[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 30, Number 40 (Monday, October 10, 1994)]
[Pages 1965-1975]
[Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

<R04>
The President's News Conference

October 7, 1994

    The President. Good afternoon. Ladies and gentlemen, 20 months ago I 
came here to make a start and to make America work for ordinary citizens 
again, to take on some tough issues too long ignored and to get our 
economic house in order. There have been some tough fights along the 
way, but I believe they were the right fights for our future.
    We came here with an economic strategy that was comprehensive and 
direct: reduce the deficit, expand trade, increase investment in people 
and technology, and reinvent the Government to do more with less. We 
pursued this strategy with discipline. Now we have fresh evidence that 
the national economic program we put into place last year is beginning 
to work for America.
    The Department of Labor reported today that the unemployment rate 
fell to 5.9 percent, a 4-year low. And the economy has created about 4.6 
million jobs since I took office. More jobs in high-wage industries were 
created this year alone than in the previous 5 years combined. It's not 
enough, of course. As the census report makes clear, there are still too 
many Americans working for low wages, living in poverty. There are 
places in rural and urban America where the recovery has not yet 
reached.
    But if you look at the changes since just a few short years ago, 
when we were exporting jobs and exploding the deficit, there's a great 
difference. We're getting our economic house in order. Jobs are being 
created at home. We're moving in the right direction.
    This Congress, as it concludes a difficult session, showed that it 
could make a difference for ordinary people when it put people and 
progress ahead of narrow interests and partisan obstruction. It didn't 
always happen, so let's begin with a look at the record, what's been 
done, what hasn't been done, where do we go from here. Let's begin with 
what was accomplished.
    The economic plan passed, putting our house in order. It was 
historic deficit reduction led by cutting over $255 billion in spending; 
cuts in 300 separate Government programs; raising taxes--or tax rates--
on only the top 1.2 percent; cutting taxes for 15 million working 
families with 50 million Americans in them, people who work full-time 
but still hover just at the poverty line, so that people will always be 
encouraged to choose work over welfare and won't have to raise their 
children in poverty if they do.
    We've broken down trade barriers, eliminated barriers to exports, 
passed NAFTA. Exports to Mexico are up 19 percent, exports of cars and 
truck up 600 percent in the last year.
    They talked for more than a decade around here about making 
Government smaller, but it never seemed to happen. Well, now it is. 
Under our legislation we are shrinking Federal positions and cutting the 
Federal work force by 272,000, to its smallest size since the Kennedy 
administration. And now, again I say, private sector jobs are going up; 
the deficit is going down.
    For the first time in a generation, we have taken a serious assault 
on crime, passing the Brady bill and the crime bill with its 100,000 
prison cells, its 20 percent increase in police on the beat, its ban on 
assault weapons, its ``three strikes and you're out,'' and other penalty 
laws.
    The Government is beginning to work for ordinary citizens in 
important ways. That's what the family leave law was about. That's what 
the law which will provide immunizations for all children under 2 by 
1996 is about. That's what Head Start for 200,000 more kids is about. 
That's what the national standards of educational excellence with more 
local control; apprenticeships for kids who don't go to college; 
national service, so people can earn money for college and serve their 
communities; and making college loans more affordable for 20 million 
people who can now have lower interest rates, lower fees, longer 
repayment schedule; it's what the empowerment zones and the community 
development banks to bring free enterprise to poor communities are 
about.
    All of this was real progress. It's only a beginning, and more could 
have been done.

[[Page 1966]]

