    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: William J. Clinton (1994, Book II)]
    [August 3, 1994]
    [Pages 1417-1427]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    The President's News Conference
    August 3, 1994

        The President. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Tonight I want to
    speak with you about crime, health care, and the progress of our
    national economic strategy. As I have said so many times, the central
    mission of this administration, renewing the American dream, requires us
    to restore economic growth, rebuild American communities, empower
    individual citizens to take personal responsibility for their own
    futures, and make Government work for ordinary citizens again. We are
    making progress.
        Remember, we are about, now, a year from the time when Congress
    passed our economic recovery plan. I remember then that our opponents
    said if that plan passed the sky would fall, unemployment would go up,
    the deficit would explode. Well, they were wrong. Look at the facts. We
    cut $255 billion in spending; raised tax rates on only 1.2 percent of
    the wealthiest Americans; cut taxes for 15 million working families of
    modest incomes; made 90 percent of our small businesses eligible for a
    tax cut and 20 million Americans available or eligible to refinance
    their college loans at lower interest rates. Now the deficit is going
    down 3 years in a row for the first time since Harry Truman was
    President. We've got almost 4 million new jobs, very low inflation, a
    1\1/2\ percent drop in unemployment.
        There were other skeptics later who said the sky would fall if we
    passed the North American Free Trade Agreement. They, too, were wrong.
    We can see this year that automobile sales, for example, to Mexico are
    growing at five times the rate of last year, and our trade with Mexico
    is growing more rapidly than that with any other country. And while I
    know an awful lot of people are still hurting, the road ahead looks
    good. According to Fortune Magazine, for the first time in a decade, all
    50 States will expand their private economies next year. Let me say that
    again. For the first time in a decade, all 50 States will experience
    economic growth next year.
        None of this came without a fight. And now we're involved in two
    more historic fights. The first is on crime. We have a chance to pass
    the toughest, smartest crime bill in the history of the United States
    after 6 years of bickering over it. Let me remind you of what that bill
    will do. It will put 100,000 police officers on the streets of our
    communities, a 20 percent increase. It will make ``three strikes and
    you're out'' the law of the land. It will ban deadly assault weapons and
    handgun ownership by minors. It will provide tougher sentences for
    violent criminals and more prisons to put them in. And we've listened to
    police, prosecutors, and community leaders who tell us that they need
    much more for prevention programs, to give our young people something to
    say yes to as well as something to say no to.
        Believe it or not, there are still special interests here in
    Washington trying to derail this crime bill. But we are fighting them
    and the American people will win this fight, too.
        Still, the recovery we are building, the communities we are trying
    to make safer, the individual citizens we're trying to empower to
    compete and win in the global economy, all of these people are at risk
    unless and until we reform health care.
        Our system still costs too much and covers too few. It is actually
    going in the wrong direction. In the past 5 years, 5 million more
    Americans have lost their health insurance, almost all

    [[Page 1418]]

    of them working people and their children. We're fighting for health
    care reform not just for those who don't have health insurance, but for
    those who do have it and who could lose it because they have to change
    jobs, because someone in their family gets sick, because they simply
    have to pay too much for it. They deserve better, and we're fighting to
    see that they get it.
        We want to guarantee private, not Government, insurance for every
    American. The plan I originally proposed has been changed, and much of
    it for the better. The proposals before Congress are less bureaucratic.
    They're more flexible. They provide more protection and support for
    small business. They contain a reasonable phase-in time, over a period
    of years, to make sure we get it right. No bureaucrat will pick your
    doctor. You can keep your own plan or pick a better one. This approach
    controls Government spending but relies on competitive forces in the
    free market to restrain the growth of private health insurance premiums.
    Much of it has changed for the better. But one rock-solid principle
    remains: private insurance guaranteed for everyone.
        We know it will work. For 20 years Hawaii has required employers and
    employees to split the cost of insuring all employees. People still pick
    their doctors there. Health care is getting better there. The economy is
    doing well there. And almost everything in Hawaii is more expensive than
    it is here on the mainland, except for health insurance, where small
    businesses pay health insurance costs that are, on average, 30 percent
    lower than they are in the rest of America.
        Now, after 60 years of trying and 18 months of sometimes trying
    debate, the question of guaranteeing coverage for all Americans has come
    to the floor of the Congress and will be decided in the next few weeks
    in a few critical votes. The votes will be soon and they will be close.
    I want to urge the American people to tell their Senators and
    Congressmen to put aside partisanship and think of the American people
    and their fundamental interests and needs. We have an historic
    opportunity. We dare not pass it up. This is a fight for the American
    people we also have to win.

