that are usually discussed.
    So I think that the Iraqis are quite well aware of what the United
    Nations expects them to do to lift the sanctions. And if they will do
    it, then no one will stand in their way of lifting the sanctions.
        In terms of the military situation, I think I have said all it is
    appropriate for me to say at this moment. We know what they're doing. We
    have responded with necessary steps. We will watch it very closely. We
    will report more as events unfold.
        Yes, Sarah [Sarah McClendon, McClendon News Service].

    Arkansas Airbase

        Q. Sir, the Republicans are trying to blame you for the existence of
    a small airbase at Mena, Arkansas. This base was set up by George Bush
    and Oliver North and the CIA to help the Iran-contras, and they brought
    in planeload after planeload of cocaine there for sale in the United
    States. And then they took the money and bought weapons and took them
    back to the contras, all of which was illegal, as you know, under the
    Boland act. But tell me, did they tell you that this had to be in
    existence because of national security?
        The President. Well, let me answer the question. No, they didn't
    tell me anything about it. They didn't say anything to me about it. The
    airport in question and all the events in question were the subject of
    State and Federal

    [[Page 1720]]

    inquiries. It was primarily a matter for Federal jurisdiction; the State
    really had next to nothing to do with it. A local prosecutor did conduct
    an investigation based on what was within the jurisdiction of State law.
    The rest of it was under the jurisdiction of the United States Attorneys
    who were appointed successively by previous administrations. We had
    nothing, zero, to do with it. And everybody who's ever looked into it
    knows that.

    Iraq

        Q. Saddam Hussein has misread the intentions of American Presidents
    before. Without going any further than you care to into what may be the
    nature of these particular troop movements, what can you say to him
    today to make sure that he does not, because of your situation in Haiti,
    believe that you are perhaps vulnerable in the way that he thought your
    predecessor was vulnerable and do something that you don't want him to
    do?
        The President. First of all, let me--I rarely do this to any of you,
    but I thank you for asking the question in that way because I do think
    President Bush's intentions were misunderstood, not because of anything
    President Bush did. And perhaps our position here might be
    misunderstood, not so much for the reasons that in your question were
    implied but because we do have troops in Haiti and we are otherwise
    occupied.
        Saddam Hussein should be under no illusions. The United States is
    not otherwise occupied. We remain committed to the United Nations
    resolutions. We remain committed to the policy we followed before. The
    mistakes of the past should not be repeated. On the other hand, I would
    encourage you not to inflame this situation beyond the facts. Let us
    deal with this on the facts. We are monitoring what has actually
    happened. We are taking what we believe is factually appropriate steps,
    the necessary steps that any prudent administration would take under the
    same circumstances.
        So let us watch this concern, but let us not blow it out of
    proportion. Let's just deal with the facts as they unfold. But it would
    be a grave mistake for Saddam Hussein to believe that for any reason the
    United States would have weakened its resolve on the same issues that
    involved us in that conflict just a few years ago.

    The Economy

        Q. Mr. President, to go back to domestic matters for a moment. You
    mentioned looking at the record. I want to ask you about one part of the
    record that does not look so good. The Census Bureau reported that
    through the first year of your term, through the end of 1993, median
    income has gone down. The rich have continued to get richer, the poor
    have continued to get poorer, income inequality has grown, precisely the
    trends that you singled out as the reasons you were opposed to what
    happened in the eighties. Do you believe that you can reverse these
    trends in the next 2 years of your term? And if you cannot, how do you
    think you'll be able to convince the American people that your
    Presidency has been a success?
        The President. Well, first of all, let me--let's put this in
    context. And that was a fair question, I think, properly asked. These
    trends have been developing for nearly 20 years, as you pointed out. I
    don't think anyone thought I could turn them around in a year or that I
    alone could turn them around.
        And let me try to be clear about where I think responsibility lies
    here, because I don't think it's fair to just say that the previous
    administration is completely responsible for these trends. I think their
    policies aggravated them to some extent but, more importantly, did not
    address them, which I think is the most important thing.
        What is happening in America that would lead incomes to go down or
    be stagnant among people who actually work full time? And how could it
    continue even in a period of economic expansion? Indeed, how could it
    have continued through expansions for 20 years? That is the question.
    The answer, it seems to me, is to be found in the following facts.
        Number one, for about 30 years we have had a problem developing
    primarily in our urban areas and our very rural areas where there was
    disinvestment of economic opportunity coupled with the breakdown of
    traditional family structures and community structures, so you had a lot
    of people growing up and living in places where the only jobs available
    were low-wage jobs or where there were relatively--there were too few
    good jobs. That's been going on for about 30 years.
        Number two, compounding that, for about 20 years, American jobs
    overall, certainly hourly