But too many times, an idea for creating jobs, reforming Government, 
educating students or expanding income, fighting crime or cleaning up 
the environment or reforming the political system was met by someone 
trying to stop it, slow it, kill it, or just talk it to death.
    A lot of the same people just recently signed that so-called 
contract with America, a commitment to taking us back to the Reagan-Bush 
years when we exploded the deficit, cut Medicare, cut taxes for the 
wealthiest in America, divided our citizens, and sent our jobs overseas. 
My contract with the American people is for the future: grow the 
economy, fight crime, take on the tough problems, make Government work 
for ordinary people.
    Congress is leaving town without passing GATT, the world's largest 
trade agreement. It will cut global tariffs and, over the next decade, 
means a $744 billion tax cut. It will generate hundreds of thousands of 
new jobs for American workers. It will keep our recovery going and 
sustain growth all around the world. We must not retreat on GATT. That's 
why I've asked Congress to return and pass it after the election, and I 
believe they will do that.
    But Congress had a chance to do a lot of other things which it 
should have done but didn't do. It should have passed significant 
environmental legislation, much of which has the support of both 
American people and industry and environmental groups. It should have 
passed health care reform instead of watching another million Americans 
lose their coverage, as the new data points out happened just last year, 
while costs increased faster than inflation and more citizens lose the 
right to chose their doctor. And it certainly should have passed 
political reform. I think the American people were appalled by the 
spectacle of lobbyists hiding who they work for, what they get paid, and 
by Members of Congress accepting their gifts and then walking away from 
lobbying reform. There's something wrong when a Senator can filibuster 
this bill and walk off the floor of the Senate and be cheered by 
lobbyists. Well, the Congress is the people's Congress. The lobbyists 
may have been cheering in the filibuster last night, but the American 
people were not.
    So Congress has done well on the economy, on crime, on tax fairness, 
on education and training, on trade, on loans for the middle class, on 
family leave, on reinventing Government. Congress has not done well on 
political reform, on environmental legislation, on health care, and on 
an unprecedented record of using the filibuster and other delaying 
tactics to try to keep anything from being done.
    We have to now resolve to give the American people a choice as 
Congress leaves town and we move into the next few weeks before this 
election. Do they really want this contract which is a trillion dollars 
of unfunded promises, a contract which certainly will lead to higher 
deficits, cuts in Medicare, and throwing us back to the years of the 
eighties when we lost jobs and weakened our country? Or do we want to 
face up to the challenges which were not met in this Congress and use 
the next Congress to keep the economic growth going, to pass health care 
reform, to pass welfare reform, to pass political reform, to deal with 
these environmental issues?
    You know, countries all over the world want America to succeed and 
want to follow our lead. We saw it just in the last few days when the 
elected democratic Presidents of South Africa and Russia were here 
working with us on their common futures and their aspirations. We see it 
in the help we've been asked to give to the peace process in Northern 
Ireland. We see it in the help we've been asked to give to the peace 
process in the Middle East. We see it in the enthusiastic reception our 
young men and women in uniform have been given by the people of Haiti 
who want their democracy back.
    I am proud of the work America has done around the world in the 
cause of democracy. I am proud of what our troops have done in the last 
3 weeks in Haiti. As I said, and I caution you again, their job is still 
difficult and dangerous, and we still have a lot of work to do. But the 
violence is down, the Parliament is back, the refugees are returning, 
the electricity is burning again, and democracy is coming back. This is 
the direction we ought to be taking at home as well as abroad,

[[Page 1967]]

fighting for the future, not going back to the past.
    Helen [Helen Thomas, United Press International.]

Administration Accomplishments

    Q. Mr. President, while acknowledging your accomplishments, the 
Republicans are savoring a big-time victory in November. You also have 
had some major setbacks in legislation. And some of the pundits are 
counting you out in '96. How do you account for this very dark picture, 
political picture, and what are you going to do about it?
    The President. Well, what I'm going to do is go out and make sure 
the American people understand what the choice is. If the American 
people had been told 20 months ago that we would have had a historic 
first year with the Congress, that we'd have 4.6 million new jobs, the 
lowest unemployment rate in 4 years, an unusual number of high-wage jobs 
coming back into the economy, a serious assault on crime, that I would 
have presented major reform legislation in all the areas I've mentioned, 
plus the welfare reform bill I sent to Congress that I expect to pass 
next year to end welfare as we know it, I think they would have been 
well pleased. And I think when they see what has been done and that we 
are going in the right direction and then they see the alternative, the 
clear alternative, partisan gridlock by the Republican congressional 
leadership--I know you may say, ``Well, some Democrats didn't vote with 
you, Mr. President, on campaign finance reform and lobby reform,'' and 
you would be right. But look at the record. Most Democrats, on these 
filibuster votes, voted for campaign finance reform; most Republicans 
voted against it. Most Democrats voted for political reform; most 
Republicans voted against lobby reform.
    So the American people have to make a choice first about what 
direction they want. Do they really want this Republican contract on 
America? Do they really want somebody to just tell them what they want 
to hear one more time, instead of someone who'll take over the tough 
problems? Do they really want someone to make a trillion dollars in 
promises that means higher deficits, cuts in Medicare, the crime bill 
won't be funded, the economy will be back in the dumps? I don't believe 
they do want that. They haven't had much of a chance to see the big 
picture here; they just follow the daily march of events. In the end, 
this is a decision for the people to make in '94 and in '96.
    When I showed up here, I knew that there was always a great deal of 
enthusiasm for change in the beginning. But the process of change is 
difficult, exacting; it requires discipline and confidence, and you have 
to stay at it. And there are always dark times. There has never been a 
time when the organized forces of the status quo haven't been able to 
drive down the popularity of a President who really fought for change. 
I'm not worried about that. I am not at issue here. The real issue is 
what is the future the American people wish for themselves. And I am 
looking forward to having a chance to go out and say what I think the 
direction should be and then let the people make their decision.