    Health Care Legislation

        Q. Mr. President, in January, you waved a pen and said you would
    veto legislation that didn't guarantee every American private health
    insurance that could never be taken away. Now you've indicated you will
    support a Senate bill that does not guarantee coverage and sets a goal
    of 95 percent, leaving millions of Americans uninsured. Are you now
    revising your veto threat? And doesn't the fact that you indicated you'd
    support this less ambitious Senate plan make it harder for House Members
    to go along with a bill that's more like your original proposal?
        The President. Well, first of all, I disagree with your
    characterization of the Mitchell bill. I believe it will achieve
    universal coverage for all Americans, and that is the one criteria I
    have set out. What the Mitchell bill says is, is that if you make a
    dramatic amount of progress in a short time--that is, if you move from
    where we are now, at about 83 percent of coverage, up to 95 percent in a
    few years--that is evidence that we can achieve full coverage in the
    near future without requiring insurance to be bought. That is what that
    bill says.
        If it is deficit neutral, and if it is passed in the way that it is,
    I believe it will achieve full coverage, because what the bill also says
    is, if we don't make that amount of progress in a few years, there will
    be a requirement on the Congress to provide for full coverage, and if
    the Congress doesn't act, then automatically employers and employees
    will be required to purchase insurance. I believe it does meet the
    objective I set out in the State of the Union Address, and I would sign
    it.
        Q. What about the second part of the question, Mr. President?
    Doesn't it make the fact that you've now indicated support for a less
    ambitious Senate bill--won't that make it harder to persuade House
    people to go along with a stronger bill?
        The President. Well, what the Mitchell bill does is to put the
    employer requirement at the end of the process, rather than at the
    beginning. And Senator Mitchell is convinced that that is the most
    ambitious bill he can pass, but that it meets the requirement; and it
    says to the people who have not been supportive of our approach, ``Look,
    we'll try it in a competitive way first, and if that doesn't work, then
    we'll have a requirement.'' I think the same debate is going on in the
    House.
        My own view is that the questions now should shift to the members of
    the other party, to the congressional Republicans. At one time, when

    [[Page 1419]]

    we started this debate and I said I wanted universal coverage, many
    Members in Congress stood up and clapped, of both parties. At one time
    there were 2 dozen Republican Senators on a bill to give universal
    coverage to all Americans. They have all abandoned that bill. We have
    reached out to them, as was our responsibility to try to work together
    in a bipartisan fashion, and every time we have done it, they have moved
    away.
        So the questions now should shift to them: Are we going to cover all
    Americans or not? Are we going to have a bill that provides health care
    security or not? If you don't like our approaches in the Senate and the
    House, what is your alternative? That's what I hope we'll see.

    Haiti

        Q. Mr. President, on Haiti, you sought and received the approval of
    the United Nations to launch an invasion if necessary. Why do you need a
    green light from the international community and not from the American
    Congress? Will you ask lawmakers to take it up?
        The President. Well first, let me say that I agree with the
    resolution adopted by the Senate today that the action of the United
    Nations should not be interpreted as an approval by Congress. It has no
    impact on what Congress would do.
        Second, let me say I think all Americans should be pleased that the
    United Nations has stated with a strong, firm voice--that includes many
    voices from our own area--that we should keep on the table the option of
    forcibly removing the dictators who had usurped power in Haiti and who
    have trampled human rights and murdered innocent people.
        Now, let me remind you all of what our interests are there. We have
    Americans living and working there, several thousands of them. We have a
    million Haitian Americans in this country who have family and friends
    there. We have an interest in promoting democracy in our hemisphere. We
    have an interest in stabilizing those democracies that are in our
    hemisphere. For the first time ever, 33 of the 35 nations in the
    Caribbean and Central and South America are governed by popularly
    elected leaders, but many of those democracies are fragile. As we look
    ahead to the next century, we need a strong and democratic Latin America
    and Central America and Caribbean with which to trade and grow.
        So those are our fundamental interests. I would welcome the support
    of the Congress, and I hope that I will have that. Like my predecessors
    of both parties, I have not agreed that I was constitutionally mandated
    to get it. But at this moment I think we have done all we need to do
    because I don't want to cross that bridge until we come to it. We have
    kept force on the table. We have continued to move it up as an option as
    the dictators there have been more obstinate. But it is premature, in my
    judgment, to go beyond that now.

    Whitewater Hearings

        Q. President Clinton, a number of political analysts, including some
    who are quite friendly to you, have said that the focus on the
    Whitewater affair has both undercut public confidence in you and also in
    your ability to get your programs through Congress. Do you agree with
    that? And what impact do you think Whitewater has had, particularly with
    the hearings this week?
        The President. Well, I would think, first of all, in the last couple
    of weeks it should have been very helpful to the administration because
    we have seen three reports: one from the Special Counsel, Mr. Fiske, who
    has said there was absolutely no violation of the law in any of these
    contracts; and then two, one by the Office of Government Ethics and one
    by Mr. Cutler, the White House Counsel, saying that no ethical rule was
    violated. Secondly, we have been fully cooperative as we always said we
    would be. So from my point of view, we've done all we could.
        Now, I can't say what the impact has been. All I can tell you is
    that I said we would cooperate fully, and we have. I have said
    repeatedly that I did nothing wrong, and I didn't. And I have continued
    to work for the welfare and the interest of the American people.
        Almost all--I've watched none of these hearings. I've not kept up
    with them. I've been working on jobs and health care and the crime bill
    and peace in the Middle East and doing the things I was hired to do by
    the American people. They will have to make up their mind when all the
    dust clears what they think the impact of it is. But I'm convinced we're
    having a very productive time. I think we'll get this crime bill. We
    have health care bills providing universal coverage on the floor of both
    Houses

