Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 30 Issue 31 (Monday, August 8, 1994)

[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 30, Number 31 (Monday, August 8, 1994)]
[Pages 1614-1625]
[Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

<R04>
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 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

[[Page 1615]]

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 your 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 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

[[Page 1616]]

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.

[[Page 1617]]

I think we'll get this crime bill. We have health care bills providing
universal coverage on the floor of both Houses 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

[[Page 1618]]

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 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.

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.
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 op-

[[Page 1619]]

posed 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 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

[[Page 1620]]

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 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

[[Page 1621]]

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 disappointed 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 interest against it, but that
we have more business interest 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

[[Page 1622]]

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.

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.

[[Page 1623]]

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 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 execu-

[[Page 1624]]

tives 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.

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.
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.

[[Page 1625]]

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 B. Panetta,
Chief of Staff to the President, and Dennis B. Ross, Director, Policy
Planning Staff, Department of State.