Iraq

    Q. What can you tell us about the mobilization of Iraqi troops on 
the border with Kuwait? Do you think this is just bluster or do you 
think it's a real menace? And what's the United States prepared to do?
    The President. Well, first let me say we are watching it very 
closely, and we are watching the troop movements as well as the threats 
that the Iraqis have made to the U.N. mission there. I spoke with 
General Shalikashvili just before I came over here today. We are taking 
the necessary steps as a precaution to deal with this issue. I don't 
believe I should discuss them in any greater detail, but let me say, I 
think they are appropriate and necessary, and we are fully in agreement 
on the course we are taking.
    Iraq should not be able to intimidate the United Nations Security 
Council and the U.N. mission there. They should not be misled into 
thinking that they can repeat the mistakes of the past. If Iraq really 
is trying to say in some insistent way that what they want is relief 
from the U.N. sanctions, there is a clear way for them to achieve that 
relief, simply comply with the United Nations resolutions. If they 
comply with the United Nations resolutions, they can get relief from the 
sanc- 

[[Page 1968]]

tions. There are clear rules, clear standards. This is not a mystery.
    So we have taken this matter seriously. We have responded with 
necessary precautionary steps. I cannot say more than that now, and I 
don't want to read more into it than has actually happened. But I am 
confident we are doing the right thing.
    Yes, Andrea [Andrea Mitchell, NBC News].

Foreign Policy

    Q. Over the past 20 months, Mr. President, some people would say 
that you have made very strong threats against the Bosnian aggressors; 
that you have warned North Korea not to build even one nuclear bomb, yet 
now there's acknowledgement that they at least have one, if not more; 
there have been threats against aggressors in Haiti and compromise, 
leaving the option for the leaders to stay there. To what extent would 
you say that it is fair criticism that Saddam Hussein might be testing 
you because this country has not been strong enough in responding to 
aggression and to aggressive threats?
    The President. Well, first of all, I think that if he were testing 
me based on the facts that you outlined, he would have a very gross 
misapprehension of the facts. When I ran for President and when I became 
President, I never said that the United States would take any unilateral 
action in Bosnia. And I defy you to find the time when I did say that. I 
said that we would work with our allies. The actions of force which have 
occurred in Bosnia have been largely as a result of the initiatives of 
the United States, the creation of the safe havens, the use of NATO air 
power out of its area for the first time in history have largely been 
the results of the constant and insistent pushing of the United States.
    Secondly, with regard to Korea, I think that our actions in Korea 
and our policies to date have been appropriate. They have been firm; 
they have been deliberate. The implication of your remark was that they 
had a bomb-making operation going on during this administration. The 
evidence that has been cited in some press reports is quite different. 
It is that before I became President, they may have accumulated enough 
nuclear material to make a nuclear device or two. That has been the 
press reports. I fail to see how that shows a lack of resolve on our 
part since we have been here. I think we have pursued this course quite 
firmly. We were pushing the sanctions option if there was not a return 
to serious negotiations. There has been, and I hope those negotiations 
will succeed.
    In the case of Haiti, I think it is absolutely apparent to everybody 
that it was the literal imminence of the military invasion which is 
leading to a peaceful transfer of authority there. We have, after all, 
19,000-plus troops in Haiti. We are proceeding with the transfer of 
authority. It plainly was the result largely of the credible threat of 
force that a diplomatic solution permitting that threat of force to be 
instituted into the country in a peaceful rather than a war-like manner 
that resulted.
    So if those are the examples, I would think that Saddam Hussein 
would draw exactly the reverse conclusion than the one you have 
outlined. Secondly, I would remind you that when we had clear evidence 
that the Iraqis were involved in an attempt to kill former President 
Bush, the United States took decisive and appropriate action.