    [[Page 1420]]

    of Congress for the first time in the history of the Republic. No
    President since Harry Truman has been able to do that, and many have
    tried, including President Nixon. So I feel good about the progress
    we're making, and that's all I can worry about. I've got to get up there
    every day and go to work and try to help the American people.
        Q. Mr. President, Roger Altman ran into a real buzz saw in the
    Whitewater hearings, and even some Democrats are questioning his
    truthfulness. Does he have the credibility to continue as number two at
    Treasury? Are you going to ask for his resignation?
        The President. Well, let me say, first of all, he spoke with the
    Senate committee for more than 10 hours yesterday--that's a very long
    time--and he answered all of their questions. He then spoke for several
    hours with the House committee today. In that, he admitted that he had
    not given all the information to them in a timely fashion that he should
    have. But he said repeatedly that he had not willfully misled them.
        I would like to emphasize, first of all, I do not countenance
    anybody being less than forthright with the Congress. There have been
    many people, including people that are not particularly friends of our
    administration, who have talked about how we have been much more
    cooperative with these investigations than previous administrations have
    been. That's what I told the American people I would do, and that is
    what I have done.
        But if you look at the facts, let's go back to the fundamental
    facts: There was no violation of the law; there was no violation of any
    ethics rule. The Secretary of the Treasury has pointed out that Mr.
    Altman has done a superb job in his position. He was critical to the
    passage of our economic program that produced almost 4 million jobs in
    18 months. He was important in the passage of our trade initiatives; he
    has done a good job there. The Secretary of the Treasury has confidence
    in him, and so do I. And I think he has now answered all the questions
    that the Senate could possibly have about an incident that involved no
    violation of the law and no violation of ethics.

    Haiti

        Q. Mr. President, to come back to Haiti for a moment, you mentioned
    a number of American interests that we have in Haiti. But what involves
    national security, if it's at stake? Is there anything in Haiti that
    involves our security that would require us to go in and invade the
    country?
        The President. Well first of all, I think our security is caught up
    in whether people in this hemisphere are moving toward democracy and
    open markets and observation of the rule of law. And when one country in
    our hemisphere, on our back door, has an election, votes for a leader,
    then that leader is deposed by people who murder, who kill, who rape,
    who maim, who throw the human rights monitors out, who now won't even
    let people leave who have been approved for leaving, it seems to me that
    if you look at the possible ramifications of that on other countries in
    the Caribbean and in Central and South America, that is where our
    security interest is.
        I can tell you that as I was calling other nations to get them to
    help in the Safe Haven project, to be willing to take some Haitians who
    leave, that is the thing that other leaders mentioned to me over and
    over again, ``We know that many of our democracies are fragile, but
    we're moving in the right direction. We don't want to see Latin America
    take one more wrong turn. We're moving right; we want to stay right.''
    And I think that is profoundly important to us.

    North Korea

        Q. Mr. President, in just another few weeks we will know whether
    North Korea has transformed more fuel rods into weapons-grade plutonium.
    What are the consequences if North Korea does make more weapons-grade
    plutonium, and are you prepared to carry out that threat?
        The President. I think I can do no better than to reiterate what I
    have always said, that North Korea's fate is still in its own hands; it
    must decide what it own future should be. I think at this time when
    North Korea has shown a willingness to stop reprocessing and to stop
    refueling, and when our talks are about to begin again next Friday, we
    should take the facts as we have them and keep working for progress.
        This is an issue which is very important to the long-term security
    of the United States. The question of a country that belongs to the
    nonproliferation regime deciding to become a nuclear power, the prospect
    that nuclear capacity could be transferred either by design or by
    accident to other countries or to rogue groups, this

    [[Page 1421]]

    is a very serious thing for our long-term security. And we have spent a
    lot of time to make sure we are firm and deliberate; but that firmness,
    that deliberateness has led to these talks, which were interrupted when
    Kim Il-song passed away. We start the talks again on Friday. The
    agreement the North Koreans made is still holding about refueling and
    reprocessing. I think we should focus on that now and keep working for a
    satisfactory conclusion.
        Q. Are you confident that we will know whether they violate these
    agreements?
        The President. Yes, I am. I believe that. I have no reason to
    believe that we will not know if that agreement is violated.