    [[Page 1721]]

    wage jobs, have been set more and more and more in the context of a
    global economy, so that to whatever extent a person has a job in America
    that can also be done by somebody somewhere else living on a much, much
    lower wage, that person will be under great pressure either to lose the
    job or to have the wage lowered or at least never to get a wage
    increase.
        What is the answer to the problem and how might it be fixed? I think
    there are three answers, and we're pursuing all of them as best we can.
    First, increase the level of education and training of the work force
    and make it more permanent for a lifetime. That's why we had the
    apprenticeship program; that's why we have the college loan program;
    that's why I'm trying to pass the reemployment system legislation that I
    introduced this year, but I think it will pass next year. In other
    words, develop a system to raise the skill level of the work force and
    the wages will rise.
        Secondly, follow policies that will change the job mix in America,
    that will tend to get more high-wage jobs here. That's why I believe so
    strongly in expanding trade. In the United States when we expand trade,
    it drives the wages up, up.
        The third thing we have to do is to bring free enterprise to the
    inner cities and the isolated rural areas. That's what the empowerment
    zones are about; that's what those community development banks to make
    loans to low income people are about. Will that all change the income
    distribution in 2 years or 3 years? I don't know. I know we've been
    going in this direction for 20 years, and we can certainly change it
    back the other way in less than 20 years. But again I will say, we have
    to stay on this course. If we change course in this midterm election and
    decide that instead of investing in education, expanding trade, and
    empowering the inner cities and poor people, we're going to explode the
    deficit, give another tax cut we can't pay for, and cut Medicare--and,
    by the way, cut all other programs, including education and training and
    the crime bill--we'll be going in the wrong direction.
        So the voters are going to decide whether this is the right
    direction, and I hope that they will decide that it is.

    HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros

        Q. Did you know when you nominated Secretary Cisneros that he was
    making payments to a former mistress? If you did, did you ask any
    questions about them? And finally, do you think the recent controversy
    about them undermines his effectiveness in your Cabinet?
        The President. We knew what the facts were at the time and the legal
    counsel or the people--excuse me--who were handling it for me reviewed
    it, decided that there was nothing illegal or inappropriate about what
    was done by Secretary Cisneros, something that was fully known by his
    family. And no, I don't think it undermines his effectiveness. I mean,
    what he did in his past he's dealt with, and he's been pretty
    forthright. He's been, in fact, I think painfully forthright. And I
    think he has been an extraordinarily gifted HUD Secretary. He has
    proposed initiatives heretofore unseen to house the homeless, to empower
    people who are stuck in these public housing projects, to sweep the
    projects of weapons and drugs. He is doing the job that I hired him to
    do for the American people. And as long as he is doing that job at a
    high level, I think he ought to be permitted to continue to do it.

    Cuba

        Q. Mr. President, the Haitians in Guantanamo at least knew that you
    were working hard to get them out of there. What is the hope for the
    Cubans in Guantanamo?
        The President. I'm sorry, what was the first part of your question?
        Q. The Haitians in Guantanamo, they knew that you were working hard
    to get them out of there. What is the hope for the Cubans in Guantanamo?
        The President. Well, we're working on that, and we're talking to
    them about that. As you know, some of them are going to Panama; some of
    them will have to decide what it is they wish to do. Of course, any of
    them who go back to Cuba would be eligible to apply to come to the
    United States legally now under a much higher ceiling. And we think a
    substantial number of them would be in the category of people who could
    get in because of their family connections in the United States and the
    broadened definition of family connections under the new agreement,
    which raises the ceiling to 20,000 people we're taking in. Also, some of
    them are children or otherwise vulnerable, and we're looking at them to
    see whether there should be any special considerations for them.
        Yes, Mike [Mike McKee, CONUS].