Health Care Reform

    Q. Mr. President, we haven't really had a chance to hear from you 
since last week, Senator Mitchell declared that there just could be no 
resolution of the health care issue. I wonder if you could give us a 
sense of how you're regrouping on health care, if you are, and whether 
or not you now think that you made a mistake by proposing such broad 
changes and whether you're now willing to accept something more 
incremental in the next Congress.
    The President. Well, I haven't had a lot of chance to think about 
exactly where we should go with this except to say that no sooner had 
Senator Mitchell issued his statement than the press reports were then 
full of, ``Oh, my goodness, we have all these problems; 1.2 million 
Americans lost their health insurance last year, 1993; the cost is still 
going up at twice the rate of inflation; people are still losing their 
choice of doctors.'' So this problem will not go away.

[[Page 1969]]

    I am very proud of the fact that we did get as much broad-based 
support as we did for comprehensive reform and that the basic elements 
of this reform were supported for the first time in history, I might 
add, by a heavy majority of medical providers, that--doctors and nurses 
and others--that for the first time in history we got a bill to the 
floor of both Houses of Congress. So what we will do after Congress goes 
out of session is to assess where we are and how we ought to go about 
this next year. But I fully intend to keep after it.
    Let me just say one other thing. Let me try to put this into 
perspective. We worked hard on health care for a year and a half. It's 
the most complex issue facing the Congress but one that has to be 
addressed because of its human and its budgetary and economic 
implications not only for the Government, where it's the primary fueler 
of the deficit, but for the private sector as well. We worked on it for 
a year and a half. Since I have been here, we have broken gridlock and 
passed family leave after 7 years, motor voter after 5 years, the Brady 
bill after 7 years, the crime bill after 6 years, the banking reform 
bill after 7 years. Those are just five examples of how long fundamental 
reform took in areas that were more limited and less comprehensive. I 
think we can do health care--we must do health care in less time than 
that. But if it takes one more year, I'm not discouraged by that.
    Q. Can you accept incremental reforms?
    The President. I think in the end we will have to do--we will have 
to address this comprehensively. I think the principles I outlined have 
to be addressed by the country or we'll never solve the deficit or deal 
with the problems in the private sector. And I have not had any chance 
to think about how to approach the Congress with that. I will, but I--no 
one came forward with a convincing case that we could control costs, for 
example, which is imperative, without having a mechanism to cover 
everybody.
    But there may be some other way to do it. I have always been open to 
any kind of new idea. I was disappointed that there weren't more bills 
introduced into the Congress in this last session that actually offered 
the promise of doing that. But I still think we can get it next year. I 
hope there will be a less partisan atmosphere. I hope the needs of the 
American people will be put first. And I intend to come back full force 
trying to do that.
    Yes, Peter [Peter Maer, NBC Mutual Radio].

President's Approval Ratings

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

[[Page 1970]]

like we had in the eighties, which explodes the deficits, cuts Medicare, 
shifts jobs overseas, and puts us back in the ditch. I don't think that 
that's the choice they'll make if they understand the choice before 
them.

Iraq

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

Arkansas Air Base

    Q. Sir, the Republicans are trying to blame you for the existence of 
a small air base in Arkansas. This base was set up by George Bush and 
Oliver North and the CIA to help the Iran-contras, and they brought in 
planeload after planeload of cocaine there for sale in the United 
States. And then they took the money and bought weapons and took them 
back to the Contras, all of which was illegal, as you know, under the--
but tell me, did they tell you that this had to be in existence because 
of national security?
    The President. Well, let me answer the question. No, they didn't 
tell me anything about it. They didn't say anything to me about it. The 
airport in question and all the events in question were the subject of 
State and Federal inquiries. It was primarily a matter for Federal 
jurisdiction; the State really had next to nothing to do with it. A 
local prosecutor did conduct an investigation based on what was within 
the jurisdiction of State law. The rest of it was under jurisdiction of 
the United States attorneys who were appointed successively by previous 
administrations. We had nothing, zero, to do with it. And everybody 
who's ever looked into it knows that.

Iraq

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

[[Page 1971]]

    So let us watch this concern, but let us not blow it out of 
proportion. Let's just deal with the facts as they unfold. But it would 
be a grave mistake for Saddam Hussein to believe that for any reason the 
United States would have weakened its resolve on the same issues that 
involved us in that conflict just a few years ago.