    President's Approval Rating

        Q. Mr. President, as you pointed out in your opening statement, the
    economy has been growing. Last week we saw the peace agreement, or the
    framework for a peace agreement between Israel and Jordan. Yet your
    approval rating continues to slide in the polls. To what do you
    attribute that? Is it the message? Is it the messengers? And a related
    part of that question: Has Leon Panetta made any recommendations to you
    for changes in the White House to improve things here?
        The President. Well, first of all, I'm not the best judge of that.
    Maybe I'm just not as good a talker as you folks thought I was when I
    got elected President. Maybe there's so much going on it's hard for
    anything specific to get through. Maybe it's partly a function of the
    times in which we live.
        Whenever we move from one historic era into another--at the end of
    World War I, at the end of World War II, moving into the cold war; now
    at the end of the cold war, moving toward the 21st century--our people
    are filled with a mixture of hope and concern. Almost every American is
    genuinely concerned about something now, whether it's their economic
    circumstances, their health care, insecurity over crime, concern about
    what's happening to the fabric of our society with so many children
    being born out of wedlock and so many families breaking down. There's
    something gripping the concern of most Americans. And when people have
    these balances going on, hope or fear, it is sometimes difficult to get
    through with the hope and the progress.
        I can't worry about that. All I can do is to show up for work here
    every day and, as I said today to the folks who rode the buses for
    health care, try to make this the home office of the ``American
    association for ordinary citizens.'' And if I keep doing that, I think
    that the future will take care of itself. My only concern is to continue
    to be able to be effective, and that's what I will work for.
        Brit [Brit Hume, ABC News].

    Health Care Legislation

        Q. Mr. President, on health care, there were indications on Capitol
    Hill today that time is now becoming an important factor; that there's a
    need to get legislative language, there's a need to get various
    budgetary estimates, and that it may be very difficult to get a vote
    before the end of this month. Are you prepared now to insist that
    Congress remain in session and not take its recess until there is action
    in both Houses?
        The President. Well, my belief is that Senator Mitchell has done
    enough work on his bill, and that the House bill has been out there in
    its basic framework, so that the recess will probably have to be
    delayed, but could still occur. I do believe that they should and will
    stay here until they can take action on those bills, each House on its
    own bill. I believe that will happen, and I think that's a good thing,
    because that's a way of their putting the American people first, which
    is something I think should be done.
        Dan [Dan Balz, Washington Post].
        Q. A two-part question on health care: When you put your own health
    care plan forward, you said you wanted to build on the private insurance
    industry. The House bill that Congressman Gephardt has put forward could
    turn control of almost half the health care system over to the Federal
    Government. Why do you support that approach, as opposed to your
    original idea? And secondly, is Senator Mitchell's bill now your new
    bottom line, your new minimum? If there's anything less than that coming
    out of the Senate, would that draw a veto?
        The President. Let me answer the second question. My goal has been
    what it has always been. I want a system that will take us to universal
    coverage. If it takes a few years to get there, that's fine with me. We
    don't want to mess it up; we want to have the chance to continue to work
    and strengthen the program along the way.
        In the case of the House bill, as you know, I have always thought
    that we ought to allow

    [[Page 1422]]

    every American to buy into the Federal Employees Health Insurance bill,
    which is essentially a private plan. The House bill offers a Medicare
    program, if you will, like the senior citizens buy into now, but only if
    people decide not to buy private health insurance. So it still has a
    preference for private health insurance, and I think that is consistent
    with what I think we should do. I still believe the best thing to do is
    to build more on the system that most of us have now.
        Q. Which approach do you favor, the Mitchell approach or the
    Gephardt approach?
        The President. Well, I'm not going to get into being a legislator.
    My job is to try to keep the American people's eye on the ball and to
    try to keep the Members of Congress working together. What I favor is
    now for our friends on the other side of the aisle and all the Democrats
    to get together, think about the interests of the American people and
    come up with a program that solves the problem.
        Let me just say, if I might just stop for a moment and say I think
    it is terribly important in this debate when these issues tend to be
    complex and detailed to keep our eye on the central reality here, which
    is how do we solve the problem? I asked two of the people that rode
    those buses to come here tonight. I want them to just stand up, Daniel
    Lumley and John Cox.
        And let me answer your question this way. Daniel Lumley was a young
    man who lost his arm riding a motorcycle. He wants to be a
    schoolteacher, he wants to be a public servant; he wants to know that
    he'll always be able to get health insurance when he works, even though
    he has a very apparent preexisting condition. Like millions and millions
    of Americans with disabilities, he can work and do fine and pay taxes--
    which releases the burden on the rest of us--if he can get insurance.
        John Cox left his job with health insurance and went to work for a
    Christian radio station because he thought it was his mission in life to
    do that. He thought he was covered by health insurance and he thought
    his employer was paying it, and he wasn't. When his wife came down sick,
    because they didn't have health insurance even though he was working,
    they didn't go to the doctor. They just talked to a doctor over the
    phone for months and months. Finally, she became so ill they had to see
    a doctor at an emergency room. By that time she had cancer that had
    progressed to the point when it could not be fully treated. He took this
    bus ride across the country when his wife was dying, because she wanted
    him to. She died during the bus ride. He buried her 2 days ago, and he
    came up here today to be with us. My answer to you is if the program
    works for John Cox and for Daniel Lumley, I'll be for it.