    [[Page 1722]]

    Middle Class Tax Cut

        Q. Mr. President, you promised the middle class a tax cut 2 years
    ago during the campaign. Will you be able to keep that promise in the
    next 2 years?
        The President. I can't give you an answer today because it depends
    upon how well the economy goes and what other considerations there are
    with the budget. And let me just give you an example of that.
        In this budget, because we began with a deficit that was bigger than
    we expected, the middle class tax cut essentially was capped at 15
    million families, comprising about 50 million Americans or only about 20
    percent of our population. Would I like to do better than that? Yes, I
    would, but not at the expense of the economic recovery for the same
    middle class. So what we are looking at now in the context of the
    welfare reform legislation, the child support enforcement legislation,
    the other things we're trying to do to strengthen families is whether
    and to what extent we can address that issue. What are the revenue
    projections for the next 2 years? What are the other demands on State
    spending--Government spending, I mean? How much can we control the other
    costs? What do we absolutely have to do for defense? Because that's very
    important, as we've all seen in the questions you've asked me in this
    press conference.
        So I cannot give you an answer. Do I think it should be done? I
    still do. I don't think--the Federal tax system is much fairer than it
    was when I became President because of the tax cut for the working
    families just above the poverty line and also because something we often
    forget: We made 90 percent of the small businesses in this country
    eligible for a tax cut last year in the economic plan. Any small
    business with a taxable income below $100,000 was also eligible for a
    tax cut.
        So I think we're doing better. But the Tax Code is not where it
    ought to be. And middle class families, especially those with children,
    I think should look forward to a little more fairness, but I can't say
    how and how much yet.

    Midterm Elections

        Q. Despite the economic expansion and the record you've been citing
    here today, the political mood in the country remains extremely sour.
    Your poll ratings are very low, but you're far more popular than the
    people up on Capitol Hill. How can you go out to the public, as you're
    going to do in the next couple of weeks, and argue that given the rate
    of failure, the record of failure you cited today, the people up there
    should be reelected and that staying the course that is underway right
    now is good for the country?
        The President. Well, it's easy to argue that staying the course
    we're underway right now is good for the country because these 2 years
    compare so favorably with the previous several in terms of economic
    direction, investment in people, and making Government work for ordinary
    folks. That's easy to argue.
        What I think is important is to take the message to the American
    people in terms of what's good for them and what changes they want. In
    other words, the election should be about them and their future and what
    changes they want, not necessarily about whether the parties are ideal
    or perfect or whatever.
        We're going through a period of change. The American people are not
    satisfied either with the rate of change or with the certainty that it
    will occur. And they, like everybody else--I mean, after all, you
    can't--the people are of more than one mind on more than one issue. That
    is, all these interest groups that everybody reviles when they want
    campaign finance reform or lobby reform are the same people that have
    the money and the organized communications ability to change the
    attitudes of the people out there on issue after issue after issue.
        So the important thing, the message I have to say is, what is the
    direction you want? Do you want continued progress in the economy? Do
    you want a Government that takes on tough problems like crime and
    welfare reform and health care? Do you want a Government that does
    things for ordinary people, like the family leave law or making college
    loans more available to middle class people? Or do you want this
    contract, which says clearly, ``Give us power, and we'll take you back
    to the eighties. We'll give you a trillion dollars' worth of promises.
    We'll promise everybody a tax cut. We'll explode the deficit. We'll cut
    Medicare. We'll never fund the crime bill. But we will have told you
    what you wanted to hear.'' I think the American people will vote for the
    future and not the past, and that's my hope and belief.