The Economy

    Q. Mr. President, to go back to domestic matters for a moment. You 
mentioned looking at the record. I want to ask you about one part of the 
record that does not look so good. The Census Bureau reported that 
through the first year of your term, through the end of 1993, median 
income has gone down. The rich have continued to get richer, the poor 
have continued to get poorer, income inequality has grown, precisely the 
trends that you singled out as the reasons you were opposed to what 
happened in the eighties. Do you believe that you can reverse these 
trends in the next 2 years of your term? And if you cannot, how do you 
think you'll be able to convince the American people that your 
Presidency has been a success?
    The President. Well, first of all, let me--let's put this in 
context, and that was a fair question, I think properly asked. These 
trends have been developing for nearly 20 years, as you pointed out. I 
don't think anyone thought I could turn them around in a year or that I 
alone could turn them around.
    And let me try to be clear about where I think responsibility lies 
here, because I don't think it's fair to just say that the previous 
administration is completely responsible for these trends. I think their 
policies aggravated them to some extent but, more importantly, did not 
address them, which I think is the most important thing.
    What is happening in America that would lead incomes to go down or 
be stagnant among people who actually work full time? And how could it 
continue even in a period of economic expansion? Indeed, how could it 
have continued through expansions for 20 years? That is the question. 
The answer, it seems to me, is to be found in the following facts.
    Number one, for about 30 years we have had a problem developing 
primarily in our urban areas and our very rural areas where there was 
disinvestment of economic opportunity coupled with the breakdown of 
traditional family structures and community structures, so you had a lot 
of people growing up and living in places where the only jobs available 
were low-wage jobs or where there were relatively--there were too few 
good jobs. That's been going on for about 30 years.
    Number two, compounding that, for about 20 years, American jobs 
overall, certainly hourly wage jobs, have been set more and more and 
more in the context of a global economy, so that to whatever extent a 
person has a job in America that can also be done by somebody somewhere 
else living on a much, much lower wage, that person will be under great 
pressure either to lose the job or to have the wage lowered or at least 
never to get a wage increase.
    What is the answer to the problem and how might it be fixed? I think 
there are three answers, and we're pursuing all of them as best we can. 
First, increase the level of education and training of the work force 
and make it more permanent for a lifetime. That's why we had the 
apprenticeship program; that's why we have the college loan program; 
that's why I'm trying to pass the reemployment system legislation that I 
introduced this year, but I think it will pass next year. In other 
words, develop a system to raise the skill level of the work force and 
the wages will rise.
    Secondly, follow policies that will change the job mix in America, 
that will tend to get more high-wage jobs here. That's why I believe so 
strongly in expanding trade. In the United States when we expand trade, 
it drives the wages up, up.
    The third thing we have to do is to bring free enterprise to the 
inner cities and the isolated rural areas. That's what the empowerment 
zones are about; that's what those community development banks to make 
loans to low income people are about. Will that all change the income 
distribution in 2 years or 3 years? I don't know. I know we've been 
going in this direction for 20 years, and we can certainly change it 
back the other way in less than 20 years. But again I will say, we have 
to stay on this course. If we change course in this midterm election

[[Page 1972]]

and decide that instead of investing in education, expanding trade, and 
empowering the inner cities and poor people, we're going to explode the 
deficit, give another tax cut we can't pay for, and cut Medicare--and, 
by the way, cut all other programs, including education and training and 
the crime bill--we'll be going in the wrong direction.
    So the voters are going to decide whether this is the right 
direction, and I hope that they will decide that it is.

HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros

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

Cuba

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

Middle Class Tax Cut

    Q. Mr. President, you promised the middle class a tax cut 2 years 
ago during the campaign. Will you be able to keep that promise in the 
next 2 years?
    The President. I can't give you an answer today because it depends 
upon how well the economy goes and what other considerations there are 
with the budget. And let me just give you an example of that.
    In this budget, because we began with a deficit that was bigger than 
we expected, the middle class tax cut essentially was capped at 15 
million families, comprising about 50 million Americans or only about 20 
percent of our population. Would I like to do better than that? Yes, I 
would, but not at the expense of the economic recovery for the same 
middle class. So what we are looking at now in the context of the 
welfare reform legislation, the child support enforcement legislation, 
the other things we're trying to do to strengthen families is whether 
and to what extent we can address that issue. What are the revenue 
projections for the next 2 years? What are the other demands on State 
spending--Government spending, I mean? How much can we control the other 
costs? What do we absolutely have to do for defense? Because that's very 
important, as we've all seen in the questions you've asked me in this 
press conference.

[[Page 1973]]

    So I cannot give you an answer. Do I think it should be done? I 
still do. I don't think--the Federal tax system is much fairer than it 
was when I became President because of the tax cut for the working 
families just above the poverty line and also because something we often 
forget: We made 90 percent of the small businesses in this country 
eligible for a tax cut last year in the economic plan. Any small 
business with a taxable income below $100,000 was also eligible for a 
tax cut.
    So I think we're doing better. But the Tax Code is not where it 
ought to be. And middle class families, especially those with children, 
I think should look forward to a little more fairness, but I can't say 
how and how much yet.