    Whitewater Hearings

        Q. Mr. President, if I could ask you a specific question on these
    Whitewater hearings, which I know you're not watching, but many of us
    were watching until 2 a.m. in the morning last night. One of the
    problems that Roger Altman, the Deputy Treasury Secretary, seems to have
    is that he didn't recuse himself or step down as chairman of the
    Resolution Trust Corporation because he feared that there could be some
    sort of appearance of a conflict. He had decided to step down, but was
    talked out of it by Bernard Nussbaum, your former Counsel, and other
    White House aides. That seems to be the source of a lot of problems that
    he has. And Josh Steiner, the Treasury Chief of Staff, says that you and
    the First Lady were furious that Roger Altman told the New York Times
    editorial writer about this decision before you learned about it. What
    was so bad about his decision to recuse himself if there was nothing
    that he could have done to interfere in the RTC investigation of Madison
    Guaranty Savings and Loan?
        The President. First of all, I never would promote anybody
    interfering in any investigation. I welcome this investigation, and it
    will vindicate what I have been saying all along. I had no problem with
    Mr. Altman deciding of his own independent judgment and consultation
    with his superior, the Secretary of the Treasury, that he ought to
    recuse himself. The only thing that upset me was I did not want to see
    him stampeded into it if it wasn't the right thing to do. I just wanted
    the decision to be made on the merits. I think it's a pretty simple,
    straightforward position I had, and I think it was the right one.

    Baseball Strike

        Q. Mr. President, Atlanta Braves owner Ted Turner last week called
    on you to intervene with Government arbitration to head off a baseball
    strike. Now that your Labor Secretary has met with both sides of the
    talks, do you see any Government role in this matter? Do you

    [[Page 1423]]

    see anything that you personally can do to head off a strike?
        The President. Let me say first of all, just as a lifelong baseball
    fan, I suppose I have a greater interest in this than maybe a President
    even should. I mean, the prospect of seeing records that are 30 and 40
    years old broken, for those of us who like the offensive as well as the
    defensive side of baseball, this is an exhilarating thing. I think it
    would be heartbreaking for the American people if our national pastime
    didn't get through this whole season. And it's a great opportunity for
    these young players and what they can become.
        Secondly, the Secretary of Labor, as you pointed out, did meet with
    the representatives of the players and the owners. And we discussed what
    could be done and tried to facilitate a better communications between
    them. There may be some other things which can be done, but at this time
    the situation is sufficiently delicate that I think we need to leave it
    at that. If we can play a constructive role, we will. We do not want to
    play a destructive role. We all hope that somehow the strike can be
    averted.

    Health Care Legislation

        Q. Mr. President, there are many Democratic Members of the House,
    your allies, who disagree with you, they don't believe that Senator
    Mitchell's bill is a universal coverage bill. Are you ready to tell them
    that you think that Senator Mitchell's bill is the best that can
    possibly come out of Congress this year?
        The President. Well, first of all, let's remember how a bill becomes
    law. [Laughter] It's very important. Senator Mitchell has to find a
    majority for a bill that can pass the Senate. Then there must be a
    majority of people supporting a bill that passes the House. The Senate
    task is very hard because, except on the budget, a tiny minority--41
    percent of the Senate--can keep any other bill from even coming to a
    vote. He has a difficult task. Then the bill goes to a conference and a
    final bill will come back and will be voted on in both Houses. We have
    seen many times how a bill passes the House, a bill passes the Senate, a
    final one comes out that's different from either one. We don't know what
    will happen.
        Let me tell you what I hope will happen. What I hope will happen is
    that the debates on the floor of the Senate and the House will be widely
    publicized, heavily watched, and that the debate will grip the
    imagination of ordinary American citizens who themselves may not be part
    of any discrete interest group; and that there will be a climate in the
    country welling up--as I believe it is now--for action that works, that
    solves the human problem.
        I believe George Mitchell, as many of the Senators pointed out, in a
    situation in which every time he tried to do something, the members of
    the other party moved away from a position they had previously had--
    normally when a bill becomes law, if you take one position and the
    people in the other party take another, you move toward them, they move
    toward you, you work out an agreement. Here's a case where we had 24
    Senators of the other party committed to universal coverage and they
    have all abandoned the plan they were originally for. And as he has
    moved toward them, they have moved away. In that environment, I think he
    has done a fine job with a bill that I personally believe will achieve
    universal coverage. And that's all I can say. It is my opinion that it
    will work.