    [[Page 1723]]

    Health Care Reform

        Q. Mr. President, a question about bipartisanship. Looking back on
    the health care reform effort, is there anything you think you could
    have done differently to forge a consensus? For instance, do you think
    it would have helped if you'd brought Republicans earlier on in the
    process up to the White House to negotiate the way you did at the end of
    the crime bill fight? And looking ahead to next year when you're going
    to be pushing health care reform and other issues through a more
    Republican Congress, is there anything that you plan to do differently
    to forge a coalition for governing?
        The President. Well, let me say, I'm sure that there are some things
    I could have done differently. You know, I never dealt with Congress
    before last year, and I'm still learning all the time. I would point out
    that the Congressional Quarterly said that last year that the Congress
    and the President worked together more successfully than at any time
    since World War II, except in President Eisenhower's first year and
    President Johnson's second year. So I felt that we accomplished quite a
    great deal.
        When we were putting this health care bill together, there was a lot
    of consultation with Republicans. When we wanted to present a proposed
    bill and say, ``Now, how would you like to change this?'' we were told
    that they had their own group working on health care, and they wanted to
    present a bill, and then we would get together. So I said, that's fine;
    I understand that. Then Senator Chafee, to his everlasting credit, came
    up with a bill that had two dozen Republican Senators on it that would
    have covered all Americans and controlled costs. By the time we got down
    to serious negotiations, instead of two dozen Senators for universal
    health care and controlled costs, there were zero. They all left. I
    mean, Senator Chafee was still there, but everybody had abandoned his
    bill. We had one Republican Congressman saying they'd all been
    instructed not to work with us. We had one Republican Senator quoted in
    one of your papers saying that they had killed it, now they had to keep
    their fingerprints off of it.
        So I am more than happy to work with them in any way I can. I do not
    believe we have a monopoly on wisdom. Let me say, let me give you some
    evidence of my good faith on being flexible about changing. I have given
    State after State after State waiver from Federal regulations to pursue
    universal coverage and health care costs control on their own. Tennessee
    has done some very exciting things and, by the way, gotten some very
    impressive results, I understand. We just approved Florida to do this.
    We're in the process of approving more States to move forward. I am very
    flexible on how we get this done. And if the American people are worried
    that the Federal Government has too much emphasis and they want more for
    the States, fine, let's talk about that. But if there's going to be a
    bipartisan effort, it has to be good faith on both sides.
        I like working with Republicans. I proved that in the NAFTA fight,
    proved it in the crime bill fight. I will prove it in the health care
    fight. But it can't be a kind of situation where every time I move to
    them, they move further the other way. That's the only thing I would
    say.
        Yes, sir, last question.

    Secretary of Agriculture

        Q. Mr. President, for Secretary of Agriculture, will you be looking
    for someone with farm experience, or will you be looking for somebody
    like Secretary Espy, who has heavy congressional experience?
        The President. Well, the most important thing, I think, is someone
    who really understands how to deal with the agriculture community,
    understands the interests, and is committed to agriculture and to
    farmers and to rural development. And let me say that, if I might, in
    closing, that I also want somebody who will faithfully implement the
    reforms that Secretary Espy has started.
        We passed a dramatic restructuring of the Department of Agriculture.
    We're going to take down the number of employees by at least 7,500. We
    have seen an Agriculture Department that has been extremely active in
    helping farmers deal with disasters, that has tried to help the farmers
    in the Middle West with their production problems, that has given an
    enormous amount of emphasis to rural development. So this Agriculture
    Department, under this Secretary of Agriculture, has established a lot
    of credibility with the American people who are in agriculture,
    including selling rice to Japan for the first time, selling apples from
    Washington to Japan for the first time, doing things that haven't been
    done for a long time for hard-

    [[Page 1724]]

    working, grassroots farmers, whether they're Republicans or Democrats or
    independents.
        And when I came here, out of a rural background, out of a farming
    background, that's what I desperately wanted to do for the agricultural
    community. And so when I pick another Agriculture Secretary, that is a
    standard that Mike Espy set that must be met for the next Agriculture
    Secretary.
        Thank you very much.

    Note: The President's 73d news conference began at 2 p.m. in the East
    Room at the White House.