Midterm Elections

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

Health Care Reform

    Q. Mr. President, a question about bipartisanship. Looking back on 
the health care reform effort, is there anything you think you could 
have done differently to forge a consensus? For instance, do you think 
it would have helped if you'd brought Republicans earlier on in the 
process up to the White House to negotiate the way you did at the end of 
the crime bill fight? And looking ahead to next year when you're going 
to be pushing health care reform and other issues through a more 
Republican Congress, is there anything that you plan to do differently 
to forge a coalition for governing?
    The President. Well, let me say, I'm sure that there are some things 
I could have done differently. You know, I never dealt with Congress 
before last year, and I'm still learning all the time. I would point out 
that the Congressional Quarterly said that last year that the Congress 
and the President worked together more successfully than at any time 
since World War II, except in President Eisenhower's first year and 
President Johnson's

[[Page 1974]]

second year. So I felt that we accomplished quite a great deal.
    When we were putting this health care bill together, there was a lot 
of consultation with Republicans. When we wanted to present a proposed 
bill and say, ``Now, how would you like to change this?'' we were told 
that they had their own group working on health care, and they wanted to 
present a bill, and then we would get together. So I said, that's fine; 
I understand that. Then Senator Chafee, to his everlasting credit, came 
up with a bill that had two dozen Republican Senators on it that would 
have covered all Americans and controlled costs. By the time we got down 
to serious negotiations, instead of two dozen Senators for universal 
health care and controlled costs, there were zero. They all left. I 
mean, Senator Chafee was still there, but everybody had abandoned his 
bill. We had one Republican Congressman saying they'd all been 
instructed not to work with us. We had one Republican Senator quoted in 
one of your papers saying that they had killed it, now they had to keep 
their fingerprints off of it.
    So I am more than happy to work with them in any way I can. I do not 
believe we have a monopoly on wisdom. Let me give you some evidence of 
my good faith on being flexible about changing. I have given State after 
State after State waiver from Federal regulations to pursue universal 
coverage and health care costs control on their own. Tennessee has done 
some very exciting things and, by the way, gotten some very impressive 
results, I understand. We just approved Florida to do this. We're in the 
process of approving more States to move forward. I am very flexible on 
how we get this done. And if the American people are worried that the 
Federal Government has too much emphasis and they want more for the 
States, fine, let's talk about that. But if there's going to be a 
bipartisan effort, it has to be good faith on both sides.
    I like working with Republicans. I proved that in the NAFTA fight, 
proved it in the crime bill fight. I will prove it in the health care 
fight. But it can't be a kind of situation where every time I move to 
them, they move further the other way. That's the only thing I would 
say.
    Yes, sir, last question.

Secretary of Agriculture

    Q. Mr. President, for Secretary of Agriculture, will you be looking 
for someone with farm experience, or will you be looking for somebody 
like Secretary Espy, who has heavy congressional experience?
    The President. Well, the most important thing, I think, is someone 
who really understands how to deal with the agriculture community, 
understands the interests and is committed to agriculture and to farmers 
and to rural development. And let me say, if I might, in closing, that I 
also want somebody who will faithfully implement the reforms that 
Secretary Espy has started.
    We passed a dramatic restructuring of the Department of Agriculture. 
We're going to take down the number of employees by at least 7,500. We 
have seen an Agriculture Department that has been extremely active in 
helping farmers deal with disasters, that has tried to help the farmers 
in the Middle West with their production problems, that has given an 
enormous amount of emphasis to rural development. So this Agriculture 
Department, under this Secretary of Agriculture, has established a lot 
of credibility with the American people who are in agriculture, 
including selling rice to Japan for the first time, selling apples from 
Washington to Japan for the first time, doing things that haven't been 
done for a long time for hardworking, grassroots farmers, whether 
they're Republicans or Democrats or independents.
    And when I came here, out of a rural background, out of a farming 
background, that's what I desperately wanted to do for the agricultural 
community. And so when I pick another Agriculture Secretary, that is a 
standard that Mike Espy set that must be met for the next Agriculture 
Secretary.
    Thank you very much.

Note: The President's 73d news conference began at 2 p.m. in the East 
Room at the White House. A tape was not available for verification of 
the content of this news conference.

[[Page 1975]]