    Whitewater Hearings

        Q. Mr. President, strictly from a management standpoint, given the
    conflicting recollections of the various members of the Treasury
    Department team, do you believe they can continue to work together
    effectively?
        The President. Well, the management of the Treasury Department is
    under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Treasury. All I can tell
    you is, the important thing for the American people is the Treasury
    Department has worked very well. Nearly every American, nearly every
    expert in this town believes that it has worked very well across a whole
    broad range of issues, and that the Secretary of the Treasury has done
    an absolutely superb job in both domestic and international economic
    arenas with the support of his team. The management questions are things
    that he will have to resolve. But I will say again, there was no
    violation of the law, there was no violation of the ethics rules. The
    errors which were made have been acknowledged and questions have been
    answered at extreme length. I think that is a very good thing.

    Health Care Reform

        Q. You've worked hard to open new markets for American businesses.
    Are you upset or dis-

    [[Page 1424]]

    appointed that businesses have worked so hard against health care
    reform?
        The President. No, because not all businesses have. It is true we
    have worked hard to open markets for business with NAFTA, with the new
    worldwide GATT agreement, selling our airplanes, selling our high-tech
    equipment, reviving our shipbuilding industry--all the things we've
    done. But frankly, I think the amazing story of this health care debate
    is not that there are still some business interests against it, but that
    we have more business interests for it than ever before. Let me just say
    that many of the Fortune 500 companies support the idea that every
    business should do what it can to cover the employee and the employee
    should pay something. We now have 600,000 small businesses who cover
    their employees and are paying too much, who have come out for our
    position that all of their colleagues should do the same.
        I think that is very impressive. When you look at that plus all the
    other medical groups that have come out for our approach, it is a truly
    astonishing thing. And what I hope is, again, when this debate starts
    that all the people who are doing for something, instead of just against
    something, I hope that they will prevail.

    Press Conferences

        Q. Mr. President, will you tell us why you hold so few solo press
    conferences? This is only your third, and you have been heard to
    complain that the lords of the right-wing radio have uninterrupted
    communication with the American people. And you have the same chance but
    don't take it. Could you tell us why?
        The President. I think it's a mistake, and I intend to do more on a
    more regular basis. Besides that, I actually enjoy these, and I think we
    should do more and do them on a more regular basis, and I intend to.
    It's one of the changes that I intend to make.

    Health Care Legislation

        Q. Mr. President--all right, sir. I wanted to just tell you----
        The President. I could hear you in the distance. [Laughter]
        Q. I've just been informed by a volunteer who knows what she's
    talking about, Mrs. B.A. Bentsen, wife of the Secretary of the
    Treasury--she works to get prenatal care for millions of mothers. And
    she says that the money, the Government money has run out completely for
    prenatal care, which means that we will have deformed babies that we
    will have to pay for the rest of their lives in institutions. Can't you
    do something about this?
        The President. Well, of course we can. One of the things that this
    health care bill will do, either one of them, would be to cover more
    prenatal care. One of the biggest problems we have in the United States,
    with about one in six of our people without health insurance, is that a
    lot of people don't get preventive care when they should. It is true
    that when women see the doctor several times before their babies are
    born, the babies are far more likely to be born healthy and at normal
    birth weight. And that is a focus of both bills. Senator Mitchell's
    bill, because of the phase-in time, went out of its way to try to take
    care of that issue.

    Syria

        Q. Mr. President, if I could go back to a foreign policy issue.
    Syria appears to be the big missing piece of the puzzle in the Middle
    East now. Following the meeting between the Israeli Prime Minister and
    King Hussein of Jordan, do you see any indication that Syria wants to
    make peace at this point? Do you see any reason for optimism that
    they're willing to talk directly to Israel?
        The President. I think there are difficult issues still between
    Israel and Syria, but I believe both leaders do want to make peace. As
    you know, before I announced that King Hussein and Prime Minister Rabin
    would come here to end their state of war and to commit to establishing
    full peace, I had a long talk with President Asad on the telephone. I
    then spoke with him again. I am convinced that he is still very much
    interested in a comprehensive peace. And we have one piece of public
    evidence of that, which is that the whole ceremony between Israel and
    Jordan signing the Washington Declaration was shown on television in
    Syria without comment. We have other indications that they are. And you
    may be sure that the Secretary of State and Dennis Ross and all of our
    team, as well as I, are doing everything we can to keep pushing that.
        Q. What are those other indications, sir?
        The President. I don't think I should say more than that. We've been
    pretty successful in the Middle East by letting the parties make their
    own decisions and letting them percolate up.

    [[Page 1425]]

    Health Care Legislation

        Q. You may not be a legislator, but you are the titular head of the
    Democratic Party. Why should you ask Democrats in the House for marginal
    constituencies to vote for the Gephardt bill when, in fact, the Mitchell
    bill may be more politically palatable?
        The President. Well, let me say, again, the Senate and the House are
    going to debate both these bills, and they will work through the process
    and decide where to come out. But let me say, if you just take Mr. Cox
    there, he's from Athens, Texas. Now, Athens, Texas, is no different from
    New York City or San Francisco, California, or my home in Arkansas when
    it comes to the existence of people who have these problems. And I think
    the House and the Senate should each pass a bill which they can best
    explain to their folks back home as something that solves the problem.
        I would remind you that we know that universal coverage is popular
    with the American people. What we also know is that they're concerned
    about having something that changes something so fundamental in their
    lives. They want to make sure we fix what is wrong, keep what is right.
    So in both bills we have reassured the rank-and-file voters. Both bills
    in different ways may offend various organized interest groups who may
    be able to advertise and affect the attitudes of rank-and-file voters,
    but we know that both these bills, by having a longer phase-in time,
    less bureaucracy, more flexibility and more support for small business,
    clear choice of plans, that those things have answered the concerns of
    American voters in every congressional district in the country.

    Haiti

        Q. Congressman Bill Richardson went recently to Haiti and met for, I
    think, 5 hours with General Cedras, and he came back and he said Cedras
    was not an intransigent man. He has been invited to return to Haiti. Has
    he talked to you about it, and would you consider it a good idea for him
    to go back to Haiti now that the U.N. has passed this resolution?
        The President. I have talked to Congressman Richardson. I have no
    comment about any further trips. It is difficult to conclude that Mr.
    Cedras is not intransigent. After all, he promised to leave Haiti on
    October 30th at the implementation of the Governors Island accord, and
    he broke his promise. And he has continued to visit untold misery on his
    people. He knows what to do to end the problems of the people of Haiti,
    and he can do it.

    Economic Plan

        Q. Mr. President, earlier this year, last year, rather, in your
    economic program, you sacrificed a lot of your investment program to get
    deficit reduction, as we've learned, over the objections of many of
    those on your staff. The deficit reduction part has worked out even
    better than you expected, as you said. But since that time the stock
    market has drifted lower, long-term interest rates are higher than when
    you took office, and there are some signs of a slow-down on the horizon.
    Housing starts and new home sales, for example, are down. At this point,
    do you think perhaps you make a mistake that you went too far into
    deficit reduction and that, from your point of view, the country might
    have been better off had you put more money into infrastructure and into
    investment?
        The President. Absolutely not. Given the options that we had, the
    right decision was made. Let me take you back in time. We had had the
    slowest job growth rate for the previous 4 years that we'd had since the
    Great Depression. The economy was going down; the deficit was going up.
    Our position in the global economy depended on our ability to get the
    deficit down. Our ability to generate private economic activity depended
    on our ability to drive interest rates down.
        If someone had told any economist a year and a half ago that we
    could create almost 4 million jobs, take the unemployment rate down over
    a point and a half, have no inflation and still have long-term rates
    almost exactly where they were on the date I took office, no one would
    have believed that. They'd say if you're going to improve the economy
    that much, long-term interest rates will go way up.
        Because we were committed to bringing the deficit down without
    inflation, interest rates went way down, and then when we had a lot of
    economic growth, came back up some. The stock market is higher than it
    was when I took office, and the long-term expectations are very good.
        Most businesses expect to grow next year, both large and small.
    Every survey shows that. Consumer confidence and business confidence

    [[Page 1426]]

    and long-term economic growth are high. The rate of growth may vary from
    time to time. My job is to keep the growth going and keep jobs coming
    into the economy and that is what we are doing.
        Q. [Inaudible]--betrayed your Democratic heritage or your campaign
    promises?
        The President. No.
        Q. Do you feel that you're an Eisenhower Republican, as a recent
    book put it?
        The President. No. I think we did the right thing. In the 21st
    century most job growth is going to come from the private sector. We
    will have to do more public work in two areas: in infrastructure, just
    like all of our competitors do, our roads, our bridges, our airports,
    the things that make you a rich and powerful country; our
    telecommunications infrastructure that the Vice President's always
    talking about will have to have various supports. The second thing we'll
    have to do is we'll have to give more direct or indirect support to
    create jobs in high unemployment areas. That's what our empowerment
    zones are all about: enticing people through tax incentives to invest in
    areas where unemployment is high.
        But I would remind you we have increased programs for education and
    training. We have dramatically increased the availability of low-
    interest college loans. We have increased the number of people who can
    apply for national service loans. We have increased Head Start. We have
    increased immunization eligibility for little kids by millions. We have
    increased spending on the things which are critical to our future.
        Will we have to invest more there? We will. But first we had to get
    our economic house in order. You cannot keep spending money you don't
    have and expect to get ahead of the game. We have now done that, and we
    can focus on investment.

    Defense Executive Salaries

        Q. Thank you, sir.
        The President. You're persistent. I owe it to you just for effort.
    You'd develop arthritis getting up and down so many times if I didn't--
    [laughter].
        Q. Thank you, sir. If I may shift to a fresh subject, the Senate
    Appropriations Committee is hopping mad about what it calls outrageously
    high salaries that are being paid to defense and aerospace company
    executives in this country, compensation that is frequently paid by the
    taxpayers under Defense Department regulations, and sometimes to the
    tune of as much as $7 million or more. The committee is offering
    language which would rule out payments any higher than the salary that
    the Defense Secretary makes. Do you agree with the committee's finding?
    And would you support that kind of limit?
        The President. I'm not familiar enough with the issue to give you an
    intelligent answer. I will look into it, and I'll be glad to give you an
    answer. But I don't know enough about the issue to answer the question
    in an appropriate way.

    Corporate Megamergers

        Q. Mr. President, okay--[laughter].
        The President. I can't believe a member of the press is pushing a
    microphone away. This is a historic moment in itself. [Laughter]
        Q. Mr. President, what is the administration doing to stop the
    megamergers, particularly in the telecommunications industry, in the
    pharmaceutical industry, and in retailing? We have seen Viacom-
    Paramount. We now have--Macy's is trying, and we're reading today about
    American Cyanamid merging with American Home Products, mergers which are
    not in the interest of the public and the stockholders. And in the case
    of Macy's, Macy's Federated has a stockholder meeting on the same day as
    major competitors. They don't want stockholders to come and ask
    questions. They're in collusion with the competitors, and the
    administration is not lifting one finger.
        The President. Well, you've drawn a lot of conclusions there in a
    short time. I don't know if I can answer them all. Let me say this:
    There are two ways in which mergers can be not in the interest of the
    people of the United States. First is if they violate our antitrust
    laws; that is, if they do significant damage to the competitive
    environment. And our administration has tried to reinvigorate the
    antitrust division of the Justice Department to a significantly higher
    level than in the last two administrations.
        Secondly is, as you suggest, is if there is some illegal erosion of
    the rights and interests of the stockholders of these companies, or
    there are workers or others that have legal rights that are being
    undermined. That is within the jurisdiction of the Securities and
    Exchange Commission. I think we have a very able person chairing that
    Commission.

    [[Page 1427]]

        I would be glad to ask them to look into these things more than I'm
    sure they already are, but I am not in a position to draw the
    conclusions you have drawn, because I think they are trying to protect
    the public interest.

    Health Care Legislation

        Q. There are 37 million uninsured Americans. If you can't get a bill
    that will cover all of them, and you get one that will cover, say, 20
    million, would you really refuse to sign it? And if you do, and don't
    get a bill at all, how would you explain that to those 20 million?
        The President. First of all, keep in mind that most of our problem
    is with working Americans. And the problem with the so-called ``half a
    loaf'' here is that it won't work. That is, we have evidence now in the
    States--about 40 States have tried to just change the rules on insurance
    and put a little more money into covering very poor people to increase
    health care coverage. No one could say that is not good on its own, but
    the problem is if that is all you do, what has happened in the States is
    that putting people into a health insurance pool who cost more to insure
    without expanding the size of the pools leads to higher rates. Once the
    rates get higher, small businesses on the margin and individuals who are
    young and healthy get out. That makes the pool even smaller; and rates
    go up more.
        So what would happen, I am convinced, if we did what you suggest is
    what has happened in the States. Coverage would go up a little bit for a
    while; then it would go right back down, as it has in the United States
    for the last 5 years as States have tried to do this.
        So, again, I say we have no evidence that unless we are moving
    toward full coverage that we can control cost and maintain coverage for
    the working families of the country.
        Yes, one more. We're almost out of time.

    Haiti

        Q. You spoke with some thoroughness tonight about why you think it
    is in the United States interest to not have a military dictatorship in
    Haiti. My question is, if an invasion force is dispatched and overthrows
    that military regime, what are the United States obligations at that
    point to nurture, to create an environment in that troubled country
    where democracy would have a chance? And how long would this last?
        The President. I think the United States have significant
    obligations. But if you look at the United Nations resolution and what
    we have said all along, over the long run what we need is a United
    Nations mission in Haiti that the United States would be a part of, but
    that other countries would participate in also, that would do the
    following things: Number one, it would have to retrain and reorient the
    military to engaged in the rebuilding of the country. Number two, it
    would have to reorient and retrain the police to be a genuine police
    force, not an instrument of terror for one political group. Number
    three, we would have to, in addition to that, have a real dedicated
    effort led by a lot of our Haitian-Americans and others to rebuild the
    troubled economy of Haiti, which is in terrible, terrible shape. All
    those things we would have to do. But it would not necessarily be the
    United States doing it. In fact, it could not be; it would be a United
    Nations mission as envisaged by the United Nations and the resolution
    that they adopted.
        Thank you very much.
        Q. Mr. President, can I follow up here--one last question on health
    care?
        The President. One last question on health care? [Laughter] Did I
    recognize you earlier?
        Q. You did, but it's a----
        The President. Oh, no--I've got to go. [Laughter]

    Note: The President's 68th news conference began at 8 p.m. in the East
    Room at the White House. In his remarks, he referred to Leon E. Panetta,
    Chief of Staff to the President, and Dennis B. Ross, Director, Policy
    Planning Staff, Department of State.